From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 1 10:48:10 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA09436 for ; Sat, 1 Mar 2003 10:48:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h21FvDG03025 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 1 Mar 2003 10:57:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h21FvDp03022 for ; Sat, 1 Mar 2003 10:57:13 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA09363; Sat, 1 Mar 2003 10:47:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h21Fv1p02885; Sat, 1 Mar 2003 10:57:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h21FuPp02203 for ; Sat, 1 Mar 2003 10:56:25 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA09315 for ; Sat, 1 Mar 2003 10:46:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian -7) with BSMTP id h21FmjNL028223 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 1 Mar 2003 16:48:45 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-8) id h21FmYEI008113 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 1 Mar 2003 16:48:34 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 16:48:34 +0100 To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <20030301154834.GA8091@danisch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Subject: [Asrg] RMX records Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi, I just subscribed to this list. Since the list archive is still empty I'd like to initiate a discussion and point to my draft http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-danisch-dns-rr-smtp-00.txt which suggests introduction of a new DNS record type for a simple authorization scheme. regards Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 2 19:17:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA21649 for ; Sun, 2 Mar 2003 19:17:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h230RSX10938 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 2 Mar 2003 19:27:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h230RSp10935 for ; Sun, 2 Mar 2003 19:27:28 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA21642; Sun, 2 Mar 2003 19:17:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h230REp10919; Sun, 2 Mar 2003 19:27:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h230QJp10886 for ; Sun, 2 Mar 2003 19:26:19 -0500 Received: from nber13.nber.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA21632 for ; Sun, 2 Mar 2003 19:16:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from nber13.nber.org (localhost.nber.org [127.0.0.1]) by nber13.nber.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h230I6F9063425 for ; Sun, 2 Mar 2003 19:18:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by nber13.nber.org (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id h230I6AJ063424 for asrg@ietf.org.KAV; Sun, 2 Mar 2003 19:18:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from nber1.nber.org (nber1.nber.org [207.113.108.252]) by nber13.nber.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h230I5FA063416 for ; Sun, 2 Mar 2003 19:18:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 19:18:05 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Feenberg To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Since no one else has followed up, I will ask some questions. They are not meant as complaints, but an RFC doesn't serve well as a persausive document. If respected by receiving MTAs, the proposal would give the owner of the DNS space in which a host lives control over which servers could originate SMTP traffic. This seems a reasonable delegation of authority, but is likely to be controversial. Alternatively, the owner of the IP address range could be given this authority. Why pick one or the other? Why this is superior to Adam Filip's proposal ( http://groups.google.com/groups?q=vixie+mx+records+spam&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=3E18B0B3.43939A35%40Andrzej.Adam.Filip&rnum=10 ) to overload the existing MX record? That proposal would also vest authority in the owner of the domain name. It would seem that requiring modifications to the DNS system is a substantial additional obstacle to adoption. Do you have reason to believe that DNS software authors/vendors would cooperate? Does the RMX record for relays.danisch.de include all the valid sources of SMTP traffic for subdomain.danisch.de, or does the receiving server recurse down to relays.subdomain.danisch.de for that list? Would you expect operators to reject mail without a valid RMX record? I can see subtracting a point from the spam score for a valid RMX. It would be hard to justify to most users rejecting mail entirely. Is that what you envision? feenberg at nber.org _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 04:24:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA12723 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 04:24:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h239Ydc27185 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 04:34:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h239Ydp27182 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 04:34:39 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA12702; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 04:24:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h239Y4p27154; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 04:34:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h239XWp27127 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 04:33:32 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA12651 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 04:23:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.7/8.12.7/Debian-2) with BSMTP id h239P6ib016415; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:25:06 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-8) id h239KRs5003483; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:20:27 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:20:27 +0100 To: Daniel Feenberg Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records Message-ID: <20030303092027.GA3073@danisch.de> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi, On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 07:18:05PM -0500, Daniel Feenberg wrote: > > If respected by receiving MTAs, the proposal would give the owner of the > DNS space in which a host lives control over which servers could originate > SMTP traffic. No. To be more precise: The proposal would give the owner of the domain which the senders e-mail address belongs to control over which servers could originate SMTP traffic. The proposal quitly assumes that the owner of a domain (i. e. the one who is able to define zone entries) is the same who is allowed to decide who may use this domain in a senders address. > Alternatively, the owner of the IP address > range could be given this authority. No, this would give the key in the attackers hand. Since domains and not IP addresses are used in E-Mail addresses (at this very moment you are reading a message from hadmut@danisch.de, not from hadmut@213.133.101.23), authorization (at least of the right hand side of the address) is a matter of domain, not IP address. The commercial spammers do have control over their own IP address range. If authority was given to the owner of the IP address, they could give themselves any authorization they want to have. E.g. they simply declare themselves as authorized to use @hotmail.com, @yahoo.com, @nber.org... That's the opposite of what you want to have. > > Why this is superior to Adam Filip's proposal ( > http://groups.google.com/groups?q=vixie+mx+records+spam&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=3E18B0B3.43939A35%40Andrzej.Adam.Filip&rnum=10 > ) to overload the existing MX record? That proposal would also vest > authority in the owner of the domain name. It would seem that requiring > modifications to the DNS system is a substantial additional obstacle to > adoption. Do you have reason to believe that DNS software authors/vendors > would cooperate? First, MX records are not meant to be used for that. If you want to keep the Internet working, use things in the way you are supposed to do. Using them in the reverse way violates the definition of MX. Second, it doesn't work and it is too much overhead, because there is one indirection step missing. Assume that I want to authorize the relays of my hoster rackland and another set of relays, e.g. by an employer or some ISP for originating mails from danisch.de. If I had to do this in the MX way, I had a lot of trouble figuring out which relay machines exist and changing it every time the providers do change it. With my proposal, the RMX record for danisch.de would simply give permission to "relays.rackland.de" and "relays.employer.com", where the admins of rackland and employer can define the APL records for these domains reasonably. If the IP address changes or new relays are added, it just takes a single change instead of modifications of all domains hosted. Third, DNS software is ready to be extended. The most important software is bind9, and this is available as source. So I can (and I will as soon as APL records are available) provide a patch on my homepage and pass it to the upstream maintainer. As soon as the record type has become a standard, it will be incorporated into the main distribution. Adding a new record type to a DNS server is not a big deal. And none of the commercial software vendors wants to live with a DNS server which doesn't support all record types. No, the DNS server software is not the problem. It will be more difficult to convince the MTA software vendors. But that's the same problem as with the MX proposal. > Does the RMX record for relays.danisch.de include all the valid sources of > SMTP traffic for subdomain.danisch.de, or does the receiving server > recurse down to relays.subdomain.danisch.de for that list? Well, it should work just like normal DNS. There would be no RMX record for "relays.danisch.de". There would be a RMX record for "danisch.de", which points to relays.rackland.de, which is an APL record containing a list of the relay machines. For subdomain.danisch.de there must be another RMX record, as with MX records. But since DNS supports a very simple form of wildcards, a single entry *.danisch.de could cover all one level subdomains of danisch.de. But I agree the next question is what to do with sub.domain.danisch.de . Maybe it would be wise to require the receiving MTA to climb up the domain tree until something is found. > Would you expect operators to reject mail without a valid RMX > record? I would neither expect them to reject it nor to accept it. It's just a matter of their policy. If a mail comes without any RMX record at all, then this is a statement like "We don't have a authorization policy". It's your policy whether you accept this message or not. If a mail comes with a large RMX record, e.g. 0.0.0.0/0, thus authorizing the whole world, it's your decision whether you want to have that mail or not. If a mail comes with a good RMX record, but from an IP address not covered by this record, again, it depends on your policy whether to accept or reject that mail. Your policy could even depend on the recipients address. For one recipient you prefer a more tight policy, another recipient is more relaxed. Actually, with my proposal I do not want to block any e-mail. I want to give the receiver some simple and (at least to a certain level) reliable information, on which his individual decision whether to accept or deny the message can be based. Don't understand RMX records as a message filter. It's the domain owners statement about the domains security policy. It's the receiver's business to block or accept a message. You're still free to send any message you want to send, but I become free to not take it. regards Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 07:59:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA22496 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 07:59:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h23D9gY14893 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 08:09:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23D9gp14890 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 08:09:42 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA22483; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 07:59:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23D94p14850; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 08:09:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23D8Lp14821 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 08:08:21 -0500 Received: from relay07.indigo.ie (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id HAA22347 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 07:57:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 7712 messnum 1016810 invoked from network[194.125.172.36/ts12-036.dublin.indigo.ie]); 3 Mar 2003 12:59:47 -0000 Received: from ts12-036.dublin.indigo.ie (HELO jmason.org) (194.125.172.36) by relay07.indigo.ie (qp 7712) with SMTP; 3 Mar 2003 12:59:47 -0000 Received: by jmason.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 841E516F18; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:59:57 +0000 (GMT) Received: from jmason.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D9D9F721; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:59:57 +0000 (GMT) To: Hadmut Danisch Cc: Daniel Feenberg , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records In-Reply-To: Message from Hadmut Danisch of "Mon, 03 Mar 2003 10:20:27 +0100." <20030303092027.GA3073@danisch.de> From: jm@jmason.org (Justin Mason) X-GPG-Key-Fingerprint: 0A48 2D8B 0B52 A87D 0E8A 6ADD 4137 1B50 6E58 EF0A X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to . Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 11:59:52 +0000 Message-Id: <20030303115957.841E516F18@jmason.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hadmut Danisch said: > On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 07:18:05PM -0500, Daniel Feenberg wrote: > > > > If respected by receiving MTAs, the proposal would give the owner of the > > DNS space in which a host lives control over which servers could originate > > SMTP traffic. > > No. To be more precise: > > The proposal would give the owner of the domain which the > senders e-mail address belongs to control over which servers could originate > SMTP traffic. > > The proposal quitly assumes that the owner of a domain (i. e. the > one who is able to define zone entries) is the same who is > allowed to decide who may use this domain in a senders address. One issue I can see here: if I send mail from my home machine for mydomain.org, connected using an ISP's dynamic pool of IPs for their DSL users, then I either (a) need to know that ISP's address ranges (b) need to update my RMX records dynamically each time I connect, and this needs to match my mail *at the time the recipient checks it* (ie potentially breaking the store-and-forward model!) (c) need to set up a static-IP deal with the ISP, or buy a colo server ;) (d) need to use an "allow all" 0/0 mask for mydomain.org. How do we solve this? Is there another solution? BTW note that this, in general, does seem to be a very promising approach (and one that's been mooted a few times before in various forms ;) cheers, --j. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 08:07:11 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA22964 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 08:07:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h23DHAx15287 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 08:17:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23DHAp15284 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 08:17:10 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA22923; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 08:06:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23DH1p15267; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 08:17:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23DGFp15241 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 08:16:15 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA22784 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 08:05:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h23D7j8K012006 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 08:07:45 -0500 Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 08:07:45 -0500 (EST) From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records In-Reply-To: <20030303115957.841E516F18@jmason.org> Message-ID: References: <20030303115957.841E516F18@jmason.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Justin Mason wrote: > One issue I can see here: if I send mail from my home machine for > mydomain.org, connected using an ISP's dynamic pool of IPs for their DSL > users, then I either [deletia] Well, couldn't you relay through your ISP's SMTP server, and put that server as your RMX record? This isn't perfect -- it means all of your ISP's customers could spoof mail from your domain, but it's better than nothing. Nevertheless, I do not think RMX records will fly in practice. There are often legitimate reasons for relaying through other SMTP servers, such as when you're on the road and using an ISP's global roaming service. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 08:52:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA25489 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 08:52:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h23E2aM18575 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:02:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23E2ap18572 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:02:36 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA25436; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 08:52:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23Dx1p18382; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 08:59:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23Dwcp18352 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 08:58:38 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA25283 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 08:48:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.7/8.12.7/Debian-2) with BSMTP id h23Do7Uc021850; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:50:07 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-8) id h23DjQ7C007709; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:45:26 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:45:26 +0100 To: Justin Mason Cc: Daniel Feenberg , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records Message-ID: <20030303134526.GA7379@danisch.de> References: <20030303092027.GA3073@danisch.de> <20030303115957.841E516F18@jmason.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030303115957.841E516F18@jmason.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 11:59:52AM +0000, Justin Mason wrote: > > One issue I can see here: if I send mail from my home machine for > mydomain.org, connected using an ISP's dynamic pool of IPs for their > DSL That's one of the bitter pills. As long as anyone with a dynamic IP address is able to send mails with your address, then there is no difference between the authorized sender and the abusing attacker. Many of the Spam messages I receive are sent from DSL accounts with dynamically allocated IP addresses. If *you* are allowed to send mail from jmason.org, then everybody else who can get the same IP address a few minutes later would be allowed as well (as long as we glue permissions to IP addresses and omit the time factor). > users, then I either > > (a) need to know that ISP's address ranges No, that's why I used the APL records instead of directly using the address ranges. It would look like this: your ISP, lets assume he has the domain isp.com, would have to administer some APL records. That could be something like customdynrange.isp.com covering all its dynamic address ranges or state.isp.com if the ISP can determine which address ranges belong to which state or city.isp.com if ranges are limited to a city. Let's assume you're working somewhere in california with ISP1, but sometimes you're in New York and working with ISP2. Then your RMX record could look like this: jmason.org IN RMX (california.isp1.com newyork.isp2.com) which would still keep the door open for thousands of IP addresses, but would block mails from Texas, India, Nepal... > (b) need to update my RMX records dynamically each time I connect, > and this needs to match my mail *at the time the recipient checks > it* (ie potentially breaking the store-and-forward model!) No, you certainly could do so. Many people use dynamic DNS updates for their regular home machine anyway. Let's assume you have such dynamic update for the machine home.jmason.org. Then your RMX would look like this jmason.org IN RMX ( jmason.org ) jmason.org IN APL ( home.jmason.org ) home.jmason.org IN A your-dynamic-address (or maybe the RMX recors should allow host names directly). Since your dynamic entry home.jmason.org exists for the full time you have a certain IP address, you will be able to send. Once you drop the connection, the entry home.jmason.org doesn' exist anymore (or changes), but since you have lost that certain IP address, this is perfectly consistent. And no, it doesn't break the store-and-forward model, since you can't send e-mail with that IP address after you've terminated your connection. > (c) need to set up a static-IP deal with the ISP, or buy a colo > server ;) That would be the best. That's what I do. > (d) need to use an "allow all" 0/0 mask for mydomain.org. That's also possible. That's a statement like "I don't want to restrict origins for my domain". If you want to do so, that's fine. But it might be my decision to not accept mails from such a domain anymore. > How do we solve this? Is there another solution? Yup. Use Cryptography and have a PKI Infrastructure. Use challenge-response authentication, mail signatures, or something alike. But that's far more complicated, has severe vulnerabilities, and requires updates of virtually every MUA. My proposal is not the final solution of all problems, but it is - feasible - cheap - simple - effective - doesn't affect MUAs - backwards compatible - easy to implement - easy to administer and debug - allows smooth transition - allows flexible policies Also, my proposal doesn't claim to be an exclusive solution. Maybe you could have something like this: - If the sender is authorized by the RMX record, accept the mail the old way. - If not, require authentication by password or a mail signature. regards Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 08:59:19 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA25910 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 08:59:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h23E9Ji19651 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:09:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23E9Jp19648 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:09:19 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA25875; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 08:58:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23E96p19636; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:09:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23E8ap19595 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:08:36 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA25838 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 08:58:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.7/8.12.7/Debian-2) with BSMTP id h23E05Ob022024; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 15:00:05 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-8) id h23Dw8KI007815; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:58:08 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:58:08 +0100 To: "David F. Skoll" Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records Message-ID: <20030303135808.GB7379@danisch.de> References: <20030303115957.841E516F18@jmason.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 08:07:45AM -0500, David F. Skoll wrote: > > Well, couldn't you relay through your ISP's SMTP server, and put that > server as your RMX record? This isn't perfect -- it means all of your > ISP's customers could spoof mail from your domain, but it's better than > nothing. Well, it would be the responsibility of the ISP's SMTP server to somehow check the authenticity of the mail. Some ISP's have SMTP servers which always know which customer an IP address is currently assigned to. So your customer might restrict usage of your domain as a sender address with any mechanism - password authentication, single sign-on, your IP address. But that's a black box from an outside point of view. Your RMX records could state that your mail comes from this certain SMTP server only. How you ensure authenticity within this server, that's your private business and beyond the scope of the draft. But that's a design criteria. In contrast to PKI, I want to leave it the domain owner's private business whether and how intra-domain-authenticity is checked. > Nevertheless, I do not think RMX records will fly in practice. > There are often legitimate reasons for relaying through other SMTP > servers, such as when you're on the road and using an ISP's global > roaming service. Yes, I often heard that argument. But - What's the technical difference between you on the road and and Spammer? How will you distinguish your mail from a spammers mail abusing your domain? - Even when I'm on the road and using a foreign ISP on the other side of the world, I always drop my email to the very same relay machine, simply because thats easier. My notebook doesn't need to bother with DNS queries and temporarily unavailable peers. I drop all my outgoing mail to central host, and this host is doing the job. And that's not too much to ask for, because you need a central relay for receiving your mail anyway. How do you receive mail when you're on the road? You need some service provider who receives the message for you and allows you to download it. It's not a bad idea to do the very same for sending e-mail in reverse direction. If you receive e-mail through a central relay, so what's the problem with sending e-mail the very same way? regards Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 09:16:18 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA26374 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:16:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h23EQHc20334 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:26:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23EQHp20331 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:26:17 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA26363; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:15:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23EQ2p20313; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:26:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23EPmp20289 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:25:48 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA26353 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:15:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h23EHG8K012415 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:17:16 -0500 Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:17:16 -0500 (EST) From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records In-Reply-To: <20030303135808.GB7379@danisch.de> Message-ID: References: <20030303115957.841E516F18@jmason.org> <20030303135808.GB7379@danisch.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Hadmut Danisch wrote: > Your RMX records could state that your mail comes from this > certain SMTP server only. How you ensure authenticity within this > server, that's your private business and beyond the scope of the > draft. But that's a design criteria. In contrast to PKI, I want > to leave it the domain owner's private business whether and how > intra-domain-authenticity is checked. Right. But a lot of people don't like having to relay through their ISP's server. Some ISP's, for example, won't let you send mail from any domain but theirs. So I could not send mail from "dfs@roaringpenguin.com" through my ISP's server; it would have to be from "dfs@myispdomain.net" or something like that. > - What's the technical difference between you on the road and > and Spammer? None. > How will you distinguish your mail from a spammers > mail abusing your domain? You can't. > - Even when I'm on the road and using a foreign ISP on the other > side of the world, I always drop my email to the very same relay > machine, simply because thats easier. Well, you are technically savvy, so you know how to set up SMTP AUTH to make this work. The vast majority of people don't. [...] > If you receive e-mail through a central relay, so what's the > problem with sending e-mail the very same way? In theory, I agree, but in practice, I do not think most people will go for it. Also, it's very cheap to register domains and set up RMX records, so the extra cost to spammers is small. A spammer that charges $500 to send out bulk e-mail can easily charge $520 instead, and register a one-time disposable domain name for the purpose. Where these kinds of records might help is with the large free e-mail providers like hotmail, yahoo, etc. But I already have rules to reject e-mail from these domains unless the sending host name (a) resolves and (b) ends in the same domain as the sender domain. Hotmail and Yahoo are pretty good about keeping their reverse-DNS records up to date, and this is very effective. Widespread use of RMX records would simply make spammers choose not to fake their e-mail from "hotmail.com" or "yahoo.com". -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 09:22:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA26544 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:22:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h23EWa120702 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:32:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23EWap20699 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:32:36 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA26531; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:22:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23EW1p20659; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:32:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23EV4p20626 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:31:04 -0500 Received: from bachrain.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id JAA26503 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:20:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 19023 invoked from network); 3 Mar 2003 14:22:32 -0000 Received: from h-213.61.18.181.host.de.colt.net (HELO bachrain.de) (213.61.18.181) by h-213.61.18.181.host.de.colt.net with SMTP; 3 Mar 2003 14:22:32 -0000 Message-ID: <3E636524.D62F33B@bachrain.de> Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 15:22:28 +0100 From: Reinhold Jordan X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.18-3custom i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Anti-Spam Research Group Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records References: <20030303092027.GA3073@danisch.de> <20030303115957.841E516F18@jmason.org> <20030303134526.GA7379@danisch.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, > > One issue I can see here: if I send mail from my home machine for > > mydomain.org, connected using an ISP's dynamic pool of IPs for their > > DSL > > That's one of the bitter pills. As long as anyone with a > dynamic IP address is able to send mails with your address, then > there is no difference between the authorized sender and the abusing > attacker. > > Many of the Spam messages I receive are sent from DSL accounts with > dynamically allocated IP addresses. If *you* are allowed to send > mail from jmason.org, then everybody else who can get the same > IP address a few minutes later would be allowed as well (as long as > we glue permissions to IP addresses and omit the time factor). but is this really the problem? Most spam-mails with wrong sender use domains like hotmail or other great freemailers. And this freemailers doesn't use dynamic IPs. A test on this domains will reject much more than 50% of spam... Regards, Reinhold -- Reinhold Jordan WWW: http://reinhold.bachrain.de Mail: reinhold@bachrain.de "Do you pine for the nice days of minix-1.1, when men were men and wrote their own device drivers?" Linus _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 09:42:22 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA27159 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:42:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h23EqNY22671 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:52:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23EqNp22668 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:52:23 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA27154; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:41:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23En2p22532; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:49:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23Emfp22480 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:48:41 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA27030 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:38:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.7/8.12.7/Debian-2) with BSMTP id h23Ee7fI022927; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 15:40:07 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-8) id h23EaUBH008552; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 15:36:30 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Reinhold Jordan Cc: Anti-Spam Research Group Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records Message-ID: <20030303143630.GA8423@danisch.de> References: <20030303092027.GA3073@danisch.de> <20030303115957.841E516F18@jmason.org> <20030303134526.GA7379@danisch.de> <3E636524.D62F33B@bachrain.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E636524.D62F33B@bachrain.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 15:36:30 +0100 On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 03:22:28PM +0100, Reinhold Jordan wrote: > > > > Many of the Spam messages I receive are sent from DSL accounts with > > dynamically allocated IP addresses. If *you* are allowed to send > > mail from jmason.org, then everybody else who can get the same > > IP address a few minutes later would be allowed as well (as long as > > we glue permissions to IP addresses and omit the time factor). > > but is this really the problem? Believe me, it is. About a year ago, some Spammers were sending millions of mails around the world and used random addresses from my domain as sender addresses. I received tons of complaints and cursing threats from people who received Spam, but didn't want to believe that I don't have anything to do with it. > Most spam-mails with wrong sender > use domains like hotmail or other great freemailers. And this > freemailers doesn't use dynamic IPs. A test on this domains will > reject much more than 50% of spam... Yeah, but once you start blocking splam from @hotmail, they will start to use any random domain. regards Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 09:52:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA27537 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:52:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h23F2US23319 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:02:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23F2Up23316 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:02:30 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA27508; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:51:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23Ex1p22995; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:59:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23Ew1p22936 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:58:01 -0500 Received: from vqx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA27297 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:47:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from (AUTH: e40a9cea) by vqx.net with esmtp (courier-0.40) for ; Mon, 03 Mar 2003 14:49:28 +0000 Orig-Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 15:49:57 +0100 From: Roland To: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records In-Reply-To: <20030303134526.GA7379@danisch.de> References: <20030303092027.GA3073@danisch.de> <20030303115957.841E516F18@jmason.org> <20030303134526.GA7379@danisch.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 14:49:28 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --Hadmut Danisch wrote on 03.03.03 14:45 +0100: > That's one of the bitter pills. As long as anyone with a > dynamic IP address is able to send mails with your address, then > there is no difference between the authorized sender and the abusing > attacker. The RMX-record allows the owner of the domain to restrict abuse of his domain by spammers and alike. Those who want to limit the forging use the RMX (most likly Yahoo, Hotmail and Outblaze, and all the others suffering from this). Many people already accept mail from such often-forged freemail- domains only from their legitimate hosts. The real problem will be with forwarding accounts, the envelope- sender should be replaced with the address of the forwarder. Maybe you want to include a note about this in your proposal. > Let's assume you're working somewhere in california with ISP1, > but sometimes you're in New York and working with ISP2. > > Then your RMX record could look like this: > > jmason.org IN RMX (california.isp1.com newyork.isp2.com) Wildcards would be nice too, and could solve the problem with dynamically assigned hostnames. > which would still keep the door open for thousands of > IP addresses, but would block mails from Texas, India, Nepal... Its usually easy to get the abuse stopped if all parties reside on the same provider. But the proposal should include a note about possible forgeries of RDNS if the hostnames dont get double-checked. >> (d) need to use an "allow all" 0/0 mask for mydomain.org. > > That's also possible. That's a statement like "I don't want to > restrict origins for my domain". If you want to do so, that's fine. > But it might be my decision to not accept mails from such a domain > anymore. I dont think that should be a part of the proposal. There are enough domains which will use RMX anyway, and this will put quite some pressure on the others. The acceptance would be much better if you not trying to force the usage of RMX to anybody. And of course everybody is still free to block whatever he wants on the own server. >> How do we solve this? Is there another solution? > > Yup. Use Cryptography and have a PKI Infrastructure. Use > challenge-response authentication, mail signatures, or something > alike. But that's far more complicated, has severe vulnerabilities, > and requires updates of virtually every MUA. This actually does not stop the spew at the side of the sender since the whole message has to be received and parsed for the cryptographic bits. The solution probably would need an extended MAIL FROM where the key of the sender gets appended (like the SIZE extension) to allow rejection at the RCPT TO (per receipient) without actually receive and parse the whole content. The solution should probably also allow for an additional token to be appended to the RCPT TO, for various reasons. There is also another problem: if RMX gets widely used spammers will use empty envelopes which can not be protected by RMX. How could an RMX-compatible DSN be composed ? Roland _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 09:56:03 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA27659 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:56:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h23F65V23511 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:06:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23F64p23508 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:06:04 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA27631; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:55:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23F62p23500; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:06:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23F52p23471 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:05:02 -0500 Received: from bachrain.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id JAA27610 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:54:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 22292 invoked from network); 3 Mar 2003 14:56:31 -0000 Received: from h-213.61.18.181.host.de.colt.net (HELO bachrain.de) (213.61.18.181) by h-213.61.18.181.host.de.colt.net with SMTP; 3 Mar 2003 14:56:31 -0000 Message-ID: <3E636D1B.29B89DBD@bachrain.de> From: Reinhold Jordan X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.18-3custom i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Anti-Spam Research Group Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records References: <20030303092027.GA3073@danisch.de> <20030303115957.841E516F18@jmason.org> <20030303134526.GA7379@danisch.de> <3E636524.D62F33B@bachrain.de> <20030303143630.GA8423@danisch.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 15:56:27 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, > > but is this really the problem? > > Believe me, it is. About a year ago, some Spammers were sending > millions of mails around the world and used random addresses from > my domain as sender addresses. I received tons of complaints and > cursing threats from people who received Spam, but didn't want to > believe that I don't have anything to do with it. ok, this is an argument. I just see, if I filter freemailers with wrong IPs, domains without open port 25 and my own domains I get rid of more than 95% of spam. But I know, if you all use my qmail- patch, spamers will start new ways to send spam... :( Regards, Reinhold -- Reinhold Jordan WWW: http://reinhold.bachrain.de Mail: reinhold@bachrain.de "Do you pine for the nice days of minix-1.1, when men were men and wrote their own device drivers?" Linus _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 10:03:04 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA27958 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:03:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h23FD5v24778 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:13:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23FD5p24775 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:13:05 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA27932; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:02:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23FD2p24766; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:13:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23FCup24745 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:12:56 -0500 Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA27910 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:02:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h23F4PA01900; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:04:25 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Moore To: Reinhold Jordan Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@ietf.org Message-Id: <20030303092917.487186f4.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <3E636524.D62F33B@bachrain.de> References: <20030303092027.GA3073@danisch.de> <20030303115957.841E516F18@jmason.org> <20030303134526.GA7379@danisch.de> <3E636524.D62F33B@bachrain.de> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new and ClamAntivirus Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:04:25 -0500 Resent-From: Keith Moore Resent-To: asrg@ietf.org Resent-To: moore@cs.utk.edu Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records Resent-Message-Id: <20030303100425.1d961b00.moore@cs.utk.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:29:17 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Most spam-mails with wrong sender > use domains like hotmail or other great freemailers. And this > freemailers doesn't use dynamic IPs. A test on this domains will > reject much more than 50% of spam... spam keeps changing. block one way of sending spam and there will be others. as long as it's cheap/easy to get an Internet account, spammers will get throwaway accounts. that and being able to send mail from multiple accounts with the same return address is quite useful. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 10:15:00 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29008 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:15:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h23FP3f25518 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:25:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23FP2p25515 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:25:02 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA28978; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:14:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23FP1p25491; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:25:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23FO9p25435 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:24:09 -0500 Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA28951 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:13:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h23FFaA01921; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:15:36 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Moore To: Reinhold Jordan Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records Message-Id: <20030303101536.1364dcf3.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <3E636D1B.29B89DBD@bachrain.de> References: <20030303092027.GA3073@danisch.de> <20030303115957.841E516F18@jmason.org> <20030303134526.GA7379@danisch.de> <3E636524.D62F33B@bachrain.de> <20030303143630.GA8423@danisch.de> <3E636D1B.29B89DBD@bachrain.de> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:15:36 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > ok, this is an argument. I just see, if I filter freemailers with > wrong IPs, domains without open port 25 and my own domains I get > rid of more than 95% of spam. right now, if I filter out mail with invalid characters in the subject line, I get rid of more than 75% of the spam I receive. but sooner or later spammers will learn to encode in rfc 2047. spammers interpret filters as damage and route around them. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 10:20:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29222 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:20:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h23FUdb25914 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:30:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23FUdp25911 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:30:39 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29196; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:20:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23FTsp25832; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:29:54 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23FSep25743 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:28:40 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29161 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:18:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.7/8.12.7/Debian-2) with BSMTP id h23FK7eR023696; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:20:07 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-8) id h23FHp7U009166; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:17:51 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Roland Cc: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records Message-ID: <20030303151751.GA8957@danisch.de> References: <20030303092027.GA3073@danisch.de> <20030303115957.841E516F18@jmason.org> <20030303134526.GA7379@danisch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:17:51 +0100 On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 02:49:28PM +0000, Roland wrote: > > The real problem will be with forwarding accounts, the envelope- > sender should be replaced with the address of the forwarder. > Maybe you want to include a note about this in your proposal. Yup, thanks. Same problem with some mailing list processors, which leave the envelope sender intact. > > Let's assume you're working somewhere in california with ISP1, > > but sometimes you're in New York and working with ISP2. > > > > Then your RMX record could look like this: > > > > jmason.org IN RMX (california.isp1.com newyork.isp2.com) > > Wildcards would be nice too, and could solve the problem with > dynamically assigned hostnames. At least at a first glance, wildcards don't work. If the RMX contains *.isp.com, what are you looking for in the next resolving step? You could, of course, try to match the hostname found by reverse lookup, e.g. do a reverse lookup of address a.b.c.d , and see if the hostname matches e.g. northpole.isp.com. But that opens the door for spammers again, since if they have access to their reverse DNS entry, they can give themselves any name. So you had to doublecheck this again. I'd rather avoid making PTR records part of the chain, since they are a little bit vulnerable to some nonsense, and usually under someone else's control. > >> (d) need to use an "allow all" 0/0 mask for mydomain.org. > > > > That's also possible. That's a statement like "I don't want to > > restrict origins for my domain". If you want to do so, that's fine. > > But it might be my decision to not accept mails from such a domain > > anymore. > > I dont think that should be a part of the proposal. > There are enough domains which will use RMX anyway, and this will > put quite some pressure on the others. > The acceptance would be much better if you not trying to force the > usage of RMX to anybody. And of course everybody is still free > to block whatever he wants on the own server. Ah, sorry, my statement was misleading. With "my decision" I didn't mean the draft, I was speaking as mail admin. I was talking about the local policy, not a general rule. > This actually does not stop the spew at the side of the sender > since the whole message has to be received and parsed for the > cryptographic bits. I'm currently preparing another draft for a successor of SMTP which also addresses this issue. But this is a different story since it is a new protocol requiring new software. > The solution probably would need an extended MAIL FROM where the > key of the sender gets appended (like the SIZE extension) to allow > rejection at the RCPT TO (per receipient) without actually receive > and parse the whole content. Yes, that's a design criterion of my draft. If this is considered to be within the scope of this working group, I can present a first, rough version soon. > The solution should probably also allow for an additional token > to be appended to the RCPT TO, for various reasons. Yep, already contained in my draft. > There is also another problem: if RMX gets widely used spammers > will use empty envelopes which can not be protected by RMX. > How could an RMX-compatible DSN be composed ? That's a pretty good question. Introducing empty envelopes was a pretty bad idea, especially in context of SMTP which presents envelop addresses only before transmission of the message. That's a diffent problem we'll have to discuss. Unfortunately, it will be difficult to disestablish empty envelopes in common SMTP. regards Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 10:27:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29478 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:27:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h23Fbck27055 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:37:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23Fbbp27052 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:37:37 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29447; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:27:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23Fb9p26561; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:37:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23FaCp26274 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:36:12 -0500 Received: from bachrain.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA29409 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:25:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 25755 invoked from network); 3 Mar 2003 15:27:40 -0000 Received: from h-213.61.18.181.host.de.colt.net (HELO bachrain.de) (213.61.18.181) by h-213.61.18.181.host.de.colt.net with SMTP; 3 Mar 2003 15:27:40 -0000 Message-ID: <3E637468.8E6D6BC2@bachrain.de> From: Reinhold Jordan X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.18-3custom i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Anti-Spam Research Group Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records References: <20030303092027.GA3073@danisch.de> <20030303115957.841E516F18@jmason.org> <20030303134526.GA7379@danisch.de> <3E636524.D62F33B@bachrain.de> <20030303143630.GA8423@danisch.de> <3E636D1B.29B89DBD@bachrain.de> <20030303101536.1364dcf3.moore@cs.utk.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 16:27:36 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, > right now, if I filter out mail with invalid characters in the subject > line, I get rid of more than 75% of the spam I receive. but sooner or > later spammers will learn to encode in rfc 2047. but there is a little dirrerence between your filter and mine. You got the traffic and me not. > spammers interpret filters as damage and route around them. I see this as a "sport" - are they better or me ;) Regards, Reinhold -- Reinhold Jordan WWW: http://reinhold.bachrain.de Mail: reinhold@bachrain.de "Do you pine for the nice days of minix-1.1, when men were men and wrote their own device drivers?" Linus _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 10:33:18 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29686 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:33:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h23FhLF27542 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:43:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23FhLp27536 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:43:21 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29661; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:32:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23FhJp27519; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:43:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23Fgpp27468 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:42:51 -0500 Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29648 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:32:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h23FYIA01940; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:34:18 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Moore To: Reinhold Jordan Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records Message-Id: <20030303103418.73482bec.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <3E637468.8E6D6BC2@bachrain.de> References: <20030303092027.GA3073@danisch.de> <20030303115957.841E516F18@jmason.org> <20030303134526.GA7379@danisch.de> <3E636524.D62F33B@bachrain.de> <20030303143630.GA8423@danisch.de> <3E636D1B.29B89DBD@bachrain.de> <20030303101536.1364dcf3.moore@cs.utk.edu> <3E637468.8E6D6BC2@bachrain.de> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:34:18 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > but there is a little dirrerence between your filter and mine. > You got the traffic and me not. important observation - different sites get different kinds of spam. > > spammers interpret filters as damage and route around them. > > I see this as a "sport" - are they better or me ;) that's fine if you enjoy that kind of sport. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 10:34:21 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29743 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:34:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h23FiN927674 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:44:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23FiNp27671 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:44:23 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29726; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:33:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23Fi1p27614; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:44:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23FhOp27556 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:43:24 -0500 Received: from hughes-fe02.direcway.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29670 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:32:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from rgfpc.direcway.com ([66.82.75.68]) by hughes-fe02.direcway.com (InterMail vK.4.04.00.00 201-232-137 license dcc4e84cb8fc01ca8f8654c982ec8526) with ESMTP id <20030303152818.URXL19893.hughes-fe02@rgfpc.direcway.com> for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:28:18 -0500 Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.2.20030303093737.047d81a0@pop3.direcway.com> X-Sender: rgferrell@pop3.direcway.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 To: asrg@ietf.org From: "Robert G. Ferrell" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records In-Reply-To: <20030303101536.1364dcf3.moore@cs.utk.edu> References: <3E636D1B.29B89DBD@bachrain.de> <20030303092027.GA3073@danisch.de> <20030303115957.841E516F18@jmason.org> <20030303134526.GA7379@danisch.de> <3E636524.D62F33B@bachrain.de> <20030303143630.GA8423@danisch.de> <3E636D1B.29B89DBD@bachrain.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 09:40:07 -0600 At 10:15 AM 3/3/03 -0500, Keith Moore wrote: >spammers interpret filters as damage and route around them. It seems to me that if we could get the 0.01% (or whatever the figure is) of people who respond to spam to stop it, the problem would go away on its own. There has to be a cost benefit to spamming in order for it to continue. RGF Robert G. Ferrell rgferrell@direcway.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 10:43:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA00072 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:43:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h23FrXN28351 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:53:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23FrXp28348 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:53:33 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA00053; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:42:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23Fo1p28146; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:50:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23Fnjp28085 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:49:45 -0500 Received: from bachrain.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA29924 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:39:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 27880 invoked from network); 3 Mar 2003 15:41:13 -0000 Received: from h-213.61.18.181.host.de.colt.net (HELO bachrain.de) (213.61.18.181) by h-213.61.18.181.host.de.colt.net with SMTP; 3 Mar 2003 15:41:13 -0000 Message-ID: <3E63778F.3F78D56C@bachrain.de> From: Reinhold Jordan X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.18-3custom i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Anti-Spam Research Group Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records References: <20030303092027.GA3073@danisch.de> <20030303115957.841E516F18@jmason.org> <20030303134526.GA7379@danisch.de> <3E636524.D62F33B@bachrain.de> <20030303143630.GA8423@danisch.de> <3E636D1B.29B89DBD@bachrain.de> <20030303101536.1364dcf3.moore@cs.utk.edu> <3E637468.8E6D6BC2@bachrain.de> <20030303103418.73482bec.moore@cs.utk.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 16:41:03 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, > > but there is a little dirrerence between your filter and mine. > > You got the traffic and me not. > > important observation - different sites get different kinds of spam. what do you mean? What I say is, I check for spam _bevor_ it is transfered. If you check the subject, you can only do this, _after_ it is transfered. > that's fine if you enjoy that kind of sport. :) Regards, Reinhold -- Reinhold Jordan WWW: http://reinhold.bachrain.de Mail: reinhold@bachrain.de "Do you pine for the nice days of minix-1.1, when men were men and wrote their own device drivers?" Linus _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 10:46:18 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA00261 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:46:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h23FuKl28623 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:56:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23FuKp28620 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:56:20 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA00239; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:45:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23Fu3p28586; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:56:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23FtKp28494 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:55:20 -0500 Received: from mail.reichmann.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA00183 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:44:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from online.reichmann.de (root@localhost) by mail.reichmann.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA12395; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:46:42 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from asrg@online.reichmann.de) To: Anti-Spam Research Group Message-ID: <3E6378DD.6070401@reichmann.de> From: Jens Reichmann Reply-To: asrg@online.reichmann.de User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020530 X-Accept-Language: de, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records References: <20030303092027.GA3073@danisch.de> <20030303115957.841E516F18@jmason.org> <20030303134526.GA7379@danisch.de> <3E636524.D62F33B@bachrain.de> <20030303143630.GA8423@danisch.de> <3E636D1B.29B89DBD@bachrain.de> <20030303101536.1364dcf3.moore@cs.utk.edu> <3E637468.8E6D6BC2@bachrain.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 16:46:37 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reinhold Jordan wrote: >>spammers interpret filters as damage and route around them. > > > I see this as a "sport" - are they better or me ;) Sorry, this is not a sport. This is a duty to detect emails from the noice. ;( This problem can only resolved with political rules and technical settings over many ISP's! Jens _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 10:59:12 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA00736 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:59:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h23G9FM30327 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:09:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23G9Fp30324 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:09:15 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA00726; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:58:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23G93p30311; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:09:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23G6mp29370 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:06:48 -0500 Received: from nber13.nber.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA00650 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:56:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from nber13.nber.org (localhost.nber.org [127.0.0.1]) by nber13.nber.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h23FwG51093490 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:58:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by nber13.nber.org (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id h23FwG3n093489 for asrg@ietf.org.KAV; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:58:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from nber5.nber.org (nber5.nber.org [207.113.108.99]) by nber13.nber.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h23FlR52092460; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:47:27 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Feenberg To: Hadmut Danisch cc: Reinhold Jordan , Anti-Spam Research Group Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records In-Reply-To: <20030303143630.GA8423@danisch.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:29:34 -0500 (EST) On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Hadmut Danisch wrote: > > Believe me, it is. About a year ago, some Spammers were sending > millions of mails around the world and used random addresses from > my domain as sender addresses. I received tons of complaints and > cursing threats from people who received Spam, but didn't want to > believe that I don't have anything to do with it. > Actually the proposal is very helpfull in this regard. Whereas now any spammer can forge your address from any injection point, if the proposal were widely accepted, then only the next person on your IP address could forge your address, and I am not sure how easily he could arrange to be in this position. He can look up your authorized smtp sending IP address easily enough, but how easy would it be for him to get the providor to issue that address to him? Would Radius or DHCP hand them out at random, or could he bias the result in some way to raise his chances of getting your old address? Somehow it seems more practical to just buy a domain name and use it till the spam filters catch on, although $10 is probably significant for many spammers. By this reasoning, the proposal could succeed at providing authentication without actually reducing spam. Which is not a condemnation. One thing to remember is that no single action will eliminate spam, but some combination will. We have to ask "is this going to be part of the combination"? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 11:27:03 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA01761 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:27:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h23Gb7Y32361 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:37:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23Gb7p32358 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:37:07 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA01747; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:26:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23Gb2p32204; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:37:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23Ga2p32048 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:36:02 -0500 Received: from asteroids.cybercomm.nl (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA01695 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:25:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail-ldap/ctrl 23470 invoked from network); 3 Mar 2003 16:27:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO SUNTAC) ([213.196.15.164]) (envelope-sender ) by dds.nl (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 3 Mar 2003 16:27:27 -0000 Message-ID: <020a01c2e1a1$42fce750$6501630a@SUNTAC> Reply-To: "Johan Louwers" From: "Johan Louwers" To: References: <20030303092027.GA3073@danisch.de> <20030303115957.841E516F18@jmason.org> <20030303134526.GA7379@danisch.de> <3E636524.D62F33B@bachrain.de> <20030303143630.GA8423@danisch.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] RMX Records -- waterproof? Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 17:23:44 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit New to the list......... dear all, new to the list and trying to get up and running with the discussion so i am aboute to ask some strange questions..... What do we want to do? Find a way to eliminate or at least downsize the number of spam messages running around on the internet. We "think" most of the spammers will make use of "stolen" domain names. Is this so? and if so.... are there researche papers to prove this? Are we 100% sure we are looking at the correct problem? Let say we are........ how to avoid people to send mail in name of a domain that they are not permitted to? The sugestion (in very short) is to enable the recieving mail server to check at the sending mail server that the original sending party (the client/spammer) is allowd to send mail in name of this domain. correct? Ok lets say, (the situation in holland) I am driving on the freeway and i pullover at the gasstation. I get me a couple of free internet account CD's go home install a couple of accounts get a mail adres and start sending SPAM mail, after sending the mail i simpley delete the account an start using the next free account...... The recieving mail server is checking with the sending mail server of my free-ISP to look if the IP adres is allowd to send mail in name of @freeISP.nl I am allowd to send mail ... so the spam is out in the world and i just have bypassed the solution........ The next situation. Lets say i am the owner of www.veryhornypreteengirls.com and i like to SPAM mail to a list of people. My @veryhornypreteengirls.com mail server is placed someware in a third world country so i do not have to worry aboute the law. I send out my spam mail the recieving server is checking with my mail server and i am allowd to sendout the mail so the spam is on the internet. The checking part of reciecing server checking sending server is a good plan to avoid a lot of spam mail it is only not enough. You also need a "centralized" way to check if the sending domain is a "trusted" domain. You must have the option to aloow or deny the mails from mail servers on this list. Just some of the things I was thinking aboute...... :-) Regards, Johan. ------------------------------------------------ There are only 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary and those who don't. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hadmut Danisch" To: "Reinhold Jordan" Cc: "Anti-Spam Research Group" Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 3:36 PM Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records > On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 03:22:28PM +0100, Reinhold Jordan wrote: > > > > > > Many of the Spam messages I receive are sent from DSL accounts with > > > dynamically allocated IP addresses. If *you* are allowed to send > > > mail from jmason.org, then everybody else who can get the same > > > IP address a few minutes later would be allowed as well (as long as > > > we glue permissions to IP addresses and omit the time factor). > > > > but is this really the problem? > > > > Believe me, it is. About a year ago, some Spammers were sending > millions of mails around the world and used random addresses from > my domain as sender addresses. I received tons of complaints and > cursing threats from people who received Spam, but didn't want to > believe that I don't have anything to do with it. > > > > > Most spam-mails with wrong sender > > use domains like hotmail or other great freemailers. And this > > freemailers doesn't use dynamic IPs. A test on this domains will > > reject much more than 50% of spam... > > Yeah, but once you start blocking splam from @hotmail, they will > start to use any random domain. > > > regards > Hadmut > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 11:33:59 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA02020 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:33:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h23Gi3c00983 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:44:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23Gi3p00980 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:44:03 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA01998; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:33:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23Gi1p00961; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:44:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23Ghnp00929 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:43:49 -0500 Received: from nycsmtp1out.rdc-nyc.rr.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA01984 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:33:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from BOBDEV (66-108-193-77.nyc.rr.com [66.108.193.77]) by nycsmtp1out.rdc-nyc.rr.com (8.12.1/Road Runner SMTP Server 1.0) with ESMTP id h23GZCk5023679; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:35:12 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: "'Keith Moore'" , "'Reinhold Jordan'" Cc: Message-ID: <002b01c2e1a2$e23a5360$6401a8c0@BOBDEV> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 In-Reply-To: <20030303101536.1364dcf3.moore@cs.utk.edu> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h23Ghnp00930 Subject: [Asrg] Textual Analysis is not the solution Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:35:16 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Keith Moore wrote: > spammers interpret filters as damage and route around them. Or, learn how to pierce through them... Others have used the sport analogy, still others refer to it as war. In any case, spam filters that rely on analysis of messages contents are simply not the solution -- no matter how strongly marketed they may be and no matter how interesting the construction of filtering systems may be to college students. The best we can expect from spam filters that rely on textual analysis is an ever escalating "arms race" where email recipients deploy ever more complex and sophisticated spam filters to defend against spammers whose methods grow continuously more complex and sophisticated. Even the "learning" filter systems, based on Bayesian logic, etc., which are so greatly touted these days, cannot hope to defend effectively against spammers who use "learning" techniques to discover what the filters have learned. When the offense and defense both have the same tools available to them, an arms race is the most expected result. And, an arms race does little but cripple all involved by forcing them to spend more and more of their resources to maintain a stable relationship. I was very pleased to see that the charter of this group focuses on the problem of "consent-based" communication and appears to direct attention away from filtering solutions based on textual analysis. I must admit though that I'm somewhat worried about the discussion of "approaches that determine the nature of a message based on its characteristics" and sincerely hope that that this phrase does not become a trap-door which permits endless discussions of methods by which the useless textual analysis arms race can be furthered. Filters based on textual analysis cannot succeed. Let's focus on fundamental solutions to the problem of spam -- i.e. how to build systems for "consent-based" messaging. bob wyman _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 11:36:59 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA02129 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:36:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h23Gl3801260 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:47:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23Gl3p01257 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:47:03 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA02106; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:36:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23Gl1p01219; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:47:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23GkGp01164 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:46:16 -0500 Received: from silk.rtr.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA02074 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:35:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from silk.rtr.com (IDENT:root@localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by silk.rtr.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h23Gbf106679 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:37:41 -0500 Received: from bark (bark [64.241.156.77]) by silk.rtr.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23Gbev06672 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:37:40 -0500 From: "Gary Feldman" To: Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records Organization: Ready-to-Run Software, Inc. Message-ID: <002001c2e1a3$3663bc60$4d9cf140@rtr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:37:42 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of David F. Skoll > Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 9:17 AM > Well, you are technically savvy, so you know how to set up > SMTP AUTH to make this work. The vast majority of people don't. Only the ISP needs to be that savvy. The user just needs to be able to set up the mail client the same way it's already being done for POP3 passwords. Conceivably some email clients don't make this as easy, and perhaps some don't even support SMTP AUTH, but there's no technical reason they couldn't be just as easy as current POP3 setup. Gary _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 11:38:23 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA02165 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:38:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h23GmSH01379 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:48:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23GmSp01376 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:48:28 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA02151; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:37:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23Gm3p01363; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:48:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23GlNp01289 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:47:23 -0500 Received: from emu.st (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA02126 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:36:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 18938 invoked by uid 1015); 3 Mar 2003 16:38:12 -0000 Delivered-To: qmda-intercept-asrg@ietf.org@intercept Comments: QMDA 0.1 - see http://www.geocities.com/mark_delany/qmda.html Received: (qmail 44822 invoked from network); 3 Mar 2003 16:38:12 -0000 Received: from prefix-internal.emu.st (HELO emu.st) (10.100.100.36) by f1-external.emu.st with SMTP; 3 Mar 2003 16:38:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 12834 invoked by uid 1001); 3 Mar 2003 16:38:12 -0000 From: Mark Delany To: ASRG Subject: Bitter Pills (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) Message-ID: <20030303163812.C12718@qmda.emu.st> Mail-Followup-To: ASRG Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:38:12 +0000 > That's a diffent problem we'll have to discuss. Unfortunately, > it will be difficult to disestablish empty envelopes in > common SMTP. Lots of bitter pills. RMX only solves the forgery problem and it potentially breaks: A. forwarding B. sending off-domain #1 (the roving user using a remote ISP) C. sending off-domain #2 (the local user using a non-controlled domain, eg, I want to send email out from my ISP using my Yahoo address) D. Raises the question of what to do with bounces E. Probably requires a flag-day or implementation schedule. If RMX is ever to be useful beyond categorizing email - ie actually rejecting email as spam - then ISPs/providers will probably need to do this in concert to a) get a lot of buy-in and b) avoid a customer backlash like that experienced by Earthlink a month or so ago. You could possibly address A) by doing envelope re-writing, but that's currently considered bad-practice and presents a tricky issue for subsequent bounces. You could simply swallow the pill for B) and C) and say that's the price we pay. (If RMX was close to a Silver Bullet, I for one would happily accept the loss of off-domain mail submission.) You could change SMTP to bounce with a semi-empty envelope, such as <@example.com> to fix D) but that's more changes to SMTP. And maybe if you try hard you might get the major ISPs/MSPs to agree on a schedule to help E). Then you're merely left with predicting how spammers will respond. Will they adopt disposable/temporary domains making the benefits of RMX largely moot? I doubt anyone knows for sure. To my point. None of what I've said has anything to do with RMX per se except to suggest that any "solution" probably involves pills of varying bitterness. Eventually we need to assess "solutions" based on: o how bitter they are o how effective they are o how permanent they are I especially worry that we under-estimate the ability of the spamming industry to morph. We need to consider them as motivated, smart and none-too-fussed about breaking a few laws. Any "solution" that assumes otherwise is probably at risk of taking much longer to implement than it does to defeat. Regards, Mark. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 11:42:10 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA02299 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:42:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h23GqEW01745 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:52:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23GqEp01742 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:52:14 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA02264; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:41:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23Gq1p01710; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:52:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23Gpop01650 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:51:50 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA02244 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:41:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.7/8.12.7/Debian-2) with BSMTP id h23GhG4b025595; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 17:43:16 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-8) id h23GfsgY010287; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 17:41:54 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Daniel Feenberg Cc: Anti-Spam Research Group Message-ID: <20030303164153.GA9934@danisch.de> References: <20030303143630.GA8423@danisch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Subject: [Asrg] What is Spam? Was: RMX Records Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 17:41:53 +0100 On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 10:29:34AM -0500, Daniel Feenberg wrote: > > Somehow it seems more practical to just buy a domain name and use it till > the spam filters catch on, although $10 is probably significant for many > spammers. > > By this reasoning, the proposal could succeed at providing authentication > without actually reducing spam. That's the next step of the story. First, we have to keep in mind, that we still have no precise and concise definition of "Spam", and I guess we'll never have. My draft is focussed on the sender address fraud aspect of Spam, while most people are focussed to the "mail which I don't want to have" aspect. Unfortunately, the latter one is not easy to grab in a technical and automated way. And there's another point: My approach could be seen as a "european way". Let me explain this: The RMX records don't stop spam. They stop e-mail fraud (i. e. using a foreign domain as a fake sender address), at least to a certain level. When you receive a message, and the RMX records say "good", then what's the use of this? You can assume that the owner of the domain has somehow in any way authorized the sender to do so, is somehow responsible. It is a link between the message and the domain. Now, what's that good for? In Europe, especially in Germany, the whois entry of a domain usually gives detailled information about who's responsible for a domain. This is a link between a domain and a real human. OK, what's that good for? You can sue the person. You can blame the person. You can blacklist the person (which is more effective than blacklisting his/her domains which can be changed like underwear). Effectively, you know who is molesting you. The mail suddenly turns from an anonymous standard Spam to a plain normal, but still unsolicited message. There are still some problems: - Some countries /ISPs don't keep the whois entries filled with reasonable informtions, especially the far east countries. So teach your MTA to reject messages from domains which don't have reasonable whois entry. It will force them to update their entries. - Some countries (e.g. the USA) don't have that european idea of a human's identity. In Europe, people have identity cards, you don't simply change your name or identity. Your name and address can be "verified". In the USA, people insist of beeing free to choose any name and address. It is very difficult to authenticate somebody when you lack a reliable identity. Ok, back to the Spam problem. We can't find a technical solution as long as we don't define Spam. Spam is a term for "everything annoying which can be found in a mailbox". Forget about it. We'll have to find real, hard criterias. I'll suggest those: - Forged sender address - Non-individual mass mail - Lack of personal relation between sender and recipient - recipients address found in context which was not supposed to allow this certain message transfer When we know what we are talking about, we can start to design protection mechanisms. RMX records are designed against forged sender addresses (domain part). regards Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 11:46:59 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA02497 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:46:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h23Gv2502196 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:57:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23Gv2p02193 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:57:02 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA02469; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:46:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23Gv0p02181; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:57:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23Gu9p02137 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:56:09 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA02445 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:45:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h23Gla8K013492 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:47:36 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Textual Analysis is not the solution In-Reply-To: <002b01c2e1a2$e23a5360$6401a8c0@BOBDEV> Message-ID: References: <002b01c2e1a2$e23a5360$6401a8c0@BOBDEV> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:47:36 -0500 (EST) On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Bob Wyman wrote: >Filters based on textual analysis cannot succeed. I completely disagree. If by "succeed", you mean "stop all spam", then you're right. However, I define "succeed" as "stop a large-enough proportion of spam to save money", and by that measure, textual analysis can be very effective. I believe that there is no solution that will totally stop spam. What is needed is a broad-spectrum approach consisting of: - A legal framework to make it possible to prosecute spammers and extract money from them. - Technical non-content-based means to reduce spam, such as RMX records. - Buy-in by ISPs to take technical measures against spammers (ie, force subscribers to relay mail through the ISP's SMTP server.) - Text-based analysis to detect likely spam. - Tools to increase spammers' costs, such as tarpitting, tempfailing suspect messages, etc. Like it or not, this is an arms race. The best we can hope for is to increase spammers' costs without hurting ourselves too much in the process. > Let's focus on > fundamental solutions to the problem of spam -- i.e. how to build > systems for "consent-based" messaging. In my business, I rely on getting e-mail from completely unknown people. This is a feature of e-mail I cannot do without. Anything that makes it harder for strangers to contact me than simply dashing off an e-mail is a non-starter for me. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 11:54:07 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA02776 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:54:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h23H49s03176 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:04:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23H49p03173 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:04:09 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA02767; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:53:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23H40p03148; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:04:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23H27p02811 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:02:07 -0500 Received: from mail.enyo.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA02684 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:51:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from [212.9.189.171] (helo=deneb.enyo.de) by mail.enyo.de with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #2) id 18ptBs-0007AS-00; Mon, 03 Mar 2003 17:53:24 +0100 Received: from fw by deneb.enyo.de with local (Exim 3.34 #4) id 18ptBs-0001gS-00; Mon, 03 Mar 2003 17:53:24 +0100 To: "David F. Skoll" Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records From: Florian Weimer In-Reply-To: ("David F. Skoll"'s message of "Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:17:16 -0500 (EST)") Message-ID: <87isv0z917.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> User-Agent: Gnus/5.090016 (Oort Gnus v0.16) Emacs/21.2 (gnu/linux) References: <20030303115957.841E516F18@jmason.org> <20030303135808.GB7379@danisch.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 17:53:24 +0100 "David F. Skoll" writes: > Right. But a lot of people don't like having to relay through > their ISP's server. Some ISP's, for example, won't let you send > mail from any domain but theirs. Use ISPs with proper values of "S". *shrug* I wonder whether the proposal has any chance of implementation. Can BIND handle those additional records today? Is it feasible from an operational point of view? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 12:04:01 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA03180 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:04:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h23HE4r04639 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:14:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23HE4p04636 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:14:04 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA03149; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:03:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23HE2p04625; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:14:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23HDgp04587 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:13:42 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA03138 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:03:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.7/8.12.7/Debian-2) with BSMTP id h23H57sI026171; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 18:05:07 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-8) id h23H3LXg010657; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 18:03:21 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Johan Louwers Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] RMX Records -- waterproof? Message-ID: <20030303170321.GA10443@danisch.de> References: <20030303092027.GA3073@danisch.de> <20030303115957.841E516F18@jmason.org> <20030303134526.GA7379@danisch.de> <3E636524.D62F33B@bachrain.de> <20030303143630.GA8423@danisch.de> <020a01c2e1a1$42fce750$6501630a@SUNTAC> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <020a01c2e1a1$42fce750$6501630a@SUNTAC> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 18:03:21 +0100 On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 05:23:44PM +0100, Johan Louwers wrote: > New to the list......... > dear all, new to the list and trying to get up and running with the > discussion so i am aboute to ask some strange questions..... Well, the list discussion just started a few hours ago. :-) > Ok lets say, (the situation in holland) I am driving on the freeway and i > pullover at the gasstation. I get me a couple of free internet account CD's > go home install a couple of accounts get a mail adres and start sending SPAM > mail, after sending the mail i simpley delete the account an start using the > next free account...... The recieving mail server is checking with the > sending mail server of my free-ISP to look if the IP adres is allowd to send > mail in name of @freeISP.nl I am allowd to send mail ... so the spam is out > in the world and i just have bypassed the solution........ Naw, I don't think so. First, it should be a disadvantage for the ISP if he allows all customers to send mail. E.g. a receiving MTA could reject messages if the RMX covers more than 16 hosts. Then the customers of that ISP couldn't send mails anymore and start complaining. A solution would be: The ISP has two domains, e.g. loose.isp.com and tight.isp.com The RMX for loose.isp.com covers all its dynamic IP addresses. Customers are free to use it when sending mail. If the receiving MTA is willing to accept it - fine. Just use john.doe@loose.isp.com. The RMX for tight.isp.com covers only the central relay. If the receiving MTA doesn't accept john.doe@loose.isp.com, you'll have to send mail through the central relay of isp.com. isp.com takes responsibility to verify that you are john.doe, and now you can send with john.doe@tight.isp.com, which will be accepted by the receiving MTA. In Europe ISPs will be /are required to check a customers identity, so the ISP is actually able to perform the verification. > The next situation. Lets say i am the owner of www.veryhornypreteengirls.com > and i like to SPAM mail to a list of people. My @veryhornypreteengirls.com > mail server is placed someware in a third world country so i do not have to > worry aboute the law. I send out my spam mail the recieving server is > checking with my mail server and i am allowd to sendout the mail so the spam > is on the internet. It still works: You are forced to use @veryhornypreteengirls.com as a sender address, not just random@hotmail.com My MTA can perform a whois query and find that the mail came from a country without sufficient laws and without reliable whois informations. The MTA could reject or maybe perform a time consuming text analysis. > The checking part of reciecing server checking sending server is a good plan > to avoid a lot of spam mail it is only not enough. You also need a > "centralized" way to check if the sending domain is a "trusted" domain. You Yup, but to do so, you first need a reliable link to the domain. Otherwise its useless to check whether it's trustworthy. regards Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 12:08:00 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA03283 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:08:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h23HI3l04941 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:18:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23HI2p04938 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:18:02 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA03271; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:07:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23HI1p04929; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:18:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23HHAp04873 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:17:10 -0500 Received: from hughes-fe02.direcway.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA03238 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:06:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from rgfpc.direcway.com ([66.82.75.68]) by hughes-fe02.direcway.com (InterMail vK.4.04.00.00 201-232-137 license dcc4e84cb8fc01ca8f8654c982ec8526) with ESMTP id <20030303170215.WFNE19893.hughes-fe02@rgfpc.direcway.com> for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:02:15 -0500 Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.2.20030303111150.04939c80@pop3.direcway.com> X-Sender: rgferrell@pop3.direcway.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 To: asrg@ietf.org From: "Robert G. Ferrell" Subject: Re: [Asrg] What is Spam? Was: RMX Records In-Reply-To: <20030303164153.GA9934@danisch.de> References: <20030303143630.GA8423@danisch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 11:13:39 -0600 My contention is that spam is largely a social, not a technical, issue. The reason spam exists is that it is cost effective for the spammers. A certain small percentage of people who receive spam respond to it, and that response is sufficient to drive further spamming. If we spent as much effort in educating the public about the pitfalls of responding to unsolicited commercial email as we do in thinking up ways to block it, we could probably make the problem go away on its own. In effect, those few who bite at the bait spam offers are as responsible for the spam problem as the spammers themselves. I think an international campaign aimed at them would be at least as effective as all this technical end-running we're doing. In the long haul, it's difficult for me to see how any technical solution can represent more than a temporary setback for the spammers. They're getting increasingly savvy and they're driven by the clear economic gain they're deriving from their actions. We can never successfully subvert that by filtering. We have to attack the root of the problem, which is that spam pays. Stop that payout, and you stop spam. No one sends out spam on the scale we're seeing just because they feel like it. They do it because in the end they make money off the process. They make money off the process because a small minority of the people who receive spam respond to it by sending the spammers money. If we can modify that behavior socially, we can reduce spam to a relative trickle that can be more easily handled by technical means. At least that's how it appears to me. RGF Robert G. Ferrell rgferrell@direcway.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 12:15:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA03527 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:15:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h23HP8I05430 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:25:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23HP8p05425 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:25:08 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA03492; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:14:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23HP0p05384; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:25:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23HO2p05320 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:24:02 -0500 Received: from silk.rtr.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA03456 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:13:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from silk.rtr.com (IDENT:root@localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by silk.rtr.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h23HFR107019 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:15:27 -0500 Received: from bark (bark [64.241.156.77]) by silk.rtr.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23HFRv07012 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:15:27 -0500 From: "Gary Feldman" To: "'ASRG'" Subject: RE: Bitter Pills (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) Organization: Ready-to-Run Software, Inc. Message-ID: <002201c2e1a8$7d6cc1b0$4d9cf140@rtr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20030303163812.C12718@qmda.emu.st> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:15:29 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Mark Delany > Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 11:38 AM > Lots of bitter pills. RMX only solves the forgery problem and > it potentially breaks: > > C. sending off-domain #2 (the local user using a > non-controlled domain, > eg, I want to send email out from my ISP using my Yahoo address) Let me point out that this boils down to "it solves the forgery problem but breaks my ability to forge mail." These are conflicting requirements. The question is whether the latter (the ability to forge mail, i.e. send mail from one place that claims to come from another) is a legitimate requirement, independently of the fact that it's a commonly cited requirement. Is or isn't it reasonable for a recipient (whether end user or SMTP server) to refuse to accept email that claims to come from one source if the system cannot authenticate that it really does? Personally, I think not - there is no reason I should ever accept mail that can't be authenticated. Perhaps there is a two-fold solution: simple domain-based authentication such as suggsted with RMX, and cryptographic authentication for others. For example, if you really want to be able to use your ISP to send email that appears to come from your Yahoo account, then include a PKI certificate that authenticates you as the owner of the Yahoo account. People who don't need that ability need merely send mail from servers registered for the domain of the purported mail sender. Gary _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 12:19:59 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA03710 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:19:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h23HU2d05775 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:30:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23HU2p05772 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:30:02 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA03693; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:19:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23HU1p05764; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:30:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23HT6p05673 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:29:06 -0500 Received: from emu.st (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA03664 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:18:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 52689 invoked by uid 1015); 3 Mar 2003 17:20:31 -0000 Delivered-To: qmda-intercept-asrg@ietf.org@intercept Comments: QMDA 0.1 - see http://www.geocities.com/mark_delany/qmda.html Received: (qmail 84710 invoked from network); 3 Mar 2003 17:20:31 -0000 Received: from prefix-internal.emu.st (HELO emu.st) (10.100.100.36) by f1-external.emu.st with SMTP; 3 Mar 2003 17:20:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 13599 invoked by uid 1001); 3 Mar 2003 17:20:31 -0000 Message-ID: <20030303172031.13598.qmail@prefix.emu.st> From: "Mark Delany" Mail-Followup-To: asrg@ietf.org To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Textual Analysis is not the solution References: <002b01c2e1a2$e23a5360$6401a8c0@BOBDEV> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: ; from dfs@roaringpenguin.com on Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 11:47:36AM -0500 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 3 Mar 2003 17:20:31 +0000 On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 11:47:36AM -0500, David F. Skoll allegedly wrote: > > Let's focus on > > fundamental solutions to the problem of spam -- i.e. how to build > > systems for "consent-based" messaging. > > In my business, I rely on getting e-mail from completely unknown > people. This is a feature of e-mail I cannot do without. Anything > that makes it harder for strangers to contact me than simply dashing > off an e-mail is a non-starter for me. Which simply means that a consent-based system gives you an "accept unsolicited email from anyone" button, doesn't it? Regards. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 12:44:20 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA04552 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:44:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h23HsOK08537 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:54:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23HsOp08534 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:54:24 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA04541; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:43:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23Hs5p08514; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:54:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23HrRp08455 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:53:27 -0500 Received: from relay05.indigo.ie (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA04500 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:42:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 59384 messnum 1191704 invoked from network[194.125.134.165/ts02-038.dublin.indigo.ie]); 3 Mar 2003 17:44:48 -0000 Received: from ts02-038.dublin.indigo.ie (HELO jmason.org) (194.125.134.165) by relay05.indigo.ie (qp 59384) with SMTP; 3 Mar 2003 17:44:48 -0000 Received: by jmason.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 66BB816F16; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 17:44:46 +0000 (GMT) Received: from jmason.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62D0EF721; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 17:44:46 +0000 (GMT) To: Keith Moore Cc: bob@wyman.us, reinhold@bachrain.de, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] solution space (was Re: Textual Analysis is not the solution) In-Reply-To: Message from Keith Moore of "Mon, 03 Mar 2003 12:15:42 EST." <20030303121542.0e8e43b2.moore@cs.utk.edu> From: jm@jmason.org (Justin Mason) X-GPG-Key-Fingerprint: 0A48 2D8B 0B52 A87D 0E8A 6ADD 4137 1B50 6E58 EF0A X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to . Message-Id: <20030303174446.66BB816F16@jmason.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 17:44:41 +0000 Keith Moore said: > - originator identification/authentication/tracing > (e.g. if you can reliably tell whether a message is coming from a > known spammer, or merely someone of unknown reputation, or someone > you know. this happens at various levels of granularity - > you might know the ISP that is originating the mail, or you > might know what business has that IP address block, or you > might know the specific MTA, or you might be able to identify > the sender via some kind of authentication, either in the > message or out-of-band (say SMTP authentication).) This is, by far, the most urgent one. SMTP is currently forged on a massive basis, in order to send spam. If we can come up with a way to successfully break mail-originator forgery, every other aspect becomes a whole lot easier. Regarding the whack-a-mole spamhaus issue, where they register domains like "somegreatnewspammyoffers439.biz" in order to send authenticated spam for each spam-run -- that's not a big problem; we'll just be back at the mid-90s stage, when DNS blacklists *worked well*! Bottom line: if we're in a forum to "fix SMTP", then IMO mail-originator forgery should be top priority. (Disclaimer: I hack on SpamAssassin, which uses message-analysis. But SpamAssassin's a platform for filtering these days, and I'd love to get origination-auth so we can support it!) --j. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 12:47:51 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA04736 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:47:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h23HvtM08789 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:57:55 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23Hvsp08786 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:57:54 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA04692; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:47:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23Hv1p08726; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:57:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23Hu1p08668 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:56:01 -0500 Received: from asteroids.cybercomm.nl (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA04618 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:45:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail-ldap/ctrl 9691 invoked from network); 3 Mar 2003 17:47:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO SUNTAC) ([213.196.15.164]) (envelope-sender ) by dds.nl (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 3 Mar 2003 17:47:24 -0000 Message-ID: <001801c2e1ac$6e6e44a0$6501630a@SUNTAC> Reply-To: "Johan Louwers" From: "Johan Louwers" To: References: <20030303092027.GA3073@danisch.de> <20030303115957.841E516F18@jmason.org> <20030303134526.GA7379@danisch.de> <3E636524.D62F33B@bachrain.de> <20030303143630.GA8423@danisch.de> <020a01c2e1a1$42fce750$6501630a@SUNTAC> <20030303170321.GA10443@danisch.de> Subject: Re: [Asrg] RMX Records -- waterproof? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 18:43:41 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > The checking part of reciecing server checking sending server is a good plan > > to avoid a lot of spam mail it is only not enough. You also need a > > "centralized" way to check if the sending domain is a "trusted" domain. You > > Yup, but to do so, you first need a reliable link to the > domain. Otherwise its useless to check whether it's trustworthy. > > > > regards > Hadmut Think aboute a way that all the domains are "trusted" if they are violating the "we do not send spam" rule they are placed on the list with a marking of 1 very new "spam attack" is placing them up in the ranking...... If you have a spamSendingRate of 100 you are totaly blocked. After some time of not violating the rule the ranking will be dropping down. To maintain this list you should be thinking of a mechanisme like the way DNS servers are updated. I do not think that the lookup methode alone is efficient enough and manual setting country's, IP ranges and more like that to NOT TRUSTED in your mail sever is enough....... if we are looking fore a close and tighter meganisme to ban SPAM from the internet we need more then the lookup methode I think..... Reagrds, Johan. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 12:48:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA04758 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:48:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h23Hw9C08863 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:58:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23Hw9p08860 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:58:09 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA04717; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:47:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23Hw0p08833; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:58:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23Hv8p08746 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:57:08 -0500 Received: from emu.st (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA04664 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:46:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 69404 invoked by uid 1015); 3 Mar 2003 17:48:28 -0000 Delivered-To: qmda-intercept-asrg@ietf.org@intercept Comments: QMDA 0.1 - see http://www.geocities.com/mark_delany/qmda.html Received: (qmail 9122 invoked from network); 3 Mar 2003 17:48:28 -0000 Received: from prefix-internal.emu.st (HELO emu.st) (10.100.100.36) by f1-external.emu.st with SMTP; 3 Mar 2003 17:48:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 13948 invoked by uid 1001); 3 Mar 2003 17:48:28 -0000 Message-ID: <20030303174828.13947.qmail@prefix.emu.st> From: "Mark Delany" Mail-Followup-To: "'ASRG'" To: "'ASRG'" Subject: Re: Bitter Pills (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) References: <20030303163812.C12718@qmda.emu.st> <002201c2e1a8$7d6cc1b0$4d9cf140@rtr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <002201c2e1a8$7d6cc1b0$4d9cf140@rtr.com>; from gaf@rtr.com on Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 12:15:29PM -0500 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 3 Mar 2003 17:48:28 +0000 On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 12:15:29PM -0500, Gary Feldman allegedly wrote: > > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On > > Behalf Of Mark Delany > > Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 11:38 AM > > > Lots of bitter pills. RMX only solves the forgery problem and > > it potentially breaks: > > > > C. sending off-domain #2 (the local user using a > > non-controlled domain, > > eg, I want to send email out from my ISP using my Yahoo address) > > Let me point out that this boils down to "it solves the forgery > problem but breaks my ability to forge mail." Exactly my point. Spam exploits features of email that some people like and use, eg forging their own address. Can we retain all of these oft-loved "features" and make an impact on spam? I doubt it. Regards. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 12:52:58 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA04967 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:52:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h23I32t09357 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 13:03:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23I32p09354 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 13:03:02 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA04935; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:52:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23I30p09346; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 13:03:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23I2Qp09297 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 13:02:26 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA04915 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:51:51 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h23FxVKB010987 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 07:59:31 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h23FxVTY010983 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 07:59:31 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] solution space (was Re: Textual Analysis is not the solution) In-Reply-To: <20030303121542.0e8e43b2.moore@cs.utk.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 07:59:31 -0800 (PST) PGP Signatures and in general messages signed by from accepted lists - this probably belongs to originator identification/authentication/tracing but should be mentioned Filtering by target email address - i.e. some add ietf+email or whois+email, etc. and use that to futher differentiate how filter may do the work but actual recepient account maybe the same. - not sure what category this belongs to in your list, might have to be on its own Other proposed mechanisms are to require heavy computation of ciphers to make sender's job a lot more difficult and limit how many emails they would be able to do - this definetly should go into its own category Some other mechanisms include sending verification email to be sent that contains picture with text that only person can read. - this probably belongs to blacklist/whilelist category And we should definetly pay more attention on combination of the techniques. Some programs only work for combination and assign special "points" to each filter or its type and then if number of points is high they mark it as "maybe spam", "possible spam", "most likely spam", etc. or in fact delivery it but let recepient see the gradingand decide if he wants to open it and modify grading to his best preference. It can also be noted that this can be multiple final grade categories - i.e. like with movies, email can be categorized by content as heaving "adult content", "language" , etc. On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Keith Moore wrote: > okay, basically I agree with your thesis. I'd state it a different way: > spam is in the eye of the beholder. the same message can be legitimate > to one recipient (especially if it was solicited - maybe the guy really > does think he can enlarge a part of his anatomy :) and illigitimate to > another recipient. > > so trying to distinguish spam from non-spam by analysis of text, without > knowing the recipient's preferences, is inherently of limited > applicability. > > (you might argue that there are some messages that can be determined to > be unwanted no matter who they are sent to - say viruses - but as far as > I can tell this is a very narrow class. maybe I actually want to get > that .EXE file in email. maybe I want to receive mis-labelled content > to see how my mail user agent will handle them. etc.) > > but I think it's too early to start arguing about *the* solution. > for now we should try to understand the solution space - see > what general techniques we have at our disposal. > > offhand I can think of several categories of tools: > > - message analysis techniques > (looking at characteristcs of messages) > > - recipient-specified preferences > (recipient says "I don't want spam" or "I can't read Korean") > > - originator identification/authentication/tracing > (e.g. if you can reliably tell whether a message is coming from a > known spammer, or merely someone of unknown reputation, or someone > you know. this happens at various levels of granularity - > you might know the ISP that is originating the mail, or you > might know what business has that IP address block, or you > might know the specific MTA, or you might be able to identify > the sender via some kind of authentication, either in the > message or out-of-band (say SMTP authentication).) > > - message filtering (e.g. removal of viruses, annoying HTML, whatever) > > - differential message handling by relays > (e.g. messages from known senders are allowed to be larger, > contain a wider variety of content, be accepted for delivery more > quickly; messages from unknown parties might be delayed > and/or restricted to size or content; messages from known > spammers or that are known to have viruses are bounced or > discarded) > > - recipient feedback mechanisms (e.g. blacklists, whitelists) > > these should not be considered mutually exclusive - clearly they > can be combined, and often are. > > which ones am I missing? > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 12:58:09 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA05252 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:58:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h23I8DA10560 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 13:08:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23I8Dp10557 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 13:08:13 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA05214; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:57:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23I81p10523; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 13:08:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23I7Sp10336 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 13:07:28 -0500 Received: from vesta (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA05157 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:56:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] by vesta (ArGoSoft Mail Server, Version 1.8 (1.8.1.2)); Mon, 3 Mar 2003 23:28:42 Message-ID: <3E6397D0.60109@chaoszone.org> From: Prasenjeet Dutta User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.3b) Gecko/20030210 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gary Feldman CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: Bitter Pills (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) References: <002201c2e1a8$7d6cc1b0$4d9cf140@rtr.com> In-Reply-To: <002201c2e1a8$7d6cc1b0$4d9cf140@rtr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 23:28:40 +0530 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Perhaps there is a two-fold solution: simple domain-based > authentication such as suggsted with RMX, and cryptographic > authentication for others. For example, if you really want to be > able to use your ISP to send email that appears to come from your > Yahoo account, then include a PKI certificate that authenticates > you as the owner of the Yahoo account. RMX + cryptographic verification is great because of one more reason: it solves a lot of problems for people who run their own mailservers (perhaps behind a residential DSL line). ISPs frequently block egress on port 25 because of people who run spam-spewing servers. With a way to identify these servers and hold them accountable, this could be a thing of the past. I had written a (draft) paper on this sometime back (available here: ) where we were able to show that RMX + cryptographic verification was doable with a minimum of infrastructure changes (modern SMTP servers with plug-in mail processors would be able to handle the changes) and *no* protocol changes, and also a minimum of user-retraining, since cryptographic verification would not require novice users to maintain any keys with them: the keys would be maintained by the SMTP server administrator. Regards --Prasenjeet == Prasenjeet Dutta http://www.chaoszone.org/ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 13:09:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA03528 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:15:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h23HP8L05442 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:25:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23HP8p05427 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:25:08 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA03491; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:14:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23HP1p05401; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:25:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23HOMp05329 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:24:22 -0500 Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA03459 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:13:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h23HFgA02515; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:15:44 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Moore To: Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, reinhold@bachrain.de, asrg@ietf.org Message-Id: <20030303121542.0e8e43b2.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <002b01c2e1a2$e23a5360$6401a8c0@BOBDEV> References: <20030303101536.1364dcf3.moore@cs.utk.edu> <002b01c2e1a2$e23a5360$6401a8c0@BOBDEV> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] solution space (was Re: Textual Analysis is not the solution) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:15:42 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit okay, basically I agree with your thesis. I'd state it a different way: spam is in the eye of the beholder. the same message can be legitimate to one recipient (especially if it was solicited - maybe the guy really does think he can enlarge a part of his anatomy :) and illigitimate to another recipient. so trying to distinguish spam from non-spam by analysis of text, without knowing the recipient's preferences, is inherently of limited applicability. (you might argue that there are some messages that can be determined to be unwanted no matter who they are sent to - say viruses - but as far as I can tell this is a very narrow class. maybe I actually want to get that .EXE file in email. maybe I want to receive mis-labelled content to see how my mail user agent will handle them. etc.) but I think it's too early to start arguing about *the* solution. for now we should try to understand the solution space - see what general techniques we have at our disposal. offhand I can think of several categories of tools: - message analysis techniques (looking at characteristcs of messages) - recipient-specified preferences (recipient says "I don't want spam" or "I can't read Korean") - originator identification/authentication/tracing (e.g. if you can reliably tell whether a message is coming from a known spammer, or merely someone of unknown reputation, or someone you know. this happens at various levels of granularity - you might know the ISP that is originating the mail, or you might know what business has that IP address block, or you might know the specific MTA, or you might be able to identify the sender via some kind of authentication, either in the message or out-of-band (say SMTP authentication).) - message filtering (e.g. removal of viruses, annoying HTML, whatever) - differential message handling by relays (e.g. messages from known senders are allowed to be larger, contain a wider variety of content, be accepted for delivery more quickly; messages from unknown parties might be delayed and/or restricted to size or content; messages from known spammers or that are known to have viruses are bounced or discarded) - recipient feedback mechanisms (e.g. blacklists, whitelists) these should not be considered mutually exclusive - clearly they can be combined, and often are. which ones am I missing? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 13:12:19 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA05898 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 13:12:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h23IMOM11588 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 13:22:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23IMOp11585 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 13:22:24 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA05877; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 13:11:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23IJ2p11327; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 13:19:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23II6p11275 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 13:18:06 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA05682 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 13:07:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h23I9V8H014322 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 13:09:31 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Textual Analysis is not the solution In-Reply-To: <20030303172031.13598.qmail@prefix.emu.st> Message-ID: References: <002b01c2e1a2$e23a5360$6401a8c0@BOBDEV> <20030303172031.13598.qmail@prefix.emu.st> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 13:09:31 -0500 (EST) On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Mark Delany wrote: > Which simply means that a consent-based system gives you an "accept > unsolicited email from anyone" button, doesn't it? And that is different from now... how? -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 13:45:10 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07098 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 13:45:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h23ItFq14689 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 13:55:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23ItFp14686 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 13:55:15 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07052; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 13:44:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23Is1p14545; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 13:54:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23IqFp14399 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 13:52:15 -0500 Received: from emu.st (a.ns.emu.st [66.92.187.102]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA06904 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 13:41:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 68910 invoked by uid 1015); 3 Mar 2003 18:43:10 -0000 Delivered-To: qmda-intercept-asrg@ietf.org@intercept Comments: QMDA 0.1 - see http://www.geocities.com/mark_delany/qmda.html Received: (qmail 12077 invoked from network); 3 Mar 2003 18:43:10 -0000 Received: from prefix-internal.emu.st (HELO emu.st) (10.100.100.36) by f1-external.emu.st with SMTP; 3 Mar 2003 18:43:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 14482 invoked by uid 1001); 3 Mar 2003 18:43:10 -0000 Message-ID: <20030303184310.14481.qmail@prefix.emu.st> From: "Mark Delany" Mail-Followup-To: asrg@ietf.org To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Textual Analysis is not the solution References: <002b01c2e1a2$e23a5360$6401a8c0@BOBDEV> <20030303172031.13598.qmail@prefix.emu.st> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: ; from dfs@roaringpenguin.com on Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 01:09:31PM -0500 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 3 Mar 2003 18:43:10 +0000 On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 01:09:31PM -0500, David F. Skoll allegedly wrote: > On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Mark Delany wrote: > > > Which simply means that a consent-based system gives you an "accept > > unsolicited email from anyone" button, doesn't it? > > And that is different from now... how? I'm assuming a consent-based system gives each email address individual control over their "consent" settings. You chose to set your email address to "accept unsolicited email from anyone" because that's important to you. It may not be important to me, so my "consent" settings are more stringent. Of course a "consent-based" system is entirely hypothetical right now. All I'm saying is that there is no reason to preclude existing behaviour wrt what one accepts on an individual basis. If you are saying that this "feature" of email is universal and everyone will want it and must have it, then that's another question entirely. To my mind that's a consent-threshold question. Spam tells us that the current (and only) threshold is too low. Regards. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 13:49:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07302 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 13:49:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h23Ixbv14977 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 13:59:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23Ixbp14974 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 13:59:37 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07279; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 13:49:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23Ix2p14948; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 13:59:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23IwQp14925 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 13:58:26 -0500 Received: from nycsmtp1out.rdc-nyc.rr.com (nycsmtp1out.rdc-nyc.rr.com [24.29.99.222]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07220 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 13:47:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from BOBDEV (66-108-193-77.nyc.rr.com [66.108.193.77]) by nycsmtp1out.rdc-nyc.rr.com (8.12.1/Road Runner SMTP Server 1.0) with ESMTP id h23Innk5005257; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 13:49:49 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: , Message-ID: <003801c2e1b5$ae049020$6401a8c0@BOBDEV> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h23IwQp14926 Subject: [Asrg] Single-User Addresses (a bit piece of a solution) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 13:49:54 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > Filtering by target email address - i.e. some > add ietf+email or whois+email, etc. and use > that to futher differentiate how filter may do the work The method of inserting a "digital signature" or other distinguishing mark into an address is an effective way of creating a "single user" email address that can be used to limit the utility of email addresses to any other than authorized users. Creating "single user" addresses gets around the problem we have today with addresses which are equally useful to anyone who can discover them. In the most basic approach, you take a "Base" address, say: "bob@example.com" and then add to it a sender dependent part which creates an address whose utility is limited to a particular sender. Thus, if I want to authorize "sally@foo.com" to send mail to me, I might generate a digital signature on the combination of sally's FROM address and my own address that looks like "poiypoi/syK9798". I would then have Sally use the address "bob+poiypoi/syK9798@example.com" when sending mail to me. My mail server or client can then inspect incoming mail and check to see whether or not messages to me use "authorized" addresses. If an address isn't properly authenticated (either because it doesn't contain a signature or because the signature is incorrect), then my software would be able to flag the message as one that is not authorized. By using such a system, you can significantly reduce the value of a "stolen" email address since mail that doesn't have a proper signature in the "TO" address would be either deleted or shunted into a "possible junk mail" folder. The system the nice feature of allowing both "authenticated" and "unauthenticated" senders. Your "base" address (i.e. the address with no "+" part, would be generally used by anyone who is contacting you for the first time or who does not have an established relationship with you. Such mails a "suspect" and would be filed into an appropriate in-box. However, people who have a relationship get a personal "single user" address for you that allows them to send directly to your "trusted" email inbox. Messages with bad authentication (i.e. wrong signatures) could be filed in a third inbox. The system would relies, to a certain extent, on FROM addresses not being forged and thus mechanisms to increase our ability to trust a FROM address would make it stronger. However, the system is still useful even in light of forged FROM addresses since a spammer, in order to gain access to the "trusted" inbox, would need to know both a "single-user" email address as well as the FROM address that goes with it. Obtaining this pair of data is much more difficult than what is needed today -- today, you only need to have one piece of info: A valid email address. Also, it should be noted that if one detects that a spammer *has* obtained the pair and is sending forged messages, you now know from whom the address was "stolen" which is very useful data. Also, you can simply issue a new "single user" address to your correspondent (after getting them to promise that they will take better care of their address book in the future) and then use a "black list" to filter out messages sent using the old authentication code. Adding the authentication code to TO addresses is something which is supported today by any email system that supports the "+" convention (i.e. text between the "+" and the "@" is ignored by the server). Thus, sendmail servers, many IMAP servers, Verisign's mail system, Earthlink, etc. have no problem properly handling email that contains authentication codes and thus have "latent support" for single-user addresses today. However, it is the case that not all systems handle this stuff. For instance, Hotmail and a variety of other mail providers don't... But, that could be fixed. This solution provides authorization of senders with fine granularity, allows unanticipated senders to get messages to you, and permits the "revocation" of sending rights when addresses are found to have been compromised. Also, this method still leaves plenty of room for folk who want to work with "spam filters" since filters can be usefully employed as a secondary filter on messages that have been accepted into "junk mail" folders. (You might have spam filter that focuses on classifying "junk mail" into "really junk" in a Red folder and "not sure if it is junk" in a Grey folder, but tell your filters not to touch messages which have been received with trusted, single-user addresses. bob wyman Note: I believe that Intel/Xircom and others have patents that cover some applications of this technology. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 14:00:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07809 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:00:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h23JAdU16741 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:10:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23JAdp16738 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:10:39 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07797; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:00:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23JA1p16697; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:10:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23J9Vp16651 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:09:31 -0500 Received: from relay06.indigo.ie (relay06.indigo.ie [194.125.133.230]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA07675 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 13:58:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 22255 messnum 1048748 invoked from network[194.125.173.69/ts13-069.dublin.indigo.ie]); 3 Mar 2003 19:00:47 -0000 Received: from ts13-069.dublin.indigo.ie (HELO jmason.org) (194.125.173.69) by relay06.indigo.ie (qp 22255) with SMTP; 3 Mar 2003 19:00:47 -0000 Received: by jmason.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 8F15316F16; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 19:00:45 +0000 (GMT) Received: from jmason.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A2A8F721; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 19:00:45 +0000 (GMT) To: bob@wyman.us Cc: william@elan.net, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Single-User Addresses (a bit piece of a solution) In-Reply-To: Message from "Bob Wyman" of "Mon, 03 Mar 2003 13:49:54 EST." <003801c2e1b5$ae049020$6401a8c0@BOBDEV> From: jm@jmason.org (Justin Mason) X-GPG-Key-Fingerprint: 0A48 2D8B 0B52 A87D 0E8A 6ADD 4137 1B50 6E58 EF0A X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to . Message-Id: <20030303190045.8F15316F16@jmason.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 19:00:40 +0000 Bob Wyman said: > Note: I believe that Intel/Xircom and others have patents that cover > some applications of this technology. If they do, and they cover the spam-filtering case, I hoped they were filed before 1997, when "tms" was posted (see http://www.DeepEddy.Com/tms.html ). Nowadays, thousands of people are using TMDA, another more popular and well-maintained implementation of the same idea. So far, 2 patent applications on this technology that I know of, have had TMDA submitted as "prior art". Got any patent ref numbers? --j. (bad patents are a pet peeve) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 14:00:52 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07827 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:00:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h23JAwU16776 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:10:58 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23JAwp16773 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:10:58 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07805; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:00:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23J70p15698; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:07:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23J6ep15567 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:06:40 -0500 Received: from nber13.nber.org (nber13.nber.org [207.113.108.238]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07566 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 13:56:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from nber13.nber.org (localhost.nber.org [127.0.0.1]) by nber13.nber.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h23Ivt51008498 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 13:57:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by nber13.nber.org (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id h23Ivsw6008497 for asrg@ietf.org.KAV; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 13:57:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from nber5.nber.org (nber5.nber.org [207.113.108.99]) by nber13.nber.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h23Iui52008390; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 13:56:45 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Feenberg To: "Robert G. Ferrell" cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] What is Spam? Was: RMX Records In-Reply-To: <5.0.0.25.2.20030303111150.04939c80@pop3.direcway.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 13:38:51 -0500 (EST) On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Robert G. Ferrell wrote: > My contention is that spam is largely a social, not a technical, issue. > The reason spam exists is that it is cost effective for the spammers. A > certain small percentage of people who receive spam respond to it, and that > response is sufficient to drive further spamming. If we spent as much > effort in educating the public about the pitfalls of responding to > unsolicited commercial email as we do in thinking up ways to block it, we > could probably make the problem go away on its own. That may be, but the IETF has to chose from among the tools that it has to achieve its goals, just as the legislature must chose from among its tools. There is no doubt a better way than this to solve the problem, but that doesn't really matter, in fact it is always true. The existence of a better solution is only an argument against this solution if this solution precludes the better one, and if the better one would otherwise come into existence. Neither of these is highly likely, so this group should continue to think about "What is the most you can do with an RFC?" rather than "What is the most someone else could do if they wanted to?". Somewhere there is a legislature meeting about this problem, and someone is saying that the IETF needs to solve the email forgery problem, rather than depend upon the legislature to paper over technical inadequecies. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 14:06:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08034 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:06:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h23JGif17300 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:16:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23JGip17297 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:16:44 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08024; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:06:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23JG2p17257; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:16:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23JFRp17232 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:15:27 -0500 Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (astro.cs.utk.edu [160.36.58.43]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07992 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:04:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h23J6dA02638; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:06:39 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Moore To: jm@jmason.org (Justin Mason) Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, bob@wyman.us, reinhold@bachrain.de, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] solution space (was Re: Textual Analysis is not the solution) Message-Id: <20030303140639.5e6975e9.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <20030303174446.66BB816F16@jmason.org> References: <20030303121542.0e8e43b2.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030303174446.66BB816F16@jmason.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:06:39 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > - originator identification/authentication/tracing > > (e.g. if you can reliably tell whether a message is coming from a > > known spammer, or merely someone of unknown reputation, or someone > > you know. this happens at various levels of granularity - > > you might know the ISP that is originating the mail, or you > > might know what business has that IP address block, or you > > might know the specific MTA, or you might be able to identify > > the sender via some kind of authentication, either in the > > message or out-of-band (say SMTP authentication).) > > This is, by far, the most urgent one. I think it's valuable, and I also think it's the one with the least practical development so far. But I don't think any of these will work in isolation. For instance, authentication isn't going to work without some means of establishing trust in the credentials. I have some ideas about how to do this, but I think it's too early in the group's lifetime to discuss specifics just yet. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 14:09:58 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08149 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:09:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h23JK4317486 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:20:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23JK4p17479 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:20:04 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08125; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:09:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23JJ0p17411; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:19:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23JIDp17373 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:18:13 -0500 Received: from nycsmtp1out.rdc-nyc.rr.com (nycsmtp1out.rdc-nyc.rr.com [24.29.99.222]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08066 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:07:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from BOBDEV (66-108-193-77.nyc.rr.com [66.108.193.77]) by nycsmtp1out.rdc-nyc.rr.com (8.12.1/Road Runner SMTP Server 1.0) with ESMTP id h23J9Ek5015425; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:09:14 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: Cc: , Subject: RE: [Asrg] Single-User Addresses (a bit piece of a solution) Message-ID: <003901c2e1b8$672d76a0$6401a8c0@BOBDEV> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 In-Reply-To: <20030303190045.8F15316F16@jmason.org> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:09:19 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit jm@mason.org wrote: >Got any patent ref numbers? See: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=6356935 And http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=6085321 bob wyman _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 14:14:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08331 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:14:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h23JOaj17743 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:24:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23JOap17740 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:24:36 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08309; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:13:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23JO1p17728; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:24:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23JNkp17699 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:23:46 -0500 Received: from nycsmtp3out.rdc-nyc.rr.com (nycsmtp3out.rdc-nyc.rr.com [24.29.99.224]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08280 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:13:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from BOBDEV (66-108-193-77.nyc.rr.com [66.108.193.77]) by nycsmtp3out.rdc-nyc.rr.com (8.12.1/Road Runner SMTP Server 1.0) with ESMTP id h23JIfgN014239; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:18:41 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: "'Justin Mason'" Cc: , Subject: RE: [Asrg] Single-User Addresses (a bit piece of a solution) Message-ID: <003a01c2e1b9$37bf52c0$6401a8c0@BOBDEV> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 In-Reply-To: <20030303190045.8F15316F16@jmason.org> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h23JNkp17700 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:15:13 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Justin Mason mentioned tms and TMDA Can you provide any discussion of the success of these systems in blocking spam? Are the users happy with these systems? If they are successful, why haven't they been deployed more broadly? Are there any IPR constraints that would prevent IETF working groups from discussing similar approaches, etc... bob wyman -----Original Message----- From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Justin Mason Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 2:01 PM To: bob@wyman.us Cc: william@elan.net; asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Single-User Addresses (a bit piece of a solution) Bob Wyman said: > Note: I believe that Intel/Xircom and others have patents that cover > some applications of this technology. If they do, and they cover the spam-filtering case, I hoped they were filed before 1997, when "tms" was posted (see http://www.DeepEddy.Com/tms.html ). Nowadays, thousands of people are using TMDA, another more popular and well-maintained implementation of the same idea. So far, 2 patent applications on this technology that I know of, have had TMDA submitted as "prior art". Got any patent ref numbers? --j. (bad patents are a pet peeve) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 14:17:58 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08486 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:17:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h23JS5H17942 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:28:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23JS5p17939 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:28:05 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08466; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:17:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23JR1p17866; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:27:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23JQ2p17804 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:26:02 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca [209.217.122.117]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08367 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:15:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h23JGsBD014886 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:16:54 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Textual Analysis is not the solution In-Reply-To: <20030303184310.14481.qmail@prefix.emu.st> Message-ID: References: <002b01c2e1a2$e23a5360$6401a8c0@BOBDEV> <20030303172031.13598.qmail@prefix.emu.st> <20030303184310.14481.qmail@prefix.emu.st> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:16:54 -0500 (EST) On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Mark Delany wrote: > I'm assuming a consent-based system gives each email address > individual control over their "consent" settings. OK; but such systems are available (and being used) now. I know that because I occasionally run into some e-mail robot demanding that I prove I'm a real person. If most people I tried to correspond with did this, I'd stop sending them e-mail. If you could come up with a consent-based system that didn't have some kind of challenge-response interaction, then you'd have something good. > If you are saying that this "feature" of email is universal and > everyone will want it and must have it, then that's another question > entirely. To my mind that's a consent-threshold question. Spam tells > us that the current (and only) threshold is too low. I think you'll find that most businesses that have a "sales@" or "info@" address on their Web site require the ability to receive e-mail from anyone. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 14:25:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08721 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:25:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h23JZbP18260 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:35:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23JZbp18257 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:35:37 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08707; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:25:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23JZ1p18237; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:35:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23JYjp18212 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:34:45 -0500 Received: from backbone.midwestcs.com (midwestcs.com [206.222.212.234]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08683 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:24:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from footbone.midwestcs.com ([206.222.212.237] helo=midwestcs.com) by backbone.midwestcs.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18pvZR-00007l-00 for ; Mon, 03 Mar 2003 13:25:53 -0600 tO: asrg@ietf.org (ietf anti-spam research group) Subject: Re: [Asrg] domain specific DNS blacklists (or whitelists) References: <20030303092027.GA3073@danisch.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: wayne In-Reply-To: <20030303092027.GA3073@danisch.de> Message-ID: Lines: 84 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanner: exiscan *18pvZR-00007l-00*2/lk7GeL5DE* () Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 03 Mar 2003 13:25:50 -0600 In <20030303092027.GA3073@danisch.de> Hadmut Danisch writes: > > Why this is superior to Adam Filip's proposal ( > > http://groups.google.com/groups?q=vixie+mx+records+spam&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=3E18B0B3.43939A35%40Andrzej.Adam.Filip&rnum=10 > > ) to overload the existing MX record? This proposal appears to overload A records, not MX records. Basically, it creates a domain name specific DNS blacklist which could use the same machinery that is already available and in use for all the various other blacklists. It would require no changes to the name servers and only very minor changes to MTAs. In the case of sendmail, "all" it would take is hacking on the sendmail.cf file. When IP address w.x.y.z connects and claims they are from domain example.tld, the MTA and/or the spamfilter would do a DNSBL check on z.y.x.w.smtp-out.example.tld in addition to checking z.y.x.w.bl.spamcop.net and such. > First, MX records are not meant to be used for that. If you want > to keep the Internet working, use things in the way you are supposed > to do. Using them in the reverse way violates the definition of MX. This proposal doesn't involve MX records and all the various DNSBLs prove that it is practical. > Second, it doesn't work and it is too much overhead, because there > is one indirection step missing. Assume that I want to authorize > the relays of my hoster rackland and another set of relays, e.g. > by an employer or some ISP for originating mails from danisch.de. "All problems in Computer Science can be solved by another level of indirection".... There is no more overhead than existing DNSBLs. More importantly, I suspect that the majority of email traffic would be sent by domains that would not need this extra level of indirection. I suspect that this RMX proposal would actually have greater overhead. If you really needed this extra level of indirection, you could hack on bind to do the recursive lookups on other domain specific blacklists that you are interested in. Hacking on bind would be required for the RMX proposal anyway, but only the domain that needs this extra level of indirection would need to be updated. > Third, DNS software is ready to be extended. [ ... ] As soon as the > record type has become a standard, it will be incorporated into the > main distribution. Adding a new record type to a DNS server is not > a big deal. This adds another hoop that people have to jump through. How much software has to be changed to support this new record? What if a users wants to set up SpamAssassin on their local machine to check the RMX record and doesn't have control over the nameserver they use? Would they still be able to do it? (Clearly, the domain specific blacklist would be no problem.) Would people need to update their resolver stub? > No, the DNS server software is not the problem. It will be more > difficult to convince the MTA software vendors. But that's the > same problem as with the MX proposal. I suspect that getting the MTA and spamfilter software vendors to implement a domain specific blacklist would be pretty easy. IMHO, the hard thing is to get a bunch of the larger ISPs to support either the RMX or the domain specific blacklists. Every time they add a new server, they will have to remember to update the list and if they don't, only a few people who run bleeding edge anti-spam systems will notice. -wayne _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 14:31:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09030 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:31:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h23JfkU19389 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:41:46 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23Jfkp19386 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:41:46 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09004; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:31:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23Jf2p19335; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:41:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23Je3p19228 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:40:03 -0500 Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (astro.cs.utk.edu [160.36.58.43]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08946 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:29:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h23JRsA02667; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:27:55 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Moore To: "Robert G. Ferrell" Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] What is Spam? Was: RMX Records Message-Id: <20030303142754.53c4de81.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <5.0.0.25.2.20030303111150.04939c80@pop3.direcway.com> References: <20030303143630.GA8423@danisch.de> <5.0.0.25.2.20030303111150.04939c80@pop3.direcway.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:27:54 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > My contention is that spam is largely a social, not a technical, > issue. theft of tangible property is largely a social, not a technical issue. however we employ technical means to thwart thieves and to make it easier to track down thieves, so that we can employ social means (e.g. prison) to deter them. of course we also try to educate people to make them less vulnerable to thieves. and we purchase insurance to manage the cost of lossage due to theft. but we don't rely exclusively on either social or technical means to deter thieves. nor do we insist on having a 100% perfect solution to the crime of theft. offhand, I don't see why similar mechanisms can't be applied to spammers. and I suspect that social mechanisms to deter theft wouldn't be very helpful by themselves - the supporting technology (locks, keys, fences, alarms, cameras, serial numbers, fingerprints, etc.) helps a lot to create a credible deterrent. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 14:33:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09126 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:33:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h23Jhcq19526 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:43:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23Jhcp19523 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:43:38 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09116; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:33:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23Jh2p19496; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:43:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23Jgsp19464 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:42:54 -0500 Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (astro.cs.utk.edu [160.36.58.43]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09069 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:32:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h23JYEA02676; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:34:15 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Moore To: william@elan.net Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] solution space (was Re: Textual Analysis is not the solution) Message-Id: <20030303143414.25ae79ea.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: References: <20030303121542.0e8e43b2.moore@cs.utk.edu> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:34:14 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > PGP Signatures and in general messages signed by from accepted lists > - this probably belongs to originator > identification/authentication/tracing but should be mentioned yup, PGP is an example of that class. > Filtering by target email address - i.e. some add ietf+email or > whois+email, etc. and use that to futher differentiate how filter may > do the work but actual recepient account maybe the same. > - not sure what category this belongs to in your list, might have to > be on its own indeed, I do this myself - list traffic is filtered differently than traffic to my mailbox. > Other proposed mechanisms are to require heavy computation of ciphers > to make sender's job a lot more difficult and limit how many emails > they would be able to do > - this definetly should go into its own category yup. schemes that charge for sending email (esp. from unknown parties) have also been proposed- I suppose there is a general class of imposing barriers. > Some other mechanisms include sending verification email to be sent > that contains picture with text that only person can read. > - this probably belongs to blacklist/whilelist category I think that's another example of imposing a barrier. "here, jump through this hoop and then I'll read your mail" the idea is to make the barrier small for those who send only a few messages, much larger for those who send large numbers of messages. and perhaps also to compensate the recipient :) > And we should definetly pay more attention on combination of the > techniques. yeah, I'm fairly convinced that no single technique will suffice. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 14:40:13 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09419 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:40:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h23JoKd19772 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:50:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23JoKp19769 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:50:20 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09404; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:39:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23Jn1p19684; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:49:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23JmIp19664 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:48:18 -0500 Received: from emu.st (a.ns.emu.st [66.92.187.102]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id OAA09335 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:37:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 8389 invoked by uid 1015); 3 Mar 2003 19:39:11 -0000 Delivered-To: qmda-intercept-asrg@ietf.org@intercept Comments: QMDA 0.1 - see http://www.geocities.com/mark_delany/qmda.html Received: (qmail 52784 invoked from network); 3 Mar 2003 19:39:11 -0000 Received: from prefix-internal.emu.st (HELO emu.st) (10.100.100.36) by f1-external.emu.st with SMTP; 3 Mar 2003 19:39:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 15278 invoked by uid 1001); 3 Mar 2003 19:39:11 -0000 Message-ID: <20030303193911.15277.qmail@prefix.emu.st> From: "Mark Delany" Mail-Followup-To: asrg@ietf.org To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Textual Analysis is not the solution References: <002b01c2e1a2$e23a5360$6401a8c0@BOBDEV> <20030303172031.13598.qmail@prefix.emu.st> <20030303184310.14481.qmail@prefix.emu.st> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: ; from dfs@roaringpenguin.com on Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 02:16:54PM -0500 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 3 Mar 2003 19:39:11 +0000 > did this, I'd stop sending them e-mail. If you could come up with a > consent-based system that didn't have some kind of challenge-response > interaction, then you'd have something good. Indeed. The Holy Grail. > I think you'll find that most businesses that have a "sales@" or "info@" > address on their Web site require the ability to receive e-mail from anyone. Sounds like we're in violent agreement. Regards. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 14:44:13 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09548 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:44:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h23JsK320089 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:54:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23JsKp20086 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:54:20 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09529; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:43:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23Jr1p19982; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:53:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23JqLp19930 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:52:21 -0500 Received: from relay07.indigo.ie (relay07.indigo.ie [194.125.133.231]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id OAA09455 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:41:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 83741 messnum 1024972 invoked from network[194.125.173.69/ts13-069.dublin.indigo.ie]); 3 Mar 2003 19:43:44 -0000 Received: from ts13-069.dublin.indigo.ie (HELO jmason.org) (194.125.173.69) by relay07.indigo.ie (qp 83741) with SMTP; 3 Mar 2003 19:43:44 -0000 Received: by jmason.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 2F9AE16F1A; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 19:43:42 +0000 (GMT) Received: from jmason.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AE78F7BC; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 19:43:42 +0000 (GMT) To: bob@wyman.us Cc: "'Justin Mason'" , william@elan.net, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Single-User Addresses (a bit piece of a solution) In-Reply-To: Message from "Bob Wyman" of "Mon, 03 Mar 2003 14:15:13 EST." <003a01c2e1b9$37bf52c0$6401a8c0@BOBDEV> From: jm@jmason.org (Justin Mason) X-GPG-Key-Fingerprint: 0A48 2D8B 0B52 A87D 0E8A 6ADD 4137 1B50 6E58 EF0A X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to . Message-Id: <20030303194342.2F9AE16F1A@jmason.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 19:43:37 +0000 Bob Wyman said: > Justin Mason mentioned tms and TMDA > > Can you provide any discussion of the success of these systems > in blocking spam? Are the users happy with these systems? If they are > successful, why haven't they been deployed more broadly? Are there any > IPR constraints that would prevent IETF working groups from discussing > similar approaches, etc... Well, tms (apparently) became unmaintained, so TMDA was started. That's got a lot of users out there. The main issue it has (I hear), is that it requires configuration and manual whitelisting of mailing lists, e-commerce sites, etc. Manual intervention by the user is a big usability issue for spam filters, since you start getting into a situation where they have to spend more time configuring it than they would deleting the spam. ;) --j. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 15:36:23 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11952 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 15:36:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h23KkVl24261 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 15:46:31 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23KkVp24258 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 15:46:31 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11916; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 15:35:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23Kj8p24147; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 15:45:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23KhCp24065 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 15:43:12 -0500 Received: from vqx.net (vqx.net [198.78.66.238]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11766 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 15:32:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from (AUTH: e40a9cea) by vqx.net with esmtp (courier-0.40) for ; Mon, 03 Mar 2003 20:31:33 +0000 Orig-Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 21:32:01 +0100 From: Roland To: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] domain specific DNS blacklists (or whitelists) In-Reply-To: References: <20030303092027.GA3073@danisch.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 20:31:33 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --wayne wrote on 03.03.03 13:25 -0600: > In <20030303092027.GA3073@danisch.de> Hadmut Danisch writes: > >> > Why this is superior to Adam Filip's proposal ( >> > http://groups.google.com/groups?q=vixie+mx+records+spam&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=3E18B0B3.43939A35%40Andrzej.Adam.Filip&rnum=10 >> > ) to overload the existing MX record? > > This proposal appears to overload A records, not MX records. Getting a new RR implemented into bind will likely take years, a solution based on the existing records could be much faster. The solution as presented in the posting of Andrzej Filip would reject mail from the whole NU-TLD by default, and also from any domain which has a wildcard defined: $ dig 4.3.2.1.smtp-out.anything.nu At least one should reject only if 127.0.0.2 gets returned, many dnsbl-implementations already allow to distinguish by the last octet, and there are many more mta's than sendmail. (which should be _immediately_ updated to 8.12.8 because of a dangerous remote root-compromise btw) But the current scheme of dnsbl really only works for blacklists, this application would be a whitelist by definition and the implementation requires some more work. One solution could be to reserve a magic (like 127.0.0.127 or maybe better something like 255.255.255.255) for this purpose and create some kind of standard which also may be used by other whitelists, and can be easy integrated into the code of existing dnsbl-clients. A-records are preferred because all dnsbl-clients (except rblsmtpd which only queries for TXT) already know how to look them up. Roland _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 15:45:14 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12190 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 15:45:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h23KtMY24612 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 15:55:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23KtMp24609 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 15:55:22 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12185; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 15:44:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23Ks1p24562; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 15:54:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23Krhp24532 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 15:53:43 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (sklave3.rackland.de [213.133.101.23]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12146 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 15:43:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.7/8.12.7/Debian-2) with BSMTP id h23Kj5cq030840 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 21:45:05 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-8) id h23KhKkf012958 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 21:43:20 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <20030303204320.GA12948@danisch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Subject: [Asrg] Mail Cookies Was: Single-User Addresses Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 21:43:20 +0100 Just a different flavour of the Single-User Address idea: Leave the sender and recipient's address untouched. Just invent an opaque cookie which has to be presented in the header when sending a message. Have a Header Mail-Cookie: ... which presents a required cookie and a Mail-Set-Cookie: ... to give the recipient a cookie to use for replying. It is the receiving MTA's private thing to evaluate the cookie and do with it whatever it wants, like a HTTP server. Examples uses: - A cookie is good for anyone to send mail to a certain address B, but is valid only for a limited amount of time. A news posting could contain such a cookie. A HTTP link could contain this: with a cookie valid only for an hour. You always can directly send email by just clicking on the link, but taking the address and cookie into an address list is useless. - A cookie is good for sending mail from address A to address B - A cookie is good for sending not more than n messages - A cookie could even be sold through some kind of micro payment. regards Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 15:55:20 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12585 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 15:55:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h23L5Ta25510 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:05:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23L5Tp25507 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:05:29 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12579; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 15:54:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23L41p25405; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:04:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23L30p25318 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:03:00 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca [209.217.122.117]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12436 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 15:52:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h23KrrBD015596 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 15:53:53 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Mail Cookies Was: Single-User Addresses In-Reply-To: <20030303204320.GA12948@danisch.de> Message-ID: References: <20030303204320.GA12948@danisch.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 15:53:53 -0500 (EST) On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Hadmut Danisch wrote: > Leave the sender and recipient's address untouched. > Just invent an opaque cookie which has to be presented > in the header when sending a message. Well, then you have to receive the message. If you only base it on sender and recipient address, you can make a decision at RCPT TO: time. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 16:01:14 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12739 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:01:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h23LBM926533 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:11:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23LBMp26530 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:11:22 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12718; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:00:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23LA1p26468; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:10:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23L92p26419 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:09:02 -0500 Received: from nycsmtp3out.rdc-nyc.rr.com (nycsmtp3out.rdc-nyc.rr.com [24.29.99.224]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12625 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 15:58:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from BOBDEV (66-108-193-77.nyc.rr.com [66.108.193.77]) by nycsmtp3out.rdc-nyc.rr.com (8.12.1/Road Runner SMTP Server 1.0) with ESMTP id h23L3ugN014022; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:03:57 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: "'Hadmut Danisch'" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] Mail Cookies Was: Single-User Addresses Message-ID: <005401c2e1c7$ec7f6a70$6401a8c0@BOBDEV> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 In-Reply-To: <20030303204320.GA12948@danisch.de> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h23L92p26420 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:00:29 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hadmut Danisch wrote: > Leave the sender and recipient's address untouched. > Just invent an opaque cookie which has to be presented > in the header when sending a message. Such cookies would be inferior, I believe, to a system such as Single-user addresses since they require both sender and receiver to have mail systems that understand the additional header fields. On the other hand, handling of a single-user address of the form "username+signature@example.com" is something that can be deployed immediately by any mail recipient who has a mail server capable of ignoring the signature part when determing who the mail is destined for. Thus, if you use sendmail for SMTP, or you use Earthlink or a number of other mail providers, you can create and use single-user addresses NOW. All you have to do is put the single-user email address into the "reply-to" and "From" fields of your messages. There are all sorts of things that can be done if we are free to redesign the mail protocols. For instance, we could get into the whole PKI issue... However, the reality is that such efforts will take a great deal of time to design and they will take even longer to propogate through the internet. Thus, it makes sense to consider methods that will result in minimal disruption to the existing protocols. The single user address (especially if based on the "+" convention) allows the method to be used with NO modifications to existing protocols. bob wyman -----Original Message----- From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hadmut Danisch Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 3:43 PM To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] Mail Cookies Was: Single-User Addresses Just a different flavour of the Single-User Address idea: Leave the sender and recipient's address untouched. Just invent an opaque cookie which has to be presented in the header when sending a message. Have a Header Mail-Cookie: ... which presents a required cookie and a Mail-Set-Cookie: ... to give the recipient a cookie to use for replying. It is the receiving MTA's private thing to evaluate the cookie and do with it whatever it wants, like a HTTP server. Examples uses: - A cookie is good for anyone to send mail to a certain address B, but is valid only for a limited amount of time. A news posting could contain such a cookie. A HTTP link could contain this: with a cookie valid only for an hour. You always can directly send email by just clicking on the link, but taking the address and cookie into an address list is useless. - A cookie is good for sending mail from address A to address B - A cookie is good for sending not more than n messages - A cookie could even be sold through some kind of micro payment. regards Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 16:02:20 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12763 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:02:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h23LCTg26621 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:12:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23LCTp26618 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:12:29 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12754; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:01:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23LB2p26517; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:11:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23LA6p26477 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:10:06 -0500 Received: from korimako.ssc.govt.nz (korimako.ssc.govt.nz [203.97.219.2]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id PAA12649 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 15:59:26 -0500 (EST) From: mike.pearson@ssc.govt.nz Received: from [192.168.120.100] (helo=stardust.ssc.govt.nz) by korimako.ssc.govt.nz with esmtp (Exim 6.66 #1) id 18plwI-0001sc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Mar 2003 22:08:50 +1300 Received: from odyssey.ssc.govt.nz (not verified[172.20.5.42]) by stardust.ssc.govt.nz with MailMarshal (4,0,4,0) id ; Tue, 04 Mar 2003 09:59:55 +1300 Received: from centurion.ssc.govt.nz (centurion.ssc.govt.nz) by odyssey.ssc.govt.nz (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.5) with ESMTP id for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:00:03 +1300 Received: by centurion.ssc.govt.nz with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:00:53 +1300 Message-ID: <7B170C5E4008D311ABB70008C7D3825B03BC340E@saison.ssc.govt.nz> To: asrg@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [Asrg] Proven solution for authenticating messages Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 09:58:40 +1300 Hi, I would like to offer a concept, as one of the tools necessary for a solution to this problem. OBSERVATIONS: Firstly some observations about the other tools we have at our disposal: 1. Text filters (reject messages if "string" found): - they may block/delete wanted messages (false negative) - they may allow unwanted messages (false positive) - spammers work actively to defeat such filters - they therefore create additional work to check for these exceptions 2. Blacklists (reject messages from senders on the list): - they are reactive (applied after the unwanted message arrives) - they may exclude wanted senders if too broad - they are of limited use if email addresses can be spoofed 3. Whitelists (accept messages from senders on the list): - there must be some way of receiving from a new sender - they are of limited use if email addresses can be spoofed Note that the tools are of limited use, because of email spoofing. In fact, I would assert that authentication is the heart of our problem. If a spammer can fake the FROM address of my best friend (or your friendly tax dept), it will be very hard to automatically delete that message - you're going to have to check it just in case. CONCEPT: And now the concept... The New Zealand government has developed a specification for securing Internet email (authentication/encryption/integrity), between agencies, using S/MIME gateways. http://www.e-government.govt.nz/see/mail/index.asp This system is in use by over 50% of government agencies in New Zealand already. It will be adopted by 98% of government agencies by December 2003. Agencies have chosen to implement it either with commercial off the shelf packages, or through the development of an open source version. The specification is an interpretation of several RFCs: http://www.e-government.govt.nz/docs/see-mail-bus-req-2-2/chapter1.html If an ISP were to adopt the system, then a customer's FROM address, could match the email address(es) associated with the username/password of the ISP account. In this way, we could authenticate all messages between that ISP's customers and any other system user. Because it happens at a server level, the customer never sees the complexity of PKI. The servers automatically establish and maintain links with new servers they discover (so long as the server's CA is trusted). Over time, whitelists and blacklists then become very useful. Users can choose not to receive any "anonymous" (non-authenticated) messages. Senders who abuse their position can be put on a blacklist, and any future authenticated messages from them are ignored. More importantly, I can be sure that I will always receive messages from people I trust without some filter getting in the way. Obviously there will be issues to resolve. For instance, free mail companies such as Hotmail will probably be ignored by most people. Regards, Mike Pearson, S.E.E. Manager http://www.see.govt.nz Phone : +64 (4) 495-6769 Fax : +64 (4) 495-6669 Mobile: +64 (21) 631-731 mailto: mike.pearson@ssc.govt.nz ************************************************************************ E-government Unit, http://www.e-government.govt.nz STATE SERVICES COMMISSION http://www.ssc.govt.nz Te Komihana O Nga Tari Kawanatanga Level 4, 100 Molesworth St PO Box 329, Wellington 6015, NEW ZEALAND ************************************************************************ This email and any replies are subject to the Official Information Act 1982, and may be made available under that Act. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 16:04:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12895 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:04:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h23LEja26737 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:14:45 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23LEjp26734 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:14:45 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12890; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:04:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23LDPp26697; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:13:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23LBlp26546 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:11:47 -0500 Received: from vqx.net (vqx.net [198.78.66.238]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12737 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:01:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from (AUTH: e40a9cea) by vqx.net with esmtp (courier-0.40) for ; Mon, 03 Mar 2003 21:00:18 +0000 Orig-Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 22:00:45 +0100 From: Roland To: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] Textual Analysis is not the solution In-Reply-To: <20030303193911.15277.qmail@prefix.emu.st> References: <002b01c2e1a2$e23a5360$6401a8c0@BOBDEV> <20030303172031.13598.qmail@prefix.emu.st> <20030303184310.14481.qmail@prefix.emu.st> <20030303193911.15277.qmail@prefix.emu.st> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 21:00:18 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --Mark Delany wrote on 03.03.03 19:39 +0000: > Indeed. The Holy Grail. > >> I think you'll find that most businesses that have a "sales@" or "info@" >> address on their Web site require the ability to receive e-mail from anyone. > > Sounds like we're in violent agreement. For addresses which only receive individual emails (like info@ and webmaster@) checksum-based distributed systems like DCC provide nearly 100% accuracy without false positives, and even in that case you still have a copy in the spam-folder. But the solution sought here should prevent unsolicited mail at the sender. You cant do this with content-scanning and it will take at least 10 years to become usable for a sales@-address which is too worried about loosing business from a misconfigured or not-updated potential client. Roland _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 16:34:13 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13653 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:34:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h23LiNZ28872 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:44:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23LiNp28869 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:44:23 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13638; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:33:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23Lh1p28773; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:43:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23Lg0p28705 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:42:00 -0500 Received: from nycsmtp2out.rdc-nyc.rr.com (nycsmtp2out.rdc-nyc.rr.com [24.29.99.223]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13591 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:31:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from BOBDEV (66-108-193-77.nyc.rr.com [66.108.193.77]) by nycsmtp2out.rdc-nyc.rr.com (8.12.1/Road Runner SMTP Server 1.0) with ESMTP id h23LRSAL014689; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:27:28 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: Cc: Subject: RE: [Asrg] Mail Cookies Was: Single-User Addresses Message-ID: <005501c2e1cc$874aa7f0$6401a8c0@BOBDEV> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 In-Reply-To: <20030303211527.GA13436@danisch.de> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h23Lg0p28706 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:33:25 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hadmut wrote: > I disagree. > There are many MUAs and mail handling programs which can't cope with > + mail addresses and fail to sort mails, recognize senders etc. Disagree if you wish. While "many" don't, "many" do... For instance, my mail server and client (Outlook Express) had no problem receiving the mail you sent with a From field that looked like: From: hadmut+45852e998cdb18c752c9d9b6cf77aef7@danisch.de [mailto:hadmut+45852e998cdb18c752c9d9b6cf77aef7@danisch.de] Thus, while some servers and clients may have problems, I can assure you that many people are able to handle single-user emails today. Additionally, it is a fairly small change to existing systems to have them adopt the existing convention of ignoring text between the "+" and "@" symbols. Any solution that relies on a new header field will require that changes be made to both sender's and receiver's software. Thus, as I pointed out in my earlier message, such solutions will require significantly more design as well as longer propogation time before they are available to substantial numbers of people. On the other hand, a solution based on "single-user" addresses is useful immediately to a large number of people even if not to everyone. The key to making it more broadly useful is simply convincing more mail providers to adopt the already existing convention of ignoring content between the "+" and "@" characters. Single-user addresses work for many people today. Anything based on a new header field won't work for anyone for a long time. I think the solution that works for some today is superior to a hypothetical solution that is useless until some date in the far future... bob wyman _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 16:35:10 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13699 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:35:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h23LjJt28911 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:45:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23LjJp28908 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:45:19 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13668; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:34:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23Li0p28856; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:44:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23Lhkp28841 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:43:46 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (sklave3.rackland.de [213.133.101.23]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13630 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:33:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.7/8.12.7/Debian-2) with BSMTP id h23LZ7eS031856; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 22:35:07 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-8) id h23LXoda013820; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 22:33:50 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: mike.pearson@ssc.govt.nz Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Proven solution for authenticating messages Message-ID: <20030303213350.GA13559@danisch.de> References: <7B170C5E4008D311ABB70008C7D3825B03BC340E@saison.ssc.govt.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7B170C5E4008D311ABB70008C7D3825B03BC340E@saison.ssc.govt.nz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 22:33:50 +0100 On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 09:58:40AM +1300, mike.pearson@ssc.govt.nz wrote: > OBSERVATIONS: Firstly some observations about the other > tools we have at our disposal: > > 1. Text filters (reject messages if "string" found): > 2. Blacklists (reject messages from senders on the list): > 3. Whitelists (accept messages from senders on the list): I agree that these three methods don't work properly. > CONCEPT: And now the concept... > > The New Zealand government has developed a specification for > securing Internet email (authentication/encryption/integrity), > between agencies, using S/MIME gateways. > http://www.e-government.govt.nz/see/mail/index.asp Naw, I don't see that this could work in the internet for those reasons: - Almost the same could be achieved by simply using the STARTTLS command of ESMTP. Our rackland server is configured to use it, but a view on the log files shows that extremely few other servers support this. S/MIME - precisely: the PKI - is simply too complicated for most mail admins. Otherwise most relays would already use it. Why not simply use TLS if it already exists and is implemented? Because people refuse to use it. - The cryptographic approach depends on a working PKI. It works in NZ government, because this is a centralized organization with a single authority. Setting up a PKI in such an environment is easy. But how do you want to setup a PKI in the whole internet? All efforts to do so failed so far. There are even countries where such a use of cryptography is illegal. - Cryptographic keys can be stolen or get lost. Do you really believe that these keys will stay safe and secret on all those Windows boxes in the world? How would you establish such a S/MIME infrastructure in, lets say, Northkorea, Iraq, some of the states of Africa? Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 16:39:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13846 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:39:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h23LntT29143 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:49:55 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23Lntp29140 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:49:55 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13832; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:39:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23Ln4p29099; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:49:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23Lmjp29078 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:48:45 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (sklave3.rackland.de [213.133.101.23]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13805 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:38:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.7/8.12.7/Debian-2) with BSMTP id h23Le7Vh031955; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 22:40:07 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-8) id h23LcZRI013887; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 22:38:35 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Bob Wyman Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Mail Cookies Was: Single-User Addresses Message-ID: <20030303213835.GA13866@danisch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <005401c2e1c7$ec7f6a70$6401a8c0@BOBDEV> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 22:38:35 +0100 On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 04:00:29PM -0500, Bob Wyman wrote: > Single-user addresses since they require both sender and receiver to > have mail systems that understand the additional header fields. On the > other hand, handling of a single-user address of the form > "username+signature@example.com" is something that can be deployed > immediately by any mail recipient who has a mail server capable of > ignoring the signature part when determing who the mail is destined for. > Thus, if you use sendmail for SMTP, or you use Earthlink or a number of > other mail providers, you can create and use single-user addresses NOW. > All you have to do is put the single-user email address into the > "reply-to" and "From" fields of your messages. ... > result in minimal disruption to the existing protocols. The single user > address (especially if based on the "+" convention) allows the method to > be used with NO modifications to existing protocols. I disagree. There are many MUAs and mail handling programs which can't cope with + mail addresses and fail to sort mails, recognize senders etc. Maybe your MTA can transport these mails, but lots of mail programs will fail. E.g. the complete mail routing software running on the rackland server will fail. Just as an experiment: I just sent this message to the asrg@ietf.org mailing list with a sender address From: hadmut+45852e998cdb18c752c9d9b6cf77aef7@danisch.de The mailing list processor didn't accept it and queued it for approval. So these + mail addresses don't even work on this mailing list. So your assumption of "minimal disruption" is wrong. In contrast, a new header line is fully transparent and really can be handled by any MTA and MUA. Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 16:40:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13869 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:40:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h23Lopr29207 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:50:51 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23Lopp29204 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:50:51 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13864; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:40:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23Lo1p29176; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:50:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23Lnsp29135 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:49:54 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (sklave3.rackland.de [213.133.101.23]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13829 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:39:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.7/8.12.7/Debian-2) with BSMTP id h23LfFdL031969; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 22:41:15 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-8) id h23Lf0km013931; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 22:41:00 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Bob Wyman Cc: hadmut+45852e998cdb18c752c9d9b6cf77aef7@danisch.de, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Mail Cookies Was: Single-User Addresses Message-ID: <20030303214059.GA13893@danisch.de> References: <20030303211527.GA13436@danisch.de> <005501c2e1cc$874aa7f0$6401a8c0@BOBDEV> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <005501c2e1cc$874aa7f0$6401a8c0@BOBDEV> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 22:41:00 +0100 On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 04:33:25PM -0500, Bob Wyman wrote: > > Disagree if you wish. While "many" don't, "many" do... For > instance, my mail server and client (Outlook Express) had no problem > receiving the mail you sent with a From field that looked like: > > From: hadmut+45852e998cdb18c752c9d9b6cf77aef7@danisch.de > [mailto:hadmut+45852e998cdb18c752c9d9b6cf77aef7@danisch.de] > > > Thus, while some servers and clients may have problems, I can > assure you that many people are able to handle single-user emails today. > Additionally, it is a fairly small change to existing systems to have > them adopt the existing convention of ignoring text between the "+" and > "@" symbols. As the experiment just proved: Not even this ASRG mailing list can cope with it... Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 16:51:52 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA14246 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:51:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h23M22q30272 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 17:02:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23M22p30269 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 17:02:02 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA14240; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:51:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23M1Bp30239; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 17:01:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23M0Xp29912 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 17:00:33 -0500 Received: from webclass.csuchico.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA14089 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:49:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from csuchico.edu (thma27-165-c.dhcp.CSUChico.EDU [132.241.27.165]) (authenticated bits=0) by webclass.csuchico.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h23Lp5gN000525 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 13:51:05 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from fcondo@csuchico.edu) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Mail Cookies Was: Single-User Addresses Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) From: Fred Condo To: asrg@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <20030303204320.GA12948@danisch.de> Message-Id: <3BFE1696-4DC2-11D7-A368-0003930398F6@csuchico.edu> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 13:51:05 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Monday, March 3, 2003, at 12:43 PM, Hadmut Danisch wrote: > A HTTP link could contain this: > > with a cookie valid only > for an hour. You always can directly send email by just clicking > on the link, but taking the address and cookie into an address > list is useless. This is inadvisable as it would require a change to the [X]HTML document type definitions, because "cookie" would be a new attribute of the "a" element. One can neatly solve this by defining an XML namespace for this purpose, say, "spam". The code then becomes this: ... -- Fred _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 17:30:03 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15340 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 17:30:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h23MeFn01104 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 17:40:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23MeFp01099 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 17:40:15 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15296; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 17:29:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23Md1p00890; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 17:39:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23MbEp00391 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 17:37:14 -0500 Received: from nycsmtp2out.rdc-nyc.rr.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15142 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 17:26:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from BOBDEV (66-108-193-77.nyc.rr.com [66.108.193.77]) by nycsmtp2out.rdc-nyc.rr.com (8.12.1/Road Runner SMTP Server 1.0) with ESMTP id h23MM6AL028941 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 17:22:10 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: Subject: RE: [Asrg] Mail Cookies Was: Single-User Addresses Message-ID: <005601c2e1d4$2b710a20$6401a8c0@BOBDEV> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 In-Reply-To: <20030303214059.GA13893@danisch.de> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h23MbEp00400 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 17:28:05 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hadmut Danisch wrote: > As the experiment just proved: Not even this ASRG mailing > list can cope with it... Your experiment proves nothing other than that this mailing list software works as advertised. When you registered for the mailing list, you told it the email address that you would use when sending messages. The address you gave it did not include the key, thus, your message was put in the approval queue. I haven't tested it, but I wouldn't be surprised if things would have worked well if you had registered as "hadmut+....@danisch.de" rather than as simply "hadmut@danisch.de". In any case, this particular problem only happens when the receiving software has implemented a white list (as this mailing list software does) and if you have inserted the signature into the "FROM" field. The same problem will not happen, however, if you leave your FROM field as your base address (no signature) and only insert the signature into the "Reply-To" field. If this message reaches the list, it will prove that a signature embedded in the reply-to field does not interfere with mailing processing. Since I've modified the reply-to heading for this mail to include a "signature." Many people will, in fact, be able to benefit immediately from single-user addresses. One will simply need to avoid supplying such addresses to mailing lists or users of systems that don't support the things. This is not ideal, but it is better than waiting for a few years for new headers to be supported broadly. bob wyman -----Original Message----- From: Hadmut Danisch [mailto:hadmut@danisch.de] Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 4:41 PM To: Bob Wyman Cc: hadmut+45852e998cdb18c752c9d9b6cf77aef7@danisch.de; asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Mail Cookies Was: Single-User Addresses On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 04:33:25PM -0500, Bob Wyman wrote: > > Disagree if you wish. While "many" don't, "many" do... For instance, > my mail server and client (Outlook Express) had no problem receiving > the mail you sent with a From field that looked like: > > From: hadmut+45852e998cdb18c752c9d9b6cf77aef7@danisch.de > [mailto:hadmut+45852e998cdb18c752c9d9b6cf77aef7@danisch.de] > > > Thus, while some servers and clients may have problems, I can assure > you that many people are able to handle single-user emails today. > Additionally, it is a fairly small change to existing systems to have > them adopt the existing convention of ignoring text between the "+" > and "@" symbols. As the experiment just proved: Not even this ASRG mailing list can cope with it... Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 17:44:12 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15929 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 17:44:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h23MsOo01874 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 17:54:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23MsNp01871 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 17:54:23 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15904; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 17:43:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23Mr1p01759; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 17:53:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23MqJp01681 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 17:52:19 -0500 Received: from vqx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15770 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 17:41:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from (AUTH: e40a9cea) by vqx.net with esmtp (courier-0.40) for ; Mon, 03 Mar 2003 22:40:12 +0000 Orig-Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 23:40:39 +0100 From: Roland To: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] Mail Cookies Was: Single-User Addresses In-Reply-To: <20030303213835.GA13866@danisch.de> References: <20030303213835.GA13866@danisch.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 22:40:12 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --Hadmut Danisch wrote on 03.03.03 22:38 +0100: > There are many MUAs and mail handling programs which can't cope with > + mail addresses and fail to sort mails, recognize senders etc. > Maybe your MTA can transport these mails, but lots of mail programs > will fail. E.g. the complete mail routing software running on > the rackland server will fail. > > Just as an experiment: > > I just sent this message to the asrg@ietf.org mailing list with > a sender address > > From: hadmut+45852e998cdb18c752c9d9b6cf77aef7@danisch.de I dont understand the nitpicking on '+'. If you cant subscribe to a mailing-list because the address contains this character the software is obviously broken. Such an extension-character (which is a simple dash on qmail and courier for example, and might be even a dot on others) should have no effect except for local delivered mail where explicitely configured. > In contrast, a new header line is fully transparent and really can > be handled by any MTA and MUA. The invocation would have to follow this semantic: but this wont be recognized by any existing client out there, and the only use will be for those clicking on mailto-links. Such a cookie will have to be included within either the local part or in the domain-part (as subdomain) to be compatible. Roland _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 19:07:46 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA18902 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 19:07:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h240Hwp07083 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 19:17:58 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h240Hwp07080 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 19:17:58 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA18898; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 19:07:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h240H4p07054; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 19:17:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h240Gnp07023 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 19:16:49 -0500 Received: from mercury.ex.ac.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA18874 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 19:06:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from [144.173.6.20] (helo=cronus.ex.ac.uk) by mercury.ex.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18pzyZ-00CF74-00; Tue, 04 Mar 2003 00:08:07 +0000 From: Adam Back To: asrg@ietf.org Cc: Adam Back Message-ID: <20030304000807.A4309027@exeter.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.2i Subject: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 00:08:07 +0000 Hadmut Danisch wrote: > Even when I'm on the road and using a foreign ISP on the other side > of the world, I always drop my email to the very same relay machine, > simply because thats easier. My notebook doesn't need to bother with > DNS queries and temporarily unavailable peers. I drop all my > outgoing mail to central host, and this host is doing the job. That doesn't generally work because the mail hub will tend to reject mail so sent because you're coming from a different ISP. eg. sales person uses aol.com, eartlink.net (or other international ISP) drops of mail at mail.foo.com mail hub, and if the mail hub isn't vulnerable to the open relay problem, it will reject the mail. The other problem with RMX is that it relies on DNS which itself has horrendous security vulnerabilities due to inherent limitations in the protocol. RMX inherits them and so is inherently easy to spoof and bypass. See for example: http://www.securityfocus.com/guest/17905 for a good survey paper on DNS vulnerabilities. Also I'm not sure as another poster noted how much it even helps: disposable ISP free accounts (AOL CD syndrome) are a major source, with RMX the problem is not even improved. Adam _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 19:34:46 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA19389 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 19:34:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h240ixr08871 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 19:44:59 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h240ixp08868 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 19:44:59 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA19382; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 19:34:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h240i3p08824; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 19:44:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h240hEp08786 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 19:43:14 -0500 Received: from mercury.ex.ac.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA19334 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 19:32:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from [144.173.6.20] (helo=cronus.ex.ac.uk) by mercury.ex.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18q0O7-00CFpK-00; Tue, 04 Mar 2003 00:34:31 +0000 From: Adam Back To: asrg@ietf.org Cc: Adam Back Subject: no benefit conclusion likely wrong (Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) Message-ID: <20030304003427.A4309805@exeter.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.2i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 00:34:27 +0000 Robert Ferrell writes: > It seems to me that if we could get the 0.01% (or whatever the > figure is) of people who respond to spam to stop it, the problem > would go away on its own. There has to be a cost benefit to > spamming in order for it to continue. I think this conclusion is suspect and probably wrong. It is likely the case that many spammer clients do not make money from their spam. Therefore all that is necessary for spam to continue being a problem is a continuing supply of greedy and ignorant clients that spammers can con into paying them to spam. Getting people to not respond would only be a good thing of course. Adam _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 19:45:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA19538 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 19:45:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h240ttL09265 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 19:55:55 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h240ttp09262 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 19:55:55 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA19508; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 19:45:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h240t1p09245; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 19:55:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h240sBp09208 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 19:54:11 -0500 Received: from mercury.ex.ac.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA19481 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 19:43:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from [144.173.6.20] (helo=cronus.ex.ac.uk) by mercury.ex.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18q0Yi-00CFd4-00; Tue, 04 Mar 2003 00:45:28 +0000 From: Adam Back To: asrg@ietf.org Cc: Adam Back Message-ID: <20030304004528.A4304288@exeter.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.2i Subject: [Asrg] hashcash as anti-spam measure (Re: solution space) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 00:45:28 +0000 Keith Moore wrote: > [summary of approaches...] > > which ones am I missing? Hashcash? http://www.cypherspace.org/hashcash/ the idea is that a sender has to compute a token which takes some tunable amount of cpu resources, and the recipient can verify quickly. The recipient will then delete/bounce/filter according to the presence or absence of such tokens. See also CAMRAM http://www.camram.org which is an anti-spam proposal based around hashcash and signatures. The obvious extension to reduce the CPU requirements is to only require hashcash tokens on first mail to a new recipient that has never replied to a mail from you (an unsolicited mail). A reply then automatically includes a reusable token allowing subsequent messages to be sent without further tokens. The recipient can verify the token locally without reference to any remote databases. The tokens are not reusable as they are only valid for the recipient. Then tokens can not be used to send multiple messages to the same recipient because his hashcash aware client will reject them as double spent. Adam _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 19:53:50 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA19707 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 19:53:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24142A09549 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 20:04:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24142p09545 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 20:04:02 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA19703; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 19:53:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24131p09515; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 20:03:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2412Ip09488 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 20:02:18 -0500 Received: from korimako.ssc.govt.nz (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id TAA19637 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 19:51:33 -0500 (EST) From: mike.pearson@ssc.govt.nz Received: from [192.168.120.100] (helo=stardust.ssc.govt.nz) by korimako.ssc.govt.nz with esmtp (Exim 6.66 #1) id 18ppZP-0001IW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Mar 2003 02:01:27 +1300 Received: from odyssey.ssc.govt.nz (not verified[172.20.5.42]) by stardust.ssc.govt.nz with MailMarshal (4,0,4,0) id ; Tue, 04 Mar 2003 13:52:33 +1300 Received: from centurion.ssc.govt.nz (centurion.ssc.govt.nz) by odyssey.ssc.govt.nz (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.5) with ESMTP id for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:52:41 +1300 Received: by centurion.ssc.govt.nz with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:53:31 +1300 Message-ID: <7B170C5E4008D311ABB70008C7D3825B03BC3418@saison.ssc.govt.nz> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: no benefit conclusion likely wrong (Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Record s) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:51:20 +1300 Wired has a very good article on the topic: http://www.wired.com/news/infostructure/0,1377,57613,00.html This says "A significant number of spammers apparently aren't at all interested in whether anyone buys their wares. Instead, they feed off other spammers in a bizarre cannibalistic pyramid scheme." Regards, Mike Pearson, S.E.E. Manager http://www.see.govt.nz Phone : +64 (4) 495-6769 Fax : +64 (4) 495-6669 Mobile: +64 (21) 631-731 mailto: mike.pearson@ssc.govt.nz ************************************************************************ E-government Unit, http://www.e-government.govt.nz STATE SERVICES COMMISSION http://www.ssc.govt.nz Te Komihana O Nga Tari Kawanatanga Level 4, 100 Molesworth St PO Box 329, Wellington 6015, NEW ZEALAND ************************************************************************ CAUTION: The content of this email is the property of the State Services Commission. If you have received this message in error please notify the sender immediately and delete. This email and any replies are subject to the Official Information Act 1982, and may be made available under that Act. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 3 20:52:52 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA20759 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 20:52:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24237813239 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 21:03:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24237p13236 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 21:03:07 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA20740; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 20:52:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24226p13202; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 21:02:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2421kp13179 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 21:01:46 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA20707 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 20:50:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h241r1BD017485 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 20:53:01 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ieft.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Textual Analysis is not the solution In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <002b01c2e1a2$e23a5360$6401a8c0@BOBDEV> <20030303172031.13598.qmail@prefix.emu.st> <20030303184310.14481.qmail@prefix.emu.st> <20030303193911.15277.qmail@prefix.emu.st> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII ReSent-Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 20:52:56 -0500 (EST) ReSent-From: "David F. Skoll" ReSent-To: asrg@ietf.org ReSent-Subject: Re: [Asrg] Textual Analysis is not the solution ReSent-Message-ID: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:16:50 -0500 (EST) On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Roland wrote: > But the solution sought here should prevent unsolicited mail at > the sender. You cant do this with content-scanning and it will > take at least 10 years to become usable for a sales@-address > which is too worried about loosing business from a misconfigured > or not-updated potential client. No, that's not true. There's something totally obvious that many people in the computer field overlook: Human brainpower It is my contention that no technological solution will solve the spam problem, at least not to a high degree of satisfaction. The best we can do is come up with tools that make people as efficient as possible, and then leave the final decision up to a person. Think of paper mail: Many corporations filter paper mail for their top executive through clerical staff who perform triage. The clerical staff's time is comparatively cheap and it makes sense to have people perform this duty. Now transfer that analogy to e-mail. A system that performs first-pass automatic sorting gets you 90-98% of the way there, depending on its sophistication. It makes sense to have clerical staff spend a few minutes a day going through the remaining questionable e-mail. It's (probably) no secret that my company sells anti-spam tools, and this is our approach. A broad-spectrum of technological approaches, with the final decision being made by a human. Of course, that human can grant the automatic processes some decision-making power; there's a risk/efficiency tradeoff that we leave up to our customers. This scheme works really well for corporations, but, alas, not so well for individual end-users. Nevertheless, allowing a tradeoff between automation and human intervention is, IMO, the best solution for the forseeable future. If we change e-mail protocols so that spam becomes impossible, we'll change the whole nature of the medium that makes it so attractive in the first place. For every "abusive" trick performed by a spammer, there are legitimate uses for that trick. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 00:03:21 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA24056 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 00:03:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h245Df624679 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 00:13:41 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h245Dep24676 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 00:13:40 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA24043; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 00:02:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h245CUp24645; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 00:12:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h245BFp24606 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 00:11:15 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA24006 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 00:00:25 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2438KKB021041 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 19:08:20 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2438JOY021037 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 19:08:19 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Mail Cookies Was: Single-User Addresses In-Reply-To: <005601c2e1d4$2b710a20$6401a8c0@BOBDEV> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 19:08:19 -0800 (PST) Actually, I find the idea of "mail cookie" rather interesting, it creates standard way for whitelist-like verification and it also solves the problem with displaying address on the website to be used by your customers to send email immediatly but not necessarily be able to get collected and used by spammers in the future. I personally had somewhat similar idea with using public key embedded in the email address. And while need of faster solution does exist, we should not discurd solutions that require more time. Also do note that everything changes, we had HTML 1.0, then 2.0, 3.0, etc all not being entirely compatible with each other. That email has survived for so long with so few changes is at best surprising. But serious changes do take long long time to implement and go from development to production to wide acceptance so if long term solutions is adapted we need to think about recomendation for short-term solutions as well, in fact probably both short-term and long-term plans should discussed at the same time and not considered in opposition to each other. On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Bob Wyman wrote: > Hadmut Danisch wrote: > > As the experiment just proved: Not even this ASRG mailing > > list can cope with it... > Your experiment proves nothing other than that this mailing list > software works as advertised. When you registered for the mailing list, > you told it the email address that you would use when sending messages. > The address you gave it did not include the key, thus, your message was > put in the approval queue. I haven't tested it, but I wouldn't be > surprised if things would have worked well if you had registered as > "hadmut+....@danisch.de" rather than as simply "hadmut@danisch.de". > In any case, this particular problem only happens when the > receiving software has implemented a white list (as this mailing list > software does) and if you have inserted the signature into the "FROM" > field. The same problem will not happen, however, if you leave your FROM > field as your base address (no signature) and only insert the signature > into the "Reply-To" field. > If this message reaches the list, it will prove that a signature > embedded in the reply-to field does not interfere with mailing > processing. Since I've modified the reply-to heading for this mail to > include a "signature." Many people will, in fact, be able to benefit > immediately from single-user addresses. One will simply need to avoid > supplying such addresses to mailing lists or users of systems that don't > support the things. This is not ideal, but it is better than waiting for > a few years for new headers to be supported broadly. > > bob wyman > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Hadmut Danisch [mailto:hadmut@danisch.de] > Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 4:41 PM > To: Bob Wyman > Cc: hadmut+45852e998cdb18c752c9d9b6cf77aef7@danisch.de; asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Mail Cookies Was: Single-User Addresses > > > On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 04:33:25PM -0500, Bob Wyman wrote: > > > > Disagree if you wish. While "many" don't, "many" do... For > instance, > > my mail server and client (Outlook Express) had no problem receiving > > the mail you sent with a From field that looked like: > > > > From: hadmut+45852e998cdb18c752c9d9b6cf77aef7@danisch.de > > [mailto:hadmut+45852e998cdb18c752c9d9b6cf77aef7@danisch.de] > > > > > > Thus, while some servers and clients may have problems, I can > assure > > you that many people are able to handle single-user emails today. > > Additionally, it is a fairly small change to existing systems to have > > them adopt the existing convention of ignoring text between the "+" > > and "@" symbols. > > > As the experiment just proved: Not even this ASRG mailing list can > cope with it... > > > Hadmut > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 00:25:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA24797 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 00:25:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h245Zwg25294 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 00:35:58 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h245Zwp25291 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 00:35:58 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA24778; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 00:25:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h245Z2p25259; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 00:35:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h245Y0p25224 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 00:34:00 -0500 Received: from coyote.tatanka.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA24258 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 00:23:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from biscuit.tatanka.com (biscuit.tatanka.com [66.224.69.113]) by coyote.tatanka.com (8.12.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h245P7Em083178; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 22:25:07 -0700 (MST) From: Michael Marking To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Asrg] filtering at connect time Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 21:28:41 -0800 (PST) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 One problem with text filters of various kinds is that the spammer is unaware that the spam won't be delivered. There is no incentive for the spammer not to continue to send mail to an address which is filtering, possibly even discarding all such spam. Blacklists, at least those which operate at the time connection is made, at least offer some notice to the spammer that resources are being wasted. They also allow the possibility of an additional legal measure: it could be legislated that a spammer which continues to send to an address after some proper connection refusal might be guilty of a theft of service of some kind, which could have civil and criminal penalties. At least one hashcash system (http://ssl.dizum.com/hashcash/) adds a new header to the e-mail: X-Hashcash: This has a similar problem to that of text filtering: the spammer isn't aware that the mail is unwelcome. Properly implemented, an ephemeral address (expiring after a short period), a single-user address, or a signed address can work at the time connection is made or attempted, giving notice to the spammer that the mail is not wanted, and reducing resource use in subsequent operations. It should be possible to combine these mechanisms in a way which works with current mailers, and still preserves some compatibility in case the protocols are extended. For example, the current systems allow mail addresses of the form @ These addresses are seen at the time SMTP connections are established, in MAIL and RCPT messages. Suppose we define some new tokens, so an address becomes @ This should be done in such a way that the combination is a valid by itself. can be some unusual sequence, and can even be done on a domain- by-domain basis. Suppose we use "AAA", assuming that no ordinary username in our domain begins with "AAA". is the type of additional information used. For example, we might have HC hashcash EP ephemeral prefix SU single user address and so on. is whatever is required, as long as it is not the separator, and consists of valid username characters. can be a simple sequence; assume an underscore for this example. An address with an added hashcash value might be AAAHC01234567_joe@domain.com This could be deemed equivalent to adding the header X-Hashcash: 01234567 to the body of the e-mail, where the "normal" recipient might simply be joe@domain.com. Of course, this is clumsier than changing the protocols, but it can be made to work by simple modifications to existing software. It is fairly easy to get the MAIL and RCPT addresses at connect time; that is how most blacklists work. In time, there could be a migration to a better protocol, but this could work quickly as in interim solution, and wouldn't break existing software. The error message passed back to the sender could make it clear what would be required for the mail to go through. (The sender might be directed to prefix a hashcash value, use an ephemeral address, or use a one-time key.) An ISP or systems administrator could implement this automatically without work by the users: the prefix/mechanism/value could be added and parsed by the MTA without the user seeing it. The policy could be selective, based (for example) by finding the sender on a blacklist or greylist, or by being able to authenticate the sender. The MTA might in some circumstances learn the mechanism/value by looking through the headers (for X-Hashcash, for example). The sender's MTA could also implement automatic recovery. If an e-mail were rejected for lack of postage (hashcash), the MTA might automatically retry sending the message after computing the proper value, and the sender need not be aware of the operation. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+ZDlo3fFKt0vOYhYRApuVAKC5WrYkNdMDIwjfAwa1wfC34+tsNwCfQ/tw 1+OVpGnMOfYkYIIm6DgEIfI= =MJ9p -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 00:39:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA25017 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 00:39:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h245nuO26584 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 00:49:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h245nup26581 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 00:49:56 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA25012; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 00:39:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h245n1p26562; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 00:49:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h245mHp26538 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 00:48:17 -0500 Received: from emu.st (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id AAA25001 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 00:37:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 8282 invoked by uid 1015); 4 Mar 2003 05:39:28 -0000 Delivered-To: qmda-intercept-asrg@ietf.org@intercept Comments: QMDA 0.1 - see http://www.geocities.com/mark_delany/qmda.html Received: (qmail 52441 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2003 05:39:27 -0000 Received: from prefix-internal.emu.st (HELO emu.st) (10.100.100.36) by f1-external.emu.st with SMTP; 4 Mar 2003 05:39:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 17690 invoked by uid 1001); 4 Mar 2003 05:39:27 -0000 Message-ID: <20030304053927.17689.qmail@prefix.emu.st> From: "Mark Delany" Mail-Followup-To: asrg@ietf.org To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] filtering at connect time References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: ; from marking@tatanka.com on Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 09:28:41PM -0800 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 4 Mar 2003 05:39:27 +0000 On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 09:28:41PM -0800, Michael Marking allegedly wrote: > An address with an added hashcash value might be > > AAAHC01234567_joe@domain.com > > This could be deemed equivalent to adding the header > > X-Hashcash: 01234567 > > to the body of the e-mail, where the "normal" recipient might simply be > joe@domain.com. > > Of course, this is clumsier than changing the protocols, but it can be > made to work by simple modifications to existing software. What about using esmtp-params? Mail From: hashcash=01234567 It's codified in rfc2821. Regards. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 01:02:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA25424 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 01:02:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h246Cw128102 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 01:12:58 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h246Cwp28099 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 01:12:58 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA25416; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 01:02:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h246A2p28020; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 01:10:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24697p27982 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 01:09:07 -0500 Received: from backbone.midwestcs.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA25329 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 00:58:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from footbone.midwestcs.com ([206.222.212.237] helo=midwestcs.com) by backbone.midwestcs.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18q5TJ-0003bs-00 for ; Tue, 04 Mar 2003 00:00:13 -0600 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] filtering at connect time References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: wayne In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lines: 18 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanner: exiscan *18q5TJ-0003bs-00*XJaovW01hHI* () Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 04 Mar 2003 00:00:13 -0600 In Michael Marking writes: > One problem with text filters of various kinds is that the spammer is > unaware that the spam won't be delivered. There is no incentive for the > spammer not to continue to send mail to an address which is filtering, > possibly even discarding all such spam. Spammers don't care about undelivered spam. Most of the time, they won't even know because they use open proxies, forged from addresses and forged reply-to addresses. It is not worth the spammer's time to filter out bogus email addresses. Spamming is so cheap, that they would need to filter out tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of bogus email addresses per hour to make it worth their time. -wayne _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 02:00:53 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA27602 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 02:00:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h247BEl07941 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 02:11:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h247BDp07938 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 02:11:13 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA27000; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 02:00:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h247A4p04070; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 02:10:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2479Qp03840 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 02:09:26 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA26606 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 01:58:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h2470ZH28174; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 23:00:35 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <20030304070035.GD26784@main.templetons.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Subject: [Asrg] Spam definitions, spam solutions Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 23:00:35 -0800 I've been at the spam problem for a long time, writing challenge/response blockers back in 97, proposing a lot of other solutions even earlier. However, I come at it with a strong free speech perspective, as chairman of the E.F.F. Not that I don't think you have a right to refuse communications or decide who you will listen to, but rather that we as architects of new communications systems have a duty to assure our architecture doesn't end up making default decisions against free communication, since that could go against our values. My values, anyway. For example, you don't design a fail-closed system as a default, only for people who knowingly insist on them. Like it or not, we've come to realize the value of communication being open by default. E-mail is the replacement for mail, and in many cases the phone, and in many cases many other media. It is entirely based on private property, so not subject to the normal constitutional protections. Some consider that a feature, however it's also a bug. I've considered a number of consent based solutions over the years, but mostly abandoned them. Without authentication in mail they require too much user configuration, which users won't do. While many of my observations over the years can be found in my essays at http://www.templetons.com/brad/spume/ Let me point to two in particular. The first is my current best plan for getting rid of spam, which only minimally involves consent or filtering from a technical standpoint. http://www.templetons.com/brad/spume/endspam.html And let me also offer the best definition of spam I have come up with. A definition is necessary for any non-technical approaches, and even for some technical ones. It is detailed in full at: http://www.templetons.com/brad/spume/define.html It is "bulk mail from a stranger" -- where bulk means any form of mass mailing (even if the individual components differ) and a stranger is somebody you've never initiated contact with. This is quite a narrow definition, but the web page details why the definition has to be narrow to work. The spam debate gets much nastier than it should, generating a remarkable amount of emotion. Still, this seems like a serious group so perhaps there can be some light instead of heat. Of course, not everybody is a strong free speech defender as we at the EFF are. If you are, you may want to consider some of the princples we've laid out at: http://www.templetons.com/brad/spume/prin.html Some of them are not popular in the anti-spam community, but we stick by them. However, they make the problem harder. Protecting the right of anonymous communication is particularly challenging. Not punishing the innocent to get at the guilty is at odds with many of the better known blacklisters. Spammers themselves are scum, selfishly destroying the value of E-mail for their own purposes, but the free speech business is sadly always about protecting rights that get abused by the unpopular. (That should stir stuff up :-) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 02:20:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA08005 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 02:20:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h247UvZ10555 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 02:30:57 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h247Uvp10552 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 02:30:57 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA07996; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 02:20:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h247U2p10496; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 02:30:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h247TTp10436 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 02:29:29 -0500 Received: from vesta (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA07978 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 02:18:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] by vesta (ArGoSoft Mail Server, Version 1.8 (1.8.1.2)); Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:50:28 Message-ID: <3E6453B9.2080905@chaoszone.org> From: Prasenjeet Dutta User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.3b) Gecko/20030210 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org CC: mike.pearson@ssc.govt.nz Subject: Re: [Asrg] Proven solution for authenticating messages References: <7B170C5E4008D311ABB70008C7D3825B03BC340E@saison.ssc.govt.nz> <20030303213350.GA13559@danisch.de> In-Reply-To: <20030303213350.GA13559@danisch.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 12:50:25 +0530 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hadmut Danisch wrote: > - Almost the same could be achieved by simply using the > STARTTLS command of ESMTP. Our rackland server is configured > to use it, but a view on the log files shows that extremely > few other servers support this. > > Why not simply use TLS if it already exists and is implemented? > Because people refuse to use it. It could also be because most PKI infrastructure is based on the X.509 model, which (though scalable) requires folk needing a certificate to cough up cash to CAs like Verisign. Also, for secure personal communication (as opposed to electronic commerce), PGP has been arguably far more popular than S/MIME. Especially given its free, bottom-up 'web of trust' model, PGP may well succeed where the top-down X.509 has not. Again, what is the goal of using TLS for email? Securing the messages? That opens up a new battle with the monitoring agencies. Or is it (from the anti-spam point of view) to let SMTP servers non-repudiably identify themselves? If this is the goal, then it can be done with far less overhead than TLS. Digital signatures inserted by the *server* (not by the user, who should not have to bother with the complexity of this) to identify *itself*, using an RFC 2440 infrastructure, may be more successful in making individual SMTP servers identifiable and accountable for what they spew onto the Internet. Consider this fragment: O: Received: from localhost by europa O: (Exim version 3.12 #1); Wed, 22 Jan 2003 07:10:06 O: Origin-Server-Identity: public-key; O: europa.uri.com (12.10.58.222) O: Origin-Server-Key: O: Origin-Server-Signature: rfc2440; encoding=base64 O: iQA/AwUAPi2tY1VioDO/jwwhEQIyrACg6HYQDh+ynXbfqSp+4hF3kfb6zQIAnRYN O: Ca1gPsBiRizLdYbtci4yVJRziQA/AwUAPi2tY1VioDO/jwwhEQIyrACg6HYQDh+y O: nXbfqSp+4hF3kfb6zQIAnRYNCa1gPsBiRizLdYbtci4yVJRz O: =1cuV O: Message-ID: <002b01c2c1b7$30889ab0$1c01010a@europa> Here, the Origin-Server-Identity and Origin-Server-Key is signed and the signature is placed inline in the Origin-Server-Signature header. This signature can even be created offline as a one-time affair. The recipient server (or a plug-in within it) would have to compare the stated origin server name/IP address with the actual server name/IP address, and check if the key is trusted, as well as for revocation. The best part is, given modern mail servers and their ability to run plug-ins, all of this is doable without any change to existing MTAs. No change is required to MUAs or users' email habits as well. -- Prasenjeet Dutta http://www.chaoszone.org/ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 04:30:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA10159 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 04:30:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h249f2O20012 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 04:41:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h249f2p20009 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 04:41:02 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA10151; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 04:30:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h249e6p19963; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 04:40:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h249dFp19873 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 04:39:15 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA10118 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 04:28:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h249U80j009591; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:30:08 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-8) id h249Sdiq002165; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:28:39 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Adam Back Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records Message-ID: <20030304092839.GA1965@danisch.de> References: <20030304000807.A4309027@exeter.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030304000807.A4309027@exeter.ac.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:28:39 +0100 On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 12:08:07AM +0000, Adam Back wrote: > Hadmut Danisch wrote: > > Even when I'm on the road and using a foreign ISP on the other side > > of the world, I always drop my email to the very same relay machine, > > simply because thats easier. My notebook doesn't need to bother with > > DNS queries and temporarily unavailable peers. I drop all my > > outgoing mail to central host, and this host is doing the job. > > That doesn't generally work because the mail hub will tend to reject > mail so sent because you're coming from a different ISP. eg. sales > person uses aol.com, eartlink.net (or other international ISP) drops > of mail at mail.foo.com mail hub, and if the mail hub isn't vulnerable > to the open relay problem, it will reject the mail. Hmm, I silently presumed that everybody is aware that we don't have an open relay. The machine supports several kinds of authentication through STARTTLS and SASL. You can drop mail only if you authenticated before. (I don't even use SMTP to drop my mail. All mail sent from home (DSL with dynamic IP) or when I'm on the road is exchanged with the central Mail hub through BSMTP/UUCP over SSL. That's much faster, more secure and more robust than plain SMTP.) > The other problem with RMX is that it relies on DNS which itself has > horrendous security vulnerabilities due to inherent limitations in the > protocol. RMX inherits them and so is inherently easy to spoof and > bypass. See for example: http://www.securityfocus.com/guest/17905 > for a good survey paper on DNS vulnerabilities. Agreed, but we won't get rid of DNS here, and in context of mail transfer we need DNS anyway. Fixing the security problems of DNS is the task of another IETF working group. We shouldn't try to improve the whole world, but focus on spam. > Also I'm not sure as another poster noted how much it even helps: > disposable ISP free accounts (AOL CD syndrome) are a major source, > with RMX the problem is not even improved. I don't see the problem. If anyone uses such a CD, she is still limited to the aol domain and can't send e.g. as @hotmail.com or @danisch.de. Furthermore, I see the end of the AOL CD era coming for several reasons. First is, that people are throwing their modems and ISDN cards away and are running to have a DSL account. Sales of modems and ISDN cards have dramatically decreased. That's the end of those AOL CDs. Second is, under german - and I believe under european - law ISPs are required to state their customers identity. I guess the same will come in the USA after 9/11. It will become more and more difficult to have anonymous access to the internet. Third, when a thing like RMX comes to fly, anonymous customers will have to find a RMX covering the AOL addresses in order to send spam. There will be very few domains doing so, maybe just aol.com. If AOL goes on with supporting spam, they will be blacklisted (which is effective in this case). They will have to solve the problem. regards Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 04:40:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA10529 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 04:40:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h249ouP20556 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 04:50:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h249oup20553 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 04:50:56 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA10519; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 04:40:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h249o1p20484; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 04:50:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h249nEp20438 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 04:49:14 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA10440 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 04:38:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h249e94B009697; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:40:09 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-8) id h249dNe6002303; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:39:23 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Prasenjeet Dutta Cc: asrg@ietf.org, mike.pearson@ssc.govt.nz Subject: Re: [Asrg] Proven solution for authenticating messages Message-ID: <20030304093923.GB1965@danisch.de> References: <7B170C5E4008D311ABB70008C7D3825B03BC340E@saison.ssc.govt.nz> <20030303213350.GA13559@danisch.de> <3E6453B9.2080905@chaoszone.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E6453B9.2080905@chaoszone.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:39:23 +0100 On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 12:50:25PM +0530, Prasenjeet Dutta wrote: > > It could also be because most PKI infrastructure is based on the X.509 > model, which (though scalable) requires folk needing a certificate to > cough up cash to CAs like Verisign. Also, for secure personal > communication (as opposed to electronic commerce), PGP has been arguably > far more popular than S/MIME. Especially given its free, bottom-up 'web > of trust' model, PGP may well succeed where the top-down X.509 has > not. PGP (as we know it) will never do this job, since it lacks the structure that X.509 has. PGP trust is based on a cloud of friends and acquaintances, you will never get a working trust structure covering the world wide email network. > Again, what is the goal of using TLS for email? Securing the messages? > That opens up a new battle with the monitoring agencies. Or is it (from > the anti-spam point of view) to let SMTP servers non-repudiably identify > themselves? If this is the goal, then it can be done with far less > overhead than TLS. You miss the point. I didn't discuss the goal of TLS. What I wanted to say: That is a mechanism that already is implemented and widely spread. No need to install new software. And even that one is rarely used, because cryptography is still to complicated for most mail admins. The very same problem will apply to the S/MIME approach once it is used outside a centralized organisation like the NZ gov. Secondly, the NZ S/MIME doesn't provide end-to-end security, only relay-to-relay. The same effect can be achieved with TLS. TLS is already available, but people simply don't use it. > Digital signatures inserted by the *server* (not by the user, who should > not have to bother with the complexity of this) to identify *itself*, > using an RFC 2440 infrastructure, may be more successful in making > individual SMTP servers identifiable and accountable for what they spew > onto the Internet. Consider this fragment: Again, you will never get a working PGP infrastructure reliably covering the whole e-mail world. Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 05:00:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA10901 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 05:00:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24AAwx22115 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 05:10:58 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24AAwp22112 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 05:10:58 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA10895; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 05:00:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24AA2p22072; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 05:10:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24A95p22023 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 05:09:05 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA10840 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 04:58:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h24A0Bc3010045 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:00:11 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-8) id h249utvF002560 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:56:55 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <20030304095655.GA2313@danisch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Subject: [Asrg] Separate solution from implementation Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:56:55 +0100 Hi altogether, I'd like to bring the discussion a little bit in a shape by asking you to keep the discussion about a solution separate from the discussion about how to implement it. I'd like to discuss the method in principle of how to block spam separately from how we could implement this method. Should we start to write a web page to collect the discussion results? Digging through the mail heap is a little bit bothersome. Furthermore, we could split the methods in two groups, the absolute and the relative methods. Absolute methods apply to the whole world in the same way (e.g. a RMX record or a X.509-S/MIME signature would be the same for all possible recipients), while relative methods apply only to certain recipients (e.g. cookies). Currently, I see the following methods: - Restrict sending with a certain sender address/domain to a limited number of IP addresses (which might be bound to a short time interval). Implementations: DNS (RMX, MX, A,...) LDAP? Specific service? - Restrict sending to those who know a certain cryptographical secret bound to their personal identity. Implementations: Message Signatures (S/MIME, X.509, PGP,...) Authentications (challenge/response...) address tricks (john+xxx@doe.com) - Restrict sending to those who have any kind of relationship with the recipient Implementations: Cookies (e.g. in the header, in HTML refs, in News articles) Address tricks (john+xxx@doe.com) Message ID tricks (e.g. need to reference a message which was originated from the recipient) - Whitelisting Implementations: ... - Blacklisting Implementations: ... - Content Security Implementations: Text analysis Spam message database Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 05:25:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA11356 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 05:25:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24AZw323124 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 05:35:58 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24AZvp23121 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 05:35:57 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA11351; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 05:25:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24AZ2p23093; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 05:35:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24AYqp23066 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 05:34:52 -0500 Received: from vqx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA11335 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 05:23:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from (AUTH: e40a9cea) by vqx.net with esmtp (courier-0.40) for ; Tue, 04 Mar 2003 10:26:00 +0000 Orig-Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 11:26:28 +0100 From: Roland To: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records In-Reply-To: <20030304092839.GA1965@danisch.de> References: <20030304000807.A4309027@exeter.ac.uk> <20030304092839.GA1965@danisch.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 10:26:00 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --Hadmut Danisch wrote on 04.03.03 10:28 +0100: >> That doesn't generally work because the mail hub will tend to reject >> mail so sent because you're coming from a different ISP. eg. sales >> person uses aol.com, eartlink.net (or other international ISP) drops >> of mail at mail.foo.com mail hub, and if the mail hub isn't vulnerable >> to the open relay problem, it will reject the mail. > > Hmm, I silently presumed that everybody is aware that we don't > have an open relay. The machine supports several kinds of > authentication through STARTTLS and SASL. You can drop mail only > if you authenticated before. I think we can safely assume the wide availability of authenticated ESMTP for everybody within the next years, even if its just based on plain old pop-bevore-smtp. It's basically the lack of authenticated ESMTP (and capable clients) which forced ISP's to limit relaying to their own dialup-range. Some also want the revenue generated from pay-by-call, but thats covered in the (limited-)service-agreement. Any company doing business via the internet should provide a secure SSL/TLS-capable smarthost for security reasons anyway, and this will be likely at the MSA-port 587 so port 25 blocks at the isp will have no effect. >> The other problem with RMX is that it relies on DNS which itself has >> horrendous security vulnerabilities due to inherent limitations in the >> protocol. RMX inherits them and so is inherently easy to spoof and >> bypass. See for example: http://www.securityfocus.com/guest/17905 >> for a good survey paper on DNS vulnerabilities. > > Agreed, but we won't get rid of DNS here, and in context of > mail transfer we need DNS anyway. Fixing the security problems of > DNS is the task of another IETF working group. We shouldn't try > to improve the whole world, but focus on spam. Bulkers need to spew out millions of mails, they would need to poison thausands of nameservers which is simply not feasible. Such harmful manipulations are already covered by the laws in many countries, and there are more secure alternatives to bind available. >> Also I'm not sure as another poster noted how much it even helps: >> disposable ISP free accounts (AOL CD syndrome) are a major source, >> with RMX the problem is not even improved. > > I don't see the problem. If anyone uses such a CD, she is still > limited to the aol domain and can't send e.g. as @hotmail.com or > @danisch.de. Those freemail-services (I'll include AOL here...) are not any major source of spam, its all the open relays and the dedicated spamhauses which _pretend_ to come from there. Thats where RMX comes into play. And an AOL-dialup simply has not enough bandwidth to be useful via open proxies where a copy of the spam has to be sent individually to each targeted server. Spamming via open relays only required 1% of the bandwidth, but they are mostly gone or too widely blocked to be useful anymore. Roland _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 05:57:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA12037 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 05:57:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24B7WL26037 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 06:07:32 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24B7Vp26034 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 06:07:31 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA12023; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 05:56:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24B6Kp25228; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 06:06:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24B5up25193 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 06:05:56 -0500 Received: from vesta (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA11986 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 05:54:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] by vesta (ArGoSoft Mail Server, Version 1.8 (1.8.1.2)); Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:26:37 Message-ID: <3E648663.2060006@chaoszone.org> From: Prasenjeet Dutta User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.3b) Gecko/20030210 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hadmut Danisch CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Proven solution for authenticating messages References: <7B170C5E4008D311ABB70008C7D3825B03BC340E@saison.ssc.govt.nz> <20030303213350.GA13559@danisch.de> <3E6453B9.2080905@chaoszone.org> <20030304093923.GB1965@danisch.de> In-Reply-To: <20030304093923.GB1965@danisch.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 16:26:35 +0530 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hadmut Danisch wrote: > On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 12:50:25PM +0530, Prasenjeet Dutta wrote: > >>It could also be because most PKI infrastructure is based on the X.509 >>model, which (though scalable) requires folk needing a certificate to >>cough up cash to CAs like Verisign. > > > PGP (as we know it) will never do this job, since it lacks the > structure that X.509 has. PGP trust is based on a cloud of friends and > acquaintances, you will never get a working trust structure covering > the world wide email network. I agree PGP's trust model does not scale well (however, it has lower overhead to set up). However, the idea of letting relays non-repudiably identify themselves to other relays is a sound one, I believe. The only hitch is an infrastructural problem of getting a "relay-identity-only" CA up and running who'd handle the X.509 infrastructure for handle certificate signing and revocation list management -- for little or no cost (cost obviously detering non-profits from using this). Any entity registered with such a CA would satisfy Step #1 of Brad Templeton's plan for spam -- "Whitelist those who will be accountable for abuse", and we could reduce the problem set to dealing with rogue SMTP servers. Is such a 'free' "relay-identity-only" CA feasible? (Perhaps running on donations from the community? Businesses spend enough on anti-spam software and bandwidth that they shouldn't mind paying to reduce the amount of spam they get.) -- Prasenjeet Dutta http://www.chaoszone.org/ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 06:10:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA12532 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 06:10:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24BKvT26883 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 06:20:57 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24BKvp26880 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 06:20:57 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA12526; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 06:09:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24BK2p26828; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 06:20:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24BJDp26772 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 06:19:13 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA12448 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 06:08:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h24BA7Bl011080; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:10:07 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-8) id h24B9LEd003916; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:09:21 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Prasenjeet Dutta Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Proven solution for authenticating messages Message-ID: <20030304110921.GB3786@danisch.de> References: <7B170C5E4008D311ABB70008C7D3825B03BC340E@saison.ssc.govt.nz> <20030303213350.GA13559@danisch.de> <3E6453B9.2080905@chaoszone.org> <20030304093923.GB1965@danisch.de> <3E648663.2060006@chaoszone.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E648663.2060006@chaoszone.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:09:21 +0100 On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:26:35PM +0530, Prasenjeet Dutta wrote: > > The only hitch is an infrastructural problem of getting a > "relay-identity-only" CA up and running who'd handle the X.509 > infrastructure for handle certificate signing and revocation list > management -- for little or no cost (cost obviously detering non-profits > from using this). > ... > Is such a 'free' "relay-identity-only" CA feasible? (Perhaps running on > donations from the community? Businesses spend enough on anti-spam > software and bandwidth that they shouldn't mind paying to reduce the > amount of spam they get.) Keep the road warriors in mind. People keep critizing my RMX proposal because they want to be able to send e-mail from virtually anywhere with their mobile computers. You can't address this problem with a relay-identity-only CA. It's actually just a different implementation of the RMX approach to reduce the mail origins to a limited number of authorized relays. It's just a different authentication/authorization mechanism. The second problem is that you will never get such a CA approach sufficiently widely spread. What to do with countries which don't allow cryptography? What to do with admins who don't understand cryptography? What to do with stolen or lost key? You'll need a revocation infrastructure, usually based on web or ldap servers. regards Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 07:50:01 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA16628 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 07:50:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24D0SZ00844 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 08:00:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24D0Sp00841 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 08:00:28 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA16551; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 07:49:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24CxOp00775; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 07:59:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24CwQp00698 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 07:58:26 -0500 Received: from vqx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA16081 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 07:47:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from (AUTH: e40a9cea) by vqx.net with esmtp (courier-0.40) for ; Tue, 04 Mar 2003 12:38:48 +0000 Orig-Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 13:39:15 +0100 From: Roland To: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] Proven solution for authenticating messages In-Reply-To: <3E648663.2060006@chaoszone.org> References: <7B170C5E4008D311ABB70008C7D3825B03BC340E@saison.ssc.govt.nz> <20030303213350.GA13559@danisch.de> <3E6453B9.2080905@chaoszone.org> <20030304093923.GB1965@danisch.de> <3E648663.2060006@chaoszone.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 12:38:48 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --Prasenjeet Dutta wrote on 04.03.03 16:26 +0530: > The only hitch is an infrastructural problem of getting a "relay-identity-only" CA up and running who'd handle the X.509 infrastructure for handle certificate signing and revocation list management -- for little or no cost (cost obviously detering > non-profits from using this). > > Any entity registered with such a CA would satisfy Step #1 of Brad Templeton's plan for spam -- "Whitelist those who will be accountable for abuse", and we could reduce the problem set to dealing with rogue SMTP servers. Such a 'whitelist of accountable servers' would need no cryptography at all and could also be distributed via dnswl (note the 'W'). Problem here: what constitutes 'accountable', how many unresolved or ignored complaints will be needed to revoke the privilegies, how could they proof an address indeed has passed the verified opt-in with the exact same entity which sent the mail (which also requires to compare both signup-page, the confirmation-request and the content of the mail manually) without allowing the mainsleaze for listwashing. This would require a trusted entity which does the whole confirmation and managment, some kind of 'consent clearinghouse'. Roland _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 08:27:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA19415 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 08:27:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24DcDM04326 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 08:38:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24DcDp04323 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 08:38:13 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA19380; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 08:27:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24DY3p03423; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 08:34:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24DXpp03392 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 08:33:51 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA19112 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 08:22:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h24DOrBD020608 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 08:24:53 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] filtering at connect time In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 08:24:53 -0500 (EST) On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Michael Marking wrote: > One problem with text filters of various kinds is that the spammer is > unaware that the spam won't be delivered. Not necessarily. Text filtering and how you handle rejection are orthogonal; you can use (for example) Sendmail's Milter API to fail MAIL FROM:, RCPT TO: or DATA commands. > At least one hashcash system (http://ssl.dizum.com/hashcash/) adds a new > header to the e-mail: > X-Hashcash: > This has a similar problem to that of text filtering: the spammer isn't > aware that the mail is unwelcome. Not necessarily; you can fail the DATA command. I would really like to see other MTA software (qmail, Postfix, Exim) implement "real-time" filtering during the SMTP conversation. As far as I know, Sendmail is the only MTA that does this currently. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 08:28:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA19463 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 08:28:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24Dcwr04355 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 08:38:58 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Dcvp04352 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 08:38:57 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA19442; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 08:27:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Da2p03503; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 08:36:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24DZ3p03463 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 08:35:03 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA19204 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 08:24:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h24DQ5BD020621 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 08:26:05 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] filtering at connect time In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 08:26:05 -0500 (EST) On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, wayne wrote: > Spammers don't care about undelivered spam. Most of the time, they > won't even know because they use open proxies, forged from addresses > and forged reply-to addresses. However, there is a benefit to replying to spam with a 554 SMTP code. If the spammers have been using an open relay, the open relay will generate a bounce message that typically bounces, causing mail to go to postmaster@open-relay. This provides some incentive to close open relays. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 10:06:07 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA25614 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:06:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24FGbx11678 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:16:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24FGbp11675 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:16:37 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA25535; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:05:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24FFVp11619; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:15:31 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24FERp11572 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:14:27 -0500 Received: from blount.mail.mindspring.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA25292 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:03:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from h-66-167-207-35.snvacaid.covad.net ([66.167.207.35] helo=belphegore.hughes-family.org) by blount.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18qDyx-0005fN-00; Tue, 04 Mar 2003 10:05:27 -0500 Received: from hughes-family.org (balam.hughes-family.org [10.0.240.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DES-CBC3-SHA (168/168 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by belphegore.hughes-family.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45B7E962; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 07:05:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] filtering at connect time Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: asrg@ietf.org To: "David F. Skoll" From: Craig Hughes In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 07:05:33 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Correct. In fact, most spam filters do not affect mail routing themselves at all, they rely on the integration into the MTA paths to deal with re-routing. They are in the process of being integrated more substantially into the MTAs/MUAs though, and with those integrations, they are beginning to affect routing as well. This is basically being driven by "easy of use" considerations, where an admin doesn't want to have to spend several hours figuring out how to re-write their sendmail.cf to integrate SpamAssassin having downloaded some tarball from a website -- they want to just double-click install.exe on their Exchange server and have spam automatically stop getting through. At that point, the default configuration from the vendor has to be thinking about the issues which Michael mentioned. C On Tuesday, March 4, 2003, at 05:24 AM, David F. Skoll wrote: > On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Michael Marking wrote: > >> One problem with text filters of various kinds is that the spammer is >> unaware that the spam won't be delivered. > > Not necessarily. Text filtering and how you handle rejection are > orthogonal; you can use (for example) Sendmail's Milter API to > fail MAIL FROM:, RCPT TO: or DATA commands. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 10:21:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA26869 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:21:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24FVx812665 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:31:59 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24FVxp12662 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:31:59 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA26846; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:20:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24FV3p12586; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:31:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24FUNp12539 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:30:23 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA26765 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:19:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h24FLLBD021320 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:21:21 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Textual Analysis is not the solution In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:21:21 -0500 (EST) On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Craig Hughes wrote: > There are two commercial areas where the "leave it to the end-user > humans" approach fails though: > 1. Situations where someone wishes to "protect" their users from > obscene mail How is that a problem? A clerical person can easily delete porn. Part of the spam-control officer's job description might be to act as a porn-censor; presumably, someone who is offered that job will be told that he/she might see some distasteful things. Besides, auto-detection of porn 100% of the time just isn't possible. > 2. Some employees are better at making decisions that others Right; so you hire a smart person or people to make the decision. > And if there are large numbers of such > employees (picture a giant email helpdesk or something), it's likely > impractical, or at least non-scalable, to not automate the filtering > process. The key is to automate as much as possible/necessary, but no more. You can delegate down to the department level, for example -- that scales quite nicely. Or you can have different levels of scanning -- just tagging, aggressive auto-deletion, delegation to help-desk staff, or complete end-user control. Good mail filtering software should allow this flexibility and end-user choice. > I agree there is a strong place for human intervention in spam > filtering, but it's not always appropriate in all situations. Ultimately, it's the only solution, since deciding whether or not a particular e-mail is "spam" is non-computable. > Maintainance of a target of creating the smartest (and most accurate) > automatic filters we can build should endure. Absolutely. But end users must always at least be given the *choice* to make the final decision. If they decide to leave it up to the filter, that's their conscious decision. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 10:22:26 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA26913 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:22:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24FWvX12727 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:32:57 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24FWvp12724 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:32:57 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA26894; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:21:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24FW0p12688; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:32:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24FVjp12649 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:31:45 -0500 Received: from vesta (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA26824 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:20:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] by vesta (ArGoSoft Mail Server, Version 1.8 (1.8.1.2)); Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:52:24 Message-ID: <3E64C4AE.9090105@chaoszone.org> From: Prasenjeet Dutta User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.3b) Gecko/20030210 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hadmut Danisch CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Proven solution for authenticating messages References: <7B170C5E4008D311ABB70008C7D3825B03BC340E@saison.ssc.govt.nz> <20030303213350.GA13559@danisch.de> <3E6453B9.2080905@chaoszone.org> <20030304093923.GB1965@danisch.de> <3E648663.2060006@chaoszone.org> <20030304110921.GB3786@danisch.de> In-Reply-To: <20030304110921.GB3786@danisch.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 20:52:22 +0530 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hadmut Danisch wrote: > Keep the road warriors in mind. People keep critizing my RMX proposal > because they want to be able to send e-mail from virtually anywhere > with their mobile computers. You can't address this problem with a > relay-identity-only CA. Actually, we can -- my original proposal at proposed using digital-signature based non-repudiable relays *in addition to* what I called DNSMX (==RMX) lookups: the RMX technique solves the problem for the vast majority of considerate SMTP servers, while road warriors (of whom I have to count myself as one -- this mail is reaching you via a SMTP server on my laptop) could use the digital signature based approach. Either way, relays are unambiguously identified. > It's actually just a different implementation > of the RMX approach to reduce the mail origins to a limited number > of authorized relays. It's just a different > authentication/authorization mechanism. Indeed. The two complement each other quite well, I feel. > The second problem is that you will never get such a CA approach > sufficiently widely spread. What to do with countries which don't > allow cryptography? What to do with admins who don't understand > cryptography? In my original proposal, to *send* email, there is *no cryptography* involved -- you only need a static string that can be generated by a CA for you (or you can generate it yourself). To receive mail, no cryptography is required either. To verify a relay's identity, a plug-in inside your MTA needs to verify a digital signature. (Most countries allow digital signatures because law-enforcement is typically very interested in non-repudiable messages.) However, if you live in a country where verifying digital signatures is not permitted, you can choose to not do this (and use RMX verification solely) or use a web-service approach to get the signature verified in a country that does allow signature-verification. What about administrators who don't understand crypto? Because the work of signature verification (or RMX verification) is likely to be done by a plugin in an MTA (Spam-Assassin style), they usually would not have to know the gory details. > What to do with stolen or lost key? You'll need a > revocation infrastructure, usually based on web or ldap servers. Stolen/Lost/Compromised Keys can be revoked. Revocation checking can be done as part of the standard key verification process. Key revocation is possible in both RFC 2440 as well as X.509, so it is more of an infrastructure issue. The revocation infrastructure could possibly be managed by an entity like spamhaus or any responsible entity, perhaps with an IETF charter and mandate. -- Prasenjeet Dutta http://www.chaoszone.org/ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 10:26:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA27053 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:26:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24Fb0e12975 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:37:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Fb0p12972 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:37:00 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA27024; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:25:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Fa1p12920; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:36:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24FZCp12879 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:35:12 -0500 Received: from asteroids.cybercomm.nl (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA26980 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:24:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail-ldap/ctrl 25374 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2003 15:26:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO SUNTAC) ([213.196.14.90]) (envelope-sender ) by dds.nl (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 4 Mar 2003 15:26:08 -0000 Message-ID: <020701c2e261$d9e517d0$6501630a@SUNTAC> Reply-To: "Johan Louwers" From: "Johan Louwers" To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0204_01C2E26A.3ADCB9F0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Subject: [Asrg] Going to Extremes to Fight Spam Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:22:20 +0100 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0204_01C2E26A.3ADCB9F0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Going to Extremes to Fight Spam=20 http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,57867,00.html Please take a look at wired.com and read about fighting spam.=20 I still feel that there is a need of some sort of mechanisme to check if = a mail is comming from a known spammer adres. And we also need the = checking methode if the user is sending from its own domain and out of = its own name. Return-path: Received: from yoshi[192.168.0.102] by yoshi4184.myip.org [192.168.0.103] with SMTP (MDaemon.PRO.v5.0.4.R) for ; Tue, 04 Mar 2003 15:46:59 +0100 step 1) Server recieving e-mail. step2.1) check against spam-blacklist-server if 19.168.0.103/yoshi4184.myip.org = is a trusted mail relay server. if not --> drop mail to deadletterbox@domain.com=20 step2.2) (optional) check against local maintaind spam-server-blacklist if = 19.168.0.103/yoshi4184.myip.org is a trusted mail relay server. if not --> drop mail to deadletterbox@domain.com=20 step 3) check if 192.168.0.102 is allowd to send in name of @Yoshi4184.MyIP.org if not --> drop mail to deadletterbox@domain.com=20 step 4) check if Yoshi4184@Yoshi4184.MyIP.org is a correct account at = @Yoshi4184.MyIP.org if not --> drop mail to deadletterbox@domain.com=20 step 5) if all is ok accept mail. ------------------------------------------------ There are only 10 types of people in the world:=20 Those who understand binary and those who don't. ------=_NextPart_000_0204_01C2E26A.3ADCB9F0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Going to Extremes to Fight Spam

http:/= /www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,57867,00.html

Please take a look at = wired.com and read=20 about fighting spam.
 
I still feel that there is a = need of some=20 sort of mechanisme to check if a mail is comming from a known spammer = adres. And=20 we also need the checking methode if the user is sending from its own = domain and=20 out of its own name.
 
<snippet>
Return-path: <Yoshi4184@Yoshi4184.MyIP.org= >
Received: from=20 yoshi[192.168.0.102]
 by yoshi4184.myip.org=20 [192.168.0.103]
 with SMTP (MDaemon.PRO.v5.0.4.R)
 for = <SuSeLinux@Yoshi4184.MyIP.org= >;=20 Tue, 04 Mar 2003 15:46:59 +0100
</snippet>
 
 
 
step 1)
Server recieving = e-mail.
 
step2.1)
check against = spam-blacklist-server if=20 19.168.0.103/yoshi4184.myip.org is a trusted mail relay = server.
if not --> drop mail to = deadletterbox@domain.com=20
 
step2.2) = (optional)
check against local = maintaind=20 spam-server-blacklist if 19.168.0.103/yoshi4184.myip.org is a trusted = mail relay=20 server.
if not --> drop mail to = deadletterbox@domain.com=20
 
step 3)
check if 192.168.0.102 is = allowd to send=20 in name of @Yoshi4184.MyIP.org
if not --> drop mail to = deadletterbox@domain.com =
 
step 4)
check if Yoshi4184@Yoshi4184.MyIP.org=  is=20 a correct account at @Yoshi4184.MyIP.org
if not --> drop mail to = deadletterbox@domain.com=20
 
step 5)
if all is ok accept = mail.
 
 
 
------------------------------------------------
There are = only 10=20 types of people in the world:
Those who understand binary and those = who=20 don't.
------=_NextPart_000_0204_01C2E26A.3ADCB9F0-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 10:31:26 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA27185 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:31:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24FfvI14066 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:41:57 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Ffvp14063 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:41:57 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA27166; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:30:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Ff2p13936; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:41:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24FeDp13892 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:40:13 -0500 Received: from vesta (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA27113 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:29:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] by vesta (ArGoSoft Mail Server, Version 1.8 (1.8.1.2)); Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:01:02 Message-ID: <3E64C6B4.5090805@chaoszone.org> From: Prasenjeet Dutta User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.3b) Gecko/20030210 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Roland CC: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] Proven solution for authenticating messages References: <7B170C5E4008D311ABB70008C7D3825B03BC340E@saison.ssc.govt.nz> <20030303213350.GA13559@danisch.de> <3E6453B9.2080905@chaoszone.org> <20030304093923.GB1965@danisch.de> <3E648663.2060006@chaoszone.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 21:01:00 +0530 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Problem here: what constitutes 'accountable' [...] > This would require a trusted entity which does the whole confirmation > and managment, some kind of 'consent clearinghouse'. I agree, and this is the biggest challenge in this proposal. We already have a clutch of CAs in place, but I think the for-profit approach for e-mail CAs/Consent 'clearinghouses' will not work very well. In my mind, I'd imagine a not-for-profit, international entity with a clear charter and mandate. They could be the successors of today's spamhaus et al. Of course, there's no reason why there should be only one trusted entity: there could be several. -- Prasenjeet Dutta http://www.chaoszone.org/ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 11:00:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA28403 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:00:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24GB8716460 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:11:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24GB8p16457 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:11:08 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA28390; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:00:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24GA3p16359; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:10:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24G97p16288 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:09:07 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA28259 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:58:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h24G04BD021545 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:00:05 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Going to Extremes to Fight Spam In-Reply-To: <020701c2e261$d9e517d0$6501630a@SUNTAC> Message-ID: References: <020701c2e261$d9e517d0$6501630a@SUNTAC> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:00:04 -0500 (EST) On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Johan Louwers wrote: > check against spam-blacklist-server if > 19.168.0.103/yoshi4184.myip.org is a trusted mail relay server. Blacklists have lots of problems, as most list readers know. They can be overly-broad, or else too narrow. > check if 192.168.0.102 is allowd to send in name of @Yoshi4184.MyIP.org This requires extensions such as RMX. > check if Yoshi4184@Yoshi4184.MyIP.org is a correct account at > @Yoshi4184.MyIP.org How do you check this? For example, Yahoo and all M$ Exchange servers do not verify recipient addresses at RCPT TO: time. > step 5) > if all is ok accept mail. You need textual analysis somewhere in the mix. Blacklists are reactive, overly-broad or too narrow. Distributed checksum clearinghouses are easily fooled by small changes to messages. I'm not saying blacklists and DCC are useless; just that they need to be used as part of a broad-spectrum approach. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 11:04:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA28635 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:04:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24GFE816759 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:15:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24GFDp16756 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:15:13 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA28592; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:04:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24GEBp16700; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:14:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24GDLp16541 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:13:21 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA28469 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:02:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h24G4KwT015387 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:04:20 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-8) id h24G2T44007803 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:02:29 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <20030304160229.GA7714@danisch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Subject: [Asrg] MTP draft Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:02:29 +0100 Hi, it was already mentioned that a redesign of the Transfer Protocol might be taken into consideration. I was already collecting some thoughts when this working group came up. Due to the forthcoming IETF meeting, it is currently not possible to submit drafts. But if anyone likes to have a glance at it: http://www.danisch.de/tmp/draft_mtp.txt regards Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 11:23:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA29195 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:23:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24GYA017770 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:34:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24GY9p17767 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:34:09 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA29174; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:23:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24GXCp17703; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:33:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24GVZp17587 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:31:35 -0500 Received: from SWEEPER2.solid-state-logic.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA29113 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:20:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from solid-state-logic.com (unverified) by SWEEPER2.solid-state-logic.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.10) with SMTP id ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:17:27 +0000 Received: from martinh.solid-state-logic.com by solid-state-logic.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA19734; Tue, 4 Mar 03 16:17:24 GMT Message-Id: <3E64D191.8020202@solid-state-logic.com> From: Martin hepworth Organization: Solid State Logic Ltd User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en Mime-Version: 1.0 To: Hadmut Danisch Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] MTP draft References: <20030304160229.GA7714@danisch.de> In-Reply-To: <20030304160229.GA7714@danisch.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 16:17:21 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hadmut Danisch wrote: > Hi, > > it was already mentioned that a redesign of the Transfer > Protocol might be taken into consideration. I was already > collecting some thoughts when this working group came up. > > Due to the forthcoming IETF meeting, it is currently not > possible to submit drafts. But if anyone likes to have > a glance at it: > > http://www.danisch.de/tmp/draft_mtp.txt > > > regards > Hadmut > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > Hadmut wouldn't it be better to specify an XML schema so you can track the incoming message format version for syntax checking? I know http has it's uses, but doing an ugly back fit schema was a pain. -- Martin Hepworth Senior Systems Administrator Solid State Logic Ltd +44 (0)1865 842300 ********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.com ********************************************************************** _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 11:46:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA00237 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:46:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24GvGi19997 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:57:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24GvGp19994 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:57:16 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA00195; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:46:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24GrEp19507; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:53:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Gkhp19097 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:46:43 -0500 Received: from asteroids.cybercomm.nl (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA29630 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:35:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail-ldap/ctrl 8223 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2003 16:37:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO SUNTAC) ([213.196.14.90]) (envelope-sender ) by dds.nl (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 4 Mar 2003 16:37:39 -0000 Message-ID: <023b01c2e26b$d7b29be0$6501630a@SUNTAC> Reply-To: "Johan Louwers" From: "Johan Louwers" To: References: <020701c2e261$d9e517d0$6501630a@SUNTAC> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Going to Extremes to Fight Spam MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:33:46 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > check against spam-blacklist-server if > > 19.168.0.103/yoshi4184.myip.org is a trusted mail relay server. > > Blacklists have lots of problems, as most list readers know. They > can be overly-broad, or else too narrow. > Correct, they can be overly-broad, or else too narrow. On the other hand... if maintaind correctly and updated like DNS servers you have the option to access a correct and good updated list. Which organisation would be responsible of maintaining the list I do not known at this moment and should be a point of disscusion in this mailling list I think. Aboute the "too narrow" part, do not forget "step2.2) (optional)" . Mail admins must have the possibilitie to maintain a local extension to the list where they can add or exclude blacklisted servers. > > check if 192.168.0.102 is allowd to send in name of @Yoshi4184.MyIP.org > > This requires extensions such as RMX. maybe,.... a ISP knows what range of IP adresses are handed out to the customers so think aboute a new kind of protocol something like SRCP (Spam Rejection Control Protocol) where you have the option to check a IP adres with the relaying server. > > check if Yoshi4184@Yoshi4184.MyIP.org is a correct account at > > @Yoshi4184.MyIP.org > > How do you check this? For example, Yahoo and all M$ Exchange servers > do not verify recipient addresses at RCPT TO: time. Not the RCPT TO... you should check this as recieving mail server so you have to check the MAIL FROM with the relaying server to verify that the account sending the mail exists at that server.... make use of the just discribed SRCP protocol (Spam Rejection Control Protocol). This check mechanisme should be part of this protocol. I think that spam is such a big problem we should not only think aboute remoddeling existing protocols buth we should also think aboute creating a new protocol to prevent SPAM. The only problem is that you need the industrie to get this new protocol up and running with new versions of mail servers. You also should think aboute a transaction time to update existing servers and create new versions of mail serversm i think we are talking aboute a transaction time of 2 to 2.5 years counting from the moment the new protocol is ready for implementation. reagrds, Johan. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 11:49:04 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA00518 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:49:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24Gxcm20329 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:59:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Gxcp20326 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:59:38 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA00476; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:48:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Gtap19696; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:55:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Gn9p19217 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:49:09 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA29725 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:38:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h24Ge8QE016204; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:40:08 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-8) id h24Gb4Sg008592; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:37:04 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Martin hepworth Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] MTP draft Message-ID: <20030304163704.GA8549@danisch.de> References: <20030304160229.GA7714@danisch.de> <3E64D191.8020202@solid-state-logic.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E64D191.8020202@solid-state-logic.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:37:04 +0100 On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:17:21PM +0000, Martin hepworth wrote: > > wouldn't it be better to specify an XML schema so you can track the > incoming message format version for syntax checking? I know http has > it's uses, but doing an ugly back fit schema was a pain. > Well, that's something I didn't think about. I was focussed on a HTTP approach and didn't even spend a second about XML. Maybe that's better, while I still prefer the HTTP style, which does the job very well, I think. But I agree, XML could be more powerful. The disadvantage is that it might be difficult to keep the RFC 822 email structure... Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 11:49:07 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA00533 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:49:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24GxeU20348 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:59:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Gxep20345 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:59:40 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA00481; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:48:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Gtbp19722; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:55:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Go6p19257 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:50:06 -0500 Received: from rad.ig.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA29779 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:39:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from spike (spike.ig.co.uk [193.32.60.32]) by mail.ig.co.uk with SMTP id h24Gf3n06943 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:41:03 GMT Message-Id: <200303041641.h24Gf3n06943@rad.ig.co.uk> From: "Jacqui Caren" To: "asrg@ietf.org" Reply-To: "Jacqui Caren" Priority: Normal X-Mailer: PMMail 98 Standard (2.01.1600) For Windows NT (5.0.2195;3) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] MTP draft Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 16:41:03 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:02:29 +0100, Hadmut Danisch wrote: > Hi, > > it was already mentioned that a redesign of the Transfer > Protocol might be taken into consideration. I was already > collecting some thoughts when this working group came up. > > Due to the forthcoming IETF meeting, it is currently not > possible to submit drafts. But if anyone likes to have > a glance at it: > > http://www.danisch.de/tmp/draft_mtp.txt My first thought - how about RSET or equivalent? This is used far more often than may be thought to clear down a SMTP connection to sync states of originating and recipeint MTA's. I am doinw some work for a client that is delivering content to customers via email (subscription service!) and we are hitting the limits of sendmail - RSET is a godsend when SMTP gets in a tizzy and you just want to wipe the slate and resubmit. Jacqui Caren, Ingram Group Ltd. jacqui@ig.co.uk ph: +44 (0) 1483 8628xx main=00 fax=01 ddi=65 http://www.ig.co.uk/ http://www.sitedirector.org/ http://www.perl.co.uk/ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 12:01:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA01430 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:01:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24HCGQ22647 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:12:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24HCGp22644 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:12:16 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA01398; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:01:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24HBDp22489; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:11:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24H2qp20681 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:02:52 -0500 Received: from emu.st (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA00732 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:51:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 64268 invoked by uid 1015); 4 Mar 2003 16:53:50 -0000 Delivered-To: qmda-intercept-asrg@ietf.org@intercept Comments: QMDA 0.1 - see http://www.geocities.com/mark_delany/qmda.html Received: (qmail 13586 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2003 16:53:49 -0000 Received: from prefix-internal.emu.st (HELO emu.st) (10.100.100.36) by f1-external.emu.st with SMTP; 4 Mar 2003 16:53:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 19814 invoked by uid 1001); 4 Mar 2003 16:53:49 -0000 Message-ID: <20030304165349.19813.qmail@prefix.emu.st> From: "Mark Delany" Mail-Followup-To: asrg@ietf.org To: asrg@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Subject: [Asrg] No one-day registration at 56th IETF? Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 4 Mar 2003 16:53:49 +0000 Hmm. On the basis of the web page, it appears that you have to register for the entire IETF conference to attend the 2.5 hours allocated to this WG. Is that the case, or can one register just for the day or some such? Regards. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 12:07:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA01706 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:07:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24HI2f23132 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:18:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24HI2p23129 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:18:02 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA01688; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:06:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24HH1p23059; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:17:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24HGep23019 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:16:40 -0500 Received: from SWEEPER2.solid-state-logic.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA01644 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:05:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from solid-state-logic.com (unverified) by SWEEPER2.solid-state-logic.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.10) with SMTP id ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:02:31 +0000 Received: from martinh.solid-state-logic.com by solid-state-logic.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA21777; Tue, 4 Mar 03 17:02:29 GMT Message-Id: <3E64DC23.4090708@solid-state-logic.com> From: Martin hepworth Organization: Solid State Logic Ltd User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en Mime-Version: 1.0 To: Hadmut Danisch Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] MTP draft References: <20030304160229.GA7714@danisch.de> <3E64D191.8020202@solid-state-logic.com> <20030304163704.GA8549@danisch.de> In-Reply-To: <20030304163704.GA8549@danisch.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 17:02:27 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hadmut Danisch wrote: > On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:17:21PM +0000, Martin hepworth wrote: > >>wouldn't it be better to specify an XML schema so you can track the >>incoming message format version for syntax checking? I know http has >>it's uses, but doing an ugly back fit schema was a pain. >> > > > Well, that's something I didn't think about. I was focussed on > a HTTP approach and didn't even spend a second about XML. Maybe > that's better, while I still prefer the HTTP style, which does > the job very well, I think. > > But I agree, XML could be more powerful. The disadvantage is that > it might be difficult to keep the RFC 822 email structure... > > > Hadmut > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > Well just as easy to keep the mail structure as with http. You still need a starting doctype defn to be http1.1 compliant don't you? -- Martin Hepworth Senior Systems Administrator Solid State Logic Ltd +44 (0)1865 842300 ********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.com ********************************************************************** _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 12:10:25 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA01820 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:10:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24HKxB23359 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:20:59 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24HKxp23356 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:20:59 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA01799; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:09:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24HK0p23295; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:20:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24HJAp23231 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:19:10 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA01751 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:08:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h24HA7Z3016754; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 18:10:07 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-8) id h24H9NZU009247; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 18:09:23 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Jacqui Caren Cc: "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] MTP draft Message-ID: <20030304170923.GA9205@danisch.de> References: <200303041641.h24Gf3n06943@rad.ig.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200303041641.h24Gf3n06943@rad.ig.co.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 18:09:23 +0100 On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:41:03PM +0000, Jacqui Caren wrote: > > My first thought - how about RSET or equivalent? > This is used far more often than may be thought to > clear down a SMTP connection to sync states of > originating and recipeint MTA's. A MESSAGE command should always start from scratch and implicitely include a RESET. As an exception, the TLS state might remain unchanged until a new STARTTLS command was issued. And maybe successful authentications (SASL...) could stay alive and collected till the end of the connections. But since this is a matter of extensions it is not to be defined in the protocol itself. But I'll keep that in mind and think about it... regards Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 12:13:24 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA01982 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:13:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24HNx323542 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:23:59 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24HNwp23539 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:23:58 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA01947; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:12:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24HN1p23492; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:23:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24HMCp23437 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:22:12 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA01893 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:11:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h24HD9BD022061 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:13:09 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] MTP draft In-Reply-To: <200303041641.h24Gf3n06943@rad.ig.co.uk> Message-ID: References: <200303041641.h24Gf3n06943@rad.ig.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:13:09 -0500 (EST) On Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:02:29 +0100, Hadmut Danisch wrote: > http://www.danisch.de/tmp/draft_mtp.txt One shortcoming of SMTP that really needs fixing is this: When you send e-mail to multiple recipients, it is not possible to indicate successful delivery to some recipients, but not all recipients, after the data phase. Therefore, rather than just a numeric reply code, I think the protocol should reply with headers of its own. For example, if the client says: Deliver-To: Deliver-To: then the server should be able to reply: Delivery-Status: 200 Accepted Delivery-Status: 554 Unacceptable content Perhaps (probably) you intended this, but let's make it explicit. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 12:43:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA03381 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:43:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24HsBJ26105 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:54:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24HsBp26102 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:54:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA03344; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:43:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Hr4p26012; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:53:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Hq6p25941 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:52:06 -0500 Received: from relay06.indigo.ie (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA03225 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:41:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 24996 messnum 1044643 invoked from network[194.125.173.41/ts13-041.dublin.indigo.ie]); 4 Mar 2003 17:43:01 -0000 Received: from ts13-041.dublin.indigo.ie (HELO jmason.org) (194.125.173.41) by relay06.indigo.ie (qp 24996) with SMTP; 4 Mar 2003 17:43:01 -0000 Received: by jmason.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id F0B7816F16; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:20:40 +0000 (GMT) Received: from jmason.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC156F721; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:20:40 +0000 (GMT) To: "David F. Skoll" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] filtering at connect time In-Reply-To: Message from Craig Hughes of "Tue, 04 Mar 2003 07:05:33 PST." From: jm@jmason.org (Justin Mason) X-GPG-Key-Fingerprint: 0A48 2D8B 0B52 A87D 0E8A 6ADD 4137 1B50 6E58 EF0A X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to . Message-Id: <20030304172040.F0B7816F16@jmason.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 17:20:35 +0000 One issue BTW that filter-during-SMTP-transaction systems have to think about, is that if you teergrube or tempfail on an entire ESMTP connection basis, this could result in affecting legit mail -- since legit mail may be mixed in with spam, if (a) the spam was delivered to a mailing list, or (b) the spam was sent to your secondary MX at around the same time as some legitimate mail was. David, I'm sure you've already considered this in the RoaringPenguin stuff ;) But this technique is becoming more widely implemented, so it's worth noting for the folks who haven't. ;) --j. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 12:49:24 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA03575 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:49:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24Hxx226461 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:59:59 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Hxxp26458 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:59:59 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA03567; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:48:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Hx0p26416; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:59:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Hwtp26400 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:58:55 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA03530 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:47:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h24Hnoi1025119 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:49:50 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303041749.h24Hnoi1025119@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] MTP draft References: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:49:50 -0700 (MST) > > http://www.danisch.de/tmp/draft_mtp.txt I've looked through that draft and many messages in the new archives of this mailing list. Unfortunately, both contain many statements and assumptions that are common but I think incorrect. Contrary to various statements: - text filtering can give failure indications during SMTP transactions. There are many examples of such systems, including some installations of SpamAssassin, the DCC, and many uses of the sendmail milter mechanism. - whether mail is solicited cannot be determined by examining headers, cryptographic checksums, or anything in a message. Solicited mail is not only mail in response to previous mail, and not only because of the obvious chicken-and-egg problem in that. Solicited mail is whatever the target wants, possibly including chain letters from strangers or absolutely any other kind of mail. There is no accounting for tastes. No matter what kind of mail you think is unacceptable, someone somewhere wants it. - most talk of "header forgery" is confused. The best demonstration of that fact was a recent message to this mailing list that talked about people "forging" their own addresses. That makes no sense given the English definition of the verb "to forge." You cannot "forge" your own name or address. The problem is that many and perhaps most so called "forged" mail From addresses in spam are no more "forged" than the home return address you put on picture postcards while on vacation. That the free mail provder of the mailbox has cancelled a spammer's account does not make the use of the mailbox "forgery" any more than your use of a hotel's address is forgery the day before you arrive or the day after you leave. Free mail providers and others have worked hard to get people to use "forge" to absolve them of their responsibility for providing dropboxes to spammers. - Many spammers do not care about DSNs or "bounces," but many others do. Many spammers try to keep their target lists clean for various reasons, including the automated blocking of IP addresses. It's said that some large ISP's count the number of invalid target mail addresses attempted and automatically blacklist IP addresses or domain names that try too many bad addresses. On the other hand many other spammers care so little that they use bogus SMTP command pipelining to send the client's side of the SMTP transaction in a single burst. The FIN is queued before the STMP server has finished the reverse DNS lookup of the client's IP address. - PKI, X.500, PGP, SMIME, and all other authentication mechanisms are irrelevant to stopping spam. It is not only that the amazing story in http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2001-04.html demonstrates that it is impossible for $350/certificate to check the identity of certificate holders. It is that a fundamentail design goal of SMTP is to allow strangers to send each other mail. If you are willing to accept a message from a complete stranger, then it makes no sense to talk about authenticating the stranger. Strangers are people you don't know and cannot trust to not be sending you and 500,000,000 of your closest friends the same message. You might have a list of SMTP clients that you trust to know their users and so not have too many spammers, but for that you do not need and cannot really use any cryptographic authentication mechanisms. You already have an practically unforgable handle on the SMTP client in its IP address. On the other hand, if you don't want to receive mail from strangers, there are many mechanisms that work fine including PGP, SMIME, and various mail white-list mechanisms. - There is a single, common definition of spam that works. It is "unsolicited bulk mail." "Unsolicited" is determined by the target unless the sender has creditable evidence that the target asked for the mail. "Bulk" is some number of substantially identical messages usually more than a dozen. There are many other broken definitions of spam, but they are all either over-elaborate variations of unsolicited bulk, based on notions of censorship (e.g. unsolicited commercial or pornographic mail), or lies and nonsense from spammers. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 12:52:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA03665 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:52:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24I37F26690 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:03:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24I37p26687 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:03:07 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA03654; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:52:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24I22p26632; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:02:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24I1fp26596 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:01:41 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA03625 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:50:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h24HqcBD022428; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:52:38 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: Justin Mason cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] filtering at connect time In-Reply-To: <20030304172040.F0B7816F16@jmason.org> Message-ID: References: <20030304172040.F0B7816F16@jmason.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:52:38 -0500 (EST) On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Justin Mason wrote: > One issue BTW that filter-during-SMTP-transaction systems have to think > about, is that if you teergrube or tempfail on an entire ESMTP connection > basis, this could result in affecting legit mail We do it on a per-message basis. We only use tempfail codes; we don't attempt to tarpit. Tarpitting can open your machine up to DoS attacks, because even a tarpitted process consumes some resources on your end. Yes, sometimes legit mail is held up, but thanks to the fine authors of SpamAssassin :-), that doesn't happen too often. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 13:17:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA04359 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:17:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24IS8p01742 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:28:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24IS8501739 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:28:08 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA04354; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:17:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24IQkp01633; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:26:46 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24IOfp01373 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:24:41 -0500 Received: from blount.mail.mindspring.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA04257 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:12:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from h-66-167-207-35.snvacaid.covad.net ([66.167.207.35] helo=belphegore.hughes-family.org) by blount.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18qGva-0007fM-00; Tue, 04 Mar 2003 13:14:10 -0500 Received: from hughes-family.org (unknown [216.49.80.10]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DES-CBC3-SHA (168/168 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by belphegore.hughes-family.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C02F11CD2; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:14:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] MTP draft Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: asrg@ietf.org To: Vernon Schryver From: Craig Hughes In-Reply-To: <200303041749.h24Hnoi1025119@calcite.rhyolite.com> Message-Id: <1BDD0708-4E6D-11D7-81CF-00039396ECF2@hughes-family.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:14:15 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yes, but define "unsolicited" and "bulk" C On Tuesday, March 4, 2003, at 09:49 AM, Vernon Schryver wrote: > - There is a single, common definition of spam that works. It is > "unsolicited bulk mail." "Unsolicited" is determined by the target > unless the sender has creditable evidence that the target asked for > the > mail. "Bulk" is some number of substantially identical messages > usually > more than a dozen. > > There are many other broken definitions of spam, but they are all > either over-elaborate variations of unsolicited bulk, based on > notions of censorship (e.g. unsolicited commercial or pornographic > mail), or lies and nonsense from spammers. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 13:22:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA04482 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:22:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24IX6Z01978 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:33:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24IX6501975 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:33:06 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA04473; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:22:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24IW0501930; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:32:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24IUF501819 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:30:15 -0500 Received: from relay06.indigo.ie (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA04400 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:19:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 75594 messnum 1044880 invoked from network[194.125.173.234/ts13-234.dublin.indigo.ie]); 4 Mar 2003 18:21:10 -0000 Received: from ts13-234.dublin.indigo.ie (HELO jmason.org) (194.125.173.234) by relay06.indigo.ie (qp 75594) with SMTP; 4 Mar 2003 18:21:10 -0000 Received: by jmason.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id AE10316F16; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 18:01:30 +0000 (GMT) Received: from jmason.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A948FF721; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 18:01:30 +0000 (GMT) To: "David F. Skoll" Cc: Justin Mason , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] filtering at connect time In-Reply-To: Message from "David F. Skoll" of "Tue, 04 Mar 2003 12:52:38 EST." From: jm@jmason.org (Justin Mason) X-GPG-Key-Fingerprint: 0A48 2D8B 0B52 A87D 0E8A 6ADD 4137 1B50 6E58 EF0A X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to . Message-Id: <20030304180130.AE10316F16@jmason.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 18:01:25 +0000 David F. Skoll said: > On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Justin Mason wrote: > > > One issue BTW that filter-during-SMTP-transaction systems have to think > > about, is that if you teergrube or tempfail on an entire ESMTP connection > > basis, this could result in affecting legit mail > > We do it on a per-message basis. We only use tempfail codes; we don't > attempt to tarpit. Tarpitting can open your machine up to DoS attacks, > because even a tarpitted process consumes some resources on your end. As a matter of interest, have you collected any stats on the effectiveness of tempfailing suspected spam? I hear it's very effective at blocking spam from spamware which doesn't support requeue-and-retry, but I have no idea how effective "very" is. ;) > Yes, sometimes legit mail is held up, but thanks to the fine authors > of SpamAssassin :-), that doesn't happen too often. Cheers! ;) --j. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 13:31:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA04672 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:31:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24Ig5F03051 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:42:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Ig4503048 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:42:04 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA04656; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:30:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Ic2502919; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:38:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24IbS502768 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:37:28 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA04557 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:26:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h24ISOBD022692; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:28:24 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: Justin Mason cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] filtering at connect time In-Reply-To: <20030304180130.AE10316F16@jmason.org> Message-ID: References: <20030304180130.AE10316F16@jmason.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:28:24 -0500 (EST) On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Justin Mason wrote: > As a matter of interest, have you collected any stats on the effectiveness > of tempfailing suspected spam? The stats are online: http://www.roaringpenguin.com/canit/reports.php?what=hit-n-run (You have to authenticate as demo/demo first.) I tempfail all mail from unknown senders the first time -- this happens at the RCPT TO: phase, because I tempfail first-time sender-recipient pairs. If you look at: http://www.roaringpenguin.com/canit/stats.php you'll see that so-called "one-shot" messages make up a large percentage of the daily message volume -- around 20-25%. By the way, tempfailing senders the first time (or better yet, tempfailing on the basis of sender-recipient pairs) is a solution that fits transparently[*] into the existing e-mail infrastructure, uses very few resources, and is quite effective. I highly recommend it. Regards, David. [*] Except for delays the first time a stranger sends you e-mail. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 13:35:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA04784 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:35:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24Ik4F03259 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:46:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Ik4503256 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:46:04 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA04779; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:34:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Ij1503201; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:45:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24IiI503149 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:44:18 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA04734 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:33:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h24IZ7PQ018349; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:35:07 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h24IWVuB011101 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:32:31 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h24IWVwH011098; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:32:31 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Vernon Schryver Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] MTP draft Message-ID: <20030304183230.GA10667@danisch.de> References: <200303041749.h24Hnoi1025119@calcite.rhyolite.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200303041749.h24Hnoi1025119@calcite.rhyolite.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:32:30 +0100 On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 10:49:50AM -0700, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > - text filtering can give failure indications during SMTP transactions. > There are many examples of such systems, including some installations > of SpamAssassin, the DCC, and many uses of the sendmail milter > mechanism. I don't know of any text filtering that works reliably and reasonable. That's a kind of content security that just reduces the channel bandwith (seen from an information theory point of view). And, I believe that is is a bad idea to perfom text analyse _while_ receiving the message. Message transfer should be as fast as possible and should not suffer from any external delay. And it is not always possible because some formats can be decoded/uncompressed only when they are complete. I don't like text analysis while receiving the message. And I am not really convinced about such content methods. > - whether mail is solicited cannot be determined by examining headers, > cryptographic checksums, or anything in a message. Solicited mail > is not only mail in response to previous mail, and not only > because I didn't mean that only those mails are solicited which are a direct reply. I guess that such mails are solicited, but they are not the only ones. > - most talk of "header forgery" is confused. The best demonstration > of that fact was a recent message to this mailing list that talked about > people "forging" their own addresses. That makes no sense given > the English definition of the verb "to forge." You cannot "forge" > your own name or address. Sure you can. Don't use the "English definition". Use the "Security definition". It means that you can just insert any address without any authorization step. If you can do it, so anyone else can do it as well. There must be some technical difference introduced between the one who is allowed to use an address, and all others. That's the point. > The problem is that many and perhaps most so called "forged" mail > From addresses in spam are no more "forged" than the home return > address you put on picture postcards while on vacation. I've never received a postcard asking me to buy any nonsense and labeled with a wrong sender address. I received hundreds of such e-mails. > That the free mail provder of the mailbox has cancelled a spammer's > account does not make the use of the mailbox "forgery" any more > than your use of a hotel's address is forgery the day before you > arrive or the day after you leave. I can't follow you. Many spam messages I've received had sender addresses which _never_ existed. I know that a little bit more than a year ago millions of mails have been sent with several sender addresses ....@danisch.de Since this is my own domain, I'm pretty sure that these accounts never existed. Spam sender addresses are not cancelled accounts, they are just random addresses. > - PKI, X.500, PGP, SMIME, and all other authentication mechanisms > are irrelevant to stopping spam. It is not only that the amazing > story in http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2001-04.html demonstrates > that it is impossible for $350/certificate to check the identity > of certificate holders. It is that a fundamentail design goal of > SMTP is to allow strangers to send each other mail. That's the problem we're here to solve. It's our job to change it, not to accept it. > If you are willing to accept a message from a complete stranger, then > it makes no sense to talk about authenticating the stranger. Strangers > are people you don't know and cannot trust to not be sending you and > 500,000,000 of your closest friends the same message. That's a cultural dependant point of view. The european approach is that you can identify everybody, even a complete stranger, and that you know who was sending you rubbish. If 1% of the recipients complain or get into legal steps, the sender faces 5,000,000 opponents. But you need to know the identity of the sender before. > - There is a single, common definition of spam that works. It is > "unsolicited bulk mail." "Unsolicited" is determined by the target > unless the sender has creditable evidence that the target asked for the > mail. "Bulk" is some number of substantially identical messages usually > more than a dozen. How do you want to detect whether a mail was sent to at least 10,000 other people without violating their privacy? And if you are one of the unlucky first 10,000 receivers, then it is not yet spam? Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 13:44:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA05047 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:44:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24It6U03655 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:55:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24It6503652 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:55:06 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA05008; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:44:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Ip2503487; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:51:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24InQ503380 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:49:26 -0500 Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA04872 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:38:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h24IeKA14028; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:40:20 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Moore To: "Mark Delany" Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] No one-day registration at 56th IETF? Message-Id: <20030304134019.5ac3bfd2.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <20030304165349.19813.qmail@prefix.emu.st> References: <20030304165349.19813.qmail@prefix.emu.st> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:40:19 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Hmm. On the basis of the web page, it appears that you have to > register for the entire IETF conference to attend the 2.5 hours > allocated to this WG. yup. that's the way IETF works. of course, you don't have to attend the meeting to participate in the RG. (note: this is a research group, not a working group.) Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 13:49:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA05181 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:49:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24J04Z03809 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:00:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24J03503806 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:00:03 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA05173; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:48:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Iu2503707; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:56:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24ItC503672 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:55:12 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA05014 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:44:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h24Ik2Co001798 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:46:02 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303041846.h24Ik2Co001798@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] MTP draft References: <1BDD0708-4E6D-11D7-81CF-00039396ECF2@hughes-family.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:46:02 -0700 (MST) > From: Craig Hughes > Yes, but define "unsolicited" and "bulk" I did, with their ordinary English dictionary definitions. "Bulk mail" is "lots all the same" and "unsolicited" is "unwanted and unasked for." As with many non-technical things, you don't want to get too picky about the definitions unless your heart is in the wrong place. When defining spam it is a bad idea to worry about irrelevancies such as whether the sender must be known to the target. Whether sender reasonably knew before hand that unsolicited bulk mail was unsolicited is also irrelevant until it is time to decide whether and how to punish someone who has sent spam. It is a bad idea in general to pick a hard number like 27.3 for "bulk" just as it is a bad idea to get took picky about "defraud." The objections to "unsolicited bulk" usually come from: - bulk mailers (i.e. spammers) who want to determine "solicited" on behalf of their targets without bothering their targets and who believe that a little "personalization" makes their output other than bulk. - individual users who realize they cannot determine for certain whether any given chain letter or other obvious spam is spam. They people should be reminded that if they see a figure in the darkness crawling into a neighors window, they should call the police instead of investigating to see if it is a neighbor who forget a key. - spammer fighters (as opposed to people oopposed to spam) who want definitions such as "unsolicited commercial mail" because they cannot individual determine "bulk," they refuse to believe that anyone wants commercial mail, and they want more ways to count coup on spammers. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 14:01:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA05666 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:01:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24JC9R05285 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:12:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24JC8505282 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:12:08 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA05646; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:01:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24J83504989; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:08:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24J6Z504113 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:06:35 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA05382 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:55:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h24IvQBD022895 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:57:26 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] MTP draft In-Reply-To: <20030304183230.GA10667@danisch.de> Message-ID: References: <200303041749.h24Hnoi1025119@calcite.rhyolite.com> <20030304183230.GA10667@danisch.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:57:26 -0500 (EST) On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Hadmut Danisch wrote: > I don't know of any text filtering that works reliably and reasonable. SpamAssassin is excellent. But you are right, there can be false-positives. > And, I believe that is is a bad idea to perfom text analyse _while_ > receiving the message. Message transfer should be as fast as possible > and should not suffer from any external delay. If you limit the size of messages you scan, and implement things intelligently, SpamAssassin can scan messages in 100 - 500 milliseconds on cheap PC hardware. This includes MIME decoding and attachment-unpacking, etc. The typical mail server is not CPU-bound, so adding content-scanning often just improves the resource balance. :-) > And it is not always > possible because some formats can be decoded/uncompressed only when > they are complete. The scanning is done at the end of the DATA phase while the sender is waiting for the final acknowledgement. The recommended timeout here according to RFC 2821 is 10 minutes, so adding under a second of content-scanning shouldn't be a problem. The only drawback is what I alluded to in a previous post: SMTP doesn't allow success for some recipients and failure for others at the end of the DATA phase. > I don't like text analysis while receiving the message. And I am > not really convinced about such content methods. Try them out; I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 14:12:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06031 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:12:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24JN7j05799 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:23:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24JN7505796 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:23:07 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06008; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:12:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24JJ1505624; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:19:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24JIW505577 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:18:32 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA05812 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:07:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h24J9PFb004719 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:09:25 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303041909.h24J9PFb004719@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] MTP draft References: <20030304183230.GA10667@danisch.de> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:09:25 -0700 (MST) > From: Hadmut Danisch > > - text filtering can give failure indications during SMTP transactions. > > There are many examples of such systems, including some installations > > of SpamAssassin, the DCC, and many uses of the sendmail milter > > mechanism. > > I don't know of any text filtering that works reliably and reasonable. Do you know about the DCC, SpamAssassin, Brightmail, or Postini? I may be somewhat biased, but I think all of those are reasonably reliable and reasonable. (I've some reservations about SpamAssassin, but only because I wonder about Perl for filtering more than 50,000 messages/day.) > That's a kind of content security that just reduces the channel > bandwith (seen from an information theory point of view). You and I apparently do not agree on the definition of "information theory point of view." > And, I believe that is is a bad idea to perfom text analyse _while_ > receiving the message. Message transfer should be as fast as possible > and should not suffer from any external delay. And it is not always > possible because some formats can be decoded/uncompressed only when > they are complete. > > I don't like text analysis while receiving the message. And I am > not really convinced about such content methods. Do you know how many CPU cycles are required to perform some text analysis? It is possible to analyze text as fast as all but the fastest networks, at many MBytes/second. Essentially no SMTP servers are significantly affected by the costs of running the DCC client code. There are many organizations that are using text analysis to reject more than 90% of incoming spam 100,000 millions of mail messages per day sent to their SMTP servers. > ... > > - most talk of "header forgery" is confused. The best demonstration > > of that fact was a recent message to this mailing list that talked about > > people "forging" their own addresses. That makes no sense given > > the English definition of the verb "to forge." You cannot "forge" > > your own name or address. > > Sure you can. Don't use the "English definition". Use the "Security definition". > > It means that you can just insert any address without any > authorization step. If you can do it, so anyone else can do it as > well. There must be some technical difference introduced between the > one who is allowed to use an address, and all others. That's the point. That is a misuse of the word "forge." You can also use word "apple" when you are talking an orangebut it is a bad idea. > > The problem is that many and perhaps most so called "forged" mail > > From addresses in spam are no more "forged" than the home return > > address you put on picture postcards while on vacation. > > I've never received a postcard asking me to buy any nonsense and > labeled with a wrong sender address. I received hundreds of such e-mails. That's irrelevant to whether the return address was forged. Besides, in almost all cases, you have no idea whether the sender address is in fact wrong by any sane and honest definition of "wrong." It is perfectly reasonable and quite common for paper mail to have postmarks, envelope return addresses, and inside addresses that all differ. The same applies to email. Whether the email or paper mail is otherwise objectionable is independent. > > That the free mail provder of the mailbox has cancelled a spammer's > > account does not make the use of the mailbox "forgery" any more > > than your use of a hotel's address is forgery the day before you > > arrive or the day after you leave. > > I can't follow you. Many spam messages I've received had sender > addresses which _never_ existed. I know that a little bit more than > a year ago millions of mails have been sent with several sender > addresses ....@danisch.de Since this is my own domain, I'm pretty > sure that these accounts never existed. Spam sender addresses are not > cancelled accounts, they are just random addresses. Some spam does in fact carry forged SMTP envelope Mail_From or header From:, Reply-to:, Return-Path: or Sender: values. However, many other cases are not really "forged." > > - PKI, X.500, PGP, SMIME, and all other authentication mechanisms > > are irrelevant to stopping spam. It is not only that the amazing > > story in http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2001-04.html demonstrates > > that it is impossible for $350/certificate to check the identity > > of certificate holders. It is that a fundamentail design goal of > > SMTP is to allow strangers to send each other mail. > > That's the problem we're here to solve. It's our job to change it, > not to accept it. You can't wave a magic wand and ignore the design goals. As long as you accept the design goal of accepting mail from strangers, you are stuck with the fact that authentication is irrelevant to stopping spam. > > If you are willing to accept a message from a complete stranger, then > > it makes no sense to talk about authenticating the stranger. Strangers > > are people you don't know and cannot trust to not be sending you and > > 500,000,000 of your closest friends the same message. > > That's a cultural dependant point of view. The european approach is > that you can identify everybody, even a complete stranger, and that > you know who was sending you rubbish. If 1% of the recipients complain > or get into legal steps, the sender faces 5,000,000 opponents. But > you need to know the identity of the sender before. No, you are confusing figuring out the perpetrator of a crime with preventing crime. Being able to know who sent you rubish is just as irrelevant to stopping that same rubbish as knowing who robbed a bank is for preventing that robbery. In fact it is no more difficult in principle to determine the identity of spammers in the U.S. than in Europe. On both continents, if the ISP has reasonable records, the perpetrator is known. PKI, X.509, PGP, SMIME, and even SMTP-AUTH and SMTP-TLS are irrelevant. > > - There is a single, common definition of spam that works. It is > > "unsolicited bulk mail." "Unsolicited" is determined by the target > > unless the sender has creditable evidence that the target asked for the > > mail. "Bulk" is some number of substantially identical messages usually > > more than a dozen. > > How do you want to detect whether a mail was sent to at least 10,000 > other people without violating their privacy? And if you are one of > the unlucky first 10,000 receivers, then it is not yet spam? You are confusing detecting a crime with preventing crime and punishing criminals. In practice, you are right more than 99.9% of the time when you see a single bulk message and guess it is bulk. In practice you do not need to see 10,000 copies to know that bulk mail is bulk. When you as an individual user receive spam, you do not need to receive 9,9999 copes to know with better than 99.9% accuracy whether it is bulk. When you see someone lurking behind your neighbor's house, you do not need to investigate to see if the prowler is authorized. You should call the police and let them sort it out. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 14:21:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06327 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:21:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24JWEE06212 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:32:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24JWE506209 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:32:14 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06309; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:21:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24JS5506008; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:28:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24JRm505993 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:27:48 -0500 Received: from zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06139 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:16:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h24JIgw20751 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:18:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF4SY5M; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:18:42 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id FSK7YY6X; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:18:42 -0500 Message-ID: <3E64FCD6.2070103@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] filtering at connect time Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 14:21:58 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit David wrote: > I would really like to see other MTA software (qmail, Postfix, Exim) > implement "real-time" filtering during the SMTP conversation. As far > as I know, Sendmail is the only MTA that does this currently. Mailshield provides inline "real-time" filtering which can take effect at any RFC821 "step" of the conversation - connect, HELO, MAIL FROM, RCPT TO or DATA. [Mailshield is from Lyris, I made the designer build it that way ;-)] We've deliberately altered this so almost all of our rejections occur after the DATA so we can get full copies of everything we block. The only exception is relay attempts - we block those at RCPT TO time. Mailshield isn't a true MTA - it's more of a RFC821 packet filter, "front ending" a "real" MTA. In our case, the back end is sendmail. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 14:25:27 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06429 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:25:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24Ja3106317 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:36:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Ja2506314 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:36:02 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06410; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:24:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24JW2506201; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:32:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24JVD506171 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:31:13 -0500 Received: from mercury.ex.ac.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06281 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:20:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from [144.173.6.20] (helo=cronus.ex.ac.uk) by mercury.ex.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18qHzH-00Ca6A-00; Tue, 04 Mar 2003 19:22:03 +0000 From: Adam Back To: Roland Cc: ASRG Subject: DNS is broken, and by extension so is RMX (Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) Message-ID: <20030304192202.A4358597@exeter.ac.uk> References: <20030304000807.A4309027@exeter.ac.uk> <20030304092839.GA1965@danisch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.2i In-Reply-To: ; from list-asrg@openrbl.org on Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 10:26:00AM +0000 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:22:02 +0000 On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 10:26:00AM +0000, Roland wrote: > Hadmut Danisch wrote: > > Fixing the security problems of > > DNS is the task of another IETF working group. We shouldn't try > > to improve the whole world, but focus on spam. > > Bulkers need to spew out millions of mails, they would need to poison > thausands of nameservers which is simply not feasible. I think you are have not looked at DNS security issues. It is far easier to exploit and the cost can be amortized over many messages. Read the paper I quoted: http://www.securityfocus.com/guest/17905 It summarises a many of the known vulnerabilities and shows the limitations to what an implementation can do without changing the protocol. On the risks associated with DNS security for the RMX application, consider: a) the sender knows when the SMTP server will make the DNS request (he just injected the mail) so he can send a flurry of DNS UDP response packets to arrive before the real response; b) the sender can choose the TTL on his forged DNS response, making it last for weeks; c) during this time he can spam at full volume. > Such harmful manipulations are already covered by the laws in many > countries, and there are more secure alternatives to bind available. I don't see law being any significant barrier to spam. There are too many jurisdictions, too many opportunities for spammers to hide their identities, and too much money involved for it to be a deterrent; and anyway introducing laws into internet protocols invites hamfisted politicians to introduces laws generally to the detriment of internet users who are still poorly represented. Hadmut claims this is not a problem because we can leave fixing DNS to the IETF: > Fixing the security problems of DNS is the task of another IETF > working group. We shouldn't try to improve the whole world, but > focus on spam. but basing a supposed fix on a heavily broken protocol, with no known solution without replacing the entire protocol, and big deployment problems in doing that in a backwards compatible way, and a long history of failure to deploy DNSSEC a backwards compatible and incremental improvement introduces more problems than it fixes. I think the deployment path is the most difficult challenge of anti-spam measures. Adding a dependency on another hard tech problem with a yet unsolved deployment path doesn't solve the problem. Adam _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 14:28:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06517 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:28:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24Jd9X07275 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:39:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Jd9507272 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:39:09 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06507; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:28:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24JZ1506287; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:35:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24JYD506256 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:34:13 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06361 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:23:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h24JP7BE019460; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:25:07 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h24JLGuB012113 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:21:17 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h24JLGuu012111; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:21:16 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: "David F. Skoll" Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] MTP draft Message-ID: <20030304192116.GA11970@danisch.de> References: <200303041749.h24Hnoi1025119@calcite.rhyolite.com> <20030304183230.GA10667@danisch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:21:16 +0100 On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 01:57:26PM -0500, David F. Skoll wrote: > alluded to in a previous post: SMTP doesn't allow success for some > recipients and failure for others at the end of the DATA phase. Hey, that's a good and important point. I'll need to address this in the next version of my draft. > > I don't like text analysis while receiving the message. And I am > > not really convinced about such content methods. > > Try them out; I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. Well, it's not the experience, it's just that I have some kind of information theory point of view. There is no such good and bad information, there is just information or not information. Every kind of content filtering (including censorship) is just shortening the channel bandwidth. That's why I personally don't really like text analysis and heuristics. regards Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 14:31:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06667 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:31:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24Jg5j07480 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:42:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Jg4507477 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:42:05 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06613; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:30:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Jc1507201; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:38:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Jah506354 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:36:43 -0500 Received: from emu.st (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id OAA06448 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:25:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 654 invoked by uid 1015); 4 Mar 2003 19:27:36 -0000 Delivered-To: qmda-intercept-asrg@ietf.org@intercept Comments: QMDA 0.1 - see http://www.geocities.com/mark_delany/qmda.html Received: (qmail 52260 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2003 19:27:36 -0000 Received: from prefix-internal.emu.st (HELO emu.st) (10.100.100.36) by f1-external.emu.st with SMTP; 4 Mar 2003 19:27:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 20650 invoked by uid 1001); 4 Mar 2003 19:27:36 -0000 Message-ID: <20030304192736.20649.qmail@prefix.emu.st> From: "Mark Delany" Mail-Followup-To: asrg@ietf.org To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] filtering at connect time References: <20030304180130.AE10316F16@jmason.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: ; from dfs@roaringpenguin.com on Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 01:28:24PM -0500 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 4 Mar 2003 19:27:36 +0000 On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 01:28:24PM -0500, David F. Skoll allegedly wrote: > you'll see that so-called "one-shot" messages make up a large percentage > of the daily message volume -- around 20-25%. > > By the way, tempfailing senders the first time (or better yet, > tempfailing on the basis of sender-recipient pairs) is a solution that > fits transparently[*] into the existing e-mail infrastructure, uses > very few resources, and is quite effective. I highly recommend it. How do you differentiate between list-washing and spam delivery attempts? It's an anecdote, but about half of the email to invalid sender-recipient pairs I see appears to be testing addresses (in alphabetically order no less) without issuing a DATA command. If you issue the deferral before the DATA phase, then your 20-25% needs to consider the list-washers/address testers. Nonetheless, very interesting data. Regards. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 14:31:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06681 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:31:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24Jg6m07497 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:42:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Jg6507493 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:42:06 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06618; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:30:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Jc2507233; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:38:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Jbs507174 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:37:54 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06461 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:26:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h24JSmBD023117 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:28:48 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] MTP draft In-Reply-To: <20030304192116.GA11970@danisch.de> Message-ID: References: <200303041749.h24Hnoi1025119@calcite.rhyolite.com> <20030304183230.GA10667@danisch.de> <20030304192116.GA11970@danisch.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:28:48 -0500 (EST) On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Hadmut Danisch wrote: > Well, it's not the experience, it's just that I have some kind > of information theory point of view. There is no such good and bad > information, there is just information or not information. Then there's no such thing as "spam" or "ham", just mail or not mail. :-) You can't fight spam on an information-theoretic basis. It's more of a messy AI problem with lots of hand-waving subjective tests. > Every kind > of content filtering (including censorship) is just shortening the > channel bandwidth. That's why I personally don't really like text > analysis and heuristics. Well, think of it as a filter that rejects high-frequency noise. All electrical engineers know that you try to limit the bandwidth of a transmission channel to just what you require; any excess bandwidth just means more noise. :-) -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 14:33:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06773 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:33:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24Ji6I07564 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:44:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Ji6507561 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:44:06 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06755; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:32:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Je1507343; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:40:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24JdD507288 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:39:13 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06512 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:28:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h24JU6707552; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:30:06 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: "David F. Skoll" Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] filtering at connect time Message-ID: <20030304193006.GA7500@main.templetons.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:30:06 -0800 On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 08:26:05AM -0500, David F. Skoll wrote: > On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, wayne wrote: > > > Spammers don't care about undelivered spam. Most of the time, they > > won't even know because they use open proxies, forged from addresses > > and forged reply-to addresses. > > However, there is a benefit to replying to spam with a 554 SMTP code. > If the spammers have been using an open relay, the open relay will generate More to the point, while spammers indeed don't care about getting bounces on underlivered spam, it is simply very poor software engineering to design a system that simply drops mail on the floor and informs nobody who would care about it. Any false positive in such a system is a lost piece of mail with no diagnostic to tell people about it. Obviously the volume of spam makes it inappropriate to report errors one email at a time the way you would for one to one mail. So the challenge is to build error aggregation systems which allow people to view digests or statistics on errors that are relevant to them. (Ideally you also store the mails somewhere that they can be fetched by the target if desired. Certainly disk is cheap enough that if you have the message in ram, you can store it to a database for a week or so for fetch-by-url. However, if your technique depends on blocking the mail before it has even finished arriving, this is difficult, though you can still store as much as you did receive. Simply appending a block of data to disk is not so expensive an operation.) Reporting errors back to legit bulk mailers -- again, in aggregate -- is easy because they use legit headers and a unified from. In fact most MTAs do this already. Giving up the principles of good software engineering and protocol design, so that messages don't vanish into black holes with no diagnostics should be one of our last-resort choices. There are many stories from the anti-spam wars of people whose (valid) mail was just been silently discarded who only found out about it by accident. And let's not forget that open relay operators are victims of the spammers. It may be necessary to close those relays, but they are still the victim, not the perp. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 14:53:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07291 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:53:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24K45Q08396 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:04:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24K45508391 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:04:05 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07276; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:52:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24K36508335; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:03:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24K2V508295 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:02:31 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07238 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:51:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h24JrLhO008812 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:53:21 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303041953.h24JrLhO008812@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] MTP draft References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:53:21 -0700 (MST) > From: "David F. Skoll" > ... > content-scanning shouldn't be a problem. The only drawback is what I > alluded to in a previous post: SMTP doesn't allow success for some > recipients and failure for others at the end of the DATA phase. > ... There are existing solutions to that problem. One is to reject with a 4yz temporary failure codes any Rcpt_To address whose filtering preferences might yield a different answer than the preferences of the first recipient. A second solution is to resolve conflicts in the correct answer to the DATA command with a 2yz OK answer but to deliver only to mailboxes that want the message and silently discard instead of rejecting the message for other mailboxes. The first is clearly correct and complete, but I've chosen the second for the sendmail milter DCC client on perhaps dubious efficiency grounds. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 14:54:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07347 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:54:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24K58C08508 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:05:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24K58508505 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:05:08 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07340; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:54:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24K41508383; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:04:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24K3r508351 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:03:53 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07269 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:52:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h24JslBD023261 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:54:47 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Scanning with Perl (was Re: [Asrg] MTP draft) In-Reply-To: <200303041909.h24J9PFb004719@calcite.rhyolite.com> Message-ID: References: <20030304183230.GA10667@danisch.de> <200303041909.h24J9PFb004719@calcite.rhyolite.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:54:47 -0500 (EST) On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Vernon Schryver wrote: > (I've some reservations about SpamAssassin, but only > because I wonder about Perl for filtering more than 50,000 messages/day.) There are people using SpamAssassin to filter over 1,000,000 messages/day. Like I said, you just have to be clever about it. Even a run-of-the-mill PC should handle 75K-100K messages/day. Given that you're doing extensive string and regular-expression matching, I doubt that C would be much more efficient than Perl for message scanning. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 14:57:22 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07390 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:57:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24K7wa09406 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:07:58 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24K7w509403 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:07:58 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07379; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:56:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24K70508650; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:07:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24K6w508602 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:06:58 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07366 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:55:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h24JvmBD023292 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:57:48 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] filtering at connect time In-Reply-To: <20030304193006.GA7500@main.templetons.com> Message-ID: References: <20030304193006.GA7500@main.templetons.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:57:48 -0500 (EST) On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Brad Templeton wrote: > Obviously the volume of spam makes it inappropriate to report errors > one email at a time the way you would for one to one mail. Right. That's why you want to go to great lengths to force the sending relay to generate the bounce. All you want to do is return a 5XX code. Once you've accepted the spam (that is, returned a 2XX code after DATA), the spammer has won. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 15:00:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07496 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:00:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24KBLu09591 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:11:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24KBL509588 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:11:21 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07486; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:00:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24KAC509544; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:10:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24K9Y509493 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:09:34 -0500 Received: from mercury.ex.ac.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07427 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:58:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from [144.173.6.20] (helo=cronus.ex.ac.uk) by mercury.ex.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18qIaS-00CbFM-00; Tue, 04 Mar 2003 20:00:28 +0000 From: Adam Back To: Hadmut Danisch Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records Message-ID: <20030304200027.A4371516@exeter.ac.uk> References: <20030304000807.A4309027@exeter.ac.uk> <20030304092839.GA1965@danisch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.2i In-Reply-To: <20030304092839.GA1965@danisch.de>; from hadmut@danisch.de on Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 10:28:39AM +0100 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:00:27 +0000 On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 10:28:39AM +0100, Hadmut Danisch wrote: > Adam Back wrote: > > Also I'm not sure as another poster noted how much it even helps: > > disposable ISP free accounts (AOL CD syndrome) are a major source, > > with RMX the problem is not even improved. > > I don't see the problem. If anyone uses such a CD, she is still > limited to the aol domain and can't send e.g. as @hotmail.com or > @danisch.de. The problem is forcing everyone to jump through the hoop of having valid RMX records does not stop spam. It just stops people sending mail from addresses without RMX records delegating that they are allowed to (which incidentally breaks a lot of existing functionality). So already there is commonly some Received header giving the information about who sent the mail. That From headers may be slightly harder to forge under RMX doesn't change the problem. The problem is that spammers systematically abuse ISP AUPs. The ISPs already have AUPs, they already routinely correlate spam attacks to given users and terminate accounts. RMX does _nothing_ about spam other than offer another route to tracing the ISP. It also has the unrelated and tangential effect of making certain types of forgeries harder / breaking some times of existing functionality (where the "forgery" is the functionality -- making the From address your desired Reply-To: all mail I've sent for the last 5 years has been of this form). We know from long experience that laws, and after the fact enforcement of AUPs don't solve the problem. That is the status quo. > Second is, under german - and I believe under european - law > ISPs are required to state their customers identity. I guess > the same will come in the USA after 9/11. It will become > more and more difficult to have anonymous access to the internet. And this is a bad thing for end-users. Your approach to slowing spam is to punish end-users by stripping them of privacy, and the convenience of trial-offer CDs from ISPs. > Third, when a thing like RMX comes to fly, anonymous customers will > have to find a RMX covering the AOL addresses in order to send > spam. There will be very few domains doing so, maybe just > aol.com. If AOL goes on with supporting spam, they will be > blacklisted (which is effective in this case). They will have to > solve the problem. So how will anyonymous users who want anonymity for privacy send mail in this world. Adam _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 15:06:08 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07933 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:06:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24KGjS09815 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:16:45 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24KGj509812 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:16:45 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07875; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:05:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24KFm509747; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:15:48 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24KEC509661 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:14:12 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07568 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:03:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h24K55BD023366 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:05:05 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Temp-failing first-time unknowns (was Re: [Asrg] filtering at connect time) In-Reply-To: <20030304192736.20649.qmail@prefix.emu.st> Message-ID: References: <20030304180130.AE10316F16@jmason.org> <20030304192736.20649.qmail@prefix.emu.st> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:05:05 -0500 (EST) On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Mark Delany wrote: > How do you differentiate between list-washing and spam delivery attempts? I don't, and I don't care. Either way, it fails at RCPT TO: However, grepping through my mail logs, I don't see any obvious dictionary attacks. I know other users who have reported this, but I don't see it. Besides, this technique has the pleasant side-effect of stopping dictionary attacks too, unless the attacker makes a second attempt for each recipient address. Also, by watching the size of your "one-shot" database, it quickly becomes apparent when you're under dictionary attack, and you can block the offender. Regards, David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 15:10:25 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA08524 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:10:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24KL2m10032 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:21:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24KL2510029 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:21:02 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA08474; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:09:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24KH0509855; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:17:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24KGV509793 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:16:31 -0500 Received: from mercury.ex.ac.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07836 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:05:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from [144.173.6.20] (helo=cronus.ex.ac.uk) by mercury.ex.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18qIhB-00CZft-00; Tue, 04 Mar 2003 20:07:25 +0000 From: Adam Back To: Prasenjeet Dutta Cc: Hadmut Danisch , asrg@ietf.org Subject: use of signatures is not restricted by law (Re: [Asrg] Proven solution for authenticating messages) Message-ID: <20030304200724.A4356074@exeter.ac.uk> References: <7B170C5E4008D311ABB70008C7D3825B03BC340E@saison.ssc.govt.nz> <20030303213350.GA13559@danisch.de> <3E6453B9.2080905@chaoszone.org> <20030304093923.GB1965@danisch.de> <3E648663.2060006@chaoszone.org> <20030304110921.GB3786@danisch.de> <3E64C4AE.9090105@chaoszone.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.2i In-Reply-To: <3E64C4AE.9090105@chaoszone.org>; from bulk@chaoszone.org on Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 08:52:22PM +0530 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:07:24 +0000 I don't believe there are any countries where verifying digital signatures is not permitted. You're probably thinking of the largely historic encryption regulations. (There still remain some countries which restrict encryption, but none that I know of that restrict signatures.) For example take a look at Bert-Jaap Koops "Crypto Law Survey": http://rechten.kub.nl/koops/cryptolaw/ Adam On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 08:52:22PM +0530, Prasenjeet Dutta wrote: > [...] However, if you live in a country where verifying digital > signatures is not permitted, _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 15:17:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA08849 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:17:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24KSDD10361 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:28:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24KSD510358 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:28:13 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA08829; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:17:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24KR3510328; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:27:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24KQM510286 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:26:23 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA08758 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:15:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h24KHEF9012182 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:17:14 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303042017.h24KHEF9012182@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] filtering at connect time References: <20030304193006.GA7500@main.templetons.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:17:14 -0700 (MST) > From: Brad Templeton > ... > Reporting errors back to legit bulk mailers -- again, in aggregate -- > is easy because they use legit headers and a unified from. In > fact most MTAs do this already. All conformant MTAs report errors, but not really in the aggregate, and that is a good thing. Legitimate bulk mail senders need to know which addresses are broken to clean their lists. > Giving up the principles of good software engineering and protocol > design, so that messages don't vanish into black holes with no > diagnostics should be one of our last-resort choices. There are many > stories from the anti-spam wars of people whose (valid) mail was just been > silently discarded who only found out about it by accident. true. > And let's not forget that open relay operators are victims of the > spammers. It may be necessary to close those relays, but they are > still the victim, not the perp. That is not right. People who operate relays may be less culpable than the original senders of spam, but they are certainly blame worthy and they are certainly not victims in the same class as spam targets. Relay operators can suffer greater harm tham individual spam targets, but relay operators must be held accountable. Besides, it is impossible to distinguish willful spam relaying from other sorts. Spammers have been hiring relays since soon after the beginning when Spamford recruited what he called his bandwidth partners. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 15:20:25 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA08951 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:20:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24KV2X10562 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:31:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24KV2510559 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:31:02 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA08940; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:19:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24KU4510496; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:30:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24KSp510406 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:28:51 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA08867 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:17:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h24KJhS23936 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:19:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF4S5C3; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:19:43 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id FSK7YY87; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:19:43 -0500 Message-ID: <3E650B24.8030308@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: Scanning with Perl (was Re: [Asrg] MTP draft) References: <20030304183230.GA10667@danisch.de> <200303041909.h24J9PFb004719@calcite.rhyolite.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 15:23:00 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit David F. Skoll wrote: > There are people using SpamAssassin to filter over 1,000,000 messages/day. > Like I said, you just have to be clever about it. Even a run-of-the-mill > PC should handle 75K-100K messages/day. Similarly, Mailshield's programming language is very perlish (the next version will _be_ embedded perl), and we move 50K-60K messages/day/server, and that's with the average message size being around 50K - considerably larger than most places see. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 15:21:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA08987 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:21:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24KVtS10608 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:31:55 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24KVs510605 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:31:54 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA08968; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:20:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24KV0510547; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:31:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24KUJ510506 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:30:19 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA08913 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:19:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h24KLCna013481 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:21:12 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303042021.h24KLCna013481@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: Scanning with Perl (was Re: [Asrg] MTP draft) References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:21:12 -0700 (MST) > From: "David F. Skoll" > > (I've some reservations about SpamAssassin, but only > > because I wonder about Perl for filtering more than 50,000 messages/day.) > > There are people using SpamAssassin to filter over 1,000,000 messages/day. > Like I said, you just have to be clever about it. Even a run-of-the-mill > PC should handle 75K-100K messages/day. I don't think it's a coincidence that the DCC users who also use SpamAssassin on more than 200K msgs/day seem to limit each of their SMTP servers to about the same number as your 75-100K msgs/day. > Given that you're doing extensive string and regular-expression > matching, I doubt that C would be much more efficient than Perl for > message scanning. Yes, given the SpamAssassin persistent process, you're probably right that the main costs are in the regular expression processing. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 15:23:18 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09070 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:23:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24KXt210759 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:33:55 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24KXt510756 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:33:55 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09043; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:22:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24KX1510698; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:33:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24KWN510639 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:32:23 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA08984 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:21:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h24KNDG08823; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:23:13 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: Craig Hughes Cc: Vernon Schryver , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] MTP draft Message-ID: <20030304202313.GE7500@main.templetons.com> References: <200303041749.h24Hnoi1025119@calcite.rhyolite.com> <1BDD0708-4E6D-11D7-81CF-00039396ECF2@hughes-family.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1BDD0708-4E6D-11D7-81CF-00039396ECF2@hughes-family.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:23:13 -0800 On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 10:14:15AM -0800, Craig Hughes wrote: > Yes, but define "unsolicited" and "bulk" > > C > > On Tuesday, March 4, 2003, at 09:49 AM, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > > - There is a single, common definition of spam that works. It is > > "unsolicited bulk mail." "Unsolicited" is determined by the > > target > > unless the sender has creditable evidence that the target asked > > for the > > mail. "Bulk" is some number of substantially identical messages > >usually > > more than a dozen. > > > > There are many other broken definitions of spam, but they are all > > either over-elaborate variations of unsolicited bulk, based on > > notions of censorship (e.g. unsolicited commercial or pornographic > > mail), or lies and nonsense from spammers. > Actually, while UBE is a fairly common definition used, it has a number of flaws. To wit, I send UBE, and so do many people. I have a party-invite mailing list. When I meet interesting people who live nearby, I put them on it. I don't ask them if they want to be on it. Sometimes they give me a business card (which you might imply means solicited). Sometimes I pull their name from a conference directory. Sometimes I learn their E-mail another way. Then I send out stuff, such as party invites. Surely you all have gotten party invites from people where you didn't ask to be on their list for such things? Sometimes I will send notes about new essays or photography or etc. on my web site. Of course, each mailing includes a note that if anybody wants off, they can get off, and of course unlike many spammers, I mean it. I've gotten one such request. I have 400 people on the list in one form or another. It sends perhaps 6 mails a year. Lots of people do this, and it's entirely legitimate in my view -- we have no business interfering with mail where nobody is complaining, but it is also UBE. I could ask everybody before I put them on. They would find that more annoying than simply getting the first mailing with a legitimate ability to unsubscribe. I would find it annoying if people said, "I want to invite you to parties, is that OK?" At the same time, unsolicited is in fact hard to define. If you buy a product from a company, surely they can mail you about a product recall or bug fix, right? That's not unsolicited, is it? What about an upgrade? A related product? A totally new offer? That forces you to draw a subjective line. That's why I settled on "from a stranger" which a non-stranger being somebody you have initiated contact with. This is an entirely factual test, not subjective. And while it does allow the company you buy stuff from to mail you. the truth is the amount of unwanted mail I get from non-strangers is insignificant. And that level of volume == victory over spam. I have added one modification to my definition in the form of a rule. Namely a requirement to have a working unsubscribe. So that even if somebody is not a stranger, if you have told them not to bulk mail you, and they do, it's a spam. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 15:25:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09139 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:25:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24Ka9e10870 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:36:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Ka9510867 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:36:09 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09113; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:24:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24KZ2510821; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:35:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24KYG510782 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:34:16 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09065 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:23:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h24KP7bR020994; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:25:07 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h24KOAuB013341 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:24:10 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h24KOAWE013339; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:24:10 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Adam Back Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records Message-ID: <20030304202410.GA13063@danisch.de> References: <20030304000807.A4309027@exeter.ac.uk> <20030304092839.GA1965@danisch.de> <20030304200027.A4371516@exeter.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030304200027.A4371516@exeter.ac.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:24:10 +0100 On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 08:00:27PM +0000, Adam Back wrote: > > Second is, under german - and I believe under european - law > > ISPs are required to state their customers identity. I guess > > the same will come in the USA after 9/11. It will become > > more and more difficult to have anonymous access to the internet. > > And this is a bad thing for end-users. > > Your approach to slowing spam is to punish end-users by stripping them > of privacy, and the convenience of trial-offer CDs from ISPs. That's not my approach. That's my observation and guess. > So how will anyonymous users who want anonymity for privacy send mail > in this world. Please specify what exactly you're talking about. Are you talking about pseudonyms, forged addresses, remailers or what? - Being anonymous can't mean to be able to forge/adopt a foreign E-mail address or abuse a foreign domain. I do respect your wish to communicate anonymously, but I don't accept that you can pretend to be ...@danisch.de to do so. - You're still free to use an anonymous remailer/pseudonym server. If mail comes from that server it will be something like 12345@anonymousmail.com It's my decision to accept this or not. - Your right to send anonymous e-mails doesn't include my duty to accept it and to make my infrastructure available for this on my expense. Your right to use anonymous communication corresponds with my right to decide whether I want to participate or not. And I do not want to receive anonymous e-mail, at least not to my normal e-mail address. Freedom of anonymous communication is nice, but it can't be a matter of the initiator only. The callee must agree to participate in anonymous communication. - You're still free to buy a 10$ domain foobardomain.org and to have a 0/0 RMX record, thus allowing anyone on the world to use ...@foobardomain.org . Maybe lots of MTAs will accept such mail. My one wouldn't. regards Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 15:30:26 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09352 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:30:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24Kf4U11945 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:41:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Kf3511942 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:41:03 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09313; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:29:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Ke1511844; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:40:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24KdL511782 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:39:21 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09228 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:28:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h24KU7s5021118; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:30:07 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h24KQZuB013399 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:26:35 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h24KQZeC013397; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:26:35 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Adam Back Cc: Prasenjeet Dutta , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: use of signatures is not restricted by law (Re: [Asrg] Proven solution for authenticating messages) Message-ID: <20030304202635.GB13063@danisch.de> References: <7B170C5E4008D311ABB70008C7D3825B03BC340E@saison.ssc.govt.nz> <20030303213350.GA13559@danisch.de> <3E6453B9.2080905@chaoszone.org> <20030304093923.GB1965@danisch.de> <3E648663.2060006@chaoszone.org> <20030304110921.GB3786@danisch.de> <3E64C4AE.9090105@chaoszone.org> <20030304200724.A4356074@exeter.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030304200724.A4356074@exeter.ac.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:26:35 +0100 On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 08:07:24PM +0000, Adam Back wrote: > I don't believe there are any countries where verifying digital > signatures is not permitted. You're probably thinking of the largely > historic encryption regulations. (There still remain some countries > which restrict encryption, but none that I know of that restrict > signatures.) Maybe it is prohibited to have a secret key at all... A PKI for signatures can always be abused as a PKI for encryption. There are countries and governments who don't permit this. Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 15:30:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09366 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:30:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24Kf7t11961 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:41:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Kf7511958 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:41:07 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09324; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:29:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Ke3511888; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:40:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Kd1511747 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:39:01 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09222 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:27:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h24KTr1K014669 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:29:53 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303042029.h24KTr1K014669@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records References: <20030304200027.A4371516@exeter.ac.uk> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:29:53 -0700 (MST) > From: Adam Back > ... > We know from long experience that laws, and after the fact enforcement > of AUPs don't solve the problem. That is the status quo. No, the status quo involves lots of spam, but not from ISPs that have strongly anti-spam AUPs and bother to really enforce them. (A strong anti-spam AUP is not one that says "send as much spam as you want for a couple business days and then buy a new throw-away account." One that says "send spam and your financial knee-caps will be destroyed by our lawyers" is strongly anti-spam.) Demonstrations of how laws can work are the very successful recent U.S. state laws against telemarking. > ... > So how will anyonymous users who want anonymity for privacy send mail > in this world. All of the authentication anti-spam efforts are based on the mistaken notion that ISPs cannot know their own customers and exact a pound or two of flesh for bad behavior. That notion is incredibly silly if you've paid the least attention to history. For example, Ma Bell knew a lot less about its pay phone customers, but nevertheless managed to keep "phone phreaking" under better control than AT&T, MCI/UUnet, and Sprint have controlled their own spammers. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 15:31:21 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09395 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:31:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24Kfws12015 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:41:58 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Kfw512012 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:41:58 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09381; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:30:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Kf1511926; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:41:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Ke3511896 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:40:03 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09281 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:28:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h24KUtV08985; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:30:55 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: Vernon Schryver Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] MTP draft Message-ID: <20030304203054.GG7500@main.templetons.com> References: <20030304183230.GA10667@danisch.de> <200303041909.h24J9PFb004719@calcite.rhyolite.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200303041909.h24J9PFb004719@calcite.rhyolite.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:30:54 -0800 On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 12:09:25PM -0700, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > I don't know of any text filtering that works reliably and reasonable. > > Do you know about the DCC, SpamAssassin, Brightmail, or Postini? I > may be somewhat biased, but I think all of those are reasonably reliable > and reasonable. (I've some reservations about SpamAssassin, but only > because I wonder about Perl for filtering more than 50,000 messages/day.) Brightmail is not filtering as I normally consider it. They have live humans identify spam attacks, and then publish tools to detect those particular attacks. Thus no false positives. To my mind the problem with filtering is it goes after a side issue. I believe any good solution goes at the root causes of spam -- abuse of easy bulk mail. Talking about Viagra isn't he cause of spam, but that is what general spam filters test for. Commerce is the most common motive for spam, but not the only one, but that is what laws go after. Being at an ISP where people spam does not mean you are a spammer, but that is what blacklists test for. Being an open relay isn't the cause of spam, but that is what relay blacklists test for. Being a stranger isn't the cause of spam, but that is what whitelists test for. However, it is one of the key components, so this is more on target, as long as there is a way for the strangers sending person to person mail to get their mail through. Free bulk e-mail is one of the causes of spam, so attempts to put a cost on e-mail are going after the root problem, but they are very difficult to implement and have other consequences. Attack the root cause, not the symptoms. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 15:33:19 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09493 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:33:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24Khue12093 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:43:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Khu512090 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:43:56 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09477; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:32:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Kh1512055; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:43:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24KgZ512037 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:42:35 -0500 Received: from trillian.net.astrum.ch (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09409 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:31:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from eddie.net.astrum.ch (eddie.net.astrum.ch [213.144.132.254]) by trillian.net.astrum.ch (8.11.2/8.11.2/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) with ESMTP id h24KXRs22141 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:33:27 +0100 Received: from eddie.net.astrum.ch (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eddie.net.astrum.ch (8.12.6/8.12.6/SuSE Linux 0.6) with ESMTP id h24KXRbD004360 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:33:27 +0100 Received: (from matthias@localhost) by eddie.net.astrum.ch (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id h24KXRU1004359 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:33:27 +0100 From: Matthias Leisi To: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] Proven solution for authenticating messages Message-ID: <20030304203327.GD1534@eddie.net.astrum.ch> Mail-Followup-To: Matthias Leisi , ASRG References: <7B170C5E4008D311ABB70008C7D3825B03BC340E@saison.ssc.govt.nz> <20030303213350.GA13559@danisch.de> <3E6453B9.2080905@chaoszone.org> <20030304093923.GB1965@danisch.de> <3E648663.2060006@chaoszone.org> <3E64C6B4.5090805@chaoszone.org> <20030304195256.GC7500@main.templetons.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030304195256.GC7500@main.templetons.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: (private) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:33:27 +0100 > If mail is signed with a certificate from a trusted CA that has met > this test, it inherits the trust of that CA. If mail comes from > a country that gives the death penalty to spammers and enforces it, > that's fine too. However, the goal is to have as many was as > people can think up to be accountable. Most large-scale attempts with certification systems have failed, especially if they require individual users to take action - think PGP, which is fine as a technology, but does your father use it? But the concept of "inherited trust" is one that I keep thinking of. Blacklists work quite well, and trustworthy blacklists work even better; some have earned a good reputation due to their consistent policy, while others have failed due to irrational behaviour. So, the idea must have already been realized somewhere: why not build trustworthy Whitelists of accountable, responsible mail hosts? Of course, as with blacklists, there are policy issues with such lists, as the maintainer might face incentives adverese to general interest, which would have to be sorted out in one way or the other. But once a series of whitelists is established, an important issue raised by Brad should be solved: > The one natural monopoly here is in aggregating traffic volume. The > throttles counting volume of mail coming from networks do need to > join in a collective to share the volume data, otherwise you can't > detect bulk mail. Lists are aggregates by definition ;) Technically, whitelists are as trivial as blacklists: use some agreed-upon IP range for DNS queries (e.g. 127.1.0.x). With both black- and whitelists being available, we could also overcome the unsatisfying 1-0-view of blocking/allowing mail. An average of the rating by different lists (weighted by trustworthiness of the lists maintainer) should provide sufficient accuracy in deciding what to do with a mail already at the envelope stage of mail processing. Matthias -- Swiss Internet User Group http://www.siug.ch/ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 15:39:47 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07292 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:53:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24K45a08408 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:04:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24K45508393 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:04:05 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07275; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:52:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24K35508319; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:03:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24K2G508290 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:02:16 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07235 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:51:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h24Jqu608091; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:52:56 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: Prasenjeet Dutta Cc: Roland , ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] Proven solution for authenticating messages Message-ID: <20030304195256.GC7500@main.templetons.com> References: <7B170C5E4008D311ABB70008C7D3825B03BC340E@saison.ssc.govt.nz> <20030303213350.GA13559@danisch.de> <3E6453B9.2080905@chaoszone.org> <20030304093923.GB1965@danisch.de> <3E648663.2060006@chaoszone.org> <3E64C6B4.5090805@chaoszone.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E64C6B4.5090805@chaoszone.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:52:56 -0800 On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 09:01:00PM +0530, Prasenjeet Dutta wrote: > >Problem here: what constitutes 'accountable' [...] > >This would require a trusted entity which does the whole confirmation > >and managment, some kind of 'consent clearinghouse'. > > I agree, and this is the biggest challenge in this proposal. We > already have a clutch of CAs in place, but I think the for-profit > approach for e-mail CAs/Consent 'clearinghouses' will not work very There are many different ways to be accountable, and only one global test -- does the system of accountability work well enough to keep the spam volume below an acceptable level. If mail is signed with a certificate from a trusted CA that has met this test, it inherits the trust of that CA. If mail comes from a country that gives the death penalty to spammers and enforces it, that's fine too. However, the goal is to have as many was as people can think up to be accountable. The flaw as you present it, is that there is a natural economy of scale, perhaps almost a natural monopoly, in having one list of the addresses which can be held accountable for abuse. That isn't a hard and fast requirement -- each target using such a throttling gateway could use a different list, or draw from a different set of criteria. That's even easy to implement. The site gets to control their MX to a server that follows the rules they like. If a trusted site connects there by accident, worst case is they are refused and thus connect to the real server, which is next in the MX line. The one natural monopoly here is in aggregating traffic volume. The throttles counting volume of mail coming from networks do need to join in a collective to share the volume data, otherwise you can't detect bulk mail. You could have a small number of these aggregations of volume data, but not too many. However, nobody has to "own" this aggregation, that just needs a protocol by which the data are shared, and some trust system to only allow trusted people to contribute data. However, the main point of this philosophy is that this is the way almost all rules in society are actually enforced. We don't put up battlements around our houses to protect them any more. We don't put police on every corner. All we care about is that if somebody does break the rules, they can be held accountable. That is a deterrent to those who would break the rules. It's only in the most extreme cases that society works any other way, and society is usually poorer when it does. Airports are a modern example. In order to stop, rather than deter hijacking, we now put up with flying becoming a horrendus and privacy-stripping experience. Spam, fortunately, isn't that bad. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 15:40:21 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09690 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:40:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24KoxA12464 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:50:59 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Kox512461 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:50:59 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09672; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:39:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Ko1512439; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:50:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Knn512413 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:49:49 -0500 Received: from mercury.ex.ac.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09632 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:38:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from [144.173.6.20] (helo=cronus.ex.ac.uk) by mercury.ex.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18qJDO-00CZZ6-00; Tue, 04 Mar 2003 20:40:42 +0000 From: Adam Back To: Hadmut Danisch Cc: Prasenjeet Dutta , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: use of signatures is not restricted by law (Re: [Asrg] Proven solution for authenticating messages) Message-ID: <20030304204042.A4353369@exeter.ac.uk> References: <7B170C5E4008D311ABB70008C7D3825B03BC340E@saison.ssc.govt.nz> <20030303213350.GA13559@danisch.de> <3E6453B9.2080905@chaoszone.org> <20030304093923.GB1965@danisch.de> <3E648663.2060006@chaoszone.org> <20030304110921.GB3786@danisch.de> <3E64C4AE.9090105@chaoszone.org> <20030304200724.A4356074@exeter.ac.uk> <20030304202635.GB13063@danisch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.2i In-Reply-To: <20030304202635.GB13063@danisch.de>; from hadmut@danisch.de on Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 09:26:35PM +0100 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:40:42 +0000 Which countries? I really recommend that any anti-spam tech doesn't start out presuming they can't use digital signatures for legal reasons!! That position has never been taken in any internet security protocol that I have heard. Adam On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 09:26:35PM +0100, Hadmut Danisch wrote: > On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 08:07:24PM +0000, Adam Back wrote: > > I don't believe there are any countries where verifying digital > > signatures is not permitted. You're probably thinking of the largely > > historic encryption regulations. (There still remain some countries > > which restrict encryption, but none that I know of that restrict > > signatures.) > > Maybe it is prohibited to have a secret key at all... > > A PKI for signatures can always be abused as a PKI for encryption. > There are countries and governments who don't permit this. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 15:43:19 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09845 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:43:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24Krv012655 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:53:57 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Krv512652 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:53:57 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09812; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:42:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Kr1512628; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:53:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24KqP512569 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:52:25 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09736 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:41:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h24KhGBD023556 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:43:16 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] MTP draft In-Reply-To: <200303041953.h24JrLhO008812@calcite.rhyolite.com> Message-ID: References: <200303041953.h24JrLhO008812@calcite.rhyolite.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:43:16 -0500 (EST) On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Vernon Schryver wrote: > There are existing solutions to that problem. One is to reject with > a 4yz temporary failure codes any Rcpt_To address whose filtering > preferences might yield a different answer than the preferences of > the first recipient. That was an option I considered, but rejected. If you're the tenth recipient, you might wait a long time to get your e-mail. > A second solution is to resolve conflicts in the correct answer to > the DATA command with a 2yz OK answer but to deliver only to mailboxes > that want the message and silently discard instead of rejecting the > message for other mailboxes. That is the method I chose also. Actually, I group recipients by filter preferences, and then re-mail the message to each group with identical preferences, discarding the original. The re-mailed messages get filtered, but by then everyone is known to have the same set of preferences, so the problem is solved. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 15:49:27 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA10011 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:49:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24L05s13027 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:00:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24L05513024 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:00:05 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09995; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:48:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Kx2512957; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:59:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Kwf512933 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:58:41 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09975 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:47:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h24KnW7J017235 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:49:32 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303042049.h24KnW7J017235@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] MTP draft References: <20030304202313.GE7500@main.templetons.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:49:32 -0700 (MST) > From: Brad Templeton > ... > Actually, while UBE is a fairly common definition used, it has > a number of flaws. To wit, I send UBE, and so do many people. > > I have a party-invite mailing list. ... That does not sound like unsolicited bulk email. It was solicited by the recipeints when they gave you their addresses. Moreover, I doubt you send any invitations to people who you even suspect might object, which is to say, you only send solicited invitiations. That you don't get a contract signed in blood when you collect mail addresses does not make your mail unsolicited. > At the same time, unsolicited is in fact hard to define. If you buy > a product from a company, surely they can mail you about a product > recall or bug fix, right? That's not unsolicited, is it? What about > an upgrade? A related product? A totally new offer? > > That forces you to draw a subjective line. Yes, the definition of "unsolicited" is usually subjective. It's in the mind of the mail recipient unless the sender has some record. This is a good thing. It ensures that bulk mail senders err on the side of not sending. (The record bit is to deal with the common idiot lusers who unsubscribe from legitimate mailing lists by screaming "SPAM!") > That's why I settled on "from a stranger" which a non-stranger being > somebody you have initiated contact with. "From a stranger" is related to "solicited," and has worse problem. On one hand, it's easy to think of cases, albeit unusual, where bulk mail from strangers is solicited. On the other "initiated contact" and "stranger" are just as fuzzy as "solicit." You can't make the notion completely precise. Slathering additional fuzzy notions on the basic idea of "mail I don't won't" does not help. > This is an entirely factual test, not subjective. No, "stranger" in practice is just as fuzzy and subjective as "solicited." Exactly what transactions make you other than a stranger? How about visiting a web site with an old browser that leaks mail addresses? What about walking around a trade show with a name tag that has your mail address? When "stranger" works as you want it to, it yields the same results as "UBE." When "UBE" honestly does not work, neither will "stranger" > And while it > does allow the company you buy stuff from to mail you. the truth > is the amount of unwanted mail I get from non-strangers is > insignificant. And that level of volume == victory over spam. Can you opt-out when originally becoming a non-stranger, such as by buying? I hope so. > I have added one modification to my definition in the form of a > rule. Namely a requirement to have a working unsubscribe. So > that even if somebody is not a stranger, if you have told them not > to bulk mail you, and they do, it's a spam. The trouble with that is in practice it would be the same as either opt-out or UBE. Non-spammers will have records showing you contacted them and asked for their bulk mail. Spammers will have inventions "proving" you and they are not "strangers." For example, one spammer claimed to have obtained my address from my having signed up or left my business card at a trade show. The spam was for decals that look like bullet holes. That was a lie, but it demonstrates the problem. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 16:06:23 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10485 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:06:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24LH1C14507 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:17:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24LH1514504 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:17:01 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10476; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:05:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24LG3514459; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:16:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24LFI514416 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:15:18 -0500 Received: from malasada.lava.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10420 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:04:09 -0500 (EST) Received: by malasada.lava.net (Postfix, from userid 102) id 2E3C517A08D; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:06:11 -1000 (HST) From: Clifton Royston To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <20030304110610.C26923@lava.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i Subject: [Asrg] Standardization of RFC headers for email content analysis? Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:06:10 -1000 I just thought I'd throw this out there, as I've quickly skimmed the archives and haven't seen any discussion of this yet: Would anyone consider it worthwhile for this group to put some focus on making existing email content analysis/filter tools (in particular anti-spam software) more interoperable? I suggest a useful step in that direction to be defining a standard for how they should utilize mail headers to announce the results of their analysis. Right now it seems that every program uses a different set of made up X-Headers in a different and incompatible way. (Well, except for ours, which uses "Comments:" headers in a different and incompatible way.) This is very limited in scope relative to the "big picture" issues this group seems to be chartered to discuss, but I think it would be very helpful to improve interoperability, effectiveness, and ease of engineering solutions in the near term. -- Clifton P.S. Hi, Chris! -- Clifton Royston -- LavaNet Systems Architect -- cliftonr@lava.net "If you ride fast enough, the Specialist can't catch you." "What's the Specialist?" Samantha says. "The Specialist wears a hat," says the babysitter. "The hat makes noises." She doesn't say anything else. Kelly Link, _The Specialist's Hat_ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 16:09:18 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10547 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:09:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24LJuv14646 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:19:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24LJu514643 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:19:56 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10535; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:08:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24LJ1514601; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:19:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24LIB514546 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:18:11 -0500 Received: from ciphertrust.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10512 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:07:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.com with ESMTP ; Tue, 04 Mar 2003 16:08:26 -0500 (EST) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:58:34 -0500 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'asrg@ietf.org'" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [Asrg] ASRG next steps Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:58:34 -0500 Hello all, I would like to welcome everyone to the ASRG mailing list. I'm sure that each of you are here because you have an interest in the development of a solution to the problem of unwanted email messages (not to leave out the spammer spies that are among us). There are a number of parties on the mailing list that bring unique experiences and perspectives to the table. There are also a number of people that have spent time working on either current anti-spam systems or proposals for new approaches to the problem. This is a unique group of individuals that represent a wide spectrum of types of organizations. We have the ability here to effect real change on a large scale. I look forward to working together. I appreciate everyone that has shared their opinions and ideas so far. In order to provide some structure and direction to this conversation, I ask that everyone on the mailing list become familiar with the charter of the research group. (http://www.irtf.org/charters/asrg.html) . I worked closely with Vern Paxson, chair of the IRTF, with input from a number of others in the Internet community to carefully frame the scope of the research group. You will notice that the charter indicates no bias towards any particular approach to the problem, but seeks to foster an systematic and objective approach to pursuing the solution. There are some points from the charter that everyone should be familiar with: View of the problem: "Consent-based communication" Components of a solution: 1. consent expression 2. policy enforcement 3. source tracking (authentication/identification/non-repudiation) Goals of the group: 1. understand the problem 2. propose solutions 3. evaluate solutions Milestones/Deliverables: 1. problem statement/ requirements document 2. taxonomy of existing approaches 3. taxonomy of proposed approaches 4. evaluation of existing and proposed approaches ( to include usefulness, monetary cost, affect on normal use of email, legal support of the solution and vice versa) 5. transfer of technology (possibly through standards proposals to the IETF) Other key thoughts: 1. stop the threat as close to the source as possible 2. cast the spam problem into different perspectives to leverage previous work (i.e. denial-of-service; intrusion detection; authentication, authorization, and accounting) I am seeking comments on the charter. -does the consent-based communication viewpoint sufficiently generalizes the problem? -do the three components cover the requirements? I am seeking individuals that are interested in taking a more active role in managing one of the first four deliverables mentioned above. Paul ___________________________________________________ Paul Q. Judge, Ph.D. paul.judge@ciphertrust.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 16:09:22 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10560 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:09:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24LK0i14691 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:20:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24LK0514676 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:20:00 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10540; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:08:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24LJ2514617; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:19:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24LIH514551 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:18:17 -0500 Received: from nber13.nber.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10516 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:07:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from nber13.nber.org (localhost.nber.org [127.0.0.1]) by nber13.nber.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h24L9AYF098450 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:09:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by nber13.nber.org (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id h24L9A71098449 for asrg@ietf.org.KAV; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:09:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from nber1.nber.org (nber1.nber.org [207.113.108.252]) by nber13.nber.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h24L98YG098423; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:09:08 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Feenberg To: Hadmut Danisch cc: Vernon Schryver , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] MTP draft In-Reply-To: <20030304183230.GA10667@danisch.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:09:07 -0500 (EST) On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Hadmut Danisch wrote: > On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 10:49:50AM -0700, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > I don't like text analysis while receiving the message. And I am > not really convinced about such content methods. A rarely mentioned but very important advantage of doing content analysis during message transfer is that suspected spam can be rejected rather than discarded. In the rare case of a false positive identification of spam the legitimate sender will get a clear indication that his message was not received. You can't really send a DSN later, since most such notices (for genuine positives) would go a forged address and be little better than spam themselves. BTW: I am attracted to hashcash, but how would desired bulk mail be whitelisted? By connection IP address? By From address? By subject line? None of those seem ideal to me, but perhaps connection IP is possible. That would mean whitelisting the server and not the list (probably a good thing, but when a mailing list changed servers users would miss mailings). Could some public spirited citizen keep a publicly directory of opt-in mailing lists that MTA operators might want to whitelist? That would seem to be essential if whitelisting mailing lists was not to become a clerical burden. Would some form of address authentication be required? If so, then hashcash is not a substitue for RMX but a complement. Dan Feenberg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 16:13:22 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10654 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:13:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24LO0V14852 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:24:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24LO0514849 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:24:00 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10638; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:12:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24LN0514801; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:23:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24LMu514787 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:22:56 -0500 Received: from silk.rtr.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10624 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:11:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from silk.rtr.com (IDENT:root@localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by silk.rtr.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h24LDk108657 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:13:46 -0500 Received: from bark (bark [64.241.156.77]) by silk.rtr.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24LDkv08650 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:13:46 -0500 From: "Gary Feldman" To: Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records Organization: Ready-to-Run Software, Inc. Message-ID: <004001c2e292$f4374280$4d9cf140@rtr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20030304200027.A4371516@exeter.ac.uk> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:13:50 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Adam Back > Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 3:00 PM > The problem is forcing everyone to jump through the hoop of > having valid RMX records does not stop spam. > > It just stops people sending mail from addresses without RMX > records delegating that they are allowed to (which > incidentally breaks a lot of existing functionality). Surely it is clear by now that a single technical solution isn't going to stop spam outright, but rather will be part of a larger picture. It is also clear that since existing functionality is what enables spam, it will have to change. I no longer accept "breaks existing functionality" as a bulletproof objection. The stock reponse is what is the underlying requirement, and how can that requirement be met in the context of a spam-preventing email system? If the requirement can be met some other way, then the objection disappears. Gary > So how will anyonymous users who want anonymity for privacy > send mail in this world. Currently, anonymous means "can't find a responsible party." That is unacceptable. The way to achieve anonymity, as already suggested, is to work with a responsible third-party willing to assume responsibility. Gary _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 16:20:21 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10839 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:20:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24LUxI15124 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:30:59 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24LUx515121 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:30:59 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10781; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:19:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24LU2515096; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:30:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24LTK515057 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:29:20 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10770 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:18:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h24LK7Wt022562; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:20:07 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h24LJ2uB014432 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:19:02 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h24LJ2Wb014430; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:19:02 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Adam Back Cc: Prasenjeet Dutta , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: use of signatures is not restricted by law (Re: [Asrg] Proven solution for authenticating messages) Message-ID: <20030304211902.GA14176@danisch.de> References: <7B170C5E4008D311ABB70008C7D3825B03BC340E@saison.ssc.govt.nz> <20030303213350.GA13559@danisch.de> <3E6453B9.2080905@chaoszone.org> <20030304093923.GB1965@danisch.de> <3E648663.2060006@chaoszone.org> <20030304110921.GB3786@danisch.de> <3E64C4AE.9090105@chaoszone.org> <20030304200724.A4356074@exeter.ac.uk> <20030304202635.GB13063@danisch.de> <20030304204042.A4353369@exeter.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030304204042.A4353369@exeter.ac.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:19:02 +0100 On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 08:40:42PM +0000, Adam Back wrote: > Which countries? Oh, I bet you won't have much of a nice future in North Korea, Iraq, maybe China, and some other countries in Africa, in far east, of the arabian countries ... if you insist on possessing a secret key. > That position has never been taken in any internet security protocol > that I have heard. Because most security protocols are to be used voluntarily and not with strangers. They are "can use if you want" but not "must use" protocols. But here we are talking about protocols that virtually _everybody_ on the world using the internet (and e-mail is a essential part of internet use, isn't it?) will have to adopt. Is there any other internet security protocol that has gone so far? Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 16:25:22 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA11006 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:25:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24La0315276 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:36:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24La0515273 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:36:00 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10994; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:24:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24LZ3515244; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:35:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24LY7515209 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:34:07 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10895 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:22:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h24LOwPq022470 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:24:58 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303042124.h24LOwPq022470@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] MTP draft References: <20030304203054.GG7500@main.templetons.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:24:58 -0700 (MST) > From: Brad Templeton > ... > Brightmail is not filtering as I normally consider it. They have live > humans identify spam attacks, and then publish tools to detect those > particular attacks. Thus no false positives. If that were true, it would still fit the word "filtering." It's clearly false to hope that Brightmail has no false positives. For an extreme example that proves the point, consider a spammer that includes its own drop boxes in its target lists. Brightmail will zap the mail regardless. All filtering involves some kinds of false positives, because "mail I don't want" is fundamentally in the mind of the target. > To my mind the problem with filtering is it goes after a side issue. I've said the same, but I suspect we disagree. Most filtering goes after side issues such as the use of naughty words or words like Viagra. However, the DCC is a filter but it hits directly on the "bulk" aspect of "spam." > ... > Commerce is the most common motive for spam, but not the only one, but > that is what laws go after. Politics and religion are also common motives, albeit not quite as common some sort of commerce. There's no hope that politicians might ever outlaw their own spam. > Being at an ISP where people spam does not mean you are a spammer, > but that is what blacklists test for. No, only some blacklist tests are about that. > Being an open relay isn't the cause of spam, but that is what relay > blacklists test for. Agreed. > Being a stranger isn't the cause of spam, but that is what whitelists > test for. However, it is one of the key components, so this is more > on target, as long as there is a way for the strangers sending person > to person mail to get their mail through. That works only for people who really want to send you mail. It's hard to get strangers to jump through any hoops at all. > Free bulk e-mail is one of the causes of spam, so attempts to put > a cost on e-mail are going after the root problem, but they are > very difficult to implement and have other consequences. > > Attack the root cause, not the symptoms. agreed. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 16:33:26 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA11174 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:33:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24Li5o16344 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:44:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Li5516341 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:44:05 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA11164; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:32:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Lh2516313; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:43:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Lgv516291 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:42:57 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA11148 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:31:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h24LXmGw023495 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:33:48 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303042133.h24LXmGw023495@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] MTP draft References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:33:48 -0700 (MST) > From: "David F. Skoll" > > There are existing solutions to that problem. One is to reject with > > a 4yz temporary failure codes any Rcpt_To address whose filtering > > preferences might yield a different answer than the preferences of > > the first recipient. > > That was an option I considered, but rejected. If you're the tenth > recipient, you might wait a long time to get your e-mail. Only 10 times the delay between runs of the sender's queue. Still, as anyone with an address near the end of the alphabet will probably tell you, that is a good point I'd not thought of. I usuall get my copy of mail from the main IETF list hours to to days after people at the front of the alphabet. > > A second solution is to resolve conflicts in the correct answer to > > the DATA command with a 2yz OK answer but to deliver only to mailboxes > > that want the message and silently discard instead of rejecting the > > message for other mailboxes. > > That is the method I chose also. Actually, I group recipients by > filter preferences, and then re-mail the message to each group with > identical preferences, discarding the original. The re-mailed > messages get filtered, but by then everyone is known to have the same > set of preferences, so the problem is solved. Remailing forces DSNs on failure, which has various costs including double bounces into your postmaster mailbox and bounces sent to innocent people when the return address really was forged. Or do you discard instead of bounce during the re-mailing? Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 16:49:18 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA11621 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:49:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24Lxwe16792 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:59:58 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Lxw516789 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:59:58 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA11484; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:48:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Lx2516769; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:59:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Lwu516739 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:58:56 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA11434 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:47:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h24LnkQD024865 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:49:46 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303042149.h24LnkQD024865@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Proven solution for authenticating messages References: <20030304203327.GD1534@eddie.net.astrum.ch> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:49:46 -0700 (MST) > From: Matthias Leisi > ... > So, the idea must have already been realized somewhere: why not > build trustworthy Whitelists of accountable, responsible mail > hosts? > ... That has often been proposed, but I think it is impractical for several reasons. One is that your whitelist is doubtless very different from mine and every other whitelist. Another fatal problem is that mobs are stupid and malicious, and moreso the larger they are. Up to a perhaps a few dozen people, you can trust everyone to be careful, sane, and have good intentions. With a gross or more participants, you can be sure some are stupid and incompetent and probably a few are malicious. With a few dozen or fewer, you don't need fancy formal mechanisms. With a large group, formal mechanisms cannot exclude the sloppy, lazy, or malicious. > Of course, as with blacklists, there are policy issues with such > lists, as the maintainer might face incentives adverese to > general interest, which would have to be sorted out in one way > or the other. ... I believe there are no blacklists that involve a lot of people and that do not have major false positive problems. The SBL comes closest, but membership in its inner circle seems tight and carefully monitored. ] From: Clifton Royston ] ... ] Would anyone consider it worthwhile for this group to put some focus ] on making existing email content analysis/filter tools (in particular ] anti-spam software) more interoperable? ] ] I suggest a useful step in that direction to be defining a standard ] for how they should utilize mail headers to announce the results of ] their analysis. Right now it seems that every program uses a different ] set of made up X-Headers in a different and incompatible way. (Well, ] except for ours, which uses "Comments:" headers in a different and ] incompatible way.) ] ... That's another often proposed idea that I think makes no sense in practice. A minor issue is the fact that differences among the X- headers used by the many filters from SpamAsassin to blacklist taggers are desirable. You want to be able to apply different criteria to the answers produced by different filters. A DCC result is not directly comparable to a SpamAssassin result. It wouldn't hurt to have a little more consistency among the tags, but it would be a bad thing to try to make them sufficently consistent that they could be machine-parsed by something like a single regular expression. The major problem is that "spam" is a local issue. Even when checked at the originating SMTP client (some ISPs use the DCC to detect outgoing bulk mail), objectionable spam is determined locally. There's no good reason for Microsoft to tell AOL what mail Hotmail finds objectionable. A humorous proof of that was the recent hoohaw over the Microsoft blocking. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 17:00:21 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA11840 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:00:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24MB1318502 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:11:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24MB0518499 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:11:00 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA11817; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:59:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24MA2518464; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:10:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24M9R518429 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:09:27 -0500 Received: from mercury.ex.ac.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA11787 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:58:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from [144.173.6.20] (helo=cronus.ex.ac.uk) by mercury.ex.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18qKSQ-00Calw-00; Tue, 04 Mar 2003 22:00:18 +0000 From: Adam Back To: Hadmut Danisch Cc: Prasenjeet Dutta , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: use of signatures is not restricted by law (Re: [Asrg] Proven solution for authenticating messages) Message-ID: <20030304220017.A4369870@exeter.ac.uk> References: <20030303213350.GA13559@danisch.de> <3E6453B9.2080905@chaoszone.org> <20030304093923.GB1965@danisch.de> <3E648663.2060006@chaoszone.org> <20030304110921.GB3786@danisch.de> <3E64C4AE.9090105@chaoszone.org> <20030304200724.A4356074@exeter.ac.uk> <20030304202635.GB13063@danisch.de> <20030304204042.A4353369@exeter.ac.uk> <20030304211902.GA14176@danisch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.2i In-Reply-To: <20030304211902.GA14176@danisch.de>; from hadmut@danisch.de on Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 10:19:02PM +0100 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:00:17 +0000 There are a number of examples where signatures have been globally deployed apparently without any issues with crypto laws. For example S/MIME (outlook, netscape mail etc). Adam On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 10:19:02PM +0100, Hadmut Danisch wrote: > On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 08:40:42PM +0000, Adam Back wrote: > > Which countries? > > Oh, I bet you won't have much of a nice future in > North Korea, Iraq, maybe China, and some other countries > in Africa, in far east, of the arabian countries ... > if you insist on possessing a secret key. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 17:01:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA11923 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:01:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24MC9q18609 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:12:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24MC9518606 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:12:09 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA11904; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:00:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24MB2518541; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:11:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24MAu518495 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:10:56 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA11814 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:59:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h24M1if10971; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:01:44 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: Vernon Schryver Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] MTP draft Message-ID: <20030304220144.GJ7500@main.templetons.com> References: <20030304202313.GE7500@main.templetons.com> <200303042049.h24KnW7J017235@calcite.rhyolite.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200303042049.h24KnW7J017235@calcite.rhyolite.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:01:44 -0800 On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 01:49:32PM -0700, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > I have a party-invite mailing list. ... > > That does not sound like unsolicited bulk email. It was solicited by > the recipeints when they gave you their addresses. Moreover, I doubt But they didn't. For example I might meet you at a conference and find you interesting. Later I might type your name into google, find your e-mail address and add it to my list to invite you to my party. Now the reason people put their emails on web pages is so strangers can mail them, but, generally the rule of anti-spam has been this is not a solicitation to go on a mailing list, but rather an invitation for individuals to send mail on relevant topics. Ie. if I publish a paper on spam and include my E-mail, I expect people to mail me their comments on it. I don't expect it to be put on mailing lists. But if I know the person, then it's OK. If for no other reason than mathematics -- you only know so many people, so the number of private lists you might get on is manageable even if you get the occasional annoying mail. We are not, after all, out to stop every email we might find annoying, but to stop the flood of email that makes our mailboxes less useful and our servers loaded. We don't (I don't) come into this with any belief in a right not to be annoyed by the occasional unsolicited commication, rather I view that as a price of a society with free communication. > you send any invitations to people who you even suspect might object, > which is to say, you only send solicited invitiations. That you don't That's too subjective for a definition. In free speech jurisprudence, we demand precise definitions to avoid the "chilling effect" problem. If the definition is subjective, then surely some people will avoid sending what would have been legitimate communication "just to be on the safe side." Thus the history of a century of rulings for free speech from the supreme court -- trust them on this. > get a contract signed in blood when you collect mail addresses does > not make your mail unsolicited. > > "From a stranger" is related to "solicited," and has worse problem. > On one hand, it's easy to think of cases, albeit unusual, where bulk > mail from strangers is solicited. On the other "initiated contact" > and "stranger" are just as fuzzy as "solicit." You can't make > the notion completely precise. Slathering additional fuzzy notions > on the basic idea of "mail I don't won't" does not help. Well, I will add that if you solicit mail from strangers, then of course that is not spam if they send it. In this case if your solicitation is vague, it's your problem. However, I am defining stranger as "somebody you voluntarily initiated contact with." I think that's not subjective. You either did or didn't. Yes, it might sometimes take a bit of work to determine (mostly on the voluntary question) but you, yourself would never be in doubt. The definition becomes vital because of course the system of punishment -- private or legal -- is based on it. People must not only not have legit mail never blocked, they must never be even afraid to send it. That's the chilling effect doctrine. If I meet you at a conference, and you say anything but "go away", then we are not strangers, and I know that for sure. Yes, we might end up remembering things differently but we have ways in our systems to deal with that sort of question. What we have a hard time dealing with is one person saying, "You bought version 1, surely you were asking to be told when version 2 was out" and the other saying, "No, I didn't." > > Exactly what transactions make you other than a stranger? How about > visiting a web site with an old browser that leaks mail addresses? > What about walking around a trade show with a name tag that has your > mail address? I doubt there are any browsers out there like that. Anyway, if there were, why not? Again, mathematically there are only a few thousands of companies and people who are not strangers to you, while there are billions who are. That's so many orders of magnitude. If a simple definition cuts the numbers who might spam by this much, it's more than sufficient. Especially combined with an unsubscribe rule. Such a rule would imply that if you knew 3,000 companies, you would at most get 3,000 unwanted mails, and probably far, far less. That's 2 weeks of spam for me! > > When "stranger" works as you want it to, it yields the same results > as "UBE." When "UBE" honestly does not work, neither will "stranger" I'll need to be convinced more of this. You can define "solicited" very strictly of course, but we don't want it that strict. So we have all sorts of implicit solicitations, which are fraught with peril. You note that a personal conversation is one of them. > > Can you opt-out when originally becoming a non-stranger, such as > by buying? I hope so. That would be good practice, but even if you have to tolerate one e-mail for every product you buy, I think that's well within acceptable limits. Not perfect, but we don't want to be perfect. (Another well established principle of free speech jurisprudene. If you're getting all of it, you're going too far.) > > The trouble with that is in practice it would be the same as either > opt-out or UBE. Non-spammers will have records showing you contacted > them and asked for their bulk mail. Spammers will have inventions > "proving" you and they are not "strangers." For example, one spammer > claimed to have obtained my address from my having signed up or left > my business card at a trade show. The spam was for decals that look > like bullet holes. That was a lie, but it demonstrates the problem. They will always lie. Our systems of justice have thousands of years of practice at dealing with that problem. Not always perfectly but the best we've been able to do. This spammer would get to lie about you. But the 10th person that says they lied then the body that is deciding what to do with the spammer will change their judgement. It's just not a practical lie. One thing we could do with opt-out, if this is to be a problem, is that you could standardize the unsubscribe protocol, and your mailer could cc all unsubscribes to a service that logs them and timestamps them. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 17:08:18 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12071 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:08:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24MIwc18793 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:18:58 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24MIv518790 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:18:57 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12056; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:07:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24MI1518766; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:18:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24MHC518742 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:17:12 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12019 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:06:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h24M82OE027505 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:08:02 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303042208.h24M82OE027505@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] ASRG next steps References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:08:02 -0700 (MST) > From: Paul Judge > ... > 1. consent expression > 2. policy enforcement > 3. source tracking (authentication/identification/non-repudiation) > ... > I am seeking comments on the charter. > -does the consent-based communication viewpoint sufficiently generalizes the > problem? > -do the three components cover the requirements? > ... What is "consent expression"? If it is not a trivial boolean like "I do [not] like spam," how can it not be a magnet for abuse ranging from minor privacy violations to more spam to literal visits from death squads reducing their political enemies? Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 17:19:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12457 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:19:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24MUAt19257 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:30:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24MUA519254 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:30:10 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12444; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:18:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24MT3519184; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:29:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24MSB519146 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:28:11 -0500 Received: from nycsmtp1out.rdc-nyc.rr.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12350 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:17:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from BOBDEV (66-108-193-77.nyc.rr.com [66.108.193.77]) by nycsmtp1out.rdc-nyc.rr.com (8.12.1/Road Runner SMTP Server 1.0) with ESMTP id h24MJ1k5002163; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:19:01 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: "'Hadmut Danisch'" , "'Adam Back'" Cc: "'Prasenjeet Dutta'" , Subject: RE: use of signatures is not restricted by law (Re: [Asrg] Proven solution for authenticating messages) Message-ID: <000601c2e29c$14341b90$6401a8c0@BOBDEV> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20030304211902.GA14176@danisch.de> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h24MSB519149 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:19:08 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hadmut Danisch wrote concerning secrets: > here we are talking about protocols that virtually > _everybody_ on the world using the internet (and e-mail > is a essential part of internet use, isn't it?) will > have to adopt. I believe the discussion here is focused on authentication, not encryption. Thus, the focus is primarily on signatures. As such, the discussion does not include mechanisms for "hiding" information or even implementations that would allow passing secrets between people. As I understand it, the problem of "private" or "encrypted" communications is not within the scope of the ASRG charter. Even if there were countries that prohibit the use of signature technologies, there is still a range of methods that could be used, in part, by residents of those countries. These include, for instance, the approaches that involve "token-passing". For instance, the "single-user" email addresses that I've discussed in other mail messages or the "email-cookie" ideas that have been proposed. Use of these methods would allow one in a restrictive jurisdiction, or anyone who did not have a signing ability for some other reason, to send mail to someone who was free to use the technology and generate the appropriate tokens. (Note: I am well aware of the fact that these "single-sided" approaches have a number of weaknesses. However, something may be considered to be better than nothing.) bob wyman _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 17:32:26 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12774 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:32:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24Mh6e20473 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:43:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Mh6520470 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:43:06 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12760; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:31:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Mg4520449; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:42:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Mfo520407 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:41:50 -0500 Received: from nycsmtp1out.rdc-nyc.rr.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12732 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:30:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from BOBDEV (66-108-193-77.nyc.rr.com [66.108.193.77]) by nycsmtp1out.rdc-nyc.rr.com (8.12.1/Road Runner SMTP Server 1.0) with ESMTP id h24MWdk5010803; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:32:39 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: "'Clifton Royston'" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] Standardization of RFC headers for email content analysis? Message-ID: <000e01c2e29d$fb3850f0$6401a8c0@BOBDEV> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20030304110610.C26923@lava.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h24Mfo520408 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:32:46 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit The charter calls for both a taxonomy of existing methods as well as an evaluation of those methods. It would seem that both efforts would be served by documentation of the various extended headers in use today. Collecting information about the headers used today would also be critical to any effort such as the one that you propose to make tools that rely on header extensions more interoperable. Can you document one or more of the sets of extended headers used today? If so, I'd love to see it. bob wyman -----Original Message----- From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Clifton Royston Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 4:06 PM To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] Standardization of RFC headers for email content analysis? I just thought I'd throw this out there, as I've quickly skimmed the archives and haven't seen any discussion of this yet: Would anyone consider it worthwhile for this group to put some focus on making existing email content analysis/filter tools (in particular anti-spam software) more interoperable? I suggest a useful step in that direction to be defining a standard for how they should utilize mail headers to announce the results of their analysis. Right now it seems that every program uses a different set of made up X-Headers in a different and incompatible way. (Well, except for ours, which uses "Comments:" headers in a different and incompatible way.) This is very limited in scope relative to the "big picture" issues this group seems to be chartered to discuss, but I think it would be very helpful to improve interoperability, effectiveness, and ease of engineering solutions in the near term. -- Clifton P.S. Hi, Chris! -- Clifton Royston -- LavaNet Systems Architect -- cliftonr@lava.net "If you ride fast enough, the Specialist can't catch you." "What's the Specialist?" Samantha says. "The Specialist wears a hat," says the babysitter. "The hat makes noises." She doesn't say anything else. Kelly Link, _The Specialist's Hat_ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 17:34:21 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12842 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:34:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24Mj2I20583 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:45:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Mj2520580 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:45:02 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12815; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:33:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Mi0520534; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:44:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24MhV520497 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:43:31 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12770 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:32:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h24MYGle029687 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:34:16 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303042234.h24MYGle029687@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] MTP draft References: <20030304220144.GJ7500@main.templetons.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:34:16 -0700 (MST) > From: Brad Templeton > ... > But they didn't. For example I might meet you at a conference and > find you interesting. Later I might type your name into google, find > your e-mail address and add it to my list to invite you to my party. > ... You are on very thin ice, because exactly that is what many spammers claim to justify their spam. Their definition of "meeting at a conference" includes finding your name on the roster, but you can't get them to admit it. > ... > We are not, after all, out to stop every email we might find > annoying ... true, but you need a better way to distinguish your actions from what spammers do. > ... > However, I am defining stranger as "somebody you voluntarily initiated > contact with." I think that's not subjective. You either did or > didn't. Yes, it might sometimes take a bit of work to determine > (mostly on the voluntary question) but you, yourself would never > be in doubt. In practice, bulk mailers will have an interesting notion of "meet." I'm not worried about junk mail that comes from buying or registering products on-line. That's noisesome, but insignificant. > The definition becomes vital because of course the system of > punishment -- private or legal -- is based on it. People must > not only not have legit mail never blocked, they must never be > even afraid to send it. That's the chilling effect doctrine. That is true only if you care about not chilling unsolicited bulk mail. I see nothing wrong with freezing it. > If I meet you at a conference, and you say anything but "go away", > then we are not strangers, and I know that for sure. Yes, we > might end up remembering things differently but we have ways in > our systems to deal with that sort of question. "Meet at a conference" is extremely subjective and assymetrical. I never remember most of the people I "meet" and conferences, because I expect to "meet" hundreds and perhaps thousands, for various notions of "meet." I'm not talking about the obvious problems like giving a talk to 2000 people and putting your address on your first slide, but just mixing in that audience of 2000. Many of the people I think I've "met" wouldn't agree, and vice versa. > What we have a > hard time dealing with is one person saying, "You bought version 1, > surely you were asking to be told when version 2 was out" and > the other saying, "No, I didn't." There are no practical problems with those cases. In practice, you assume that you'll be told not only about version 2 but reminded to purchase more copies of version 1. Buying version 1 usually involves an explicit and unavoidable solicitation for junk mail. > > Exactly what transactions make you other than a stranger? How about > > visiting a web site with an old browser that leaks mail addresses? > > What about walking around a trade show with a name tag that has your > > mail address? > > I doubt there are any browsers out there like that. There were. > Anyway, if there > were, why not? Again, mathematically there are only a few thousands > of companies and people who are not strangers to you, while there are > billions who are. That's so many orders of magnitude. I deal with only a few companies, but I glance at a lot of web pages when winnowing search engine results. > If a > simple definition cuts the numbers who might spam by this much, it's > more than sufficient. If that were true, then spam would not be a problem today, because only a very few spammers generate almost all spam today. Each of us dealls with or "meets" far more companies and people than there are significant spammers today. > Especially combined with an unsubscribe rule. > Such a rule would imply that if you knew 3,000 companies, you would > at most get 3,000 unwanted mails, and probably far, far less. That's > 2 weeks of spam for me! I think there are fewer than 1500 serious spammers today. Since email spam started, I think there have been fewer than 30,000 serious spammers. Of course, the doomsday spam scenario is 0.1% of the ~20,000,000 companies in the U.S. (not to mention vastly more in the world) sending you a quarterly reminder of their existence. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 17:47:20 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA13183 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:47:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24Mw1G20996 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:58:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Mw1520993 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:58:01 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA13164; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:46:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Mv1520952; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:57:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Muf520924 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:56:41 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA13115 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:45:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h24MlOh2024186; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:47:24 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h24MkDuB016685 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:46:13 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h24MkCbA016683; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:46:12 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Bob Wyman Cc: "'Adam Back'" , "'Prasenjeet Dutta'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: use of signatures is not restricted by law (Re: [Asrg] Proven solution for authenticating messages) Message-ID: <20030304224612.GA16550@danisch.de> References: <20030304211902.GA14176@danisch.de> <000601c2e29c$14341b90$6401a8c0@BOBDEV> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <000601c2e29c$14341b90$6401a8c0@BOBDEV> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:46:12 +0100 On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 05:19:08PM -0500, Bob Wyman wrote: > > I believe the discussion here is focused on authentication, not > encryption. Thus, the focus is primarily on signatures. As such, the > discussion does not include mechanisms for "hiding" information or even > implementations that would allow passing secrets between people. I fully agree with that. However, a PKI built for signing can easily be turned into a PKI for encryption by the end users by using publicly known cryptographical methods. Thus, a government interested in prohibiting encryption/privacy has to prohibit digital signatures as well. That's the problem. This means: You cannot presume that use of signatures is unrestricted everywhere. Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 17:52:16 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA13405 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:52:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24N2vL21292 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 18:02:57 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24N2v521289 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 18:02:57 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA13387; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:51:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24N21521267; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 18:02:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24N1o521241 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 18:01:50 -0500 Received: from scuzzy.ben.algroup.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA13338 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:50:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from algroup.co.uk (wiese.ben.algroup.co.uk [193.133.15.150]) by scuzzy.ben.algroup.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80E6D1078CE; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:52:47 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <3E652D52.20906@algroup.co.uk> From: Ben Laurie User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:1.3b) Gecko/20030210 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hadmut Danisch Cc: Adam Back , Prasenjeet Dutta , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: use of signatures is not restricted by law (Re: [Asrg] Proven solution for authenticating messages) References: <7B170C5E4008D311ABB70008C7D3825B03BC340E@saison.ssc.govt.nz> <20030303213350.GA13559@danisch.de> <3E6453B9.2080905@chaoszone.org> <20030304093923.GB1965@danisch.de> <3E648663.2060006@chaoszone.org> <20030304110921.GB3786@danisch.de> <3E64C4AE.9090105@chaoszone.org> <20030304200724.A4356074@exeter.ac.uk> <20030304202635.GB13063@danisch.de> <20030304204042.A4353369@exeter.ac.uk> <20030304211902.GA14176@danisch.de> In-Reply-To: <20030304211902.GA14176@danisch.de> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.73.1.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 22:48:50 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hadmut Danisch wrote: > On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 08:40:42PM +0000, Adam Back wrote: > >>Which countries? > > > Oh, I bet you won't have much of a nice future in > North Korea, Iraq, maybe China, and some other countries > in Africa, in far east, of the arabian countries ... > if you insist on possessing a secret key. > > > >>That position has never been taken in any internet security protocol >>that I have heard. > > > Because most security protocols are to be used voluntarily and not > with strangers. They are "can use if you want" but not "must use" > protocols. > > But here we are talking about protocols that virtually > _everybody_ on the world using the internet (and e-mail is a essential > part of internet use, isn't it?) will have to adopt. Sounds to me like an excellent reason to insist that crypto is used. Cheers, Ben. -- http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html http://www.thebunker.net/ "There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 18:00:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA13648 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 18:00:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24NBAc22357 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 18:11:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24NBA522354 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 18:11:10 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA13618; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:59:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24NA2522316; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 18:10:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24N91522269 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 18:09:01 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA13596 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:57:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h24MxpJH001648 for Asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:59:51 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303042259.h24MxpJH001648@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records References: <004001c2e292$f4374280$4d9cf140@rtr.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:59:51 -0700 (MST) > From: "Gary Feldman" > ... > I no longer accept "breaks existing functionality" as a > bulletproof objection. The stock reponse is what is the underlying > requirement, and how can that requirement be met in the context > of a spam-preventing email system? If the requirement > can be met some other way, then the objection disappears. That is true only provided you still meet the design goals served by the existing solutions. "Solutions" that are too much work or don't support easy mail among strangers are irrelevant. Recall the telemarketing (non-)solutions that would be perfect, if only you could force all of your callers to jump through hoops such as DTMF passwords. Even if you do find a solution that meets the design goals, you can't force the market to accept your solution. Your new solution must be enough better to make people change. That is a very high barrier. > > So how will anyonymous users who want anonymity for privacy > > send mail in this world. > > Currently, anonymous means "can't find a responsible party." > That is unacceptable. The way to achieve anonymity, as > already suggested, is to work with a responsible third-party > willing to assume responsibility. No, almost all spam already has a responsible party that could be found if only those responsible for keeping records would meet their existing responsibilities. No third parties are needed or could do anything but make things worse. All ISPs could know their customers. Open relays and open proxies could be closed or have good logs. ISPs hosting spammers could know their customers. Telephone companies serving spammers that advertise only their telephone numbers know their customers, the spammers. Essentially no spam lacks a pointer to the responsible party. (Yes, I know about "joe jobs" as well as some religious, political, and "kook" spam that lacks such pointers.) On the other hand, no third party can guarantee anyone's identity at a price that mail senders or recipeints could afford. Verifying that someone is who they say they are costs a lot more than the $350 that Verisign charges for a certificate, as demonstrated by the Microsoft certificate they issued. Back on the first hand, in practice the credit card numbers used to buy ISP services are good and sufficient proofs of identity. If they were not, then no Internet or any credit card commerce would be possible, because there would be too much credit card fraud. The only reason some (but not all!) ISPs don't know their customers and don't exact penalities from spammers sufficent to deter almost all spam is that it's cheaper or more profitable to support the spammers. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 18:35:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA15409 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 18:35:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h24NkCE24670 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 18:46:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24NkC524667 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 18:46:12 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA15381; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 18:34:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24Nj6524584; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 18:45:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24NiL524520 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 18:44:21 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA15310 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 18:33:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h24NZ7i3024946; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 00:35:07 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h24NYIuB018298 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 5 Mar 2003 00:34:18 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h24NYI2q018296; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 00:34:18 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Vernon Schryver Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records Message-ID: <20030304233418.GA17958@danisch.de> References: <004001c2e292$f4374280$4d9cf140@rtr.com> <200303042259.h24MxpJH001648@calcite.rhyolite.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200303042259.h24MxpJH001648@calcite.rhyolite.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 00:34:18 +0100 On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 03:59:51PM -0700, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > That is true only provided you still meet the design goals served by > the existing solutions. Insecurity and forgeability have never ever been a design goal of SMTP. That's a disadvantage, but not a design goal. It has also never been a design goal of telnet to make plaintext passwords available to eavesdroppers. We cannot fix any security hole as long as we insist on still fulfilling a so called "design goal" which states insecurity. Keep in mind the SMTP as we know it was designed more than 20 years ago (Jon Postels RFC 821 dates from August 1982). In 1982 and before, there were almost no security considerations in context of internet protocols, especially for e-mail. The security business developed in the 90's. Plain SMTP is one of the last dinosaurs of the pre-security era still alive. Security didn't play any role in the design of SMTP. Even if it did, after more than 20 years of progress in internet protocols and security, such an age-old design goal would require some revision. So that so called "design goal" is neither existing nor really relevant. Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 19:04:18 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA16205 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:04:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h250F1J26748 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:15:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h250F1526745 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:15:01 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA16199; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:03:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h250E1526702; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:14:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h250D4526669 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:13:04 -0500 Received: from ciphertrust.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA16143 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:01:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.com with ESMTP ; Tue, 04 Mar 2003 19:01:30 -0500 (EST) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 18:51:41 -0500 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'Vernon Schryver'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: consent expression (was RE: [Asrg] ASRG next steps) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 18:51:40 -0500 > > What is "consent expression"? Consent expression means that someone can state which communication they wish to receive or not to receive. This allows a very granular definition by each user(individual or organization). > If it is not a trivial boolean like > "I do [not] like spam," how can it not be a magnet for abuse ranging > from minor privacy violations to more spam to literal visits from > death squads reducing their political enemies? trivial boolean? spam can not be expressed as a boolean. We realized that the definition is inconsistent and people in this community have spent many years debating "unsolicited bulk" versus "unsolicited commercial bulk" versus a host of other definitions seeking some form of optimal cover set of everyone's personal definition. The problem is that while these broad definitions are good, they are not perfect. There are many messages that people consider spam that do not fit these definitions (this leads to false negatives). Likewise there are messages that fall within these definitions that are not considered spam (this leads to false positives). Spam is in many cases an individual preference. It is a subjective opinion of unwanted messages. One approach is to continue to try to confine the definition to one that covers only the subset of what everyone considers spam without including anyone's wanted messages. A different approach is to step away from the binary decision of spam and non-spam and realize that communication can be more granularly defined. For example, "product offers", "chain letters", "mailing lists", "newsletters", "greeting cards", "fradulent offers", "unauthenticated messages", "unverifiable messages", etc. By developing a robust categorization of messages, we can allow users to express consent for certain types of communication. This allows the common lack-of-consent policies to be implemented as close to the source as possible. From there, we require an architecture that can support these policies. This architecture may very well be a combination of current and new approaches. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 19:06:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA16307 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:06:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h250HGK26911 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:17:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h250HG526908 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:17:16 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA16290; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:06:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h250G1526820; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:16:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h250FY526801 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:15:34 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA16219 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:04:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (ebola [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.localdomain (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h250FNEN002106 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:15:23 -0800 Received: (from peter@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h250FNxA002104; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:15:23 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: localhost.localdomain: peter set sender to octavian@corp.earthlink.net using -f From: "Peter A. Friend" To: Asrg Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.8 (1.0.8-10) Message-Id: <1046823322.1605.22.camel@ebola> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 04 Mar 2003 16:15:22 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello, I'm new to the list is still poring over the archive. Most of my concerns with this proposal I've already seen listed, but I have a few others. DNS servers often suffer from being misconfigured, down, on a lame saturated network, or any other of a long list of ailments. The email stuff I work on deals with high volumes, so unless some part of the protocol requires a DNS lookup, I avoid the lookup since a sufficient number of dead DNS servers ends up becoming a DOS. If I understand your proposal correctly, the idea is to look up the domain and get a list of IP addresses back. When you provide dialup access via several different companies, your list of IPs that are allowed to relay gets huge. Getting that back via DNS seems inherently nasty to me. Peter _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 19:09:14 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA16428 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:09:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h250JvM27089 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:19:57 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h250Jv527086 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:19:57 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA16407; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:08:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h250J0527040; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:19:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h250IC526999 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:18:12 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA16333 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:06:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2508xuN010080 for Asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:08:59 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303050008.h2508xuN010080@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records References: <20030304233418.GA17958@danisch.de> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:08:59 -0700 (MST) > Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (sklave3.rackland.de [213.133.101.23]) > by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h24NZ8im005746 > (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=FAIL) > for env-from ; > Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:35:10 -0700 (MST) > Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) > by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h24NZ7i3024946; > Wed, 5 Mar 2003 00:35:07 +0100 > Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) > by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h24NYIuB018298 > (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); > Wed, 5 Mar 2003 00:34:18 +0100 > Received: (from hadmut@localhost) > by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h24NYI2q018296; > Wed, 5 Mar 2003 00:34:18 +0100 > From: Hadmut Danisch > ... > Insecurity and forgeability have never ever been a design goal > of SMTP. That's a disadvantage, but not a design goal. That is wrong if asked and answered honestly. Of course "insecurity" and "forgeability" have not been design goals, but "receiving mail from strangers" has been a goal. Authentication is not magic pixie dust that can be sprinkled over a protocol. Authenticating strangers is nonsense. A stranger is someone you don't know, including don't know he is not a bank robber, spammer, your long lost uncle, or all three. Contrary to your implicit claim, sending from one IP address with a different return IP address has always been a design goal. Sending from one domain name with a return address in another domain has always been an explicit design goal at least as far as the Reply-To header is concerned. That the Sender header exists, suggests that differing SMTP client reverse DNS domaon name and Mail_From values has been a goal. For at least 15 years allowing such mismatches have been a practical requirement. Requiring that the reverse DNS domain name matches the Mail_From domain name is as wrong aad silly as it would be to requirer that when you send a picture postcard while on vacation you use your current hotel as your return address. Neither requirement would reduce fraud, spam, or anything else that is bad. There are reasons why large ISPs would like to impose such a requirement. The instant messaging battle between AOL and Microsoft demonstrates why they would like it and why reasonable people oppose it. Whether sklave3.rackland.de authenticates mail from sodom.home.danisch.de with a Mail_from value of hadmut@danisch.de tells no one outside whether you are a spammer. On the other hand, if you were a spammer, it would be trivial to finger you by contacting the operators of 213.133.101.23 or if necessary 213.133.96.29, 213.133.96.65, or 212.114.147.1. Since both sklave3.rackland.de and calcite.rhyolite.com are running SMTP-TLS, your mail could have been authenticated, if only my system had a certificate. But that certificate would not tell me or my system anything that I don't already know or would need to know about whether your mail is spam. If mail.rackland.de also runs SMTP-TLS and if you check its logs, you will probably find that some spammers are also using SMTP-TLS. > That's a disadvantage, but not a design goal. That authentication is nonsense when receiving mail from strangers is an unavoidable disadvantage of the design goal of receiving mail from strangers. > It has also > never been a design goal of telnet to make plaintext passwords > available to eavesdroppers. That's irrelevant noise. > We cannot fix any security hole as long as we insist on still > fulfilling a so called "design goal" which states insecurity. Stated honestly, that is true. Indeed, we cannot fix security holes that are implicit in the design goals without changing the design goals. If your design goals imply a protocol that authenticates senders, then use SMTP-AUTH, STMP-TLS, SMIME, PGP, or others. They are all widely available and work fine. However, they are also useless and irrelevant for a general mail protocol among strangers. > Keep in mind the SMTP as we know it was designed more than 20 years > ago (Jon Postels RFC 821 dates from August 1982). In 1982 and before, > there were almost no security considerations in context of internet > protocols, especially for e-mail. The security business developed in > the 90's. Plain SMTP is one of the last dinosaurs of the pre-security > era still alive. > > Security didn't play any role in the design of SMTP. Even if it did, > after more than 20 years of progress in internet protocols and > security, such an age-old design goal would require some revision. > > So that so called "design goal" is neither existing nor really relevant. That is various quite wrong and entirely irrelevant. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 19:14:16 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA16604 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:14:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h250Ovh27457 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:24:57 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h250Ov527454 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:24:57 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA16599; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:13:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h250O1527409; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:24:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h250Nd527385 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:23:39 -0500 Received: from missouri.yamato.ibm.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA16550 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:12:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from kyoto.yamato.ibm.com (kyoto.yamato.ibm.com [9.68.13.55]) by missouri.yamato.ibm.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h250EK996670 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:14:21 +0900 Received: from ymtshanen (shanen.dhcp.yamato.ibm.com [9.68.40.179]) by kyoto.yamato.ibm.com (8.11.6/3.7W) with SMTP id h250EKf43182 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:14:20 +0900 Message-ID: <005501c2e2ac$2b43c870$0100a8c0@ymtshanen> From: "Shannon Jacobs" To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Economic model is borken. (sic.) Let's fix it Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:14:20 +0900 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'm surprised to see so little focus so far on the underlying cause of the problem. The economic model of email is fundamentally broken, and that CREATES the spam problem. "We have met the enemy, and they is us." In simplest terms, email is NOT free, but because we pretend it is free, from the spammers' perspective, they are simply dividing by zero. It doesn't matter if they send out 100 million pieces of spam if they think their "costs" are low enough. Any return, even a single sucker who sends them $5, looks like an infinite return on the "investment" of zero. Of course, even for the spammers the costs are not really zero, but it looks close enough to them. Interesting combination of cunning and stupidity, neh? In reality they are poisoning the well, but they fantasize about getting rich NOW. Ergo, the spam. Solution? Obvious. Alternate economic model. Why not use an extended header line for postage-paid email? Anyone who routes their email address through such an extended SMTP server will receive NO MORE SPAM. No ifs, ands, buts. (Well, one it. The postage has to be securely encrypted, but that's a solved problem.) Any email coming from that routing would be absolutely safe. You would know that someone actually put their money in front of their mouth and paid the postage. No effect on the rest of the email world, but the people in that corner know they would get no spam. P.S. This system would support natural extensions for legitimate advertising, and I can actually see email service providers acting as mediated advertisers. On the one side they would protect your privacy and give you powerful control over the kind of advertising you want to see, even including commissions for receiving it (as a legitimate and qualified customer, but without actually revealing any personal information in public). On the other side, they would be selling email access to those customers. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 19:19:18 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA16795 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:19:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h250Txu27697 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:29:59 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h250Tx527694 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:29:59 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA16762; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:18:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h250T2527669; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:29:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h250Sd527639 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:28:39 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA16729 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:17:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h250JRM3010960 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:19:27 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303050019.h250JRM3010960@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: consent expression (was RE: [Asrg] ASRG next steps) References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:19:27 -0700 (MST) > From: Paul Judge > ... > Consent expression means that someone can state which communication they > wish to receive or not to receive. This allows a very granular definition by > each user(individual or organization). > ... A different approach is to step away > from the binary decision of spam and non-spam and realize that communication > can be more granularly defined. For example, "product offers", "chain > letters", "mailing lists", "newsletters", "greeting cards", "fradulent > offers", "unauthenticated messages", "unverifiable messages", etc. By > developing a robust categorization of messages, we can allow users to > express consent for certain types of communication. This allows the common > lack-of-consent policies to be implemented as close to the source as > possible. From there, we require an architecture that can support these > policies. This architecture may very well be a combination of current and > new approaches. We already have ways to characterize and optionally refuse "unauthenticated messages" or "unverifiable messages" for various notions of those. For example, you can tell your SMTP server to reject mail that fails SMTP-TLS verification or does not use SMTP-AUTH. I'd be interested in hearing useful notions of the others. I fear that legitimate mail doesn't need content identifiers, because its targets want it regardless of labels, while spam will always have surprising labels. Mail that should be tagged "fradulent offers" will always be marked otherwise as "newsletters" or "greeting cards." Mail that should be marked "unsolicited newsletters" will be marked "about last night." Of course, legitimate ISPs won't tolerate that, but legitimate ISPs already don't tolerate spam. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 19:32:18 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA17036 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:32:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h250h0628956 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:43:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h250gx528953 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:42:59 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA17026; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:31:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h250g3528928; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:42:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h250fd528902 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:41:39 -0500 Received: from relay05.indigo.ie (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id TAA16986 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:30:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 26023 messnum 1202864 invoked from network[194.125.173.186/ts13-186.dublin.indigo.ie]); 5 Mar 2003 00:32:25 -0000 Received: from ts13-186.dublin.indigo.ie (HELO jmason.org) (194.125.173.186) by relay05.indigo.ie (qp 26023) with SMTP; 5 Mar 2003 00:32:25 -0000 Received: by jmason.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 53F0616F16; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 00:32:23 +0000 (GMT) Received: from jmason.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E411F721; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 00:32:23 +0000 (GMT) To: Daniel Feenberg Cc: Hadmut Danisch , Vernon Schryver , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] MTP draft In-Reply-To: Message from Daniel Feenberg of "Tue, 04 Mar 2003 16:09:07 EST." From: jm@jmason.org (Justin Mason) X-GPG-Key-Fingerprint: 0A48 2D8B 0B52 A87D 0E8A 6ADD 4137 1B50 6E58 EF0A X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to . Message-Id: <20030305003223.53F0616F16@jmason.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 00:32:18 +0000 Daniel Feenberg said: > On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Hadmut Danisch wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 10:49:50AM -0700, Vernon Schryver wrote: > Could some public spirited citizen keep a publicly directory of opt-in > mailing lists that MTA operators might want to whitelist? That would seem > to be essential if whitelisting mailing lists was not to become a clerical > burden. That would be nice, alright -- a DNSWL. But -- focusing on the "clerical burden" -- I'd like to reiterate that point; any system that requires manual whitelisting will be as bad as, or worse than, the spam problem. If we create work for the user or admin, we're simply shifting the form of work from "hitting the 'd' key" to "editing my whitelist again". In fact, one measurement of statistical filter effectiveness is Ion Androutsopoulos' "TCR" figure, which models the work of recovering from FPs and FNs compared with "hitting 'd'". > Would some form of address authentication be required? If so, then > hashcash is not a substitue for RMX but a complement. I have a feeling hashcash could make an excellent form of source-address authentication and identification BTW, even on its own. I haven't thought out exactly how, though. --j. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 19:54:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA17419 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:54:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2515QJ29601 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:05:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2515Q529598 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:05:26 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA17401; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:54:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2514K529569; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:04:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2513m529535 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:03:48 -0500 Received: from snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA17378 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:52:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.133.182] helo=envy.indecency.org) by snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18qNB3-0001s8-00; Tue, 04 Mar 2003 16:54:34 -0800 From: Keith Moore To: Vernon Schryver Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] filtering at connect time Message-Id: <20030304195111.72a17780.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <200303042017.h24KHEF9012182@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <20030304193006.GA7500@main.templetons.com> <200303042017.h24KHEF9012182@calcite.rhyolite.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:51:11 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > People who operate relays may be less culpable than > the original senders of spam, but they are certainly blame worthy I don't see anything inherently wrong with operating an open relay, as long as they don't alter messages and they're willing to pay for the bandwidth they use. It happens that we only have extremely poor mechanisms for tracking down spammers, and that open relays defeat one of those mechanisms. But the real problem is not open relays and never was - it was the lack of tracability and the corresponding lack of any means of making originators accountable for their actions. Shutting down open relays hasn't been a significant deterrent to spammers, but it has cost us valuable functionality. At most it's been a needless distraction. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 20:01:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA17662 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:01:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h251C3130645 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:12:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h251C3530642 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:12:03 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA17639; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:00:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h251B0530592; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:11:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h251Ao530571 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:10:50 -0500 Received: from malasada.lava.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA17566 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:59:36 -0500 (EST) Received: by malasada.lava.net (Postfix, from userid 102) id E9E1317A002; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:01:36 -1000 (HST) From: Clifton Royston To: Bob Wyman Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Standardization of RFC headers for email content analysis? Message-ID: <20030304150136.C16618@lava.net> References: <20030304110610.C26923@lava.net> <000e01c2e29d$fb3850f0$6401a8c0@BOBDEV> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <000e01c2e29d$fb3850f0$6401a8c0@BOBDEV>; from bob@wyman.us on Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 05:32:46PM -0500 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:01:36 -1000 On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 05:32:46PM -0500, Bob Wyman wrote: > The charter calls for both a taxonomy of existing methods as > well as an evaluation of those methods. It would seem that both efforts > would be served by documentation of the various extended headers in use > today. Collecting information about the headers used today would also be > critical to any effort such as the one that you propose to make tools > that rely on header extensions more interoperable. > Can you document one or more of the sets of extended headers > used today? If so, I'd love to see it. I don't have much as yet, but I'll try to throw some notes together. Others are welcome to contribute. -- Clifton -- Clifton Royston -- LavaNet Systems Architect -- cliftonr@lava.net "If you ride fast enough, the Specialist can't catch you." "What's the Specialist?" Samantha says. "The Specialist wears a hat," says the babysitter. "The hat makes noises." She doesn't say anything else. Kelly Link, _The Specialist's Hat_ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 20:26:19 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA18122 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:26:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h251b2j31513 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:37:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h251b2531510 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:37:02 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA18114; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:25:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h251a3531384; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:36:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h251Z8531352 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:35:08 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA18052 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:23:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h251PuBD025168 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:25:56 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] MTP draft In-Reply-To: <200303042133.h24LXmGw023495@calcite.rhyolite.com> Message-ID: References: <200303042133.h24LXmGw023495@calcite.rhyolite.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:25:56 -0500 (EST) On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Vernon Schryver wrote: > Remailing forces DSNs on failure, which has various costs including > double bounces into your postmaster mailbox and bounces sent to > innocent people when the return address really was forged. Correct. However, you'll find that something like 80-90% of incoming messages are to a single recipient, so you rarely need to handle the case of two different recipients with two different sets of preferences. In the 10-20% of cases you do, well, double-bounces are just a cost of doing business. > Or do you discard instead of bounce during the re-mailing? It's configurable. By default, we bounce, because I also don't like systems that silently drop mail. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 20:34:12 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA18300 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:34:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h251itb32500 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:44:55 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h251it532497 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:44:55 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA18292; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:33:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h251i1532473; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:44:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h251hf532458 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:43:41 -0500 Received: from narn.megacity.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA18271 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:32:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from megacity.org (hvc-204-210-140-244.hvc.rr.com [204.210.140.244]) (authenticated bits=0) by narn.megacity.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h251XmqI022831 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:33:49 -0500 Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) From: "Derek J. Balling" To: Asrg Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <1046823322.1605.22.camel@ebola> Message-Id: <9A80A5A4-4EAA-11D7-9842-000A27AF5202@megacity.org> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:34:27 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tuesday, March 4, 2003, at 07:15 PM, Peter A. Friend wrote: > If I understand your proposal correctly, the idea is to look up the > domain and get a list of IP addresses back. When you provide dialup > access via several different companies, your list of IPs that are > allowed to relay gets huge. Getting that back via DNS seems inherently > nasty to me. A point I brought up (and one of the reasons I tossed my own OX proposal in the trash months ago, which was, essentially, the same thing). Any proposal which ends up - for large sites[1] - costing them DNS resources as they constantly have to fallback to TCP for the long answers, is doomed to failure as "dead on the vine". I've seen a couple other proposals, and am waiting impatiently for authors of such to bring them forward for public review, which hopefully will happen any day now. D [1] which are the sites you most need buy-in from _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 20:35:11 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA18344 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:35:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h251jtw32565 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:45:55 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h251jt532562 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:45:55 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA18322; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:34:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h251j0532529; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:45:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h251ir532489 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:44:53 -0500 Received: from albatross.mail.pas.earthlink.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA18289 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:33:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.133.182] helo=envy.indecency.org) by albatross.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18qNoo-0003Wh-00; Tue, 04 Mar 2003 17:35:38 -0800 From: Keith Moore To: Paul Judge Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] ASRG next steps Message-Id: <20030304203215.78c3014a.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:32:15 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Components of a solution: > 1. consent expression > 2. policy enforcement > 3. source tracking (authentication/identification/non-repudiation) > -does the consent-based communication viewpoint sufficiently generalizes the > problem? It seems like a stretch of the way 'consent' is normally used. One aspect of it with which I agree is that spam is in the eye of the beholder. We probably do not want a system that presumes that certain kinds of content are spam. It's not clear to me whether we even want a system that allows recipients to declare 'consent' for certain kinds of mail and that permits upstream filtering of their mail that doesn't meet those criteria. I can see where such a system might be useful, but I doubt that it would be a good idea to rely on it as the only mechanism for reducing spam. > -do the three components cover the requirements? It's too early to tell. I suspect that 'consent expression' (if I understand what it means) is essential to any approach that allows filtering of messages prior to delivery of messages to the recipient. I don't want some upstream MTA filtering mail that is sent to me without my consent. 'Policy enforcement' as defined in the charter seems to me to be too restrictive. I am not going to trust a remote MTA operated by another ISP to 'enforce policy' for me. Here's another way to think of it: it might be useful to have a feedback path from recipients into the message transfer system (MTS) which helps the MTS prioritize traffic so that the MTS does not waste resources transmitting mail (or by extension, waste resources that recipients use in dealing with mail that is delivered) which will not be read. Similarly, there's no need for the MTS to immediately deliver mail which the recipient is not willing to immediately accept. And *some* kind of 'source tracking' (but not necessarily authentication, identification, or even non-repudiation in any strong sense) is essential to any approach that tries to penalize or marginalize those who send spam (regardless of the granularity with which this is done). But it's not yet clear whether we should recommend this as part of the solution. I think these are fine as examples as possible components (as indicated in the charter), but we should not expect a priori that these are the only components or even that all of the above will be necessary. Which is not to say that I disagree with them, just that the charter should not anticipate the outcome of the group. > Milestones/Deliverables: > 1. problem statement/ requirements document > 2. taxonomy of existing approaches > 3. taxonomy of proposed approaches > 4. evaluation of existing and proposed approaches ( to include usefulness, > monetary cost, affect on normal use of email, legal support of the solution > and vice versa) > 5. transfer of technology (possibly through standards proposals to the IETF) Please, please, please, let's take the word "requirements" out of #1. It's bad enough that working groups get caught up in trying to define requirements of problems they do not understand. We're not even a working group. If we identify a couple of requirements in the problem statement that we can all agree on, that might be okay. But focusing on requirements will tempt us to nail too may things down, and invite ratholing. I suggest that 2 and 3 be combined, with a clear indication of which approaches are existing and which are merely proposed - partially because I think it will be more useful to have all of the approaches side-by-side, and partially because I think existing/proposed is a spectrum rather than a bit. > I am seeking individuals that are interested in taking a more active role in > managing one of the first four deliverables mentioned above. I've informally started trying to do 2&3 already with the idea of producing a draft after a couple of iterations on the list. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 20:38:13 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA18413 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:38:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h251muw32674 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:48:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h251mu532671 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:48:56 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA18408; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:37:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h251m2532653; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:48:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h251li532634 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:47:44 -0500 Received: from albatross.mail.pas.earthlink.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA18386 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:36:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.133.182] helo=envy.indecency.org) by albatross.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18qNrY-0000hc-00; Tue, 04 Mar 2003 17:38:28 -0800 From: Keith Moore To: Clifton Royston Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Standardization of RFC headers for email content analysis? Message-Id: <20030304203505.5f4f9414.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <20030304110610.C26923@lava.net> References: <20030304110610.C26923@lava.net> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:35:05 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Would anyone consider it worthwhile for this group to put some focus > on making existing email content analysis/filter tools (in particular > anti-spam software) more interoperable? I don't think this is sufficiently close to our charter, nor do I think this is appropriate activity for a research group. We might try to decide whether some standard for interoperability between such tools would be useful, but actually trying to define how they interoperate is better left for a standards group. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 20:45:12 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA18527 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:45:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h251tuK00405 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:55:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h251tu500402 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:55:56 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA18504; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:44:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h251t2500373; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:55:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h251sX500337 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:54:33 -0500 Received: from snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA18495 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:43:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.133.182] helo=envy.indecency.org) by snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18qNy8-0005qB-00; Tue, 04 Mar 2003 17:45:16 -0800 From: Keith Moore To: Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, cliftonr@lava.net, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Standardization of RFC headers for email content analysis? Message-Id: <20030304204153.60d4214f.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <000e01c2e29d$fb3850f0$6401a8c0@BOBDEV> References: <20030304110610.C26923@lava.net> <000e01c2e29d$fb3850f0$6401a8c0@BOBDEV> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:41:53 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > The charter calls for both a taxonomy of existing methods as > well as an evaluation of those methods. It would seem that both efforts > would be served by documentation of the various extended headers in use > today. far too detalied, I think, and probably off the mark. in particular, message headers are part of the payload to be transmitted from sender to recipient, not part of the envelope used by the transfer/delivery system. i.e. they are not an appropriate means to transmit information between different parts of the delivery system. that and for the purpose of this discussion it's probably sufficient if we classify a few kinds of things that analysis tools look for (e.g. originator characteristics, signal path, gross message characteristics, specific items in the content) and some of the kinds of filtering that are done based on the analysis (e.g. discard, bounce, alter, delay, require confirmation) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 20:48:11 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA18661 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:48:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h251wsJ00508 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:58:54 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h251ws500505 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:58:54 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA18635; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:47:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h251w0500481; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:58:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h251vC500448 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:57:12 -0500 Received: from emu.st (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id UAA18563 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:45:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 82729 invoked by uid 1015); 5 Mar 2003 01:47:58 -0000 Delivered-To: qmda-intercept-Asrg@ietf.org@intercept Comments: QMDA 0.1 - see http://www.geocities.com/mark_delany/qmda.html Received: (qmail 12522 invoked from network); 5 Mar 2003 01:47:58 -0000 Received: from prefix-internal.emu.st (HELO emu.st) (10.100.100.36) by f1-external.emu.st with SMTP; 5 Mar 2003 01:47:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 22663 invoked by uid 1001); 5 Mar 2003 01:47:58 -0000 Message-ID: <20030305014758.22662.qmail@prefix.emu.st> From: "Mark Delany" Mail-Followup-To: Asrg@ietf.org To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Economic model is borken. (sic.) Let's fix it References: <005501c2e2ac$2b43c870$0100a8c0@ymtshanen> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <005501c2e2ac$2b43c870$0100a8c0@ymtshanen>; from shanen@yamato.ibm.com on Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 09:14:20AM +0900 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 5 Mar 2003 01:47:58 +0000 On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 09:14:20AM +0900, Shannon Jacobs allegedly wrote: > Solution? Obvious. Alternate economic model. Why not use an extended header > line for postage-paid email? Anyone who routes their email address through > such an extended SMTP server will receive NO MORE SPAM. No ifs, ands, buts. Well... A lot less spam maybe. Many companies willing pay a US postage stamp to send, eg, credit card offers. I get a couple a week. If these same companies can select their target email addresses, I can't see why they wouldn't be tempted to pay the postage-paid email fee (aka marketing cost) to spam me. Sure, postage-paid email will destroy the business model of many spammers, but not all spammers. Whether the reduced level is tolerable is a different question. Regards. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 20:57:26 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA18826 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:57:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2528A201608 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:08:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2528A501605 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:08:10 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA18813; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:56:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25274500902; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:07:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2526i500738 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:06:44 -0500 Received: from silk.rtr.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA18800 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:55:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from silk.rtr.com (IDENT:root@localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by silk.rtr.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h251vS111025 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:57:28 -0500 Received: from bark (bark [64.241.156.77]) by silk.rtr.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h251vRv11018 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:57:27 -0500 From: "Gary Feldman" To: Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records Organization: Ready-to-Run Software, Inc. Message-ID: <004501c2e2ba$963fc030$4d9cf140@rtr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <200303050008.h2508xuN010080@calcite.rhyolite.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:57:33 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Vernon Schryver > Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 7:09 PM > That is wrong if asked and answered honestly. Of course > "insecurity" and "forgeability" have not been design goals, > but "receiving mail from strangers" has been a goal. That may have been the goal twenty years ago, but today the goal must be reformulated, perhaps as "receiving personal email from strangers must be possible for those who wish to receive such mail" > Contrary to your implicit claim, sending from one IP address > with a different return IP address has always been a design > goal. Sending from one domain name with a return address in > another domain has always been an explicit design goal at > least as far as the Reply-To header is concerned. That the > Sender header exists, suggests that differing SMTP client > reverse DNS domaon name and Mail_From values has been a goal. Ultimately, requirements translate into user requirements, not some technical point. Phrasing them technically as above tends to obscure the real requirements. So, for example, the real requirement is to be able to send mail from one authorized address with a return address being another authorized address, "authorized" being the operative word. Or it's the ability to run mailing lists with reasonable "From" addresses, and a choice (at the list server level) between having the default reply go back to the sender or to the list. I do not believe that it was ever a requirement to have the ability to send an email with a return address one had no right to use, and even if it were, it is not a requirement now. Requirements phrased in terms of IP addresses are only justifiable when rephrased and analyzed this way. > Requiring that the reverse DNS domain name matches the > Mail_From domain name is as wrong aad silly as it would be to > requirer that when you send a picture postcard while on > vacation you use your current hotel as your return address. > Neither requirement would reduce fraud, spam, or anything > else that is bad. While that's often done, the real requirement is that the sending computer have the authorization to send on behalf of the purported (i.e. mail_from) domain -- or perhaps it needs to be at the user level or some other granularity). However, let me observe that a significant proportion of the spam I receive can be rejected on the reverse DNS basis, while only a tiny proportion of legitimate mail would result in a false positive. So, while it's far from perfect, I don't agree with your conclusion that it doesn't reduce spam, based on my own personal empirical evidence. Gary _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 21:00:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA18890 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:00:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h252BI701749 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:11:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h252BI501746 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:11:18 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA18877; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:00:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h252A1501710; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:10:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2529S501674 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:09:28 -0500 Received: from mail.asianet.co.th (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA18848 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:58:12 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200303050158.UAA18848@ietf.org> Received: from virscan1.asianet.co.th (HELO mx.asianet.co.th) ([203.144.222.197]) (envelope-sender ) by mail3.asianet.co.th (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 5 Mar 2003 09:00:48 +0700 Received: from ppp-203.144.179.122.revip.asianet.co.th (HELO localhost) ([203.144.179.122]) (envelope-sender ) by mx1.asianet.co.th (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 5 Mar 2003 09:00:09 +0700 From: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" To: "asrg@ietf.org" , "Vernon Schryver" Reply-To: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" Priority: Normal X-Mailer: PMMail 1.96a For OS/2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] filtering at connect time Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 09:00:00 +0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:17:14 -0700 (MST), Vernon Schryver wrote: >That is not right. People who operate relays may be less culpable than >the original senders of spam, but they are certainly blame worthy >and they are certainly not victims in the same class as spam targets. The term of art is 'contributory negligence' Jeffrey Race _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 21:01:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA18944 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:01:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h252CSP01853 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:12:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h252CS501850 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:12:28 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA18924; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:01:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h252CA501826; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:12:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h252Bv501788 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:11:57 -0500 Received: from albatross.mail.pas.earthlink.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA18904 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:00:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.133.182] helo=envy.indecency.org) by albatross.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18qOEx-0003WF-00; Tue, 04 Mar 2003 18:02:39 -0800 From: Keith Moore To: Paul Judge Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com, asrg@ietf.org Message-Id: <20030304205916.56614a9f.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] definition of spam (was Re: consent expression) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:59:16 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > We realized that the definition is inconsistent and people in this community > have spent many years debating "unsolicited bulk" versus "unsolicited > commercial bulk" versus a host of other definitions seeking some form of > optimal cover set of everyone's personal definition. To a recipient, spam is mail he finds annoying, doesn't want to receive, and thinks the sender should have known better than to send to him. (It's like the famous judge's definition of porn: "I know it when I see it.") To an ISP, spam is what violates its AUP. Alternately, it's what customers complain about loudly enough that the ISP has to spend resources doing something about it, thus increasing cost and decreasing margin. To a sender, spam is whatever someone else is doing. No spammer sees himself as part of the problem :) IMHO, it's important to keep these fundamentally different perspectives in mind. A recipient who receives an annoying message is just as annoyed whether he is the sole recipient of that message or whether it was sent to millions of people. ISPs don't want to deal with every annoying message that someone receives, and we don't want to penalize every sender who happens to occasionally annoy someone over email. It makes sense for ISPs to be concerned about the *volume* of annoying messages that are sent out (hence "bulk") or whether the messages sent out violate some well-defined criteria (e.g. "commercial") that can be cited as violations of the sender's contract with the ISP. But these criteria should not be viewed as sacrosanct, and different, or additional, criteria may also be valid. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 21:07:11 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA19041 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:07:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h252HtR02022 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:17:55 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h252Ht502019 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:17:55 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA19027; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:06:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h252H0501997; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:17:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h252GX501964 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:16:33 -0500 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA19002 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:05:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com [171.71.163.14]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h2527Ev2005897; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 18:07:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from CSCOAMERA19540.cisco.com (stealth-10-32-253-238.cisco.com [10.32.253.238]) by mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.1-GA) with SMTP id AER56644; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 18:02:03 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030304174240.022efc08@mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com> X-Sender: fred@mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Paul Judge From: Fred Baker Subject: Re: consent expression (was RE: [Asrg] ASRG next steps) Cc: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 18:06:59 -0800 At 06:51 PM 3/4/2003 -0500, Paul Judge wrote: >spam can not be expressed as a boolean While I suspect the statement might be true, I would counsel you to avoid absolute statements this early in the game. They shut down exploration in the deprecated paths, research that might be of value. If we can describe classes of traffic, such as perhaps providing keywords like PORN HUMOR OFFER-TO-SELL PERSONAL-MESSAGE TOPICAL-DISCUSSION OFFER-TO-ILLEGALLY-LAUNDER-EXCESS-NIGERIAN-CAPITAL-FOR-FUN-AND-PROFIT TROLL-FOR-INTEREST-IN-OFF-TOPIC-DISCUSSION (well, maybe not the last two) one could imagine people being able to identify their traffic correctly and being motivated to do so. While "you sent me unsolicited commercial email" is not an accusation (oops, statement) that can be objectively evaluated because the spammer might have a different definition of "solicit" than you do (those who spam me sure have a different definition than I do; they tell me I actually solicit this crap), the statement "this is a solicitation to view a web site containing material of an adult nature" is objective enough that folks who send them seem to be able to identify them - and mention the adult nature, the fact that they are 18, or various products such as NetNanny in the course of their solicitation. Anyone who sees a need to include "to unsubscribe ___" or "I claim that you opted in because some mailer at the other end of the earth got loaded up with your email address" might find it in their interest to correctly describe the load they are offering. A mail relay server might, on that basis, only choose to handle traffic that claims to be of type TOPICAL-DISCUSSION, and might state in its mailing list description that the filter was being applied, or might include a note to that effect in its bounce message. You still have the question of whether folks sending traffic of type PORN might decide that their mail is always TOPICAL-DISCUSSION, but I suspect that we will always have the problem of non-cooperative senders of mail. What I have in mind, of course, is something similar to what Dan Bernstein does - if you send him an email, you will get a very obnoxious note that says "if you really want to dent my consciousness, you need to send your email again and tell me that you will pay me $250 if I read it and decide it is spam." But what I would propose is some form of system in which you describe the contents of the email in terms that a boolean filter (a filter that applies a boolean expression and does something if it is true and something else if it is false) can evaluate. What is needed is a vocabulary of message types. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 21:08:14 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA19062 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:08:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h252Iwo02094 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:18:58 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h252Iw502091 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:18:58 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA19057; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:07:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h252I1502062; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:18:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h252H9502013 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:17:09 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA19017 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:05:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h2527qd14225; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 18:07:52 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: Vernon Schryver Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] MTP draft Message-ID: <20030305020752.GL7500@main.templetons.com> References: <20030304220144.GJ7500@main.templetons.com> <200303042234.h24MYGle029687@calcite.rhyolite.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200303042234.h24MYGle029687@calcite.rhyolite.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 18:07:52 -0800 On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 03:34:16PM -0700, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > From: Brad Templeton > > > ... > > But they didn't. For example I might meet you at a conference and > > find you interesting. Later I might type your name into google, find > > your e-mail address and add it to my list to invite you to my party. > > ... > > You are on very thin ice, because exactly that is what many spammers > claim to justify their spam. Their definition of "meeting at a > conference" includes finding your name on the roster, but you can't > get them to admit it. But if our goal is to not punish legitimate communication in our effort to crush the spam, we must not put me on thin ice here because I would contend that this is legit communication. And I am hardly the only one who does it. I get many party invites this way. Now in general we can exempt the small volume stuff as one solution, since again mathematically it is unlikely to cause the problem we wish to fix - flooded mailboxes and servers. (And realize that making 100 orders to send a message 100 times is still a 10,000 message mailing regardless of how you fudge it. It's only humans that break and obey rules, after all, and how they use the computers doesn't bear much on it.) Spammers will lie about anything we use. They will say you solicited the mail (and often do), and it's as hard to prove as anything. If you let our friendly meeting be an expression of your willingness to be invited to my parties, I have no way of proving we really met. > true, but you need a better way to distinguish your actions from > what spammers do. Spammers send bulk mail to people who don't know them from Adam. I don't. If you get a lot of complaints about me you can judge me as lying, that's how it's done in the real world. > In practice, bulk mailers will have an interesting notion of "meet." > I'm not worried about junk mail that comes from buying or registering > products on-line. That's noisesome, but insignificant. They will, but I am interested in what you suggest they will use because I think we can come to a pretty solid line. Gave you my badge to scan -- yes. Got photographed by your hidden camera as I walked by -- no. But again, even giving the spammers the most liberal definition they can get, what is going to happen? Maybe some nasty company will spam you because you asked a question in their booth and they took a picture of your name, and they prove it's OK by showing the picture of you in their booth? Maybe they could do this, but I'm not quaking in my boots. 99.99% of the spam I get is from people who can't even remotely claim I made contact with them with any evidence to back it up, because I didn't. 99.99% is good enough for me. > > That is true only if you care about not chilling unsolicited bulk > mail. I see nothing wrong with freezing it. So is my party list legit? Should I be afraid to invite people I meet to parties if I didn't get a more explicit consent? > > talk to 2000 people and putting your address on your first slide, but > just mixing in that audience of 2000. Many of the people I think I've > "met" wouldn't agree, and vice versa. Sure, I forget people all the time. What matters again is the game of numbers. Can we cut the spam down by 3 orders of magnitude? If so, we win. That's why I argue the definition must be the intersection definition still strong enough to attack the problem. A definition that nobody thinks is blocking legit mail, so everybody can be 100% behind punishing those who violate it. > There are no practical problems with those cases. In practice, you > assume that you'll be told not only about version 2 but reminded to > purchase more copies of version 1. Buying version 1 usually involves > an explicit and unavoidable solicitation for junk mail. BOy, I sure have heard a lot of people disagree with that! > > > I deal with only a few companies, but I glance at a lot of web pages > when winnowing search engine results. Sure. But if they all spammed and you could get off right away, how bad would it be? And if they could find your address it would only be a tiny few. And if you were really concerned you could use tricks to hide your address. I don't know of a single instance of spamming people who just visited a web site. > > I think there are fewer than 1500 serious spammers today. Since email > spam started, I think there have been fewer than 30,000 serious spammers. Do you mean spammers, or spam companies providing services to spammes? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 21:13:11 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA19129 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:13:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h252Nto02307 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:23:55 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h252Nt502304 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:23:55 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA19113; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:12:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h252N0502258; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:23:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h252M8502228 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:22:08 -0500 Received: from scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA19089 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:10:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.133.182] helo=envy.indecency.org) by scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18qOOp-0000N6-00; Tue, 04 Mar 2003 18:12:51 -0800 From: Keith Moore To: "Shannon Jacobs" Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Economic model is borken. (sic.) Let's fix it Message-Id: <20030304210928.4aeb29c7.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <005501c2e2ac$2b43c870$0100a8c0@ymtshanen> References: <005501c2e2ac$2b43c870$0100a8c0@ymtshanen> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:09:28 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:14:20 +0900 "Shannon Jacobs" wrote: > I'm surprised to see so little focus so far on the underlying cause of the > problem. The economic model of email is fundamentally broken Nope, that's not the cause of the problem. That's trying to impose a model that works in a world of tangible property, onto the world of interpersonal communication. Imposition of this model hasn't worked well in the case of intellectural property laws, and it won't necessarily work well for communications either. You can argue that recipients' time is a scarce resource that should be subjected to market forces, but this relies on several false assumptions - in particular, that there is an ordering relation for the value of communication, and that the value of such communications is fungible with money. > Solution? Obvious. Alternate economic model. Why not use an extended header > line for postage-paid email? Because one of the best things about email (much of the time) is that it does not impose significant burdens on senders. Which is not to say that raising the burden on senders, some of the time, under some conditions, might not be useful. But it's not *the* solution. Keith p.s. if you really believe that everything can be equated to money, try to set a price for someone who wants to take up your time as you are breathing your last... _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 21:14:11 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA19157 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:14:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h252OuF02372 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:24:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h252Ot502369 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:24:55 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA19148; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:13:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h252O0502343; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:24:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h252NA502278 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:23:10 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA19107 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:11:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h252DeL14343; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 18:13:40 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: Ben Laurie Cc: Hadmut Danisch , Adam Back , Prasenjeet Dutta , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: use of signatures is not restricted by law (Re: [Asrg] Proven solution for authenticating messages) Message-ID: <20030305021340.GM7500@main.templetons.com> References: <3E6453B9.2080905@chaoszone.org> <20030304093923.GB1965@danisch.de> <3E648663.2060006@chaoszone.org> <20030304110921.GB3786@danisch.de> <3E64C4AE.9090105@chaoszone.org> <20030304200724.A4356074@exeter.ac.uk> <20030304202635.GB13063@danisch.de> <20030304204042.A4353369@exeter.ac.uk> <20030304211902.GA14176@danisch.de> <3E652D52.20906@algroup.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E652D52.20906@algroup.co.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 18:13:40 -0800 I apologize if these issues came up before I joined the list but... a) All existing e-mail signature tools sign the bodies of messages, not the headers. They have no way to authenticate the headers unless they duplicate them in the body and your tool compares them. So they don't do a lot to prevent forgeries of headers, subject lines etc. which are pretty important in this case. b) X.509 uses identity certificates rather than attribute certs, and the certs are HUGE and people would get quite annoyed attaching 5K to each e-mail. c) Identity certs are evil, did I mention that? :-) d) Microsoft outlook supports S/MIME and x.509 but in a terrible way. If you turn it on, you get queried with dialog boxes about access to your private key with every email you send. (plus every email you receive encrypted.) e) You can declare you demand signed mail, but what good will that do you during the early period when nobody is signing? You have to have some other avenue for them. And why should people sign if the other avenue exists? It's a tradeoff on how hard you make the avenue. Make it too hard and lose mail. Make it too easy and nobody feels the need to get all new email software and a cert. Frankly, ask me to do anything particuarly hard just to send you a mail, and I'm going to say "fuck you" unless I really had a strong interest in sending that mail. If I was sending it to help you, because of request on your web page or in a posting, and I get more than the simplest of challenges, I will just discard the mail. f) You still need systems to allow anonymous mail (just not in bulk) and not have everybody by default refusing it because it might be spam. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 21:16:11 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA19193 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:16:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h252QuV02467 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:26:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h252Qu502464 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:26:56 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA19188; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:15:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h252Q1502437; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:26:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h252Pv502422 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:25:57 -0500 Received: from nycsmtp3out.rdc-nyc.rr.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA19175 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:14:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from BOBDEV (66-108-193-77.nyc.rr.com [66.108.193.77]) by nycsmtp3out.rdc-nyc.rr.com (8.12.1/Road Runner SMTP Server 1.0) with ESMTP id h252GiRK004987; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:16:45 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: "'Fred Baker'" , "'Paul Judge'" Cc: Subject: RE: consent expression (was RE: [Asrg] ASRG next steps) Message-ID: <000401c2e2bd$48fd6ea0$6401a8c0@BOBDEV> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030304174240.022efc08@mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h252Pv502423 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:16:51 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Fred Baker wrote: > some form of system in which you describe the contents > of the email in terms that a boolean filter I believe that you may be describing something that would be very much like W3C's "PICS" but applied to Email. For info on PICS (Platform for Internet Content Selection), see: http://www.w3.org/PICS/ The following is the description from their site: "The PICS specification enables labels (metadata) to be associated with Internet content. It was originally designed to help parents and teachers control what children access on the Internet, but it also facilitates other uses for labels, including code signing and privacy. The PICS platform is one on which other rating services and filtering software have been built." bob wyman _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 21:21:15 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA19233 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:21:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h252W0I02637 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:32:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h252Vx502634 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:31:59 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA19228; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:20:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h252V3502584; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:31:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h252UV502547 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:30:31 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA19211 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:19:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h252LFC14392; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 18:21:15 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: Shannon Jacobs Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Economic model is borken. (sic.) Let's fix it Message-ID: <20030305022115.GN7500@main.templetons.com> References: <005501c2e2ac$2b43c870$0100a8c0@ymtshanen> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <005501c2e2ac$2b43c870$0100a8c0@ymtshanen> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 18:21:15 -0800 I was one of the first people to propose e-stamps for internet mail. I have since renounced the idea. Fully detailed reasons are at: http://www.templetons.com/brad/spume/estamps.html But in short: a) You can't get there from here, since you can't reject mail that is unstamped until lots of people use stamps and nobody will want to use stamps unless people are demanding them. b) CPU coins are better than money but still face problem (a) c) Putting an artifical cost on something that was designed to be cheap is a lousy answer. d) It has free speech implications. (in both senses of the word.) e) Mailing lists are a problem. f) Major virus problem if you use real money On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 09:14:20AM +0900, Shannon Jacobs wrote: > I'm surprised to see so little focus so far on the underlying cause of the > problem. The economic model of email is fundamentally broken, and that > CREATES the spam problem. "We have met the enemy, and they is us." That e-mail is very efficient is a feature, not a bug. I would be loathe to give it up. The "internet cost contract" -- namely I pay for my end of the wire and you pay for your -- is what made the internet great, let's not tear it down if we can avoid it. Now I agree that the super-cheapness of bulk mail (some say that the problem is that spam transfers cost from sender to recipient, but the truth is it's super cheap for both of them, and spammers would still spam if they had to pay the real cost of the whole transmission.) is at the root cause of spam. But it's a feature. We want it for our regular mailing lists. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 21:23:09 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA19272 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:23:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h252Xsj02739 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:33:54 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h252Xs502736 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:33:54 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA19265; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:22:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h252X0502690; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:33:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h252Wu502676 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:32:56 -0500 Received: from mail.asianet.co.th (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA19252 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:21:40 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200303050221.VAA19252@ietf.org> Received: from virscan1.asianet.co.th (HELO mx.asianet.co.th) ([203.144.222.197]) (envelope-sender ) by mail1.asianet.co.th (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 5 Mar 2003 09:24:07 +0700 Received: from ppp-203.144.179.122.revip.asianet.co.th (HELO localhost) ([203.144.179.122]) (envelope-sender ) by mx2.asianet.co.th (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 5 Mar 2003 09:14:19 +0700 From: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" To: "Asrg@ietf.org" Reply-To: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" Priority: Normal X-Mailer: PMMail 1.96a For OS/2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 09:23:27 +0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:08:59 -0700 (MST), Vernon Schryver wrote: >Sending >from one domain name with a return address in another domain has always >been an explicit design goal at least as far as the Reply-To header >is concerned. That the Sender header exists, suggests that differing >SMTP client reverse DNS domaon name and Mail_From values has been a >goal. For at least 15 years allowing such mismatches have been a >practical requirement. Yes, I could not participate in this list were it otherwise. I have to get my mail at my USA POP server, but I must send from my current location in Bangkok where the POP provider (AT&T) has no SMTP node. Jeffrey Race _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 21:29:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA19406 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:29:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h252doB03702 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:39:50 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h252dn503699 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:39:49 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA19399; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:28:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h252cs503656; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:38:54 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h252ad502833 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:36:39 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA19330 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:25:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18qJqx-0003Lt-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Mar 2003 16:21:35 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 04 Mar 2003 20:57:33 EST." <004501c2e2ba$963fc030$4d9cf140@rtr.com> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 16:21:35 -0500 "Gary Feldman" wrote: > ... today the goal must be reformulated, perhaps as "receiving > personal email from strangers must be possible for those who wish to > receive such mail" I'm not sure I agree. If my ISP is under serious attack from spammers, then some level of "good" mail will probably be thrown out with the spam. The only way I know of to guarantee that no "good" mail is thrown out, is to not throw out *any* mail. This is unacceptable. We have to decide what level of spam we can live with, and what level of false positives we can live with in anti-spam filters. If lowering the false positive rate by 2% increases the amount of spam by 10x, then that solution doesn't scale. > I do not believe that it was ever a requirement to have > the ability to send an email with a return address one had > no right to use, and even if it were, it is not a requirement > now. I agree. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 21:33:27 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA19470 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:33:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h252iCL03859 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:44:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h252iC503856 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:44:12 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA19462; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:32:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h252h2503837; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:43:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h252gr503822 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:42:53 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA19451 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:31:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h252Xbg14630; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 18:33:37 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" Cc: "asrg@ietf.org" , Vernon Schryver Subject: Re: [Asrg] filtering at connect time Message-ID: <20030305023337.GQ7500@main.templetons.com> References: <200303050158.UAA18848@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200303050158.UAA18848@ietf.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 18:33:37 -0800 On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 09:00:00AM +0700, Dr. Jeffrey Race wrote: > On Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:17:14 -0700 (MST), Vernon Schryver wrote: > > >That is not right. People who operate relays may be less culpable than > >the original senders of spam, but they are certainly blame worthy > >and they are certainly not victims in the same class as spam targets. > > The term of art is 'contributory negligence' That is the term, but only a very few years ago open relays were the norm, even the polite thing to do. Until people came up with kludges like smtp-after-pop, they were even the approved way to help your users who roamed around the network. So in the law it's quite a leap from moving something from expected norm to negligent in just a few years. The draft I proposed allows open relays for those who wish to use them, though they can't run mailing lists from them. So I suggest it is not inherent that open mail relays must be closed. Plus it's an interesting precedent. For example, if you run MS Windows as found on the CD, your machine can be invaded and used as a base for DDOS. Should you be sued over this? Should Microsoft? What about after patches become available? It's messy. Anyway, the point is the open relay operators are not doing things deliberately. They don't want to relay spam. They are spammer's victims. If possible, we should try to help them. Forcing them all to close is something to be done only if we have exhausted all ways to solve the problem. Plus there are "open" relay operators who state they have put in throttles which stop spammers (or anybody untrusted) from sending large volumes of mail through the relay. Yet the blacklist relay testers don't test a large volume, they test a single message, and blacklist the relay even though it is not practical for spammers to use it. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 21:40:09 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA19567 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:40:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h252osD04012 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:50:54 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h252os504009 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:50:54 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA19560; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:39:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h252o1503990; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:50:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h252nT503965 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:49:29 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA19551 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:38:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18qK3O-0003MJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Mar 2003 16:34:26 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] MTP draft In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 04 Mar 2003 18:07:52 PST." <20030305020752.GL7500@main.templetons.com> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 16:34:26 -0500 Brad Templeton wrote: > What matters again is the game of numbers. Can we cut the spam down > by 3 orders of magnitude? If so, we win. Some people won't. There's always the poor sap on the end of the statistical distribution. He laughs at people whining about 40% spam rates. If his level of spam was cut down by 3 orders of magnitude, then the spam would only be double his normal email traffic. If the "solutions" to spam involve still allowing spammers to overwhelm some people, then those solutions will just get you cursed by the guy who's *still* getting spammed, when everyone else things that the problem has gone away. > > I deal with only a few companies, but I glance at a lot of web pages > > when winnowing search engine results. > > Sure. But if they all spammed and you could get off right away, > how bad would it be? Bad. That's what's happening today, and it doesn't help. It's 10,000 companies in the world versus little old me. They can exchange information, and all decide to spam me. They have the resources to send massive amounts of spam, and to deal with any technical or legal ramifications. When 10,000 people want to talk to you at the same time, there's nothing you can do except give up, and leave the room. You've been deafened, silenced, and harrassed all at the same time. The fact that they want to "help" you by selling you a product is irrelevant. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 21:46:12 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA19676 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:46:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h252uvI04144 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:56:57 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h252uv504141 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:56:57 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA19647; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:45:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h252u2504122; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:56:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h252tl504107 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:55:47 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA19615 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:44:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h252kXBD025637 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:46:33 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:46:33 -0500 (EST) On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Alan DeKok wrote: > If my ISP is under serious attack from spammers, then some level of > "good" mail will probably be thrown out with the spam. The only way I > know of to guarantee that no "good" mail is thrown out, is to not > throw out *any* mail. Or to have a human sort it out. > We have to decide what level of spam we can live with, and what > level of false positives we can live with in anti-spam filters. If > lowering the false positive rate by 2% increases the amount of spam by > 10x, then that solution doesn't scale. Yes, but the "we" in "we have to decide" should be we, the end users, not some ISP. Automatic filters will get you so far, maybe up to 90-98% accuracy, depending on which filter you use and what your mail mix looks like. But they do run out of gas, and if you can't accept false positives, then the only solution is human sorting. You just have to figure out (1) how to do the human sorting as cheaply as possible, and (2) how much you're willing to pay for human sorting. That determines the filter settings you use. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 21:49:10 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA19755 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:49:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h252xtD04237 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:59:55 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h252xt504234 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:59:55 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA19741; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:48:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h252x0504203; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:59:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h252wf504185 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:58:41 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA19716 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:47:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2080053 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Mar 2003 21:49:29 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: To: asrg@ietf.org From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Standardization of RFC headers for email contentanalysis? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:49:21 -0500 Keith Moore writes: >that and for the purpose of this discussion it's probably sufficient if we >classify a few kinds of things that analysis tools look for (e.g. originator >characteristics, signal path, gross message characteristics, specific >items in the content) and some of the kinds of filtering that are done based >on the analysis (e.g. discard, bounce, alter, delay, require confirmation) General characteristics would be nice. However I know some companies will balk at providing too much detail about what characteristics they examine. However it would be useful to have some list of attributes. Our experience with most spam repositories has been that they assume content-filtering, and have so emasculated the headers that non-content-filtering solutions can't use them at all. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 22:05:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA20050 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:05:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h253GD405612 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:16:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h253GD505609 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:16:13 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA20042; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:04:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h253F5505587; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:15:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h253EP505547 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:14:25 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA20031 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:03:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2080094; Tue, 04 Mar 2003 22:05:13 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: "David F. Skoll" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:05:04 -0500 At 9:46 PM -0500 3/4/03, David F. Skoll wrote: > > If my ISP is under serious attack from spammers, then some level of >> "good" mail will probably be thrown out with the spam. The only way I >> know of to guarantee that no "good" mail is thrown out, is to not >> throw out *any* mail. > >Or to have a human sort it out. It's not clear to me that human sorting would be reliable to the extent you are implying. Especially third party human sorting. But I've come real close to replying to some messages that looked perfectly fine to me. The information that flagged them as spam was not the content, but details about the path they took, how many people they went to, and other things that a human observer could not determine. But in any case, it's not clear what this means in an ISP context. Companies may find it necessary to hire a human to filter borderline messages that an automatic filter is unsure of, but in the ISP context, false positives do not have a simple solution--especially since an ISP is not likely to be able to afford (in terms of processing time and resources) the degree of end-user customization that an enterprise might (and I seriously doubt any of us want ISPs reading our email). -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 22:12:09 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA20144 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:12:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h253MtR05793 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:22:55 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h253Ms505790 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:22:54 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA20132; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:11:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h253M1505774; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:22:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h253Ld505760 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:21:39 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA20116 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:10:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (ebola [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.localdomain (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h253LQEN002339 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:21:26 -0800 Received: (from peter@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h253LQAZ002337; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:21:26 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: localhost.localdomain: peter set sender to octavian@corp.earthlink.net using -f From: "Peter A. Friend" To: Asrg Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.8 (1.0.8-10) Message-Id: <1046834485.2177.18.camel@ebola> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] filters play a role Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 04 Mar 2003 19:21:25 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I just wanted to add a few comments about what I've seen here regarding filters. For one, I don't think any big fan of filters will say that something at the protocol level doesn't need to be done to reduce and/or eliminate spam. If he does, well, I won't go into that. I think it's blindingly obvious that something has to change, and filters are just a small part. The point regarding the escalating arms race is valid IMO, but not a good enough reason to ditch the use of filters. I found the point regarding cost of false positives vs. hitting 'd' very interesting, but there is more than just a time cost here. I believe (based on experience dealing with the masses in tech support 8+ years ago) that to see something as offensive as pornography show up on your screen when you haven't even clicked anything yet has a very high cost. Higher than an occasional (if we do our work right) false positive? That's a personal matter I think. Anyway, I think filters are here to stay. Any solution we come up with here is going to take substantial time to tweak and make available. Even when it is in place, I am sure that some spam will get through somehow, so we need something to catch what falls through the cracks. Consider the "everyone uses SMTPAUTH" scenario. Sure, you can see what account sent the spam, and you can track him down and spank him, but the damage is done. Filters are a way of dealing with this. Even the large spam filtering services that use fingerprinting suffer from this problem; there is always the poor bastard who got the spam before the spam rule was propagated. Anyone that doesn't want to use filters can just turn them off, if their ISP is doing their job right. Of course filters really have nothing to do with the charter of this group, so oops, sorry. Peter _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 22:21:12 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA20362 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:21:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h253Vwx06094 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:31:58 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h253Vw506091 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:31:58 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA20326; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:20:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h253V3506031; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:31:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h253Ud505985 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:30:39 -0500 Received: from backbone.midwestcs.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA20282 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:19:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from footbone.midwestcs.com ([206.222.212.237] helo=midwestcs.com) by backbone.midwestcs.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18qPT4-0001g3-00 for ; Tue, 04 Mar 2003 21:21:18 -0600 To: asrg@ietf.org References: <200303050158.UAA18848@ietf.org> <20030305023337.GQ7500@main.templetons.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: wayne In-Reply-To: <20030305023337.GQ7500@main.templetons.com> Message-ID: Lines: 27 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanner: exiscan *18qPT4-0001g3-00*baWYCfEPqwc* () Subject: [Asrg] Are open relays on the decline? Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 04 Mar 2003 21:21:18 -0600 In <20030305023337.GQ7500@main.templetons.com> Brad Templeton writes: > Forcing them > all to close is something to be done only if we have exhausted all > ways to solve the problem. Well, you may need to start thinking about creating a "Save the Open Relay Society" or something. One of the DNSBLs that lists open relays is ordb.org and it keeps stats on the number of open relays. It was created after orbz(?) was shut down, and in the first six months, it went from zero to around 200,000 listed open relays. In the last 12 months, it has stayed around 200,000 and is actually falling. This is despite having hundreds or even thousands of new sites being listed every day. Does any major MTA have a default of being an open relay any more? Are there still new ways of tricking MTAs into relaying regularly being found? I suspect that the number of open relays has reached a peak and will now gradually decline as people upgrade their software. (Yeah, this will take years, but...) -wayne _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 22:33:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA20588 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:33:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h253iPv07534 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:44:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h253iP507531 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:44:25 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA20560; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:33:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h253hQ507463; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:43:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h253en507367 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:40:49 -0500 Received: from srv1.fecyk.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id WAA20492 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:29:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from gordshome (wnpgmb08dc1-res-93-151.mts.net [142.161.93.151]) by srv1.fecyk.ca (SMTPRCV 0.48) with SMTP id ; Tue, 04 Mar 2003 21:31:34 -0600 From: "Gordon Fecyk - Home" To: "Anti-Spam Research Group of IETF \(E-mail\)" Message-ID: <000d01c2e2c8$017ab230$975da18e@fecyk.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4920.2300 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] New Internet Draft I'm working on Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:33:35 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I just learned of this list from Computerworld's announcement of the ASRG conference. People in other anti-spam mailing lists urged me to finish this and post it. It's another approach to the domain spoofing problem which supports IP (v4 and v6) based authorization of hosts sending mail, and leaves that authorization in the hands of domain administrators. -- PGP key (0x0AFA039E): What's a PGP Key? See GOD BLESS AMER, er, THE INTERNET. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 22:34:08 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA20608 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:34:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h253itB07554 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:44:55 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h253it507551 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:44:55 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA20584; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:33:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h253i1507489; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:44:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h253fq507393 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:41:52 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA20501 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:30:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h253WYlk007622 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:32:34 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303050332.h253WYlk007622@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] MTP draft References: <20030305020752.GL7500@main.templetons.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:32:34 -0700 (MST) > From: Brad Templeton > ... > Now in general we can exempt the small volume stuff as one solution, > since again mathematically it is unlikely to cause the problem we > wish to fix - flooded mailboxes and servers. > ... > Spammers send bulk mail to people who don't know them from Adam. > I don't. If you get a lot of complaints about me you can judge > me as lying, that's how it's done in the real world. yes. and that makes your definition the same as "unsolicited bulk" in practice. > ... > That's why I argue the definition must be the intersection definition > still strong enough to attack the problem. A definition that nobody > thinks is blocking legit mail, so everybody can be 100% behind > punishing those who violate it. Yes, but the problem with your "meeting" or "strangers" definition is that while in practice it devolves to "nasty bulk mail I don't want," the letter of it's definition it is based on a notion that is fuzzier than "unsolicited bulk." Having your badge caught by a camera while someone wearing it is standing on the edge of a trade show booth's carpet would count as a "meeting." (Ever loan or borrow a conference badge?) You couldn't gainsay the marketoon's camera's computer unless there were a lot of complaints, but then you're in the UBE case. Rules that say one thing but mean something else are bad, even if the literal words and effective meanings are related. No, your party invites are still not UBE, because they're not unsolicited. I can prove that by asking all of yoru targets if your mail was unsolicited junk they didn't want. > > There are no practical problems with those cases. In practice, you > > assume that you'll be told not only about version 2 but reminded to > > purchase more copies of version 1. Buying version 1 usually involves > > an explicit and unavoidable solicitation for junk mail. > > BOy, I sure have heard a lot of people disagree with that! I suspect instead that you've heard a lot of disagreement from relatively few who like to fight or "LART" or count coup on spammers more than they want to stop spam. To that end they define spam as "any mail I can LART". > > I deal with only a few companies, but I glance at a lot of web pages > > when winnowing search engine results. > > Sure. But if they all spammed and you could get off right away, > how bad would it be? And if they could find your address it would > only be a tiny few. Tiny compared to 20,000,000 N.American corporations but not compared to what I should have to deal with. It's not a big deal to look at a few 100 web pages in a day. Should I expect to have to unsubscribe to 5,000 streams of spam, 1 for each of the 50 outfits represented on each page? Think about asking a product comparison outfit about digital cameras. You can easily "meet" than 100 stores on a single web page. > And if you were really concerned you could > use tricks to hide your address. That's true but irrelevant to whether the stuff is spam. I should not need to hide. If I do need to hide, then it certainly is spam! > I don't know of a single instance > of spamming people who just visited a web site. I've not heard of any recent cases, but there were creditable reports. I've forgotten exactly how ancient versions of Netscape blabbed mail addresses. That I've not heard of recent cases and think it is impossible does not mitigate the problem with your definition. "Meeting" is too nebuolous. Should you need to unsubscribe to 100 streams of spam after walking through a shopping mall, being seen by smart cameras in 100 stores, matched to the TIA database of faces to get your name, and then your mail address found via Google? You'll say those are not "meetings," and I'll say every case where you admit a "meeting" happens also involves a reasonable case for soliciting bulk mail. (Note that said "reasonable" and not the contract signed in blood that spammer fighters claim is required.) > > I think there are fewer than 1500 serious spammers today. Since email > > spam started, I think there have been fewer than 30,000 serious spammers. > > Do you mean spammers, or spam companies providing services to spammes? Either or both. The current and historic spammer populations are incredibly tiny compared to the total populations. I never cease to be amazed by the contrast between the talk of American individualism and that only 0.01% of spam targets reports spam while only about 0.0001% send it. Since Spamford's day, I've been fairly religious about adding spammers to my blacklist. Before I stopped being the mail gatekeeper for that (then) Fortune 500 outfit 5 years ago, my blacklist had only about 3000 entries. I started over and now have only about 4517 entries. If you assume I see only 10% of spammers (almost certainly too low), and if you notice that spammers average several domain names each, you get order-of-magnitude 10**3 current and 10**4 total spammers. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 22:45:13 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA20924 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:45:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h253u0Y08010 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:56:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h253u0508007 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:56:00 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA20912; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:44:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h253t2507946; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:55:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h253sn507922 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:54:49 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA20816 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:43:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h253jVS09163 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:45:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF4S87H; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:45:31 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (amert1e3.ca.nortel.com [47.131.82.169]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id FSK7YZDW; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:45:30 -0500 Message-ID: <3E65739D.5000700@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Standardization of RFC headers for email contentanalysis? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 22:48:45 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kee Hinckley wrote: > Keith Moore writes: > >> that and for the purpose of this discussion it's probably sufficient >> if we >> classify a few kinds of things that analysis tools look for (e.g. >> originator >> characteristics, signal path, gross message characteristics, specific >> items in the content) and some of the kinds of filtering that are done >> based >> on the analysis (e.g. discard, bounce, alter, delay, require >> confirmation) > General characteristics would be nice. However I know some companies > will balk at providing too much detail about what characteristics they > examine. However it would be useful to have some list of attributes. > Our experience with most spam repositories has been that they assume > content-filtering, and have so emasculated the headers that > non-content-filtering solutions can't use them at all. We're archiving somewhere in the neighborhood of 300K-400K spams per day. No munging. I'm sure something can be arranged. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 22:46:06 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA20947 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:46:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h253url08074 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:56:53 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h253ur508071 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:56:53 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA20939; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:45:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h253u1508033; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:56:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h253tV507985 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:55:31 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA20883 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:44:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h253kFJt008930 for Asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:46:15 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303050346.h253kFJt008930@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records References: <004501c2e2ba$963fc030$4d9cf140@rtr.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:46:15 -0700 (MST) > From: "Gary Feldman" > ... > Ultimately, requirements translate into user requirements, not > some technical point. Phrasing them technically as above > tends to obscure the real requirements. > > So, for example, the real requirement is to be able to send > mail from one authorized address with a return address being > another authorized address, "authorized" being the operative > word. ... That use of "authorized" is more of the same but worse, because it is involves a misuse of technical jargon. The problem is that it "authorized" is meaningless in this case. This is not a mere technical quibble. You cannot "authorize" some but only some strangers. It is as impractical (and undesirable in the larger context) for an ISP in China to check that a user is "authorized" to use a return address in the U.S. as it is for a hotel in China to check to see if a guest is "authorized" to use a U.S. return address on a picture postcard. Or to get closer to home and recent headlines, for a Hotmail user to use an AT&T return address. > ... > While that's often done, the real requirement is that the > sending computer have the authorization to send on behalf > of the purported (i.e. mail_from) domain -- or perhaps > it needs to be at the user level or some other granularity). Yes, and the trouble is that in practice that cannot be implemented without the forcing users to use return addresses matching their sending IP addresses. > However, let me observe that a significant proportion of the > spam I receive can be rejected on the reverse DNS basis, while > only a tiny proportion of legitimate mail would result in a false > positive. So, while it's far from perfect, I don't agree > with your conclusion that it doesn't reduce spam, based on > my own personal empirical evidence. My own empirical evidence and the evidence of others who object more to not receiving legitimate mail than to receiving junk is the opposite. However, I bet the numbers we are talking about are the same. I bet your "tiny proportion" is several percent. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 22:50:09 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA21049 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:50:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2540ui08227 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:00:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2540t508224 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:00:55 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA21037; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:49:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25402508194; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:00:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h253x8508136 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:59:08 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA20979 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:47:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h253noA15960; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:49:50 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: Alan DeKok Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] MTP drafty Message-ID: <20030305034949.GA14655@main.templetons.com> References: <20030305020752.GL7500@main.templetons.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:49:49 -0800 On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:34:26PM -0500, Alan DeKok wrote: > If the "solutions" to spam involve still allowing spammers to > overwhelm some people, then those solutions will just get you cursed > by the guy who's *still* getting spammed, when everyone else things > that the problem has gone away. We want to do the best job we can, but no better. Our just systems are all designed to let 10 murderers go free to avoid punishing one innocent person, and likewise our solution to spam. It must let some spam through, or it is doing too "good" a job. Still, we wil do what we can. The plus side is that if you could cut spam by 3 orders of magnitude (which means I get 2 a week, btw) you do something else to the economics of spam, namely make it 1000 times less effective, which puts a dent even in the "I can send a million and if I get 5 responses I still do OK" logic of the spammer. Now he has to send a billion to get 5 responses, and that's not practical any more. > > Sure. But if they all spammed and you could get off right away, > > how bad would it be? > > Bad. That's what's happening today, and it doesn't help. Really? In spite of all the spam I get, I have only gotten one overzelous mailing from a company I bought from (X10, before they started the popup ad campaign), and in spite of giving out hundreds of different email addresses (I use a different one each time) to tons of companies and web sites I have done business with, I have only seen _one_ suspected case of somebody handing my email off to another party. I have seen similar reports from other people. So I would like to hear of your reports that say the opposite. Have there been any studies? Yes, I have gotten mail from companies I dealt with, without a single exception, they have offered a working means to get me off the mailing lists. I've gotten more phone calls, and they are much more annoying. This is a non-problem. Certainly not enough of one that we would cripple or even consider redesigning e-mail to deal with it. > > It's 10,000 companies in the world versus little old me. They can > exchange information, and all decide to spam me. They have the > resources to send massive amounts of spam, and to deal with any > technical or legal ramifications. Under the definition I propose, they can't trade mailing addresses, unless you consent to this. > > > > The fact that they want to "help" you by selling you a product is > irrelevant. I simply have seen no evidence of a problem here, and I get a lot of spam and do a lot of buying online. We should all want to see a real study showing more than anecdotal evidence, before making any moves in this direction. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 22:55:16 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA21151 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:55:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25463a08403 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:06:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25463508400 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:06:03 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA21143; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:54:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25453508360; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:05:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2544Y508338 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:04:34 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA21104 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:53:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h253tIVB009502 for Asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:55:18 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303050355.h253tIVB009502@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:55:18 -0700 (MST) > From: "Alan DeKok" > ... > If my ISP is under serious attack from spammers, then some level of > "good" mail will probably be thrown out with the spam. That's wrong, unless mail is a mere frill or recreation for you. > The only way I > know of to guarantee that no "good" mail is thrown out, is to not > throw out *any* mail. > > This is unacceptable. It is also an overstatement. My personal set of filters have a false positive rate of much less than 0.1% or about the normal failure rate of email. They have a false negative rate of less than 1%. Plenty of spam is sent my way, because I've been exposing my current address in public for more than 10 years. > We have to decide what level of spam we can live with, and what > level of false positives we can live with in anti-spam filters. If > lowering the false positive rate by 2% increases the amount of spam by > 10x, then that solution doesn't scale. > ... People whose livelihoods depend on mail cannot, will not, and do not accept false positive rates above 1%. That you can talk about changing the false positive rate by 2% brands you as outside that class. There's certainly nothing wrong with not depending on email for the butter on your bread (or your bread), but beware of assuming that everyone else is the same. Note that people who do depend on email and cannot tolerate 1% false positives are like business flyers. They are the most profitable customers for many ISPs. That means that many ISPs have similar views of false positives. There are other ISPs, but they cater to "home users." Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 22:56:12 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA21195 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:56:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2546x608434 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:06:59 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2546x508431 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:06:59 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA21189; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:55:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25462508392; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:06:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2545n508377 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:05:49 -0500 Received: from narn.megacity.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA21140 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:54:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from megacity.org (hvc-204-210-140-244.hvc.rr.com [204.210.140.244]) (authenticated bits=0) by narn.megacity.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h253tqm1025759 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:55:54 -0500 Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) From: "Derek J. Balling" To: Asrg Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <200303050346.h253kFJt008930@calcite.rhyolite.com> Message-Id: <73BC08FC-4EBE-11D7-9842-000A27AF5202@megacity.org> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:56:32 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tuesday, March 4, 2003, at 10:46 PM, Vernon Schryver wrote: > Or to get closer to home and recent headlines, for a Hotmail user to > use an AT&T return address. I think it's perfectly fair, though, for $DOMAIN_HOLDER to be able to say "if it's coming from $HERE, we're willing to vouch that it's someone who at least has some moderate claim to be from $DOMAIN. Think of it more as "designating" IPs as "belonging to this domain", or "vouching for them" rather than authorization. > Yes, and the trouble is that in practice that cannot be implemented > without the forcing users to use return addresses matching their > sending IP addresses. Not at all. It requires them to use IP addresses which their domain-holder has vouched for. Nothing would stop me from using my rr.com host to send megacity.org mail, so long as the admin of megacity.org was willing to say "if it's coming from $THERE, it's ok". D _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 23:00:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA21326 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:00:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h254B4K09404 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:11:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h254B4509401 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:11:04 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA21303; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:59:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h254A1509347; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:10:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2549T509291 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:09:29 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA21242 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:58:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h25408p16094; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:00:08 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: Keith Moore Cc: Paul Judge , vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] definition of spam (was Re: consent expression) Message-ID: <20030305040008.GB14655@main.templetons.com> References: <20030304205916.56614a9f.moore@cs.utk.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030304205916.56614a9f.moore@cs.utk.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:00:08 -0800 On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 08:59:16PM -0500, Keith Moore wrote: > To a recipient, spam is mail he finds annoying, doesn't want to receive, and > > To an ISP, spam is what violates its AUP. Alternately, it's what customers > To a sender, spam is whatever someone else is doing. No spammer sees himself The purpose of a definition of spam is to use legal tactics against it, typically in contract law, but also possibly in statute. That's because you must be clear on what it is you're going to punish, so people should be able to know when they have violated the rule, or been the subject of it, and so a fair and impartial body can objectively determine it. To that end, a legal definition of spam must include nothing but spam, and will not include all things that you think are spam. That's because, to get people to agree to enforce it, they do not wish to be in the position of punishing that which they think is legitimate mail, nor do those who are creating the system want to be in the position of chilling legitimate communications. (In the USA and some other nations, laws are constitutionally required to block nor chill any legitimate communications, and to be precise, and to be the least restrictive means possible to solve the problem.) That least restrictive means test is also a good one to borrow. Should the global system have a narrower definition, as it must, this does not preclude private systems from working to stop things not covered by that definition as best they can. Thus if a system based on national law, new protocols, or pooling of MX servers only stops bulk mail above volume X form parties matching description Y, and you want to add onto it a system which blocks based on content (Viagara) or intent (advertising) or source (blacklists) then you are in no way stopped from doing so. Indeed you can even make the system big as the population that wants it. However, for a system to be implemented by the IETF or similar body, a much narrower concensus is required, as this will be the default for much of the E-mail system of the world. That's a pretty heavy burden. E-mail is all based on private property, and thus not subject in many cases to 1st amendment and related protections from private action, but we as architects of such systems must think of that as a bug, not a feature. We should not be glad that we don't have to worry about that pesky first amendment. Do people disagree with these principles? If so, let us know. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 23:11:20 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA21604 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:11:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h254M7D09749 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:22:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h254M7509746 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:22:07 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA21557; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:10:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h254L5509728; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:21:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h254KB509695 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:20:11 -0500 Received: from corvu.com.au (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA21489 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:08:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from milat.troy.rollo.name (milat.corvu.com.au [203.33.110.33]) by corvu.com.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA07582; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:10:46 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030305150933.01de28c0@pop3.corvu.com.au> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: "Derek J. Balling" From: Troy Rollo Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records Cc: Asrg In-Reply-To: <73BC08FC-4EBE-11D7-9842-000A27AF5202@megacity.org> References: <200303050346.h253kFJt008930@calcite.rhyolite.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 15:10:44 +1100 At 10:56 PM 03/04/2003 -0500, Derek J. Balling wrote: >Nothing would stop me from using my rr.com host to send megacity.org mail, >so long as the admin of megacity.org was willing to say "if it's coming >from $THERE, it's ok". This breaks automated forwarding. -- Troy Rollo Chairmain, CAUBE.AU asrg@troy.rollo.name Executive Director, iCAUCE _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 23:15:12 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA21675 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:15:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h254PxN09896 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:25:59 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h254Px509893 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:25:59 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA21671; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:14:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h254P1509873; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:25:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h254Od509824 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:24:39 -0500 Received: from narn.megacity.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA21639 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:13:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from megacity.org (hvc-204-210-140-244.hvc.rr.com [204.210.140.244]) (authenticated bits=0) by narn.megacity.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h254Ehm1026105 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:14:44 -0500 Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) From: "Derek J. Balling" To: Asrg Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030305150933.01de28c0@pop3.corvu.com.au> Message-Id: <1577B1AF-4EC1-11D7-9842-000A27AF5202@megacity.org> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:15:22 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tuesday, March 4, 2003, at 11:10 PM, Troy Rollo wrote: > At 10:56 PM 03/04/2003 -0500, Derek J. Balling wrote: >> Nothing would stop me from using my rr.com host to send megacity.org >> mail, so long as the admin of megacity.org was willing to say "if >> it's coming from $THERE, it's ok". > > This breaks automated forwarding. Couple solutions to that, most of which are documented pretty well in Gordon's proposal ( http://www.pan-am.ca/draft-ietf-asrg-dsprotocol-00.txt ). And it only breaks it if the recipient rejects it. It could just as easily use that as part of a scoring system like SpamAssassin, etc. D _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 23:25:13 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA21824 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:25:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h254a1a10222 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:36:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h254a1510219 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:36:01 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA21813; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:24:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h254Z2510168; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:35:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h254Y3510138 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:34:03 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA21782 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:22:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h254Ode16475; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:24:39 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: Vernon Schryver Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] MTP draft Message-ID: <20030305042439.GC14655@main.templetons.com> References: <20030305020752.GL7500@main.templetons.com> <200303050332.h253WYlk007622@calcite.rhyolite.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200303050332.h253WYlk007622@calcite.rhyolite.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:24:39 -0800 On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 08:32:34PM -0700, Vernon Schryver wrote: > Yes, but the problem with your "meeting" or "strangers" definition is > that while in practice it devolves to "nasty bulk mail I don't want," Really? I find it to be much narrower compared to other views of unsolicited bulk. For example, I have taken the stance that we have no business interfering with communication between parties that know one another and are open to communication, and as is required in a free society, the default is that they are open to communication. (It amazes me how many people seem to think that's not true in a free society, or forget that it is, and I'll keep debating 'em.) Most of the people who I have seen define UBE have said they feel a company should not be able to mail you after you buy something from them. While I have been annoyed by such mail as much as anybody, it is small volume, and always resolves itself, and the market has capacity to deal with it on its own. Or do people here believe it would be appropriate for the IETF to attempt to solve hypothetical spam problems that aren't a concern as yet, and are currently resolving themselves, but we worry could go bad in the future? Some people approach spam thinking the problem is they got an annoying mail in their e-mail box. I do not believe it is appropriate to modify protocols or make laws to protect people from minor annoyance. I view the occasional annoyances as part of the price of free and open protocols and societies. I see the main aspects of the spam problem as fourfold: a) Our mailboxes get so full of spam it seriously hurts their utility. b) Our mail servers undergo significantly extra load c) People become afraid to disclose their E-mail addresses in public, in newsgroup postings etc. d) Sites face a large burden about dealing with both true and false complaints about spam originating from their network. Do people have more aspects to add -- aspects that are at this scale of seriousness? There are other minor things, but frankly I think if we could solve the above 4 we would go home very happy people. > than "unsolicited bulk." Having your badge caught by a camera while > someone wearing it is standing on the edge of a trade show booth's > carpet would count as a "meeting." (Ever loan or borrow a conference Yes, but do you seriously think this is a likely scenerio? I'm really only concerned with things that are demonstrably taking place and ready to cause a major problem. We're not here to fix my emailbox or your emailbox, but to fix a problem that is attacking the net itself. We're talking about doing that by modifying, and in many cases restricting formerly open protocols. Sometimes that means simply securing the protocols which is good, but other times it means deliberately removing features that people have found valuable. That's a big step for the IETF. > No, your party invites are still not UBE, because they're not > unsolicited. I can prove that by asking all of yoru targets if > your mail was unsolicited junk they didn't want. Actually, because so many people do "just say 'd'" to spam, it's actually quite possible that the messages are of no interest to some of the recipients, but since it's just a few a year it would be more bother than it's worth to get off them. The key is, I should never, ever be afraid I am violating the rules to mail people I have personally met. Even unsolicited. Again, there simply is not a big problem in mailboxes flooded by mail from people you know. It doesn't exist. We should not attempt to fix it! > I suspect instead that you've heard a lot of disagreement from relatively > few who like to fight or "LART" or count coup on spammers more than > they want to stop spam. To that end they define spam as "any mail I > can LART". I will agree there are some highly polarized elements in the anti-spam community. Which is why, again, I think the best approach is to find a definition that everybody can agree is 100% spam, so nobody has misgivings about applying it to block mail. > > to what I should have to deal with. It's not a big deal to look at > a few 100 web pages in a day. Should I expect to have to unsubscribe > to 5,000 streams of spam, 1 for each of the 50 outfits represented on > each page? Think about asking a product comparison outfit about > digital cameras. You can easily "meet" than 100 stores on a single > web page. You have not met every vendor on such a page, only the owner of the page. Again, look at what is really happening and likely to happen. 1) First of all, if you use DHCP, it's pretty hard to turn a web visit into an E-mail address. People _could_ build static IP to E-mail maps but as far as I know they have not. 2) Of the 100 sites you visit in a day -- do you really visit 100 new sites every day? -- how many are corporate sites of the sort that might wish to send you bulk E-mail? 3) For those, even if not punishable by my spam definition, it is still very bad PR. I would be surprised if it's even one of them. > That's true but irrelevant to whether the stuff is spam. I should > not need to hide. If I do need to hide, then it certainly is spam! Really? As I noted, I give an e-mail address at many web sites. I use a different addresse every time to track what people do with it. My goal is to track, and also to hide should I find one that won't unsubscribe me quickly. It's never been an issue except for once with X10, long ago, and even then I got off after a few iterations, I did not need to put a block on that E-mail alias. To the best of my experience, it's a non-problem. Anyway, quite often I don't want these post-buy mailings about new versions and upgrades etc. They just aren't a big problem. The only way I see them becoming a problem, oddly, is if we defeated scumbag-spam so solidly that such mailings lost their stigma. > nebuolous. Should you need to unsubscribe to 100 streams of spam > after walking through a shopping mall, being seen by smart cameras in > 100 stores, matched to the TIA database of faces to get your name, > and then your mail address found via Google? You'll say those are If this becomes a problem, we will try to address it. Again, I ask if we should try to fix hypothetical problems here? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 23:31:08 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA21930 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:31:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h254fur11164 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:41:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h254fu511161 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:41:56 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA21910; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:30:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h254f2511133; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:41:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h254eU511096 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:40:30 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA21870 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:29:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h254VCZZ014278 for Asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:31:12 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303050431.h254VCZZ014278@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records References: <73BC08FC-4EBE-11D7-9842-000A27AF5202@megacity.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:31:12 -0700 (MST) > From: "Derek J. Balling" > > Or to get closer to home and recent headlines, for a Hotmail user to > > use an AT&T return address. > > I think it's perfectly fair, though, for $DOMAIN_HOLDER to be able to > say "if it's coming from $HERE, we're willing to vouch that it's > someone who at least has some moderate claim to be from $DOMAIN. > > Think of it more as "designating" IPs as "belonging to this domain", or > "vouching for them" rather than authorization. If the "IP address here" refers to Hotmail's IP addresses in that example, then there's no sense in worrying whether Hotmail has authorized the Hotmail user to send the message. If the "here" is some IP address associated with the AT&T domain name that used by the Hotmail user as a return address, then it is between nonsensical and impractical. It will never be practical for Hotmail to ask AT&T "is my user who I think is John Doe living at [refused] in [refused] USA authorized to use jdoe@atworldnet.att.net?" Even if John buys the premium Hotmail service and gives Microsoft his credit card number as well as his address, date of birth, mother's madian name, and his favorite pet's name, he would not want Microsoft to send enough of that to AT&T to identify him to AT&T so that AT&T could say "yes, he is authorzed use jdoe@atworldnet.att.net." Yes, there are cryptographic protocols that in theory could resolve that, but in practice they are unworkable for various reasons. An important reason is that they require either an absolutely intolerable central identity authority for all all of us, or they require more shuffling of individual public keys than people can or will tolerate. A more important reason is that it solves a minor problem. Most spammers use return addresses that they are authorized to use. Only a little spam uses envelope or header From addresses that can honestly be called "forged." > > Yes, and the trouble is that in practice that cannot be implemented > > without the forcing users to use return addresses matching their > > sending IP addresses. > > Not at all. It requires them to use IP addresses which their > domain-holder has vouched for. > > Nothing would stop me from using my rr.com host to send megacity.org > mail, so long as the admin of megacity.org was willing to say "if it's > coming from $THERE, it's ok". That handwaving and designing wishful thinking that cannot be made concrete except in uninteresting special cases, no matter how often it is repeated in news.admin.net-abuse.email. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 23:35:09 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA22010 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:35:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h254jvc11324 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:45:57 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h254jv511320 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:45:57 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA21997; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:34:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h254j1511291; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:45:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h254i3511255 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:44:03 -0500 Received: from corvu.com.au (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA21976 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:32:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from milat.troy.rollo.name (milat.corvu.com.au [203.33.110.33]) by corvu.com.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA08215; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:34:39 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030305152123.03289950@pop3.corvu.com.au> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: "Derek J. Balling" From: Troy Rollo Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records Cc: Asrg In-Reply-To: <1577B1AF-4EC1-11D7-9842-000A27AF5202@megacity.org> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030305150933.01de28c0@pop3.corvu.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 15:34:37 +1100 At 11:15 PM 03/04/2003 -0500, Derek J. Balling wrote: >On Tuesday, March 4, 2003, at 11:10 PM, Troy Rollo wrote: >>This breaks automated forwarding. > >Couple solutions to that, most of which are documented pretty well in >Gordon's proposal ( http://www.pan-am.ca/draft-ietf-asrg-dsprotocol-00.txt ). Actually it says "Another document will identify similar problems and solutions, including mail forwarding services and the Null Sender envelope (MAIL FROM:<>)." The problem is that this approach assumes that the only significant reason mail with a given domain can come from a location not in a pre-authorised set is that it's spam. I would submit that there are many more common reasons for mail coming from an unexpected source - forwarding just being an immediately obvious one. Even for forwarding, authorising the re-sending host at the receiving end requires at its best that the user provide this information (perhaps by means of some web based form) to the receiving ISP, and assumes that: (1) The user can get it right. (2) The user has access to all of the relevant information. (3) That the user knows within a reasonably short period ( or preferably in advance) when the information changes. None of these is a particularly good assumption. -- Troy Rollo Chairmain, CAUBE.AU asrg@troy.rollo.name Executive Director, iCAUCE _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 4 23:53:16 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA22412 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:53:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25544412106 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 00:04:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25544512103 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 00:04:04 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA22396; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:52:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25531512068; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 00:03:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2552F512031 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 00:02:15 -0500 Received: from flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA22346 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:50:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.133.182] helo=envy.indecency.org) by flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18qQtg-00019T-00; Tue, 04 Mar 2003 20:52:52 -0800 From: Keith Moore To: Brad Templeton Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, paul.judge@ciphertrust.com, vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] definition of spam (was Re: consent expression) Message-Id: <20030304234928.5485710d.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <20030305040008.GB14655@main.templetons.com> References: <20030304205916.56614a9f.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305040008.GB14655@main.templetons.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:49:28 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:00:08 -0800 Brad Templeton wrote: > On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 08:59:16PM -0500, Keith Moore wrote: > > To a recipient, spam is mail he finds annoying, doesn't want to receive, > > and > > > > To an ISP, spam is what violates its AUP. Alternately, it's what > > customers To a sender, spam is whatever someone else is doing. No spammer > > sees himself > > > The purpose of a definition of spam is to use legal tactics against > it, typically in contract law, but also possibly in statute. I don't think it's necessary, or particularly useful, for us to try to nail down "the" definition of spam in objective terms. I agree (for the reasons you cited, and probably others) that the definition of spam used in anti-spam laws needs to be different than a recipient's definition of spam. The kind of spam that a recipient wants to block, or that an ISP might want to forbid, might not match the definition of spam in anti-spam laws. And it might be useful for a recipient to be able to block things that don't match the legal definition, and for ISPs to be able to filter such traffic based on a recipient's instrctions. If nothing else, such laws and their definitions of spam will vary from one jurisdiction to another. > However, for a system to be implemented by the IETF or similar body, > a much narrower concensus is required, as this will be the default > for much of the E-mail system of the world. I doubt that it's appropriate for IETF to try to standardize means of blocking or filtering only what IETF thinks is spam, and I didn't read this IRTF group's charter as suggesting that kind of approach. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 00:07:26 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA22590 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 00:07:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h255IFo13235 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 00:18:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h255IF513232 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 00:18:15 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA22582; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 00:06:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h255H1513200; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 00:17:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h255Gl513182 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 00:16:47 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA22571 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 00:05:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18qMLs-0003Of-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Mar 2003 19:01:40 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] MTP drafty In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 04 Mar 2003 19:49:49 PST." <20030305034949.GA14655@main.templetons.com> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 19:01:40 -0500 Brad Templeton wrote: > We want to do the best job we can, but no better. Our just systems > are all designed to let 10 murderers go free to avoid punishing one > innocent person, and likewise our solution to spam. It must let > some spam through, or it is doing too "good" a job. I understand that it's difficult to prevent spam even from networks you trust. There's always one person on such a network willing to to one dumb thing. My concern was that dropping the amount of spam by 3 orders of magnitude isn't enough. There are ISP's getting 100's of millions of spams a day. Even at 1/1000 the rate, 100,000 spams a day is problematic to deal with. > Still, we wil do what we can. The plus side is that if you could > cut spam by 3 orders of magnitude (which means I get 2 a week, btw) > you do something else to the economics of spam, namely make it 1000 > times less effective, How do you know? Getting rid of spam to useless junk addresses, for example, (fake-email@everydomain.com) will mean only one thing: The success rate of spam will go UP. We're not dealing just with spam delivered to end users. We're also dealing with about the same amount of traffic again, which is undeliverable mail. That has a cost, too. > Now he has to send a billion to get 5 responses, and that's not > practical any more. And the load on the network goes up by a huge factor, which makes the problem worse. > Really? In spite of all the spam I get, I have only gotten one > overzelous mailing from a company I bought from I agree that's not the problem. The problem is the 10,000 other companies who are clueless, and who are trying to get your business. You have no relationship with them, and don't want one. But they have the time and money to drive you crazy with spam attempts. In my mind, this is no different than criminal harassment. It's stalking. > Under the definition I propose, they can't trade mailing addresses, > unless you consent to this. Why would they care? It's like stores not being allowed to sell alcohol to minors. If they discover that the fines are less than the profits, they'll go ahead and do it. Legislating intelligent or friendly behaviour on the part of the spammers will only help if they can be tracked down, and if the drawbacks of spamming are more than the benefits. > > The fact that they want to "help" you by selling you a product is > > irrelevant. > > I simply have seen no evidence of a problem here, and I get a lot of > spam and do a lot of buying online. We should all want to see a real > study showing more than anecdotal evidence, before making any moves > in this direction. I think we're talking at cross purposes. The spam *I* get is from people wanting to sell me something. I don't know how they got my address, and I don't care. I just want it to stop. Email from companies I already deal with is a tiny part of the spam problem. Even if every company I did business sent me one spam a day, the result would be less than 100 extra messages. Plus, I know where they are, and can physically track them down and yell at them. It's the *other* 10,000 companies that I don't want to do business who are the cause of the problem. They're hidden behind layers of paperwork, and are nearly impossible for the average person to trace (technically, or legally). I'm not convinced that legislation will help. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 00:13:23 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA22694 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 00:13:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h255OCL13462 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 00:24:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h255OC513459 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 00:24:12 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA22683; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 00:12:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h255N4513420; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 00:23:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h255Ma513382 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 00:22:36 -0500 Received: from srv1.fecyk.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id AAA22644 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 00:11:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from gordshome (wnpgmb08dc1-res-93-151.mts.net [142.161.93.151]) by srv1.fecyk.ca (SMTPRCV 0.48) with SMTP id ; Tue, 04 Mar 2003 23:13:20 -0600 From: "Gordon Fecyk - Home" To: "'Asrg'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: RMX and DS Records Message-ID: <000e01c2e2d6$3914fa30$975da18e@fecyk.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030305152123.03289950@pop3.corvu.com.au> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4920.2300 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:15:21 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >On Tuesday, March 4, 2003, at 11:10 PM, Troy Rollo wrote: > >>This breaks automated forwarding. > > > >Couple solutions to that, most of which are documented > pretty well in > >Gordon's proposal ( > > http://www.pan-am.ca/draft-ietf-asrg-dsprotocol-00.txt ). > Actually it says "Another document will identify similar problems and > solutions, including mail forwarding services and the Null Sender envelope > (MAIL FROM:<>)." It was strongly suggested to deal with that in another document to avoid clouding the problem that draft tries to tackle. The above doc deals with secondary MXes only because they're the most popular thing that DS is going to break. > The problem is that this approach assumes that the only significant reason > mail with a given domain can come from a location not in a pre-authorised > set is that it's spam. Actually, it assumes the only reason mail with a given domain is not from an authorized location, is that it's simply not authorized. Wether it's spam or not isn't immediately relevant, aside from the indirect fact that a good chunk of spam has fake envelopes. This protocol could also break e-mail worms since the majority of those fake the sender envelope. Mail forwarding is going to break no matter what proposal is adopted to prevent domain spoofing. I wanted to write another document to address that very problem, but here's a preview. Mail forwarders could modify or augment the sender envelope such as (simplistic example): sender(at)example.com@forwardingservice.foo.bar Or, it could replace (or encapsulate) the sender envelope entirely: (hash-of-sender-envelope)@forwardingservice.foo.bar I can hear you all cringing at that. Null Sender (MAIL FROM:<>) envelopes could be checked further, to ensure that they come from an actual MTA running on a host, and not from a person, by checking all kinds of stuff: forward DNS, rDNS, a RMX or DS record, and whatnot. I think spoofing's become so much of a problem that mail forwarders will have to redesign mail forwarding. I think that's why I've been told not to tackle the problem in the DS document - because forwarders could come up with their own ways to deal with it. -- PGP key (0x0AFA039E): What's a PGP Key? See GOD BLESS AMER, er, THE INTERNET. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 00:20:12 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA22785 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 00:20:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h255V1213663 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 00:31:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h255V1513660 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 00:31:01 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA22779; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 00:19:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h255U2513613; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 00:30:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h255T4513565 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 00:29:04 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA22754 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 00:17:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h255Ieq17601; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:18:40 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: Keith Moore Cc: Brad Templeton , paul.judge@ciphertrust.com, vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] definition of spam (was Re: consent expression) Message-ID: <20030305051840.GI14655@main.templetons.com> References: <20030304205916.56614a9f.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305040008.GB14655@main.templetons.com> <20030304234928.5485710d.moore@cs.utk.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030304234928.5485710d.moore@cs.utk.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:18:40 -0800 On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 11:49:28PM -0500, Keith Moore wrote: > I doubt that it's appropriate for IETF to try to standardize means of blocking > or filtering only what IETF thinks is spam, and I didn't read this IRTF > group's charter as suggesting that kind of approach. > > Keith Well, if the group is going to consider the question of consent, then it has to ask "consent to what" and define what mail needs to even be concerned about the consent of the recipient. For example, I don't need your consent to send you a person to person mail, certainly not in advance. If you want to block the mail of particular parties sending you person to person mail, that's best done entirely within your own mail tools since, unless they are mailing you megabyte images, there are no global concerns. Nor would we want to have all users of existing mailers need to get new ones which understand consent protocols etc. unless they are using them for bulk mail which is unsolicited/from strangers/whatever. Or is it the hope of this group to research new protocols that would require all people sending mail to have new tools? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 00:29:08 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA23005 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 00:29:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h255dvC14708 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 00:39:57 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h255dv514705 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 00:39:57 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA22986; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 00:28:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h255d1514664; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 00:39:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h255c1514637 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 00:38:01 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA22972 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 00:26:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h255Sgt17752; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:28:42 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: Alan DeKok Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] MTP drafty Message-ID: <20030305052842.GJ14655@main.templetons.com> References: <20030305034949.GA14655@main.templetons.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:28:42 -0800 On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 07:01:40PM -0500, Alan DeKok wrote: > Brad Templeton wrote: > My concern was that dropping the amount of spam by 3 orders of > magnitude isn't enough. There are ISP's getting 100's of millions of > spams a day. Even at 1/1000 the rate, 100,000 spams a day is > problematic to deal with. Surely no more than a couple of ISPs get that sort of volume? However, the key test is this -- what's the volume compared to that of normal mail. If, for example, it's 1% of normal mail, there really isn't a server load question of significance. If currently spam is 80% of all mail, a factor of 1000 would make it .4% of all mail. Is spam now over 80% of all mail? I just pulled 3 orders of magnitude out of a hat. I'm not sure we can get it, but I would like to try. I don't think we can hope for more, nor should we. > > We're not dealing just with spam delivered to end users. We're also > dealing with about the same amount of traffic again, which is > undeliverable mail. That has a cost, too. In theory, though not yet proven, I think if you dropped the effectiveness of spam by 3 orders of magnitude, the spammers would actually cut back their activites. Just not worth it. However, I am not including that drop in the 3 orders. Though we might do ok if we can block 99% of spam and that causes 90% of spammers to give up to get the same result. In that case the effectiveness logic is somewhat different. There definitely comes a point where if we are successful, the spammers have no reason to keep going. It does cost them something after all -- both money, and risk, and reputation if they have any to start with. > I agree that's not the problem. The problem is the 10,000 other > companies who are clueless, and who are trying to get your business. > You have no relationship with them, and don't want one. But they have > the time and money to drive you crazy with spam attempts. Well, so you are saying whatever rule we set, people can break it. And that's true. Thus we want a way, I believe to shut them out, and/or punish them when they break it. No matter what rule we define. > > > Under the definition I propose, they can't trade mailing addresses, > > unless you consent to this. > > Why would they care? They would not care. The system has to care though, it has to decide what to punish, what has to be sent a different way. > > I think we're talking at cross purposes. The spam *I* get is from > people wanting to sell me something. I don't know how they got my > address, and I don't care. I just want it to stop. We all want that to stop. Some of us however, resist any reduction in the open designs of E-mail that is more than absolutely necessary to fix the problem. You could make it stop any number of ways that you would agree are far too drastic. The goal is to stop it without blocking legitimate mail, the kind we built the e-mail system for. > It's the *other* 10,000 companies that I don't want to do business > who are the cause of the problem. They're hidden behind layers of > paperwork, and are nearly impossible for the average person to trace > (technically, or legally). I'm not convinced that legislation will > help. That I fully agree with. So what are you arguing against that I said? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 01:14:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA23988 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 01:14:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h256P8217310 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 01:25:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h256P8517307 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 01:25:08 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA23970; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 01:13:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h256O5517270; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 01:24:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h256NL517239 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 01:23:21 -0500 Received: from emu.st (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id BAA23911 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 01:11:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 65506 invoked by uid 1015); 5 Mar 2003 06:14:01 -0000 Delivered-To: qmda-intercept-asrg@ietf.org@intercept Comments: QMDA 0.1 - see http://www.geocities.com/mark_delany/qmda.html Received: (qmail 17995 invoked from network); 5 Mar 2003 06:14:01 -0000 Received: from prefix-internal.emu.st (HELO emu.st) (10.100.100.36) by f1-external.emu.st with SMTP; 5 Mar 2003 06:14:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 23989 invoked by uid 1001); 5 Mar 2003 06:14:01 -0000 Message-ID: <20030305061401.23988.qmail@prefix.emu.st> From: "Mark Delany" Mail-Followup-To: asrg@ietf.org To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] definition of spam (was Re: consent expression) References: <20030304205916.56614a9f.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305040008.GB14655@main.templetons.com> <20030304234928.5485710d.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305051840.GI14655@main.templetons.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030305051840.GI14655@main.templetons.com>; from brad@templetons.com on Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 09:18:40PM -0800 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 5 Mar 2003 06:14:01 +0000 On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 09:18:40PM -0800, Brad Templeton allegedly wrote: > Or is it the hope of this group to research new protocols that would > require all people sending mail to have new tools? I don't know about "hope" but is it a tolerable cost if it helps reduce spam? Maybe. How about a less expensive scenario where all MTAs have to be upgraded rather than all clients? Is that an acceptable cost? If the reports that spam costs USD 8Billion per year are even close to the truth, it strikes me that imposing an MTA upgrade to avoid much of that recurring cost is a pretty small price to pay. Regards. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 02:18:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA08412 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 02:18:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h257TZt31874 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 02:29:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h257TZ531871 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 02:29:35 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA08015; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 02:18:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h257R9531762; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 02:27:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h257QL531720 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 02:26:21 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA06236 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 02:14:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h257H1g19277; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:17:01 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] definition of spam (was Re: consent expression) Message-ID: <20030305071700.GK14655@main.templetons.com> References: <20030304205916.56614a9f.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305040008.GB14655@main.templetons.com> <20030304234928.5485710d.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305051840.GI14655@main.templetons.com> <20030305061401.23988.qmail@prefix.emu.st> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030305061401.23988.qmail@prefix.emu.st> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:17:00 -0800 On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 06:14:01AM +0000, Mark Delany wrote: > On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 09:18:40PM -0800, Brad Templeton allegedly wrote: > > > Or is it the hope of this group to research new protocols that would > > require all people sending mail to have new tools? > > I don't know about "hope" but is it a tolerable cost if it helps > reduce spam? Maybe. How about a less expensive scenario where all MTAs > have to be upgraded rather than all clients? Is that an acceptable > cost? > > If the reports that spam costs USD 8Billion per year are even close to > the truth, it strikes me that imposing an MTA upgrade to avoid much of > that recurring cost is a pretty small price to pay. Well, I would not credit a number like that, but in any event even if it were larger, there is a question of what is practical. You certainly aren't going to get all people to upgrade MUAs. And I seriously doubt you will get them to upgrade MTAs. I mean face it, people run around with old MTAs and MUAs that expose them to computer security intrusions and viruses, allowing strange programs to get into their systems, see all their private files, wipe their disks and embarasse them in front of friends. They aren't likley to upgrade because of an order from high that their old protocol is obsolete. People who get lots of spam would want to get new tools to avoide it, but we're talking about new work for the _sender_ of E-mail. Many of which, believe it or not, do not get spam because they have never exposed their email address, and don't have an address guessable by dictionary tactics. However, a far more attainable goal is to require those who host mailing lists (ie. legitimtae bulk mailers) to get a new MTA. This could happen more gradually. Sites start installing a new MTA, and whitelisting their existing mailing lists but not all of them. So most operators of mailing lists start seeing bounces, and want a new conformant MTA. While there are many mailing lists, the number of hosts is manageable. A large portion are at Topica and eGroups/Yahoo and a few other hosting sites. Legit opt-in bulk mailers would upgrade too to avoid hassles. A new ESMTP protocol would take many years to get deployed if you wanted everybody who sends mail to upgrade, and even then you would see many non-adopters until you started forcing the issue, which would be quite contentious. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 02:50:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA21019 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 02:50:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2581Mx01803 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 03:01:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2581M501800 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 03:01:22 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA21015; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 02:49:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h257u5501621; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 02:56:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h257t7501567 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 02:55:07 -0500 Received: from missouri.yamato.ibm.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA20971 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 02:43:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from kyoto.yamato.ibm.com (kyoto.yamato.ibm.com [9.68.13.55]) by missouri.yamato.ibm.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h257jh937052 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:45:43 +0900 Received: from ymtshanen (shanen.dhcp.yamato.ibm.com [9.68.40.179]) by kyoto.yamato.ibm.com (8.11.6/3.7W) with SMTP id h257jhf37226 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:45:43 +0900 Message-ID: <037801c2e2eb$39dea640$0100a8c0@ymtshanen> From: "Shannon Jacobs" To: References: <005501c2e2ac$2b43c870$0100a8c0@ymtshanen> <20030305022115.GN7500@main.templetons.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Economic model is borken. (sic.) Let's fix it MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:45:43 +0900 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Trying to use my limited time efficiently, I'm going to consolidate my comments on this topic. There were a number of thoughtful responses from several people, but I'm not sure how to deal with them most efficiently... I'd actually prefer to minimize the personal responses to focus on the underlying issues... One important aspect is that a good implementation of pre-paid email will be a purely opt-in system. If lots of people choose to use it, so much the better, because essentially they'll wind up bartering their email charges amongst themselves. However, the fundamental difference is that the real costs of email can and should be removed from the infrastructure and made visible. I think a few scenarios might clarify how a different economic model could be used. There are various possibilities, but I'm still focusing on the pre-paid email model because I think the implications can be most easily understood. Scenario one: Someone has had a forwardable public email address detected by the spammer. Doesn't matter if it was hijacked by the Gibe virus or harvested from a newsgroup or stolen from a mailing list. Once it has gotten onto the spammers CDs, it will forever after be a target for their newest spamming strategies. However, by forwarding the email address into a postage pre-paid email system, all spam is gone. Poof. Any future email from that address will be from someone who was willing to pay the postage. Simple. I like simple. Many people like simple. Scenario two: You write unpaid email to someone whose email address has been harvested. You receive a bounce message. It apologizes for the spam-induced nuisance, and asks you to try a different email address or buy postage, and it gives you the URL to buy the postage. If all of your backup email addresses also bounce, you'll just have to pay for the delivery and hope the recipient will provide a new unspammed email address. Scenario three: You are a spammer. Your unpaid email to ALL users of such systems goes nowhere. As long as the postage encryption system remains secure, there is no escape. Pay up or give up. Period. Even a spammer can understand that. And they will hate it. Now I'll address a few of the comments: Keith Moore wrote: > On Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:14:20 +0900 > "Shannon Jacobs" wrote: > >> I'm surprised to see so little focus so far on the underlying cause >> of the problem. The economic model of email is fundamentally broken > > Nope, that's not the cause of the problem. That's trying to impose a > model that works in a world of tangible property, onto the world of > interpersonal communication. Imposition of this model hasn't worked > well in the case of intellectual property laws, and it won't > necessarily work well for communications either. You can argue that > recipients' time is a scarce resource that should be subjected to > market forces, but this relies on several false assumptions - in > particular, that there is an ordering relation for the value of > communication, and that the value of such communications is fungible > with money. This is confusing value received with cost of service, though I certainly agree that there are real problems with IP laws. Actually, both parties SHOULD benefit from email communications, and the benefit should be approximately equal. In a kinder and gentler Internet world, that theory should justify hiding the costs. However, this is NOT the case with spam, where the spammers want to receive ALL the benefit and deliberately try to accept NONE of the costs. The last part is just plain wrong. Different messages do have different values, including different economic values. Legitimate businesses also want to advertise, and they want to spend their advertising money effectively. The value of spam is absolutely negative. It simply wastes my precious time--OUR precious time multiplied by the millions and millions. Brad Templeton wrote: > I was one of the first people to propose e-stamps for internet > mail. I have since renounced the idea. > > Fully detailed reasons are at: > > http://www.templetons.com/brad/spume/estamps.html > > But in short: > a) You can't get there from here, since you can't reject mail > that is unstamped until lots of people use stamps and nobody > will want to use stamps unless people are demanding them. Incorrect. Certain people could choose to reject unstamped email with absolutely no effect on the rest of the email system. And there are certainly people that you would pay to contact--you do that every time you pick up the phone and make a long distance call. > b) CPU coins are better than money but still face problem (a) I agree CPU coins are bad, but mostly because they irrationally and unjustifiably penalize people with slow computers. > c) Putting an artificial cost on something that was designed to > be cheap is a lousy answer. There IS a cost to email, and that has nothing to do with designing it as efficiently as possible. Nothing "artificial" about it. It uses resources, and someone has to pay for those resources. Adding artificial costs is a marketing question, but if the market is free (in a third sense of the word) and open, then people will freely (a fourth sense) choose the email provider who offers the best email services at the lowest cost. Actually, I think a properly designed email system would cost me nothing for the email I wanted to receive, even though that is the email I derive most real benefit from, and should PAY me for receiving any other email. I prefer that payment in cash on the barrelhead, and this is actually possible with a pre-paid email system. I'm not the only person who likes being paid for my time. > d) It has free speech implications. (in both senses of the word.) Are you confusing free speech with free beer? The free beer is easy to deal with. You have no right to free beer (or email), and anyone who is giving you "free" beer has a reason to do so. The only significant question is whether you know the reason. Right now most ISPs provide "free like beer" email to attract customers, so at least their reasons are clear, but there are many other flavors of free email that are not so tasty. For example, Hotmail's flavor is downright pernicious. Free speech is a much more interesting topic, but I can't say too much about it within the scope of email. The important aspect here is that the spammers are abusing their freedom by FORCING millions of people to listen to their unending and repetitive "send money now" messages. > e) Mailing lists are a problem. Not directly related to spam, but solvable. Actually they pose a greater problem for EVERY system that tries to filter email selectively. On the other hand, I prefer NNTP servers for public discussions. > f) Major virus problem if you use real money Eh? I'll have to read your Web site for the details, because it makes no sense on the face of it. If you believe that encryption works reliably, then the vender of the postage can encrypt the e-postage and no spammer can counterfeit it. Solved problem. (Well, not perfectly solved, because when the stamp is used you have to cancel it, but that's a timing-related question. An email system that actually pays for itself can also afford to do extra spooling if it needs more processing time. In fact, there would probably be a net savings since the suddenly obvious spam would now need absolutely no spooling.) > On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 09:14:20AM +0900, Shannon Jacobs wrote: >> I'm surprised to see so little focus so far on the underlying cause >> of the problem. The economic model of email is fundamentally broken, >> and that CREATES the spam problem. "We have met the enemy, and they >> is us." > > That e-mail is very efficient is a feature, not a bug. I would be > loathe to give it up. The "internet cost contract" -- namely I pay > for my end of the wire and you pay for your -- is what made the > internet great, let's not tear it down if we can avoid it. > > Now I agree that the super-cheapness of bulk mail (some say that > the problem is that spam transfers cost from sender to recipient, but > the truth is it's super cheap for both of them, and spammers would > still spam if they had to pay the real cost of the whole > transmission.) > is at the root cause of spam. But it's a feature. We want it for > our regular mailing lists. I'm certainly not arguing against efficiency, but the current system is obviously NOT working efficiently except for the spammers. Given open and fair competition among email service providers, the most efficient ones will be the same ones that earn the highest profits and attract the most customers. Mark Delany wrote: > Well... A lot less spam maybe. Many companies willing pay a US > postage stamp to send, eg, credit card offers. I get a couple a week. > If these same companies can select their target email addresses, I > can't see why they wouldn't > be tempted to pay the postage-paid email fee (aka marketing cost) to > spam me. > > Sure, postage-paid email will destroy the business model of many > spammers, but not all spammers. Whether the reduced level is > tolerable is a different question. So what's wrong with that? These are LEGITIMATE businesses selling real products to real customers. A well-designed pre-paid email system should actually allow you to say what kind of email you will receive, and how much money want them to pay for your time. It should be up to the businesses to decide if your time is worth it to them--but that should be done without actually revealing anything about you directly to them. Certainly not your email address, unless YOU decide you want to talk more with them. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 03:11:23 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA21332 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 03:11:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h258MEx03252 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 03:22:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h258ME503249 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 03:22:14 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA21320; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 03:10:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h258K3503131; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 03:20:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h258JM503069 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 03:19:22 -0500 Received: from mail.asianet.co.th (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA21240 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 03:07:59 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200303050807.DAA21240@ietf.org> Received: from virscan1.asianet.co.th (HELO mx.asianet.co.th) ([203.144.222.197]) (envelope-sender ) by mail1.asianet.co.th (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 5 Mar 2003 15:10:25 +0700 Received: from ppp-203.144.179.84.revip.asianet.co.th (HELO localhost) ([203.144.179.84]) (envelope-sender ) by mx2.asianet.co.th (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 5 Mar 2003 15:00:37 +0700 From: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" To: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" Cc: "asrg@ietf.org" Reply-To: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" Priority: Normal X-Mailer: PMMail 1.96a For OS/2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] MTP drafty Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 15:09:47 +0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:49:49 -0800, Brad Templeton wrote: >I simply have seen no evidence of a problem here, and I get a lot of >spam and do a lot of buying online. We should all want to see a real >study showing more than anecdotal evidence, before making any moves >in this direction. Has more to do with content than volume. I run a firm and I have a legal obligation to prevent certain kinds of (e.g. obscene) mail from being seen by female employees. I also have a daughter and the same issue arises in the home environment. It needs to be absolutely stopped. Jeffrey Race _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 03:13:12 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA21399 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 03:13:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h258O3Z03319 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 03:24:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h258O3503316 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 03:24:03 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA21388; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 03:12:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h258M1503240; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 03:22:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h258L2503204 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 03:21:02 -0500 Received: from emu.st (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id DAA21257 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 03:09:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 24783 invoked by uid 1015); 5 Mar 2003 08:11:40 -0000 Delivered-To: qmda-intercept-asrg@ietf.org@intercept Comments: QMDA 0.1 - see http://www.geocities.com/mark_delany/qmda.html Received: (qmail 60629 invoked from network); 5 Mar 2003 08:11:39 -0000 Received: from prefix-internal.emu.st (HELO emu.st) (10.100.100.36) by f1-external.emu.st with SMTP; 5 Mar 2003 08:11:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 24232 invoked by uid 1001); 5 Mar 2003 08:11:39 -0000 Message-ID: <20030305081139.24231.qmail@prefix.emu.st> From: "Mark Delany" Mail-Followup-To: asrg@ietf.org To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] definition of spam (was Re: consent expression) References: <20030304205916.56614a9f.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305040008.GB14655@main.templetons.com> <20030304234928.5485710d.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305051840.GI14655@main.templetons.com> <20030305061401.23988.qmail@prefix.emu.st> <20030305071700.GK14655@main.templetons.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030305071700.GK14655@main.templetons.com>; from brad@templetons.com on Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 11:17:00PM -0800 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 5 Mar 2003 08:11:39 +0000 On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 11:17:00PM -0800, Brad Templeton allegedly wrote: > > If the reports that spam costs USD 8Billion per year are even close to > > the truth, it strikes me that imposing an MTA upgrade to avoid much of > > that recurring cost is a pretty small price to pay. > > Well, I would not credit a number like that, but in any event even > if it were larger, there is a question of what is practical. You > certainly aren't going to get all people to upgrade MUAs. And I > seriously doubt you will get them to upgrade MTAs. > However, a far more attainable goal is to require those who host > mailing lists (ie. legitimtae bulk mailers) to get a new MTA. Okay. You'll need to use small words and short sentences for me. We don't change MUAs, we don't change the inbound MTAs, we don't change the ratware used by spammers, yet somehow by changing just the MTAs used by legit bulk mailers we reduce spam? I've obviously missed something. Besides, on the MTA front I think you're way pessimistic. The desire to reduce spam is real, rampant, intense and user driven. A lazy sysadmin may not bother with security updates because his manager/users don't understand the cost/benefit. Do the users/manager understand the cost/benefit of a new and effective anti-spam system they read about in the local paper? Heck yeah. Do they bug their IT folk for the upgrade? Damn straight! And this isn't just speculation on my part. I see user surveys from a major Mail Service Provider and the number of people who bother to response to surveys that ask about stopping spam is two orders of magnitude higher than any other survey on any other matter. True! In short I think we're lucky in that the average Joe, most of the press and all of the email admins of the world are in total agreement that spam is a very real problem. If people need to make a change to thwart spam, my guess is that the response rate will be rapid and high. Another besides is that we're not necessarily talking about a lot of MTAs. If, eg, the major MSPs, such as Yahoo, Hotmail and AOL adopted this new anti-spam system and the benefits become readily apparent to the service providers and their users, then you're already pretty close to a critical mass. The cost of spam is a very strong motivator for these MSPs. Regards. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 03:19:26 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA21489 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 03:19:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h258UH803521 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 03:30:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h258UH503518 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 03:30:17 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA21482; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 03:18:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h258S4503457; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 03:28:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h258R9503431 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 03:27:09 -0500 Received: from emu.st (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id DAA21461 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 03:15:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 12352 invoked by uid 1015); 5 Mar 2003 08:17:48 -0000 Delivered-To: qmda-intercept-Asrg@ietf.org@intercept Comments: QMDA 0.1 - see http://www.geocities.com/mark_delany/qmda.html Received: (qmail 54634 invoked from network); 5 Mar 2003 08:17:48 -0000 Received: from prefix-internal.emu.st (HELO emu.st) (10.100.100.36) by f1-external.emu.st with SMTP; 5 Mar 2003 08:17:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 24239 invoked by uid 1001); 5 Mar 2003 08:17:48 -0000 Message-ID: <20030305081748.24238.qmail@prefix.emu.st> From: "Mark Delany" Mail-Followup-To: Asrg@ietf.org To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Economic model is borken. (sic.) Let's fix it References: <005501c2e2ac$2b43c870$0100a8c0@ymtshanen> <20030305022115.GN7500@main.templetons.com> <037801c2e2eb$39dea640$0100a8c0@ymtshanen> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <037801c2e2eb$39dea640$0100a8c0@ymtshanen>; from shanen@yamato.ibm.com on Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 04:45:43PM +0900 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 5 Mar 2003 08:17:48 +0000 On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 04:45:43PM +0900, Shannon Jacobs allegedly wrote: > > Sure, postage-paid email will destroy the business model of many > > spammers, but not all spammers. Whether the reduced level is > > tolerable is a different question. > > So what's wrong with that? Erum. Who said anything was wrong with it? I was just making the observation that cost-barriers might be good hurdles, but they are not absolute hurdles as the OP suggested with "no ifs, no buts". Regards. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 03:42:09 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA21861 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 03:42:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h258r1N05081 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 03:53:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h258r1505078 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 03:53:01 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA21856; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 03:41:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h258o3504991; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 03:50:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h258nw504964 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 03:49:58 -0500 Received: from m1.imap-partners.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA21825 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 03:38:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from HAYEK (adsl-66-125-172-19.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [66.125.172.19]) by m1.imap-partners.net (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id ABJ06911; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 00:40:36 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200303050840.ABJ06911@m1.imap-partners.net> To: Asrg@ietf.org From: "Raymie Stata" Reply-To: "Raymie Stata" X-Priority: 3 (normal) X-Mailer: NewMonix 1.0.5 Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: [Asrg] Requirements for source tracking Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 00:39:25 -0800 In keeping with Paul Judge's request that we focus the conversation according to the charter, let's consider the "source tracking component" mentioned in that charter. By itself, such a component is NOT a solution to spam, but it ENABLES many different solutions to spam, from "consent-based e-mail," various white/blacklist schemes, and more. (For the record, I like Templeton's whitelist-or-slowmail scheme quite a bit. But again, such a scheme depends on a source tracking component.) In fact, many messages to this list have focused on source tracking. However, these messages have dived into particular mechanisms -- there hasn't been any discussion of requirements for such mechanisms. The goal of this message is to kick off such a requirements discussion. In particular, I'd like to raise the question: What exactly should be tracked? First some assumptions and definitions: * Internet e-mail. I'm assuming the context of today's Internet e-mail, which means SMTP as the MTA protocol and e-mail addresses that are associated with "domains" in the DNS sense of the term. * Envelope sender [address]: the e-mail address supplied via the SMTP "MAIL FROM:" to identify the sender. * Message sender [address]: the e-mail address supplied in the From: header of the message. Of course, there might not be one of these if either there is no such header or if it's malformed. * Sender's ISP: this is a term used in the ASRG charter, but I'd like to eliminate it from our vocabulary. I think the following terms provide more precise meanings for what was intended here. * Envelope domain: the domain part of the envelope sender. * Message domain: the domain part of the message sender. * MTA chain: all MTA's handling the message. A source-tracking component, then, could track some or more of the following principals: * the envelope and/or message sender, * the envelope and/or message domain, and/or * the entire MTA chain and/or components thereof. (Are there others worth considering?) As a critique of the source-tracing proposals I've seen so far (three, I think), all were unclear as to what they were ultimately tracing. Any proposal for source tracking should be clearly on this point. But again, before debating the merits of specific proposals, it seems like we could have a more productive discussion debating the merits of tracking one or more of the above principals. Here are a few opinions: * Message vs. envelope sender. I think the focus should be on message sender and/or domain, not the envelope sender/domain. At first glance, the envelope sender/domain appears to have practical advantages over the message sender/domain, but at closer inspection I think these disappear (anyone disagree?). On the flip side, the message domain/sender is what the USER sees (and is what most filtering software uses), so it seems like this is what should be subjected to tracing. (This seems contrary to the schemes I've seen posted so far, which seem to focus on the envelope sender and/or domain.) * Tracing senders. Tracing senders amounts to authenticated e-mail. PGP and S/MIME do this (kind of), I don't see why a new mechanism needs to be invented. But any scheme for authenticated e-mail faces a fundamental scalability problem makes adoption slow (as we've witnessed over the last ten years). In fact, it may not ever become wide spread. Thus, I don't think we should assume wide spread adoption of sender authentication as the answer to the "source tracing" problem. * Tracing message domain versus MTA chain. The interesting question in my mind is this: should the requirement be for domain tracing, or MTA-chain tracing. Let me argue for the domain: * Again, the domain is what the USER sees (user, in this case, is the recipient of a message), what the user can easily put into a filter and/or lodge a complaint about. * The domain is what's more easily associated (via DNS records) to a legal entity. * We want domains to take responsibility for their behavior. More and more small companies use an ISPs MTA rather than their own. We want to see these small companies take responsibility for their mailing habits; domain tracing encourages this. Perhaps this need not be an either-or choice; perhaps we can get both with a single mechanism. That's fine, but I'd say that domain tracing is the "mst have", with MTA-chain tracing as a "nice-to-have" extra. * Cryptographic vs. DNS-mapping authentication Another dimension of the design space is the use of cryptographic signatures versus DNS-mappings to authenticate domains and/or MTAs. Rather than debate this issue in the context of specific proposals, it may be worthwhile debating it at a more abstract level. I personally favor cryptographic approaches: * DNS-mapping depends on the integrity of both DNS and IP-addressing. I worry in particular about the integrity of the latter. * DNS-mapping approaches do not provide a record of verifiable record of authentication. Basically, in these schemes, when a message arrives from an MTA marked as "authentic", you have to take that MTAs word for it, you have no hope of verifying what it (or upstream MTAs) did to ensure authenticity. Of course, configuration bugs (versus maliciousness) causes me concern w.r.t. this assumption. Further, the basis of all authenticity judgments in these schemes is based on DNS-records which change at a tremendous rate (again, suggesting that there isn't much to verify here). * Advocates of DNS-mapping approaches (appear to) claim that this approach requires less change to existing infrastructure than do cryptographic approaches. I question this claim. The DNS-mapping schemes I've seen all involve adding new records to a domain's DNS record-set. Of course, DNS can be used to distribute keys as well as addresses, so it seems like a cryptographic scheme could be built with exactly the same amount of change required by a DNS-mapping scheme (viz., the addition of DNS records). -- Again, source tracing of any kind is not a solution to spam per se, but is an important, infrastructural enabler of many possible solutions. I haven't proposed a specific mechanism in this posting, but I've tried to (a) establish a common vocabulary with which we can compare competing proposals and (b) have suggested that cryptographic authentication of the message domain is "the right" requirement to evaluate proposals against. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 03:46:12 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA21944 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 03:46:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h258v4Q05260 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 03:57:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h258v4505257 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 03:57:04 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA21935; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 03:45:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h258t2505191; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 03:55:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h258sV505149 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 03:54:31 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA21900 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 03:43:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h258j7dW032272; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:45:07 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h258idsT002680 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:44:39 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h258idXj002678; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:44:39 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" Cc: "Asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records Message-ID: <20030305084439.GA2451@danisch.de> References: <200303050221.VAA19252@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200303050221.VAA19252@ietf.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:44:39 +0100 On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 09:23:27AM +0700, Dr. Jeffrey Race wrote: > > Yes, I could not participate in this list were it otherwise. I have > to get my mail at my USA POP server, but I must send from my current > location in Bangkok where the POP provider (AT&T) has no SMTP node. > So if you have your POP server in the USA, why can't you use your SMTP node is well? Why do you need such an asymmetry? Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 04:07:16 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA22250 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 04:07:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h259I9I07042 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 04:18:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h259I8507039 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 04:18:08 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA22241; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 04:06:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h259G2506972; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 04:16:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h259ES506891 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 04:14:28 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA22162 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 04:03:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h259561N032520 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:05:06 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h2594VsT003043 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:04:31 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h2594UNq003041 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:04:30 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <20030305090430.GA2866@danisch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Subject: [Asrg] Sabotage? Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:04:30 +0100 Hi, I was just reading to a heap of message that came in within the last night. While I found many of them to be very interesting and useful, some of them raise a suspicion to be intended sabotage. I'm under the impression that some of the messages are intended to jam the group just with noise and counterproductive objections, trying to spoil the research group. As a security engineer, I'm afraid we're under a kind of DoS attack... Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 04:13:22 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA22334 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 04:13:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h259OFZ07277 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 04:24:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h259OF507274 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 04:24:15 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA22319; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 04:12:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h259M2507206; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 04:22:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h259Lg507180 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 04:21:42 -0500 Received: from mail.asianet.co.th (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA22288 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 04:10:17 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200303050910.EAA22288@ietf.org> Received: from virscan1.asianet.co.th (HELO mx.asianet.co.th) ([203.144.222.198]) (envelope-sender ) by mail3.asianet.co.th (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 5 Mar 2003 16:12:53 +0700 Received: from ppp-203.144.179.84.revip.asianet.co.th (HELO localhost) ([203.144.179.84]) (envelope-sender ) by mx1.asianet.co.th (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 5 Mar 2003 16:12:16 +0700 From: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" To: "Asrg@ietf.org" Reply-To: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" Priority: Normal X-Mailer: PMMail 1.96a For OS/2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Fwd: Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 16:12:04 +0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:44:39 +0100, Hadmut Danisch wrote: >So if you have your POP server in the USA, why can't you use your >SMTP node is well? Why do you need such an asymmetry? ATT blocks access to its SMTP server unless coming from an ATT IP address. So far as I know, ALL ISPs block in the same way. Jeffrey Race _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 04:28:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA22667 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 04:28:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h259dbK08760 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 04:39:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h259db508757 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 04:39:37 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA22648; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 04:28:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h259b6507996; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 04:37:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h259aA507781 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 04:36:10 -0500 Received: from net-graphics.nl (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA22553 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 04:24:41 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200303050924.EAA22553@ietf.org> Received: from WorldClient [127.0.0.1] by net-graphics.nl [192.168.1.110] with SMTP (MDaemon.PRO.v5.0.5.R) for ; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 10:26:00 +0100 From: "curvers" To: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailer: WorldClient 5.0.5 X-MDRemoteIP: 127.0.0.1 X-Return-Path: curvers@net-graphics.nl X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] (no subject) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 10:26:00 +0100 Im working on a smtp like program, but it doesnt handle mail. It just acts like its a smtp server. If a spammer will use it to relay bulk email through. My program will blacklist the spammer. Im halfway finished with the program, if it would be widely distributed and used. It would make it difficult for spammers to hide their ip by using open relays. Every open relay could then be a trap. I would like some feedback and some help testing the program. Regards Alex _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 04:28:49 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA22680 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 04:28:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h259dgD08777 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 04:39:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h259dg508774 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 04:39:42 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA22654; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 04:28:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h259b9508077; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 04:37:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h259aY507810 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 04:36:34 -0500 Received: from imbaspam-ny03.ssmb.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA22559 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 04:25:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from imbarc-ny01.ny.ssmb.com (imbarc-ny01-1 [162.124.186.138]) by imbaspam-ny03.ssmb.com (8.12.8/8.12.7/SSMB_EXT/evision: 1.18 $) with ESMTP id h259R58e018302; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 04:27:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailhub-dc2.eur.nsroot.net (mailhub-dc2.eur.nsroot.net [169.186.205.199]) by imbarc-ny01.ny.ssmb.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/SSMB_QQQ_IN/1.1) with ESMTP id h259QtLU021962; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 04:26:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchuk13.eu.ssmb.com (imceu.eu.ssmb.com [169.186.152.113]) by mailhub-dc2.eur.nsroot.net (8.9.3-GEMSp1/8.9.3/SSMB-HUB) with ESMTP id JAA15271; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:26:53 GMT Received: by imceu.eu.ssmb.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55) id ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:26:53 -0000 Message-ID: <80AD1C20BCECD6118FD800508BCF7EDA72D792@exchuk19.eu.ssmb.com> From: "Clayton, Nik [IT]" To: "'Vernon Schryver'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] MTP draft MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.30 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:26:43 -0000 > Do you know about the DCC, SpamAssassin, Brightmail, or Postini? I > may be somewhat biased, but I think all of those are reasonably reliable > and reasonable. (I've some reservations about SpamAssassin, but only > because I wonder about Perl for filtering more than 50,000 messages/day.) Just as an anecdotal point -- we filter ~ 2 million messages a day through MIMEDefang and SpamAssassin. Based on reports from users, we see between 2-5 false positives a day. N -- 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 -- The 75 column-ometer Global Messaging, A: Top posting 120 Cheapside, x83331 Q: What's the most annoying e-mail habit? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 04:40:12 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA22933 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 04:40:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h259p6S09270 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 04:51:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h259p6509267 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 04:51:06 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA22919; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 04:39:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h259n2509196; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 04:49:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h259m4509159 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 04:48:04 -0500 Received: from net-graphics.nl (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA22888 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 04:36:39 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200303050936.EAA22888@ietf.org> Received: from WorldClient [127.0.0.1] by net-graphics.nl [192.168.1.110] with SMTP (MDaemon.PRO.v5.0.5.R) for ; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 10:38:08 +0100 From: "curvers" To: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailer: WorldClient 5.0.5 X-MDRemoteIP: 127.0.0.1 X-Return-Path: curvers@net-graphics.nl X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] Getting spammers on a blacklist Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 10:38:08 +0100 Im working on a smtp like program, but it doesnt handle mail. It just acts like its a smtp server. If a spammer will use it to relay bulk email through. My program will blacklist the spammer. Im halfway finished with the program, if it would be widely distributed and used. It would make it difficult for spammers to hide their ip by using open relays. Every open relay could then be a trap. I would like some feedback and some help testing the program. Regards Alex _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 05:24:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA24095 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 05:24:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25AZZ511699 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 05:35:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25AZZ511696 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 05:35:35 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA24051; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 05:24:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25AX6511560; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 05:33:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25AWS511498 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 05:32:28 -0500 Received: from gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA23872 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 05:21:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.133.182] helo=envy.indecency.org) by gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18qW3B-0004qh-00; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 02:23:01 -0800 From: Keith Moore To: Brad Templeton Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, brad@templetons.com, paul.judge@ciphertrust.com, vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] definition of spam (was Re: consent expression) Message-Id: <20030305051936.55246a31.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <20030305051840.GI14655@main.templetons.com> References: <20030304205916.56614a9f.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305040008.GB14655@main.templetons.com> <20030304234928.5485710d.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305051840.GI14655@main.templetons.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 05:19:36 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > I doubt that it's appropriate for IETF to try to standardize means of > > blocking or filtering only what IETF thinks is spam, and I didn't read > > this IRTF group's charter as suggesting that kind of approach. > > > Well, if the group is going to consider the question of consent, > then it has to ask "consent to what" and define what mail needs to > even be concerned about the consent of the recipient. well, I'm uneasy with the term "consent" anyway. but part of the problem may be that I don't know what the charter means by that. one interpretation of "consent" is an opt-out mechanism - recipient can say "I don't want to receive spam" (assuming that there's some definition of "spam") and expect that this creates a burden on the sender to not do so. another interpretation of "consent" would be a direction to the MTS - "I don't want to receive any message with the following characteristics ..." (and I specify which characteristics) or "Any mail that comes from a dubious source should be delayed for N days (by which time we'll know if he's a spammer) and it can be only text and less than Mk bytes in length" which would authorize upstream MTAs to discard, bounce, block, delay, etc. mail intended for me, according to the criteria that I set. or maybe there's another interpretation I haven't thought of yet... I don't think the charter is very clearly worded. (mind you, I can see problems with both meanings of "consent") > Nor would we want to have all users of existing mailers need to get > new ones which understand consent protocols etc. unless they are > using them for bulk mail which is unsolicited/from strangers/whatever. > > Or is it the hope of this group to research new protocols that would > require all people sending mail to have new tools? surely our immediate task is simply to understand what is feasible, using the existing mail system and protocols as a starting point. and I can't imagine that a proposal that depended on "all users" or "all people" to upgrade their tools in order to be effective would work. actually, since we are a research group, and not a working group, I don't expect that we are intended to produce a definite answer - but instead try to increase the understanding of what kinds of measures might be effective, what their drawbacks are, etc. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 05:45:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA24568 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 05:45:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25AuRS13425 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 05:56:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25AuR513422 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 05:56:27 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA24551; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 05:45:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25AsA513320; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 05:54:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Ar1513240 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 05:53:01 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA24467 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 05:41:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h25Ahbdt001569 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:43:37 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h25Ah3sT004728 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:43:03 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h25Ah2ut004726 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:43:03 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <20030305104302.GA3979@danisch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Subject: [Asrg] Deprecating plain POP accounts Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:43:02 +0100 Hi, after having lots of discussion about spam and my draft with people from around the world and after following the asrg group for two days now, I believe to have identified a major barrier in fighting spam. It's the ubiquituos "I demand/need to send any mail with any sender address from anywhere in the world." But what's the background for this? When in the history of e-mail did this arise and why? The reason is simple: It's mainly the POP account. People need to exchange e-mail from virtually anywhere, whether from home with a dynamically allocated IP address, of from any phone plug in a hotel right in the middle of nowhere, with an IP address of any local ISP. That's OK, I agree with that. I do it the same way. But there's a harmful and irrational asymmetry in the mail path: When receiving e-mail, people find it fully acceptable and just normal and natural to - have a central mail hub receiving their e-mail, operated by some kind of ISP, - that hub to have a fixed IP address and to be linked to their domain/e-mail address through DNS - that this mail hub is worldwide responsible and authorized for their domain/e-mail address in context of e-mail reception - to identify and authorize against that hub before downloading their e-mail through POP. That's fine and I never found anyone who seriously wanted to question this. But when sending e-mail, things dramatically change: - Many ISPs deny to support their clients in mail delivery. - Even if they do, most clients deny to use it. - Instead, clients insist on directly deliver their email to the world through SMTP without any authorization/authentication. That's counterproductive and harmful, since there is no technical difference between this and forged/unsolicited e-mail. The obvious, self-evident, and reasonable way would be to use the same path as for receiving e-mail, just in opposite order: - the client doesn't send e-mail directly to the recipients MX machine, but instead drops it to its mail hub after authentication. (The mail hub might apply further services such as virus scanning.) - The mail hub then delivers the mail to the world and is considered to be responsible and authorized to deliver mail from that domain. The hub still has a fixed IP address which is linked to the domain. Would be a perfect symmetry. Deliver the same way and method as you receive. Surprise: That already exists. Many POP providers also offer the service of delivering the mail. Authentication is possible through either a so called "SMTP after POP" or a simple Password authentication in the SMTP protocol, typically the same password as for the POP account. That's perfect, it does the job, and it's already implemented and publicly available. And after all, it even works better for the client than direct delivery, since the client doesn't need to cope with unavailable DNS servers or other relays. And it is not even a limitation, since the client depends on the presence of the mail hub anyway. Life could be so easy and simple. Unfortunately, too many ISPs and clients refuse to use it. Therefore I suggest to declare as deprecated: - ISPs who offer reception (POP) services without offering delivery (SMTP) services. If POP download is possible from a given IP address a.b.c.d, then SMTP delivery must be possible as well with the same set of authentication information, i.e. same username and password. Message receiving through POP must be bundled with message delivery. - Clients downloading e-mail through POP, but not using the bundled delivery service. (That's btw poor client configuration.) That's a quite simple demand. No need to develop new software. Most software out there is already able to handle this, just needs to be configured appropriate. Once people follow this, the "I need so send e-mail from anywhere when I'm on road" objection vanishes into thin air. Once this happened, the door is open to implement a sending relay authentication, maybe through RMX records or cryptographic certificates. Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 05:52:11 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA24703 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 05:52:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25B36g13768 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 06:03:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25B36513765 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 06:03:06 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA24695; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 05:51:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Aw1513539; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 05:58:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Avv513503 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 05:57:57 -0500 Received: from mallard.mail.pas.earthlink.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA24614 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 05:46:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.133.182] helo=envy.indecency.org) by mallard.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18qWRq-0005Gp-00; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 02:48:30 -0800 From: Keith Moore To: "Shannon Jacobs" Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Economic model is borken. (sic.) Let's fix it Message-Id: <20030305054506.13ef4962.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <037801c2e2eb$39dea640$0100a8c0@ymtshanen> References: <005501c2e2ac$2b43c870$0100a8c0@ymtshanen> <20030305022115.GN7500@main.templetons.com> <037801c2e2eb$39dea640$0100a8c0@ymtshanen> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 05:45:06 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > The last part is just plain wrong. Different messages do have different > values, including different economic values. Legitimate businesses also want > to advertise, and they want to spend their advertising money effectively. There is no such thing as a business that has a legitimate right to spam. IBM has no more right to spam me than the guy selling penis enlargement devices, and I don't care how much either one is willing to spend to do so. And any financial barrier that would be sufficient to deter IBM from spamming me is going to be more than enough to keep a friend of mine (perhaps one I don't know yet) from sending me mail. And a barrier that keeps me from receving such mail is a lost opportunity for which money won't compensate. And yes, different messages do have different values. But there is not a ordering relationship among those values, the values cannot be linearly combined, and they cannot be equated with money - especially not with the sender's ability/willingness to pay. > There IS a cost to email, and that has nothing to do with designing it as > efficiently as possible. Nothing "artificial" about it. It uses resources, > and someone has to pay for those resources. The real cost is in distraction. It's hard to have a useful discussion if you keep getting interrupted, even if they pay you to do so. And no, my attention is not for sale, at least not that way. Life is too short. > > Sure, postage-paid email will destroy the business model of many > > spammers, but not all spammers. Whether the reduced level is > > tolerable is a different question. > > So what's wrong with that? These are LEGITIMATE businesses selling real > products to real customers. NO. They're spammers. They deserve the same punishment as any other spammers (perhaps worse - there's nothing so arrogant as someone who thinks that money gives them the right to disturb you.) Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 06:16:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA25114 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 06:16:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25BRQe15654 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 06:27:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25BRQ515651 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 06:27:26 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA25108; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 06:15:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25BP5515484; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 06:25:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25BOI515448 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 06:24:18 -0500 Received: from vqx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA25045 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 06:12:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from (AUTH: e40a9cea) by vqx.net with esmtp (courier-0.40) for ; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 11:12:07 +0000 Orig-Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 12:12:47 +0100 From: Roland To: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] definition of spam (was Re: consent expression) In-Reply-To: <20030305051936.55246a31.moore@cs.utk.edu> References: <20030304205916.56614a9f.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305040008.GB14655@main.templetons.com> <20030304234928.5485710d.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305051840.GI14655@main.templetons.com> <20030305051936.55246a31.moore@cs.utk.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 11:12:07 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --Keith Moore wrote on 05.03.03 05:19 -0500: >> Well, if the group is going to consider the question of consent, >> then it has to ask "consent to what" and define what mail needs to >> even be concerned about the consent of the recipient. > > well, I'm uneasy with the term "consent" anyway. but part of the problem > may be that I don't know what the charter means by that. > > one interpretation of "consent" is an opt-out mechanism - recipient can say > "I don't want to receive spam" (assuming that there's some definition of > "spam") and expect that this creates a burden on the sender to not do so. > > another interpretation of "consent" would be a direction to the MTS - > "I don't want to receive any message with the following characteristics ..." This may be a permission given from the user to their isp for filtering/rejecting mail addressed to him without getting sued. But thats not the consent we are talking about here. Any consent has to be given from the receipient to the sender, and should be non-transferable and revokable at any time. Such verifiable explicit consent should be mandatory for every bulkmail sent, and of course for other things like abusing the address for other content as originally requested, selling the addresses and any other violations and invasions of privacy. To be widely usable the 'consent declaration' should have a standardized format, and replace the usual signup-confirmations. Such declarations will also protect the senders from accusations of beeing spammers, the responsible ones will likly adapt any standard and get their mail deliverd without hassle. Roland _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 06:17:15 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA25132 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 06:17:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25BSCS15685 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 06:28:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25BSB515682 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 06:28:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA25128; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 06:16:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25BQ1515532; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 06:26:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25BPK515494 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 06:25:20 -0500 Received: from gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA25054 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 06:13:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.133.182] helo=envy.indecency.org) by gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18qWsM-0005AT-00; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 03:15:54 -0800 From: Keith Moore To: "Raymie Stata" Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, Asrg@ietf.org Message-Id: <20030305061230.1cf246a7.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <200303050840.ABJ06911@m1.imap-partners.net> References: <200303050840.ABJ06911@m1.imap-partners.net> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] desirable characteristics of source tracking (was: Requirements for source tracking) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 06:12:30 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Okay, pet peeve #1: it's way too soon to be talking about requirements. Having said that... My belief is that source tracking should not rely on any of the addresses used in the header or envelope, because there are too many cases where it is reasonable to set those addresses to something else than the default. (Sender as defined in RFC 822 would be close to the right thing, but it has been so widely misused that it's useless now.) For privacy reasons, I also think it's important that source tracking NOT disclose the identity of the sender. It may be sufficient if it contains a per-message unique tag that can be traced to the sender. But even that may be too much. We need to retain the ability for senders to speak anonymously. Of course, recipients would be free to filter anonyomus mail. I've been working on a proposal for how to do this. But I think it's too early to discuss specifics. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 06:37:57 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA27017 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 06:37:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25Bmsd17861 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 06:48:54 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Bms517858 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 06:48:54 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA26975; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 06:37:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Bki517615; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 06:46:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Beb516919 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 06:40:37 -0500 Received: from falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA25658 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 06:29:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.133.182] helo=envy.indecency.org) by falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18qX6k-0004lK-00; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 03:30:46 -0800 From: Keith Moore To: Roland Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] definition of spam (was Re: consent expression) Message-Id: <20030305062722.3d36f607.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: References: <20030304205916.56614a9f.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305040008.GB14655@main.templetons.com> <20030304234928.5485710d.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305051840.GI14655@main.templetons.com> <20030305051936.55246a31.moore@cs.utk.edu> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 06:27:22 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > This may be a permission given from the user to their isp for > filtering/rejecting mail addressed to him without getting sued. > But thats not the consent we are talking about here. I can't tell from the charter what kind of consent they're talking about, but I'm pretty sure it's not what *you're* talking about. > Any consent has to be given from the receipient to the sender, > and should be non-transferable and revokable at any time. no, that's clearly unworkable. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 06:42:20 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA27365 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 06:42:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25BrHA18482 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 06:53:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25BrH518479 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 06:53:17 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA27338; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 06:41:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Bq1518360; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 06:52:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25BnS517910 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 06:49:28 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id GAA27032 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 06:38:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 28650 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2003 11:38:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.2.100.178?) (10.2.100.178) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 4 Mar 2003 11:38:23 -0000 From: Matt Sergeant X-X-Sender: matt@localhost.localdomain To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Asrg] Sender pays vs the third world Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:52:37 +0000 (GMT) I'm new on the list so forgive me if this has been mentioned already (the archives don't seem complete). It seems to me that sender pays means the third world gets excluded from email communication. Whether it's actual money or if it's just CPU cycles, that model simply doesn't work for a group of people trying to communicate effectively with "richer" nations. You might as well just use http://www.blackholes.us/ That's all I really have to say. Matt. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 06:42:58 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA27407 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 06:42:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25BrtM18511 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 06:53:55 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Brt518508 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 06:53:55 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA27379; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 06:42:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Bpi518234; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 06:51:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25BiC517495 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 06:44:12 -0500 Received: from mail.asianet.co.th (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA26678 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 06:32:43 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200303051132.GAA26678@ietf.org> Received: from virscan1.asianet.co.th (HELO mx.asianet.co.th) ([203.144.222.198]) (envelope-sender ) by mail1.asianet.co.th (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 5 Mar 2003 18:35:10 +0700 Received: from ppp-203.144.179.84.revip.asianet.co.th (HELO localhost) ([203.144.179.84]) (envelope-sender ) by mx2.asianet.co.th (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 5 Mar 2003 18:25:22 +0700 From: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" To: "asrg@ietf.org" Cc: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" Reply-To: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" Priority: Normal X-Mailer: PMMail 1.96a For OS/2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Abstract of proposed Internet Draft for Best Current Practice (please comment) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 18:34:32 +0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Interested parties are invited to provide comments to correct, elaborate or perfect my proposal, abstracted below, which I plan to offer as an Internet Draft momentarily. Comments or objections to the effect "This is going to be burdensome on $spam_enabler" are superfluous because such is the precise intention of the proposed Practice: to move the burden from victims to polluters and their enablers. Unfortunately (travelling for some months as I am out here at the edge of civilization in Asia) I cannot figure out how to submit as an I-D for BCP, since according to the new version of RFC2223, only an Area Director can submit, not an individual, for this track. Please, will some knowledgeable person tell me what to do? I do not know who would be the Area Director, and there is no appropriate Working Group. Thanks for all help. Jeffrey Race D_R_A_F_T BEST CURRENT PRACTICE FOR DUTY OF CARE OF INTERNET RESOURCES Pre-release version 1.33 Draft date: March 5, 2003 Drafted by Jeffrey Race Current draft version (4,000 words) available at ABSTRACT (long form, not per RFC2223) This document defines a Best Current Practice to minimize pollution of the Internet by various types of abuse, using the community's own measures in the absence of effective legal, regulatory and technical measures. The Internet's design and management were predicated on voluntary cooperation, self-imposed good behavior, and the non-profit motivational structure of participants extant at its inception. Current experience of constantly rising pollution invalidates these formative assumptions and demands prompt and effective curative measures. Present anti-pollution measures fall under four generic headings: (1) self-directed good behavior; (2) legal sanctions (3) passive ingress-control measures (principally filtering) and (4) active egress-control measures (principally blocklisting) intended to modify the behavior of polluters and enablers. The first three have definitively failed and will continue to fail for reasons specified in the document. The fourth is generally completely effective in warding off ingress of pollution and frequently results in reforming abuse enablers, but it has two major shortcomings: limited uptake due to fear of loss of competitive market position by early adopters, and sustained transmission outages ("collateral damage"). In view of the failure of (1), (2) and (3) and the effectiveness despite shortcomings of (4), the document proposes to apply to the Internet the same rules society applies to all other resources to deter antisocial behavior viz. proper behavior requires clear published standards, standards entail accountability, accountability entails multiple modes of enforceability, and enforceability entails traceability. The document details procedures and implementing mechanisms of behavior modification, using the only proven effective method: withdrawal of internet resources of identity and connectivity. Numerous tests have shown this sanction to work equally well against both the wilful and the negligent to halt pollution immediately, where prior efforts at polite persuasion to follow best practice were ignored with impunity. The proposal thus innovates in three respects to halt Internet pollution: (1) It makes explicit that every custodian of internet resources is responsible for preventing emission of pollution (2) Adopting a simultaneous universal practice of withdrawal of internet resources means that no provider will suffer competitive disadvantage. The Practice legitimates withdrawal of internet resources as the only method proven effective in halting abuse. (3) The burden of pollution now falls on the polluter and his enabler rather than on the victim, so conforming to the basic principle used everywhere else in society to maintain justice and good order. Well-managed, ethical members of the internet industry already conduct their businesses, successfully and profitably, according to the principles specified in the Practice. The proposed Practice simply aims to raise the entire industry to the level of today's best players. The Practice is intended to apply at every level of allocation, registration and usage of internet resources including but not limited to RIRs, LIRs, ISPs, webhosting firms, backbone connectivity providers, domain name registrars, and end-users. It defines internet resources, unsolicited bulk electronic messaging, and abuse, and specifies procedures progressively to penalize abuse after a period of public admonishment. In effect, the proposal implements the "user pays" paradigm in a completely new and clever way, without requiring any complicated metering technology all proposals for which have failed on issues of complexity, backward compatibility, absence of adequate hardware, and the need for universal adoption to be effective at all. The document embodies the only set of measures now on offer which will quickly end the spam menace internationally sans new legislation, with but small and transitory disruption, by abandoning the discredited "victim pays" model. Adoption will not only be cost-free for the Internet as a whole but will substantially reduce the current economic burden of abuse. It does this by transferring the economic burden from abuse victims to the polluters and their enablers, which is fair and feasible, and indeed the system used everywhere else in society. As such the anticipated vigorous objections to adoption from some parties may be seen in advance as self-serving attempts to perpetuate the discredited "victim pays" model by those now profiting from an Environmental Polluter business model or by their accessories and enablers. Finally, RFCs and Practices are often considered by Courts in adjudicating the existence or extent of tortious conduct. Therefore looking to the longer term, adoption of this Practice may be expected to bring a welcome rule of law to the Internet. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 06:43:02 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA27422 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 06:43:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25BrwI18528 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 06:53:58 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Brw518525 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 06:53:58 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA27385; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 06:42:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Bpw518316; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 06:51:58 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Bie517514 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 06:44:40 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA26775 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 06:33:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h25BZ6pP002246; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:35:06 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h25BXNsT005577 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:33:23 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h25BXNag005575; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:33:23 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Keith Moore Cc: Raymie Stata , Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] desirable characteristics of source tracking (was: Requirements for source tracking) Message-ID: <20030305113323.GA4939@danisch.de> References: <200303050840.ABJ06911@m1.imap-partners.net> <20030305061230.1cf246a7.moore@cs.utk.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030305061230.1cf246a7.moore@cs.utk.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:33:23 +0100 On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 06:12:30AM -0500, Keith Moore wrote: > > For privacy reasons, I also think it's important that source tracking NOT > disclose the identity of the sender. It may be sufficient if it contains a > per-message unique tag that can be traced to the sender. But even that may be > too much. We need to retain the ability for senders to speak > anonymously. > I disagree. There should be a mechanism that allows to track back a mail to the identity of the very human behind that email (or taking responsibility for it). The sender should be free to turn this mechanism off, the receiver should be free to accept only mails with the mechanism turned on. If you maintain a discussion group about masturbation problems after dancing naked in the wood at midnight, it might be wise to allow anonymous postings. In contrast, I can state that I do not wish to receive any e-mail to my private mail account where I cannot track back the person who sent it. Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 07:02:58 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA28011 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 07:02:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25CDt220268 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 07:13:55 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25CDt520265 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 07:13:55 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA27990; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 07:02:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25CC8520210; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 07:12:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25CBu520173 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 07:11:56 -0500 Received: from dedos.pert.com.ar (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA27929 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 07:00:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from cosa.pert.com.ar ([192.168.1.10]:47111 "EHLO COSA" whoson: "popbaby") by dedos.pert.com.ar with ESMTP id convert rfc822-to-8bit; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:02:18 -0300 From: "Mariano Absatz" Organization: Pert Consultores To: "Gordon Fecyk - Home" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Asrg] New Internet Draft I'm working on CC: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <3E65BD19.31781.6112F3A0@localhost> Priority: normal In-reply-to: <000d01c2e2c8$017ab230$975da18e@fecyk.ca> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v4.02a) Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT Content-description: Mail message body Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 09:02:17 -0300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Hi, I just skimmed over you draft... are you aware that "_" is an INVALID CHARACTER in current DNS? Don't let the stupid things Win2K does with its pseudo-dns server fool you into thinking that is something that would survive in the Internet... I guess my DNS cache resolver would simply refuse to issue a request for 1.0.168.192._ds._client._smtp._tcp.lonehost.example.com or something along the lines... The idea is interesting, nonetheless... but I think you should take a look into RFC 1034/1035 and their updates before going any further... El 4 Mar 2003 a las 21:33, Gordon Fecyk - Home escribió: > > > I just learned of this list from Computerworld's announcement of the ASRG > conference. People in other anti-spam mailing lists urged me to finish this > and post it. > > It's another approach to the domain spoofing problem which supports IP (v4 > and v6) based authorization of hosts sending mail, and leaves that > authorization in the hands of domain administrators. > > -- > PGP key (0x0AFA039E): > What's a PGP Key? See > GOD BLESS AMER, er, THE INTERNET. > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 07:08:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA28117 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 07:08:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25CJRc20525 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 07:19:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25CJR520522 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 07:19:27 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA28105; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 07:07:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25CI1520474; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 07:18:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25CHV520444 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 07:17:31 -0500 Received: from grebe.mail.pas.earthlink.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA28075 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 07:06:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.133.182] helo=envy.indecency.org) by grebe.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18qXgo-000496-00; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 04:08:02 -0800 From: Keith Moore To: Hadmut Danisch Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, raymie@cs.ucsc.edu, Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] desirable characteristics of source tracking (was: Requirements for source tracking) Message-Id: <20030305070437.60bdfd34.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <20030305113323.GA4939@danisch.de> References: <200303050840.ABJ06911@m1.imap-partners.net> <20030305061230.1cf246a7.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305113323.GA4939@danisch.de> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 07:04:37 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > For privacy reasons, I also think it's important that source tracking NOT > > disclose the identity of the sender. It may be sufficient if it contains > > a per-message unique tag that can be traced to the sender. But even that > > may be too much. We need to retain the ability for senders to speak > > anonymously. > > > I disagree. > > There should be a mechanism that allows to track back a mail > to the identity of the very human behind that email (or taking > responsibility for it). The sender should be free to turn this > mechanism off, the receiver should be free to accept only mails > with the mechanism turned on. If the sender doesn't mind disclosing his/her identity to you, I certanly have no objecting with having such a mechanism. However, this is more than is needed to deter or filter spam. In order to filter spam, I do not need to know whether the sender is really John Doe of Anytown USA. That wouldn't help me much anyway, it would be extremely difficult to deploy, and it would suppress valuable anonymous speech. What I might like to know are things like: a. is the sender's account new, or has it been around awhile? b. does the source ISP have a reliable way to bill the sender? (or is this from someone who got a 100 hours free CD in the mail?) c. have there been many complaints about mail from this sender? d. does the source network have an AUP that prohibits spam? e. does the source network have a reputation for enforcing its AUP? I don't need to know the sender's real identity to ask the ISP questions like a, b, c, and d; nor to complain about spam to that ISP. All I need to know is the identity of the ISP and some tag that the ISP supplies with the message. That tag could be an index into a table that the ISP maintains, or it could have the sender's ID encrypted inside it. The tag could be different for each message. I don't need to care, as long as the ISP is willing to answer a few questions about the sender when given the tag. Then I could treat incoming mail differently depending on some of the answers. For instance, if you have a new account, I might not be willing to accept your mail right away - it might have to wait a few days, and by that time your ISP might have more information about you. If your ISP did not have an appropriate AUP or were not willing to answer these questions I might accept only plain text mail less than 1k in length (to deter viruses and to block most spam, while still allowing brief messages). > In contrast, I can state that I do not wish to receive any e-mail > to my private mail account where I cannot track back the person > who sent it. Then you wouldn't be receiving mail from many people that you didn't already know. For instance, you would not be able to participate usefully in this group. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 07:24:52 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA28430 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 07:24:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25CZoD21216 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 07:35:50 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25CZo521213 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 07:35:50 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA28414; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 07:24:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25CZ6521195; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 07:35:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25CYb521161 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 07:34:37 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA28405 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 07:23:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h25CP7pt003117; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:25:07 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h25CKMsT006847 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:20:22 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h25CKMdF006845; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:20:22 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Keith Moore Cc: raymie@cs.ucsc.edu, Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] desirable characteristics of source tracking (was: Requirements for source tracking) Message-ID: <20030305122021.GA6748@danisch.de> References: <200303050840.ABJ06911@m1.imap-partners.net> <20030305061230.1cf246a7.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305113323.GA4939@danisch.de> <20030305070437.60bdfd34.moore@cs.utk.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030305070437.60bdfd34.moore@cs.utk.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:20:21 +0100 On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 07:04:37AM -0500, Keith Moore wrote: > > What I might like to know are things like: > > a. is the sender's account new, or has it been around awhile? > b. does the source ISP have a reliable way to bill the sender? > (or is this from someone who got a 100 hours free CD in the mail?) > c. have there been many complaints about mail from this sender? ...which violates german privacy laws... Privacy is fortunately highly protected over here. Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 07:36:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA28696 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 07:36:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25ClgG22490 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 07:47:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Clg522487 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 07:47:42 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA28676; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 07:36:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Ck2522427; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 07:46:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25CjB522389 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 07:45:11 -0500 Received: from hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA28642 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 07:33:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.133.182] helo=envy.indecency.org) by hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18qY7a-0005D2-00; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 04:35:42 -0800 From: Keith Moore To: Hadmut Danisch Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, raymie@cs.ucsc.edu, Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] desirable characteristics of source tracking (was: Requirements for source tracking) Message-Id: <20030305073217.46f79dcb.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <20030305122021.GA6748@danisch.de> References: <200303050840.ABJ06911@m1.imap-partners.net> <20030305061230.1cf246a7.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305113323.GA4939@danisch.de> <20030305070437.60bdfd34.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305122021.GA6748@danisch.de> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 07:32:17 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 07:04:37AM -0500, Keith Moore wrote: > > > > What I might like to know are things like: > > > > a. is the sender's account new, or has it been around awhile? > > b. does the source ISP have a reliable way to bill the sender? > > (or is this from someone who got a 100 hours free CD in the mail?) > > c. have there been many complaints about mail from this sender? > > > ...which violates german privacy laws... > > Privacy is fortunately highly protected over here. let me get this straight - it's not a violation of privacy to insist on knowing the real identity of someone who sent a message, but it is a violation of privacy to provide a slight bit of additional information about an anonymous or pseudonymous sender? I guess different cultures have different ideas of privacy... that's okay - there's no reqirement for the ISP to provide such information. but if the ISP can legally do so, and is willing to do so, then the sender can provide preferential treatment of the message. I don't think we're going to end up with a uniform global solution for spam in any case, because different people and different cultures vary not only according to what kinds of protection they consider important, but also in what they consider offensive or unacceptable. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 07:55:02 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA29027 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 07:55:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25D5xB23195 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:05:59 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25D5x523192 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:05:59 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA29021; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 07:54:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25D53523143; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:05:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25D4c523104 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:04:38 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA29001 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 07:53:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h25Ct7w4003665; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:55:07 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h25CrNsT007312 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:53:23 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h25CrMcF007310; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:53:22 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Keith Moore Cc: raymie@cs.ucsc.edu, Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] desirable characteristics of source tracking (was: Requirements for source tracking) Message-ID: <20030305125322.GA7179@danisch.de> References: <200303050840.ABJ06911@m1.imap-partners.net> <20030305061230.1cf246a7.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305113323.GA4939@danisch.de> <20030305070437.60bdfd34.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305122021.GA6748@danisch.de> <20030305073217.46f79dcb.moore@cs.utk.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030305073217.46f79dcb.moore@cs.utk.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:53:22 +0100 On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 07:32:17AM -0500, Keith Moore wrote: > > let me get this straight - it's not a violation of privacy to insist on > knowing the real identity of someone who sent a message, but it is a violation > of privacy to provide a slight bit of additional information about an > anonymous or pseudonymous sender? > Yup, you got it. :-) Privacy in our flavour means that you keep control of what information is leaking out about you. If I ask you "Who are you?", than it is your choice whether your answer or not. And if you answer, you're answering yourself. You can't violate your own privacy (in the legal sense). And it doesn't violate privacy to not accept a message without a reliable sender information. And the receiver is not forced to accept any message, that's up to the receiver to accept only messages from known senders. Rejecting a message doesn't violate someone else's privacy. But if I ask a third party (ISP) "What do you know about that guy", then this is a violation of that guy's privacy. A third party is not allowed to reveal e.g. billing informations. > I guess different cultures have different ideas of privacy... That's what I trying to explain all the time. And we have different ideas of anonymity, of identity, and so on. BTW: Privacy is often translated to the german word "Datenschutz" and vice versa. This is basically very wrong, but still best common practice. As you saw, your interpreation of privacy heavily differs from what we call "Datenschutz". So it is actually not correct if I speak about german privacy laws. But I don't know any better english word. Even U.S. politicians confuse this very often if they are talking about german or european "Datenschutz". Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 08:04:48 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA29226 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:04:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25DFix24386 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:15:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25DFi524383 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:15:44 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA29214; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:04:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25DED524241; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:14:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25DDP524205 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:13:25 -0500 Received: from mallard.mail.pas.earthlink.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA29163 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:01:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.133.182] helo=envy.indecency.org) by mallard.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18qYYu-00047M-00; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 05:03:56 -0800 From: Keith Moore To: Hadmut Danisch Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, raymie@cs.ucsc.edu, Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] desirable characteristics of source tracking (was: Requirements for source tracking) Message-Id: <20030305080032.59d50373.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <20030305125322.GA7179@danisch.de> References: <200303050840.ABJ06911@m1.imap-partners.net> <20030305061230.1cf246a7.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305113323.GA4939@danisch.de> <20030305070437.60bdfd34.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305122021.GA6748@danisch.de> <20030305073217.46f79dcb.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305125322.GA7179@danisch.de> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:00:32 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > let me get this straight - it's not a violation of privacy to insist on > > knowing the real identity of someone who sent a message, but it is a > > violation of privacy to provide a slight bit of additional information > > about an anonymous or pseudonymous sender? > > Yup, you got it. :-) > > Privacy in our flavour means that you keep control of what > information is leaking out about you. well, that seems reasonable. I mean, if when I sign up for an account my ISP can say "is it okay if we tell people that you send mail to these things that might help them decide whether to accept your mail?" and I can opt-in or opt-out to that service, would there be a problem then? > > I guess different cultures have different ideas of privacy... > > That's what I trying to explain all the time. > > And we have different ideas of anonymity, of identity, and > so on. I guess I'm not surprised. but it's good to keep it in mind. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 08:06:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA29263 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:06:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25DHVE24487 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:17:31 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25DHV524484 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:17:31 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA29252; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:06:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25DG3524414; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:16:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25DFF524339 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:15:15 -0500 Received: from nic-naa.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA29198 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:03:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from nic-naa.net (localhost.nic-naa.net [127.0.0.1]) by nic-naa.net (8.12.7/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h25D7Omf000667; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:07:24 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brunner@nic-naa.net) Message-Id: <200303051307.h25D7Omf000667@nic-naa.net> To: Hadmut Danisch cc: Keith Moore , raymie@cs.ucsc.edu, Asrg@ietf.org, brunner@nic-naa.net Subject: Re: [Asrg] desirable characteristics of source tracking (was: Requirements for source tracking) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 05 Mar 2003 13:53:22 +0100." <20030305125322.GA7179@danisch.de> From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 08:07:24 -0500 > But I don't know any better english word. You could try data collection practices. The terms of art used in the UK are in English, that doesn't mean they translate well to American. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 08:35:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA29878 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:35:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25Dkg926469 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:46:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Dkf526466 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:46:41 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA29865; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:35:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Dk3526449; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:46:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Djv526435 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:45:57 -0500 Received: from vqx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA29847 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:34:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from (AUTH: e40a9cea) by vqx.net with esmtp (courier-0.40) for ; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 13:32:59 +0000 Orig-Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 14:33:39 +0100 From: Roland To: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] definition of spam (was Re: consent expression) In-Reply-To: <20030305062722.3d36f607.moore@cs.utk.edu> References: <20030304205916.56614a9f.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305040008.GB14655@main.templetons.com> <20030304234928.5485710d.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305051840.GI14655@main.templetons.com> <20030305051936.55246a31.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305062722.3d36f607.moore@cs.utk.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 13:32:59 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --Keith Moore wrote on 05.03.03 06:27 -0500: >> This may be a permission given from the user to their isp for >> filtering/rejecting mail addressed to him without getting sued. >> But thats not the consent we are talking about here. > > I can't tell from the charter what kind of consent they're talking > about, but I'm pretty sure it's not what *you're* talking about. > >> Any consent has to be given from the receipient to the sender, >> and should be non-transferable and revokable at any time. > > no, that's clearly unworkable. Could you be a bit more specific ? The only one which can give consent for bulk-mail is the receipient, and for mail to be sent the sender must have knowledge (even proof) of this consent. Thats how you and everybody else got subscribed to this mailing-list which follows the outline at http://mail-abuse.org/manage.html The isp (and possibly intermediate relays) will be involved only to enforce the consent on behalf of the customer, today typically with the help of blacklists which are not the ideal way. Roland _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 08:50:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA00124 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:50:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25E1Ym27175 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:01:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25E1X527172 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:01:33 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA00120; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:50:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Dx3527019; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:59:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Dwn527002 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:58:49 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA00082 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:47:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h25DnJBD028817 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:49:19 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:49:19 -0500 (EST) On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Kee Hinckley wrote: > Companies may find it necessary to hire a human to filter > borderline messages that an automatic filter is unsure of, but in the > ISP context, false positives do not have a simple > solution-- Oh, clearly this is not an appropriate solution for an ISP. I was intending it only for a corporate setting. Spam does not really cost ISP's anything except bandwidth and storage. They don't care (nor should they) if their end-users are less productive; that's a worry only for companies. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 08:52:20 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA00170 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:52:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25E3JK27257 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:03:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25E3I527254 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:03:18 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA00149; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:51:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25E11527155; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:01:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25E0D527086 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:00:13 -0500 Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA00106 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:48:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h25DohA29292; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:50:44 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Moore To: Roland Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] definition of spam (was Re: consent expression) Message-Id: <20030305085043.700fb87a.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: References: <20030304205916.56614a9f.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305040008.GB14655@main.templetons.com> <20030304234928.5485710d.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305051840.GI14655@main.templetons.com> <20030305051936.55246a31.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305062722.3d36f607.moore@cs.utk.edu> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:50:43 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >> Any consent has to be given from the receipient to the sender, > >> and should be non-transferable and revokable at any time. > > > > no, that's clearly unworkable. > > Could you be a bit more specific ? sigh. I could, but it's probably just a rathole. any mechanism has problems and limitations. I don't think we're going to find any single mechanism, or even type of mechanism, that satisfies everyone. nor do I think it's in scope for this group to try do so. and at least for the time being I suspect we're better off just trying to list different mechanisms, and maybe to classify them, than to try to argue about which of them are better or worse. so we should put your suggestion on the list along with all the others, and defer the question of whether any of them is workable. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 08:54:52 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA29220 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:04:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25DFiA24370 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:15:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25DFh524367 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:15:43 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA29210; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:04:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25DE6524224; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:14:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25DDF524197 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:13:15 -0500 Received: from nic-naa.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA29158 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:01:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from nic-naa.net (localhost.nic-naa.net [127.0.0.1]) by nic-naa.net (8.12.7/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h25D54mf000650; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:05:04 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brunner@nic-naa.net) Message-Id: <200303051305.h25D54mf000650@nic-naa.net> To: Hadmut Danisch cc: Keith Moore , raymie@cs.ucsc.edu, Asrg@ietf.org, brunner@nic-naa.net Subject: Re: [Asrg] desirable characteristics of source tracking (was: Requirements for source tracking) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 05 Mar 2003 13:20:21 +0100." <20030305122021.GA6748@danisch.de> From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 08:05:04 -0500 It used to be there was a "hop count" in usenet groups, from when some wrangle began, to when it was settled by reference to a somewhat defunct political group, or at least its very defunct charismatic leader. If the experience of drafting a protocol to replace Verisign's RRP, in particular the question of requirements that arise from attempts to state in machine readable form requirements that are themselves both scoped geographically and employ differing frameworks, is general, then this IRTF activity at some point will decide that "everything looks like a nail". At that point, the possibility of using meta-data to describe policy, in particular, the data collection policy of relay-participating MTA operators, which was present in various drafts on such mechanisms as the http state management mechanism, http methods, and shared registry provisioning, to my limited personal knowledge, will no longer be available, and some simpler, and presumably better mechanism, or policy needing no complex mechanism, will be the object of "hum". > I guess different cultures have different ideas of privacy... Yes. In a nutshell there are three basic regimes to consider, or ignore: o the US FTC contract framework, o the OEDC (Canada, Japan, ...) guidelines, a hybrid and o the EU Treaty human rights framework. But don't take my word for it. Eric _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 09:07:50 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA00599 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:07:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25EInl28619 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:18:49 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25EIn528616 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:18:49 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA00583; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:07:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25ED2528350; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:13:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25ECo528326 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:12:50 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA00442 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:01:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h25E3NBD028905 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:03:23 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:03:23 -0500 (EST) Hi, I've been reading ASRG for a couple of days, and am impressed by the message volume. :-) However, we need practical ways to fight spammers. I think we're spending too much time trying to define "spam" and not enough on understanind spammers. Here are some ideas that I believe will have real, practical benefits. What are the differences between a spammer and a legitimate mass mailer? How can we exploit these differences? I see two major differences: 1) Spammers want to send out lots of messages cheaply, and don't particularly care if any one message gets through. Legitimate mass mailers want all of their messages to get through. 2) This is just a hunch, but I bet it's true: Spammers probably have a higher proportion of bad addresses on their lists than mass-mailers. We can help ensure this by poisoning their lists with web pages of fake addresses. The analogy to IDS software is apt here. Condition (1) can be detected with a purely local process: You tempfail mail from unknown senders the first time. (Better, tempfail based on sender-recipient pairs). I already do this, and it reduces spam by a significant percentage (20-25%) with very little cost to me. Condition (2) cannot be detected purely locally, but I have a proposal that can make it possible to detect (2). Just as we have central clearing houses for checksums, we can build a system of central clearing houses for success/failure counts. Imagine modifying MTA software so that: - If a RCPT TO: succeeds, it sends a note saying: "Sender xyz@domain.net from IP address a.b.c.d sent a successful RCPT TO: command" - If a RCPT TO: fails, a similar failure note is sent. - Possibly, we could augment the scheme so that mail to a honeypot address is noted and counts for more than a simple failure -- we could weight the various addresses. The clearing house would maintain the success/failure rate over a sliding window of 24 hours or so. When your spam filter is deciding whether or not to accept mail, it consults the clearing house. Based on criteria you choose, it can add X points to the spam score if the success rate for the IP or sender is lower than a certain amount. For example, if "xyz@domain.net" has a 15% failure rate with at least 300 samples reported, then you add 3 points to your spam score. I believe this scheme is pretty easy to implement, is practical, doesn't lessen privacy too much, and most importantly, requires no changes to existing Internet protocols or end-user software. It also uses an objective measure of spammer behaviour, rather than trying to define the undefinable. Obviously, the implementation details are important -- we'd want to make it hard for any one machine to skew the statistics with fake data, etc. But I don't think this task is any harder than trying to secure DNS :-) and we all still use and rely on DNS. Comments welcome. :-) -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 09:10:57 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA00758 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:10:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25ELur28792 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:21:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25ELu528789 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:21:56 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA00730; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:10:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25EK6528731; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:20:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25EJ3528651 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:19:03 -0500 Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA00596 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:07:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h25E9XA00832; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:09:34 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Moore To: "David F. Skoll" Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal Message-Id: <20030305090933.130ffaac.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:09:33 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > What are the differences between a spammer and a legitimate mass > mailer? the percentage of recipients who want to receive the messages. that's all. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 09:13:27 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA00845 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:13:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25EOQM28943 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:24:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25EOQ528940 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:24:26 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA00833; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:12:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25EN1528869; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:23:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25EMw528849 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:22:58 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id JAA00793 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:11:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 5543 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2003 14:11:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.2.100.178?) (10.2.100.178) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 4 Mar 2003 14:11:49 -0000 From: Matt Sergeant X-X-Sender: matt@localhost.localdomain To: "David F. Skoll" cc: "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:26:06 +0000 (GMT) On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, David F. Skoll wrote: > Spam does not really cost ISP's anything except bandwidth and storage. > They don't care (nor should they) if their end-users are less productive; > that's a worry only for companies. I hope only someone who has never worked at an ISP would ever say this. Spam costs ISPs a lot in admin time, and there are lots of hidden costs of spam at an ISP that are very tricky to account for. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 09:18:46 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA01002 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:18:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25ETjA29269 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:29:45 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25ETj529266 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:29:45 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA00994; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:18:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25ET2529232; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:29:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25ES3529193 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:28:03 -0500 Received: from mail.asianet.co.th (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA00974 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:16:32 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200303051416.JAA00974@ietf.org> Received: from virscan1.asianet.co.th (HELO mx.asianet.co.th) ([203.144.222.197]) (envelope-sender ) by mail2.asianet.co.th (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 5 Mar 2003 21:18:32 +0700 Received: from ppp-203.144.179.84.revip.asianet.co.th (HELO localhost) ([203.144.179.84]) (envelope-sender ) by mx2.asianet.co.th (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 5 Mar 2003 21:09:10 +0700 From: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" To: "Brad Templeton" Cc: "asrg@ietf.org" , "Vernon Schryver" Reply-To: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" Priority: Normal X-Mailer: PMMail 1.96a For OS/2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] filtering at connect time Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 21:18:20 +0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit See inline comments please On Tue, 4 Mar 2003 18:33:37 -0800, Brad Templeton wrote: >The draft I proposed allows open relays for those who wish to use >them, though they can't run mailing lists from them. So I suggest >it is not inherent that open mail relays must be closed. I have consulted with the experts on Spam-L and my conclusion from the vigorous response there is that they have to be closed, for reasons noted below. > >Plus it's an interesting precedent. For example, if you run MS >Windows as found on the CD, your machine can be invaded and used >as a base for DDOS. Should you be sued over this? Yes if your negligence produced injury; it is a tort and you are subject to civil suit to recover damages. There have already been suits like this, quite properly. If you (as the negligent party) had a legal duty of care, e.g. a hospital administrator, and your negligence resulted in death, you could conceivably face criminal charges. If my mother died because some idiot hospital sysadmin was runnin Win98 on DSL without a firewall, you can be sure I'd be in the public prosecutor's office the day after the funeral. (So would you, I expect.) >Should Microsoft? Their lawyers too clever. Read the shrinkwrap license: you waive all your legal rights. >What about after patches become available? Depends on the facts establishing the degree of negligence. > >It's messy. Only the facts of particular cases. The law is clear. > >Anyway, the point is the open relay operators are not doing things >deliberately. Latest stats show over 200,000 open relays. Most exist through negligence, stupidity, laziness and the like. (Basically, unwillingness to RTFM.) >They don't want to relay spam. The drunk drivers don't want to kill people but they still do and they still go to prison for it. >They are spammer's >victims. I'm glad you're not a Judge! If possible, we should try to help them. Forcing them >all to close is something to be done only if we have exhausted all >ways to solve the problem. Forcing them to close is the first thing to do. See > >Plus there are "open" relay operators who state they have put in >throttles which stop spammers (or anybody untrusted) from sending >large volumes of mail through the relay. I have queried Spam-L experts about this. One of the top technical people on that list states: "I have seen more than one "rate limited" open relay being hit badly by spam - the spammer just throttles down his mailing speed through the relay. Throttling a mailserver so badly that spam will definitely not get through will also throttle a lot of legit mail going through that relay." > Yet the blacklist relay >testers don't test a large volume, they test a single message, and >blacklist the relay even though it is not practical for spammers >to use it. I have verified from Spam-L that many/most open-relay testers only test whether a sending IP address is an open relay after getting a spam in hand. However there are indeed open-relay testers that test routinely without provocation, apparently as a self-defense measure. The question therefore becomes whether there is ANY reason to have an open relay, even a rate-limited one. Is there any way to preserve functionality for legitimate relay users while denying access to strangers? Yes, one can password-protect access. There are other ways to (e.g. whitelisting only certain accessing IP addresses). The question therefore becomes, given that there is need for relays and that there is a simple method of access control, why are there any relays, intended to serve legitimate users, which are still open? The answer from a famous Spam-L poster: "Lack of competence" If you believe this analysis is incorrect I will be pleased to replay your reply over there, or you can show up yourself. Please don flame-resistant suit first; there is a very low tolerance on Spam-L for fuzzy and wishful thinking. The general attitude toward spammers and enablers is "heads on pikes" :) Jeffrey Race _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 09:22:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA01116 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:22:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25EXST29435 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:33:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25EXS529432 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:33:28 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA01094; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:21:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25EW1529371; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:32:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25EVH529352 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:31:17 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA01052 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:19:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h25ELnBD029089 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:21:49 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:21:49 -0500 (EST) On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Matt Sergeant wrote: > Spam costs ISPs a lot in admin time, Ah, forgot about that... I guess you have to handle complaints. Sorry. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 09:28:47 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA01300 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:28:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25EdkA30523 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:39:46 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Edk530520 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:39:46 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA01277; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:28:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Ea2529614; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:36:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Ea1529596 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:36:01 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA01207 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:24:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h25EQXBD029126 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:26:33 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal In-Reply-To: <20030305090933.130ffaac.moore@cs.utk.edu> Message-ID: References: <20030305090933.130ffaac.moore@cs.utk.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:26:33 -0500 (EST) On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Keith Moore wrote: > > What are the differences between a spammer and a legitimate mass > > mailer? > the percentage of recipients who want to receive the messages. > that's all. OK, let me rephrase that: What are the *detectable* differences between a spammer and a legitimate mass mailer, assuming we can't read the minds of the recipients? -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 09:29:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA01354 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:29:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25EecO30607 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:40:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Eeb530604 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:40:37 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA01331; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:29:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Ee2530569; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:40:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Ed2530504 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:39:02 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id JAA01252 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:27:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 6517 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2003 14:27:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.2.100.178?) (10.2.100.178) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 4 Mar 2003 14:27:53 -0000 From: Matt Sergeant X-X-Sender: matt@localhost.localdomain To: Keith Moore cc: "David F. Skoll" , "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal In-Reply-To: <20030305090933.130ffaac.moore@cs.utk.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:42:10 +0000 (GMT) On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Keith Moore wrote: > > What are the differences between a spammer and a legitimate mass > > mailer? > > the percentage of recipients who want to receive the messages. > that's all. Surely "want" is not the right word here. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 09:35:20 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA01601 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:35:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25EkJT30863 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:46:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25EkJ530860 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:46:19 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA01584; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:34:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Ej2530786; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:45:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Eia530760 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:44:36 -0500 Received: from zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA01493 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:33:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (zcard307.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h25EZ7P06133 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:35:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDFBCC67; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:35:07 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id FSK7YZKC; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:35:07 -0500 Message-ID: <3E660BDF.2000703@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] MTP drafty References: <20030305034949.GA14655@main.templetons.com> <20030305052842.GJ14655@main.templetons.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 09:38:23 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Brad Templeton wrote: > On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 07:01:40PM -0500, Alan DeKok wrote: Hi Alan (how's mother ;-) and Brad, >>Brad Templeton wrote: >> My concern was that dropping the amount of spam by 3 orders of >>magnitude isn't enough. There are ISP's getting 100's of millions of >>spams a day. Even at 1/1000 the rate, 100,000 spams a day is >>problematic to deal with. > Surely no more than a couple of ISPs get that sort of volume? Even companies do, as a comparison to overall population. We get approximately a million spams/day. We only have 50,000 users, and somewhere around 300K legitimate emails. > However, the key test is this -- what's the volume compared to that > of normal mail. If, for example, it's 1% of normal mail, there > really isn't a server load question of significance. If currently > spam is 80% of all mail, a factor of 1000 would make it .4% of all > mail. Is spam now over 80% of all mail? In some cases yes. Ours is getting close to 80%. > In theory, though not yet proven, I think if you dropped the > effectiveness of spam by 3 orders of magnitude, the spammers would > actually cut back their activites. The economics are such that it's viable for some of the high volume spammers even at that reduced return rate. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 09:38:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA01697 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:38:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25EncX31032 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:49:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Enb531028 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:49:37 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA01687; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:38:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25En2531003; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:49:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Emj530977 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:48:45 -0500 Received: from rad.ig.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA01674 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:37:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from spike (spike.ig.co.uk [193.32.60.32]) by mail.ig.co.uk with SMTP id h25EdD114725 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:39:13 GMT Message-Id: <200303051439.h25EdD114725@rad.ig.co.uk> From: "Jacqui Caren" To: "asrg@ietf.org" Reply-To: "Jacqui Caren" Priority: Normal X-Mailer: PMMail 98 Standard (2.01.1600) For Windows NT (5.0.2195;3) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 14:39:12 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:26:33 -0500 (EST), David F. Skoll wrote: > On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Keith Moore wrote: > > > > What are the differences between a spammer and a legitimate mass > > > mailer? > > > the percentage of recipients who want to receive the messages. > > that's all. > > OK, let me rephrase that: > > What are the *detectable* differences between a spammer and a legitimate > mass mailer, assuming we can't read the minds of the recipients? 1) a legitimate bulk emailer **should** conform to the general rules regarding bulk email - there are around 8 or so headers that shold be added to bulk email. However as a number of companies block email that conform to these rules as 'spam', legitimate bulk emailers are no longer confirming. This means that purely from message contents and headers it is difficult to tell the difference. > -- > David. > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > Jacqui Caren, Ingram Group Ltd. jacqui@ig.co.uk ph: +44 (0) 1483 8628xx main=00 fax=01 ddi=65 http://www.ig.co.uk/ http://www.sitedirector.org/ http://www.perl.co.uk/ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 09:44:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA01827 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:44:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25EtiO31300 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:55:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Eti531297 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:55:44 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA01807; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:44:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Es2531254; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:54:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Er9531202 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:53:09 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id JAA01773 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:41:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 7389 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2003 14:42:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.2.100.178?) (10.2.100.178) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 4 Mar 2003 14:42:00 -0000 From: Matt Sergeant X-X-Sender: matt@localhost.localdomain To: "David F. Skoll" cc: "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:56:17 +0000 (GMT) On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, David F. Skoll wrote: > On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Matt Sergeant wrote: > > > Spam costs ISPs a lot in admin time, > > Ah, forgot about that... I guess you have to handle complaints. Sorry. Not just complaints. When your queues fill up due to massive spam runs and you can't even get your legitimate mail out because it's swamped by all the spam, then someone has to go in and manually free up the queues. This happens a *lot* to us. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 09:47:14 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA01891 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:47:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25EwEH31429 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:58:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25EwE531426 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:58:14 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA01872; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:46:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Ev1531378; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:57:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25EuM531338 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:56:22 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA01844 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:44:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h25EkrBD029259 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:46:54 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal In-Reply-To: <200303051439.h25EdD114725@rad.ig.co.uk> Message-ID: References: <200303051439.h25EdD114725@rad.ig.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:46:53 -0500 (EST) On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Jacqui Caren wrote: > 1) a legitimate bulk emailer **should** conform to the general rules > regarding bulk email - there are around 8 or so headers that shold > be added to bulk email. However as a number of companies block > email that conform to these rules as 'spam', legitimate bulk > emailers are no longer confirming. This means that purely from > message contents and headers it is difficult to tell the difference. Exactly. Which is why we need a distributed detection system to detect spam runs, and I believe the percentage of bad recipient addresses in a given run is a pretty reliable measure. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 09:50:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA02048 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:50:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25F1uq31768 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:01:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25F1t531765 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:01:55 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA02042; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:50:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25F03531608; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:00:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Exl531529 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:59:47 -0500 Received: from glop.iroise.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA01925 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:48:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from iroise.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by glop.iroise.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian -4) with ESMTP id h25EoHd7021557 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:50:18 GMT Message-ID: <3E660EA9.1010208@iroise.net> From: Mathias Herberts User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130 X-Accept-Language: en, fr-fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal References: <20030305090933.130ffaac.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.71.0.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 14:50:17 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit David F. Skoll wrote: > OK, let me rephrase that: > > What are the *detectable* differences between a spammer and a legitimate > mass mailer, assuming we can't read the minds of the recipients? Hi, legitimate mass mailer ususally don't spend time setting up garbage in their messages so as to defeat checksum based or pattern based spam detection mechanisms. Mathias. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 10:01:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA02602 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:01:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25FCbJ00899 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:12:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25FCb500896 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:12:37 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA02563; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:01:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25F81500511; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:08:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25F5o531990 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:05:50 -0500 Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA02225 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:54:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h25EuBA00895; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:56:12 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Moore To: Matt Sergeant Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, dfs@roaringpenguin.com, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal Message-Id: <20030305095611.0385e552.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: References: <20030305090933.130ffaac.moore@cs.utk.edu> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:56:11 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:42:10 +0000 (GMT) Matt Sergeant wrote: > On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Keith Moore wrote: > > > > What are the differences between a spammer and a legitimate mass > > > mailer? > > > > the percentage of recipients who want to receive the messages. > > that's all. > > Surely "want" is not the right word here. it's what I intended. if >99% of recipients want to receive the messages, the sender is in some sense "legitimate". if <1% want to receive the message, the sender is a "spammer". another way of putting this is that I don't think we're likely to find a useful definition of "legitimate" vs. "illegitimate" mass mailer. the concept of legitimacy is somewhat dubious here. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 10:02:01 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA02625 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:02:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25FD1t00967 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:13:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25FD1500964 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:13:01 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA02595; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:01:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25F82500532; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:08:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25F5t531997 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:05:55 -0500 Received: from morpehus.saintandreas.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA02228 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:54:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from corinthian (adsl-67-112-11-148.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [67.112.11.148]) by morpehus.saintandreas.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A16A111F932; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 18:28:41 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <001e01c2e327$67f3dd20$9b7ba8c0@corinthian> From: "Brad Davis" To: "Brad Templeton" , "Dr. Jeffrey Race" Cc: , "Vernon Schryver" References: <200303050158.UAA18848@ietf.org> <20030305023337.GQ7500@main.templetons.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] filtering at connect time MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 06:56:30 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Plus it's an interesting precedent. For example, if you run MS > Windows as found on the CD, your machine can be invaded and used > as a base for DDOS. Should you be sued over this? Should Microsoft? > What about after patches become available? What if my car, as purchased, and after a recall notice, could detonate, taking out a highway overpass? Should I or the manufacturer be liable. Endangering shared resources is endangering shared resources. Brad Davis _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 10:03:00 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA02727 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:03:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25FE0C01117 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:14:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25FE0501112 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:14:00 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA02683; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:02:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25FA0500660; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:10:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25F9M500619 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:09:22 -0500 Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA02295 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:57:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h25ExnA00906; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:59:50 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Moore To: "Jacqui Caren" Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal Message-Id: <20030305095949.74ca25ff.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <200303051439.h25EdD114725@rad.ig.co.uk> References: <200303051439.h25EdD114725@rad.ig.co.uk> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:59:49 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > 1) a legitimate bulk emailer **should** conform to the general rules > regarding bulk email > - there are around 8 or so headers that shold be added to bulk > email. huh? where did you get that idea? Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 10:03:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA02801 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:03:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25FEuQ01152 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:14:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25FEu501149 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:14:56 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA02768; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:03:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25F83500548; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:08:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25F71532076 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:07:01 -0500 Received: from zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA02240 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:55:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h25EvVL08966 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:57:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF4TCWS; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:57:31 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id FSK7YZK0; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:57:31 -0500 Message-ID: <3E66111F.9040605@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] filtering at connect time References: <200303050158.UAA18848@ietf.org> <20030305023337.GQ7500@main.templetons.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 10:00:47 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Brad Templeton wrote: > On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 09:00:00AM +0700, Dr. Jeffrey Race wrote: >>On Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:17:14 -0700 (MST), Vernon Schryver wrote: >>>That is not right. People who operate relays may be less culpable than >>>the original senders of spam, but they are certainly blame worthy >>>and they are certainly not victims in the same class as spam targets. >>The term of art is 'contributory negligence' > That is the term, but only a very few years ago open relays were > the norm, even the polite thing to do. There are many things that once were okay, or at worst ignored, and are now as much as outright illegal. You used to be able to get a full Usenet feed at 300 baud. Society moves. The Internet moves faster than most things. > Anyway, the point is the open relay operators are not doing things > deliberately. They don't want to relay spam. They are spammer's > victims. If possible, we should try to help them. Agreed. I firmly believe that blacklisting open relays being used to spam is one of the simplest and most effective ways to help them notice they have a problem. Trying to contact relay owners is usually a waste of time due to poor WHOIS practises. Demonstrating that running an open relay has real consequences is what gets them to pay attention and fix their problems. Blacklisting relays generates the occasional false positive here - but our infrastructure takes special steps to ensure that any rejection is seen, with instructions on what to do to rectify the situation. In that sense, our system has no false positives - there's always a means to get the email through. Just may take you two tries. > Forcing them > all to close is something to be done only if we have exhausted all > ways to solve the problem. That's silly. The problem _is_ that they're open and usually being used to spam, and the quickest and most appropriate way to solve the problem (in 99.99% of the cases) is to close them. Ignoring a spam hydrant does nobody any good. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 10:04:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA02857 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:04:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25FFSB01203 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:15:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25FFR501200 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:15:27 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA02800; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:03:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25FD8501007; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:13:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25FCA500804 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:12:10 -0500 Received: from zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA02477 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:00:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (zcard307.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h25F2eP06744 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:02:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDFBCF6J; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:02:40 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id FSK7YZL4; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:02:40 -0500 Message-ID: <3E661254.3080302@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] filtering at connect time References: <20030304193006.GA7500@main.templetons.com> <200303042017.h24KHEF9012182@calcite.rhyolite.com> <20030304195111.72a17780.moore@cs.utk.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 10:05:56 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Keith Moore wrote: >>People who operate relays may be less culpable than >>the original senders of spam, but they are certainly blame worthy > I don't see anything inherently wrong with operating an open relay, as long as > they don't alter messages and they're willing to pay for the bandwidth they > use. Right. There's nothing inherently wrong with operating one. But the vast majority of cases are where they're inadvertent, and would be closed if the owner knew about what they're being used for. Furthermore, there's nothing inherently wrong about blocking email from them given an informed choice on the part of the recipients. Yes, it's a loss of a specific means to a specific end. But so are doors without locks. Times change. And these days, there's no need to run a "real" open relay because there are other techniques to obtain the same result. Doors _with_ locks. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 10:07:20 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA03147 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:07:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25FIKw01539 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:18:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25FIK501536 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:18:20 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA03096; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:06:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25FH1501399; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:17:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25FGu501369 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:16:56 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA02972 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:05:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 8845 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2003 15:05:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.2.100.178?) (10.2.100.178) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 4 Mar 2003 15:05:46 -0000 From: Matt Sergeant X-X-Sender: matt@localhost.localdomain To: Keith Moore cc: Matt Sergeant , "dfs@roaringpenguin.com" , "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal In-Reply-To: <20030305095611.0385e552.moore@cs.utk.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:20:03 +0000 (GMT) On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Keith Moore wrote: > On Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:42:10 +0000 (GMT) > Matt Sergeant wrote: > > > On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Keith Moore wrote: > > > > > > What are the differences between a spammer and a legitimate mass > > > > mailer? > > > > > > the percentage of recipients who want to receive the messages. > > > that's all. > > > > Surely "want" is not the right word here. > > it's what I intended. if >99% of recipients want to receive the > messages, the sender is in some sense "legitimate". if <1% want to > receive the message, the sender is a "spammer". This puts the definition of spam in terms of quantity though. So you can end up with a targetted spammer sending something to a small number of people, all who think its interesting and useful, yet its bulk and unsollicited. I don't like legitimising that, and I know I'm not alone in that. I stick tightly to the monkeys.com definition of spam. Matt. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 10:07:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA03214 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:07:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25FIu401575 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:18:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25FIt501572 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:18:56 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA03165; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:07:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25FG1501268; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:16:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25FF0501177 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:15:00 -0500 Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA02775 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:03:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h25F5UA00923; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:05:30 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Moore To: "David F. Skoll" Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal Message-Id: <20030305100529.4cfd97ad.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: References: <20030305090933.130ffaac.moore@cs.utk.edu> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:05:29 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > What are the differences between a spammer and a legitimate mass > > > mailer? > > > the percentage of recipients who want to receive the messages. > > that's all. > > OK, let me rephrase that: > > What are the *detectable* differences between a spammer and a > legitimate mass mailer, assuming we can't read the minds of the > recipients? none that are reliable and can be determined by looking at just the message. the only intrinsic difference between a spam and a "legitimate" piece of mail is that the recipient doesn't want to receive the spam. okay, there are a fair number of clues that give a good indication that a message is probably spam - e.g. if the sender seems to be trying to hide any indication of where the message was sent from. but now that filters exist to recognize these, spammers will soon learn not to generate messages that do that, so looking at them is only a short term fix. it used to be that checking for an invalid From address (via SMTP) was an almost foolproof way to detect spam. that doesn't work any longer. spammers do learn. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 10:09:04 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA03364 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:09:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25FK4M01695 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:20:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25FK4501692 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:20:04 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA03314; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:08:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25FG2501286; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:16:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25FF7501182 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:15:07 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA02780 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:03:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h25F5YIf017462 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:05:34 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303051505.h25F5YIf017462@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] filtering at connect time References: <200303051416.JAA00974@ietf.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:05:34 -0700 (MST) > From: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" > ... > I have consulted with the experts on Spam-L and my conclusion from > the vigorous response there is that they have to be closed, for > reasons noted below. Contributors to Spam-L are not any necessary more expert about spam than anyone else. > ... > I have queried Spam-L experts about this. One of the top technical > people on that list states: > > "I have seen more than one "rate limited" open relay being hit badly > by spam - the spammer just throttles down his mailing speed through > the relay. Throttling a mailserver so badly that spam will definitely > not get through will also throttle a lot of legit mail going through > that relay." That suggests only that your "expert" is more of an "e-spurt" like some self-professed expert contributors to this list who have made similarly inaccurate declarations. Sufficiently draconian rate limiting is always sufficient to stop spam while insufficiently limits are insufficient. It is simply wrong to claim that anti-spam rate limiting must "also throttle a lot of legit mail going through that relay." For example, you can do as some relays have done for many years and rate limit by stream, for various definitions of "stream" including fuzzy matching mail bodies. The claims in this mailing list that all relays must be closed are at best sloppy wording that omits "open" or "promiscuous." There is no technical difference between a "smarthost" and a "relay" except the set of SMTP clients from which the smarthost will accept mail and/or the sent of SMTP servers to which it will relay mail. For that matter, in the way most users send mail, there is no technical difference between their ISP's "mail server" and a "relay." Their PCs as as clients to send mail to the SMTP server of their ISP. That SMTP server does exactly the same thing with their outgoing messages as an open relay, except perhaps for restricting the SMTP clients for which it will relay. > ... > I have verified from Spam-L that many/most open-relay testers only > test whether a sending IP address is an open relay after getting a > spam in hand. However there are indeed open-relay testers that > test routinely without provocation, apparently as a self-defense > measure. That is another case where your Spam-L e-spurts are inventing facts or over generalizing from too little experience. Judging from my logs and most reports I've heard from other people who have logs to read, most relay tests from self-described white-hat testers are at best based on unsubstantiated "nominations". All of the major open relay testers and plenty of others have attacked my SMTP servers, without ever having had any spam from them. (It's possible to make claims about never ever having sent any spam if you run an vanity domain.) "Self-defense" is how most relay testers justify their actions. Whatever they say, for people running SMTP servers, their actions are indistinguishable from spammers looking for open relays. > ... > If you believe this analysis is incorrect I will be pleased to replay > your reply over there, or you can show up yourself. Please don > flame-resistant suit first; there is a very low tolerance on Spam-L > for fuzzy and wishful thinking. The general attitude toward spammers > and enablers is "heads on pikes" :) Please do not do that. Please also do not gateway this mailing list to news.admin.net-abuse.email. Please do not use arguments based on anonymous authorities. Please understand that some of the contributors to this mailing list have histories of technical involvement with SMTP that are equal to any you might find among contributors to Spam-L. People offering IDs should also understand that the form of an ID is not magic. Putting your thoughts into the form of an ID does not automatically confer accuracy, relevance, or even make them convincing. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 10:09:19 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA03406 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:09:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25FKJe01728 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:20:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25FKJ501725 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:20:19 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA03340; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:08:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25FI5501520; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:18:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25FHe501448 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:17:40 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA03036 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:06:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h25F89BD029423; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:08:09 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: Keith Moore cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal In-Reply-To: <20030305100529.4cfd97ad.moore@cs.utk.edu> Message-ID: References: <20030305090933.130ffaac.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305100529.4cfd97ad.moore@cs.utk.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:08:09 -0500 (EST) On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Keith Moore wrote: > none that are reliable and can be determined by looking at just the > message. Right. Are you sure you read my proposal? If you can be an omniscient being and see what happens to every message sent in a bulk-email run, I believe you will see a difference between spamming and legitimate bulk e-mailing. My proposal was designed to make us closer to omniscient. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 10:11:46 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA03636 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:11:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25FMk001863 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:22:46 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25FMk501860 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:22:46 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA03584; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:11:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25FL5501774; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:21:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25FKB501719 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:20:11 -0500 Received: from zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA03329 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:08:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h25FAfL23224 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:10:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF4TDG8; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:10:41 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id FSK7YZM1; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:10:41 -0500 Message-ID: <3E661434.9010507@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records References: <200303050355.h253tIVB009502@calcite.rhyolite.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 10:13:56 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Vernon Schryver wrote: > People whose livelihoods depend on mail cannot, will not, and do not > accept false positive rates above 1%. We have to remember, however, that the "true" false positive rate isn't determined _solely_ by how much legitimate email your filters block, but by the amount of legitimate email that doesn't get through. They may seem to be the same, but it isn't. A full bore TMDA (all first time email carries a "click this link to let the email through") has a 100% false positive rate in the filters first go-round. But if the senders follow the instructions, it's 100% delivery in the end. [Presuming it works as it's supposed to, and you don't have senders with broken mailers that can't see/display the returns.] Discussions of false positives has to take into account what you do with a reject, and the practises you follow to rectify problems. Yes, my management would draw and quarter me if our false positive rate got above even .01%. It is. False positive handling is part of the insurance to make sure that we eventually do deliver all legitimate email. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 10:15:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04143 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:15:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25FQb102039 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:26:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25FQa502036 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:26:36 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04106; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:15:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25FP2501976; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:25:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25FOf501946 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:24:41 -0500 Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA03809 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:13:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h25FFBA00936; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:15:11 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Moore To: "David F. Skoll" Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal Message-Id: <20030305101511.462675e7.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: References: <20030305090933.130ffaac.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305100529.4cfd97ad.moore@cs.utk.edu> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:15:11 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > none that are reliable and can be determined by looking at just the > > message. > > Right. Are you sure you read my proposal? I assure you that I haven't read every proposal, or yours specifically. there have been too many messages and documents to keep up with. > If you can be an > omniscient being and see what happens to every message sent in a > bulk-email run, I believe you will see a difference between spamming > and legitimate bulk e-mailing. only if you can keep track of the complaints that the message produces. I don't think it's reasonable to judge 'legitimacy' of a message based on what happens before delivery. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 10:17:21 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04223 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:17:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25FSLr02187 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:28:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25FSL502184 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:28:21 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04196; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:16:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25FR2502096; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:27:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25FQw502066 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:26:58 -0500 Received: from coyote.tatanka.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04139 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:15:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from biscuit.tatanka.com (biscuit.tatanka.com [66.224.69.113]) by coyote.tatanka.com (8.12.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25FHRt4012992; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:17:28 -0700 (MST) From: Michael Marking To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] desirable characteristics of source tracking In-Reply-To: <200303051305.h25D54mf000650@nic-naa.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 07:20:58 -0800 (PST) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > > I guess different cultures have different ideas of privacy... > > Yes. In a nutshell there are three basic regimes to consider, or ignore: >... There are also different ideas of identity. For example, I read that the UK is implementing a new "URU" identification scheme based on the meters associated with addresses. Does that mean that homeless people in the UK might have no identities? Certainly, similar problems exist elsewhere. Homeless people, human rights workers, members of abused social groups, etc should be able to send mail without establishing an "identity". (And intended recipients should be able to refuse such mail.) This is a little more fundamental in a way than the issue of privacy, because some jurisdictions may not recognize the identity of some persons (natural or artificial, such as corporations etc). And any scheme which requires an identity must be flexible enough to allow unidentifiable persons or artificial persons. (Who will identify refugees or officials in "unrecognized" governments?) Furthermore, artifical persons (such as corporations) are easy to establish. (Here in Nevada we have 200,000 such artificial persons, against 2,000,000 natural persons.) The fact that such an entity exists and is chartered by a government doesn't necessarily grant effective recourse to a victim of that entity's acts. (Isn't being known as "responsible" one of the main reasons to have an identity, or to be required to have one?) Having an identity may be useful to some, but I doubt it would be an effective way to ameliorate the spam problem. On the other hand, knowing the identity of a sender is a aid in implementing whitelists. It might allow me to carry on a conversation with an anonymous "person", even though that person is sending from a spammer's domain. I have had that very problem, trying to communicate with one individual working for someone on our blacklists, but found that the blacklist made communication through the obvious channels difficult. If we implement some sort of identity mechanism, the only scheme I know of which would be flexible enough would be using simple key pairs, which anyone could generate. Then we could add certificates, saying "this is a recognized citizen of XYZ", or "agency ABC vouches for the identity of this person". (In other words, a web-of-trust mechanism similar to that used by PGP.) Those who want complete anonymity could simply generate a key pair, and not have any certificates. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+ZhUW3fFKt0vOYhYRApwkAKCdoQGmsy7+alvplr9QJSHZjl8HaACeJVOw OCvcYWVKa8PAJuwPTVD9Jew= =Vojs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 10:17:21 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04232 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:17:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25FSLF02203 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:28:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25FSL502200 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:28:21 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04198; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:16:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25FR1502080; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:27:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25FQr502062 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:26:53 -0500 Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04135 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:15:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h25FHGA00945; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:17:16 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Moore To: Matt Sergeant Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, msergeant@startechgroup.co.uk, dfs@roaringpenguin.com, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal Message-Id: <20030305101716.7f2c37f6.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: References: <20030305095611.0385e552.moore@cs.utk.edu> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:17:16 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > if >99% of recipients want to receive the > > messages, the sender is in some sense "legitimate". if <1% want to > > receive the message, the sender is a "spammer". > > This puts the definition of spam in terms of quantity though. So you > can end up with a targetted spammer sending something to a small > number of people, all who think its interesting and useful, yet its > bulk and unsollicited. then it doesn't create a problem for anyone, and we shouldn't be trying to declare that illigitimate. > I don't like legitimising that, and I know I'm not alone in that. you have nothing to say about it - you were not involved. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 10:20:14 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04352 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:20:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25FVEw02478 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:31:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25FVE502475 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:31:14 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04335; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:19:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25FT4502263; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:29:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25FSB502177 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:28:11 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04191 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:16:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h25FIgBD029517 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:18:42 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal In-Reply-To: <3E660EA9.1010208@iroise.net> Message-ID: References: <20030305090933.130ffaac.moore@cs.utk.edu> <3E660EA9.1010208@iroise.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:18:42 -0500 (EST) On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Mathias Herberts wrote: > legitimate mass mailer ususally don't spend time setting up garbage in > their messages so as to defeat checksum based or pattern based spam > detection mechanisms. Neither do many spammers. It's my contention that looking at message content, or a single or a few deliveries, is not sufficient to distinguish spam behaviour from legitimate mass mailing. We need a bird's-eye view of the entire (or a significant portion) of the mail run. No-one's actually commented on the merits or lack thereof of my proposal. :-( -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 10:24:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04606 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:24:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25FZdi02930 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:35:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25FZd502927 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:35:39 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04572; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:24:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25FY3502823; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:34:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25FXU502746 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:33:30 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04492 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:21:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h25FNx7p019253 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:23:59 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303051523.h25FNx7p019253@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:23:59 -0700 (MST) > From: "David F. Skoll" > What are the *detectable* differences between a spammer and a legitimate > mass mailer, assuming we can't read the minds of the recipients? There are no such differences, detectable or not. Setting asside arguments about legal or AUP definitions, spam is fundamentally unwanted bulk mail. "Bulk" because isolated abuse is not a problem that needs attention by the IETF/IRTF and "unwanted" because that's what it is. Any "legitimate mass mailer" becomes a spammers simply by sending to people who don't want the stuff. A spammer becomes legitimate not sending to people who don't want the stuff. ] From: "David F. Skoll" ] > 1) a legitimate bulk emailer **should** conform to the general rules ] > regarding bulk email - there are around 8 or so headers that shold ] > be added to bulk email. However as a number of companies block ] > email that conform to these rules as 'spam', legitimate bulk ] > emailers are no longer confirming. This means that purely from ] > message contents and headers it is difficult to tell the difference. ] ] Exactly. "Exactly"? Who blocks messages simply because they have List-Unsubscribe and similar headers such as those listed in RFC 2369? ] Which is why we need a distributed detection system to detect ] spam runs, and I believe the percentage of bad recipient addresses in ] a given run is a pretty reliable measure. I disagree, because many spammers work hard to remove bad addresses from their target lists. Other spammers don't, but still others work hard to honor "unsubscribes" or "removes." Generalizations such as "all spammers have lots of bad addresses in their lists" are as wrong as "all spammers use open relays" or "spam involves forged headers." I think the only way to detect spam runs is to examine passing mail bodies and look for those that are substantially identical and therefore bulk. However, perhaps I'm biased because that is exactly what the DCC does. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 10:26:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04843 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:26:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25FbbI03751 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:37:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Fba503748 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:37:36 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04789; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:26:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Fa0502980; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:36:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25FZ8502890 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:35:08 -0500 Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04555 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:23:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h25FOgA00959; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:24:42 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Moore To: "Chris Lewis" Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] filtering at connect time Message-Id: <20030305102442.2574399b.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <3E66111F.9040605@americasm01.nt.com> References: <200303050158.UAA18848@ietf.org> <20030305023337.GQ7500@main.templetons.com> <3E66111F.9040605@americasm01.nt.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:24:42 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I firmly believe that blacklisting open relays being used to spam is > one of the simplest and most effective ways to help them notice they > have a problem. arrrgh. we used to run an "open relay". we had measures in place to keep it from being used by spammers, and they worked. but it would pass the blacklisters' tests for open relays, so we got blacklisted. and people started to refuse mail from us. as far as I am concerned the blacklisters have done a lot to hinder delivery of legitimate mail, a lot to make it more difficult for mobile users, and almost nothing to reduce the amount of spam. they're worse than the spammers, and I would support the death penalty for spamming. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 10:30:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA05331 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:30:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25FfUh04320 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:41:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25FfU504317 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:41:30 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA05263; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:29:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Fe2504199; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:40:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Fda504135 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:39:36 -0500 Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA05005 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:28:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h25FRbA00965; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:27:37 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Moore To: "Chris Lewis" Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] filtering at connect time Message-Id: <20030305102737.088bc1b7.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <3E661254.3080302@americasm01.nt.com> References: <20030304193006.GA7500@main.templetons.com> <200303042017.h24KHEF9012182@calcite.rhyolite.com> <20030304195111.72a17780.moore@cs.utk.edu> <3E661254.3080302@americasm01.nt.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:27:37 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >>People who operate relays may be less culpable than > >>the original senders of spam, but they are certainly blame worthy > > > I don't see anything inherently wrong with operating an open relay, > > as long as they don't alter messages and they're willing to pay for > > the bandwidth they use. > > Right. There's nothing inherently wrong with operating one. But the > vast majority of cases are where they're inadvertent, and would be > closed if the owner knew about what they're being used for. perhaps. > Furthermore, there's nothing inherently wrong about blocking email > from them given an informed choice on the part of the recipients. assuming, of course, that the recipients make the choice, and that they have the expertise to do so. neither of which tends to be the case. Keith p.s. I know several people who refuse to lock their doors. They believe that living in fear, and over-attachment to material things, are both harmful. As it happens I do lock my doors. But I respect their right to not lock theirs, and I don't think they're causing harm by not doing so. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 10:31:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA05435 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:31:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25FgI904515 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:42:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25FgI504512 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:42:18 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA05370; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:30:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Ff2504268; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:41:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25FeD504221 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:40:13 -0500 Received: from new.agentzero.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA05107 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:28:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.123.193] (h0050e4251179.ne.client2.attbi.com [66.30.24.79]) by new.agentzero.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h25FVVmf016889 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:31:32 -0500 Message-Id: <200303051531.h25FVVmf016889@new.agentzero.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <20030305090933.130ffaac.moore@cs.utk.edu> <3E660EA9.1010208@iroise.net> To: asrg@ietf.org From: Jim Youll Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:28:20 -0500 At 10:18 -0500 3/5/03, David F. Skoll wrote: >On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Mathias Herberts wrote: > >> legitimate mass mailer ususally don't spend time setting up garbage in >> their messages so as to defeat checksum based or pattern based spam >> detection mechanisms. > >Neither do many spammers. It's my contention that looking at message >content, or a single or a few deliveries, is not sufficient to distinguish >spam behaviour from legitimate mass mailing. We need a bird's-eye view >of the entire (or a significant portion) of the mail run. > >No-one's actually commented on the merits or lack thereof of my >proposal. :-( Well, hello I'm new here but I've been dealing with the spam problem for a long time. I believe the idea of at least a partial top-down view has merit. I think it can only work with a feedback mechanism so that users who receive the first messages can "report" them somewhere. I think that overall, if you really want to manage spam, the mail delivery process has to be slowed down slightly to allow received spams at site A to be matched up with spams at B through Z and a probability-of-spam set. An invisible white list could help push clearly-not-spam messages into inboxes, while the rest are checked over. Two linked issues that arise are maintaining the privacy of the original message, and determining that two messages are fundamentally the same message, despite slight differences. A self-reporting system need not be terribly vulnerable to individual user error if there are enough users. In any self-reporting system, an orchestrated external attack is somewhat feasible against public mass mailings (only) - a form of reputation system would be needed to quell this. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 10:32:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA05567 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:32:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25FhS204630 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:43:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25FhS504627 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:43:28 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA05513; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:31:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Fg1504470; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:42:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25FfZ504335 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:41:35 -0500 Received: from new.agentzero.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA05283 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:30:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.123.193] (h0050e4251179.ne.client2.attbi.com [66.30.24.79]) by new.agentzero.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h25FWrmf016946 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:32:53 -0500 Message-Id: <200303051532.h25FWrmf016946@new.agentzero.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: Message-Id: To: asrg@ietf.org From: Jim Youll Subject: Re: [Asrg] filtering at connect time Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:32:04 -0500 >Keith Moore wrote >arrrgh. > >we used to run an "open relay". we had measures in place to keep it >from being used by spammers, and they worked. but it would pass the >blacklisters' tests for open relays, so we got blacklisted. and people >started to refuse mail from us. Could you elaborate a bit about the measures you used to prevent is use by spammers? I'm not sure why open relays are useful now... don't all networks/ISPs have local SMTP servers these days? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 10:32:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA05580 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:32:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25FhVw04648 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:43:31 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25FhV504645 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:43:31 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA05518; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:31:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Fg0504450; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:42:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25FfJ504306 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:41:19 -0500 Received: from relay07.indigo.ie (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA05249 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:29:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 26604 messnum 1028706 invoked from network[194.125.172.42/ts12-042.dublin.indigo.ie]); 5 Mar 2003 15:31:48 -0000 Received: from ts12-042.dublin.indigo.ie (HELO jmason.org) (194.125.172.42) by relay07.indigo.ie (qp 26604) with SMTP; 5 Mar 2003 15:31:48 -0000 Received: by jmason.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id C59C216F16; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:31:45 +0000 (GMT) Received: from jmason.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE21BF721; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:31:45 +0000 (GMT) To: "David F. Skoll" Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal In-Reply-To: Message from "David F. Skoll" of "Wed, 05 Mar 2003 09:03:23 EST." From: jm@jmason.org (Justin Mason) X-GPG-Key-Fingerprint: 0A48 2D8B 0B52 A87D 0E8A 6ADD 4137 1B50 6E58 EF0A X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to . Message-Id: <20030305153145.C59C216F16@jmason.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 15:31:45 +0000 David F. Skoll said: > 1) Spammers want to send out lots of messages cheaply, and don't > particularly care if any one message gets through. Legitimate mass > mailers want all of their messages to get through. > > 2) This is just a hunch, but I bet it's true: Spammers probably have a > higher proportion of bad addresses on their lists than mass-mailers. We > can help ensure this by poisoning their lists with web pages of fake > addresses. > > The analogy to IDS software is apt here. Condition (1) can be detected > with a purely local process: You tempfail mail from unknown senders the > first time. (Better, tempfail based on sender-recipient pairs). I already > do this, and it reduces spam by a significant percentage (20-25%) with very > little cost to me. > > Condition (2) cannot be detected purely locally, but I have a proposal > that can make it possible to detect (2). Just as we have central clearing > houses for checksums, we can build a system of central clearing houses > for success/failure counts. > > Imagine modifying MTA software so that: > > - If a RCPT TO: succeeds, it sends a note saying: "Sender xyz@domain.net > from IP address a.b.c.d sent a successful RCPT TO: command" > > - If a RCPT TO: fails, a similar failure note is sent. > > - Possibly, we could augment the scheme so that mail to a honeypot address > is noted and counts for more than a simple failure -- we could weight > the various addresses. > > The clearing house would maintain the success/failure rate over a > sliding window of 24 hours or so. This is a very interesting idea. It does not even need to hook into the MTA, just tail the log files or log database for that MTA, and report stats from that. To avoid this, spammers would have to (a) start using valid, non-forged, non-joe-job From: or Errors-To: addresses to collect "user unknown" DSNs, so they could clean up their lists; (b) spend money on inbound SMTP bandwidth to support (a), hence hitting their pockets. A very nice, very simple idea. It's vaguely related to another idea I've heard, regarding a lookup database of "addresses that have bounced at my domain recently", but that idea might provide have a side-effect of providing more incentive for spammers to joe-job (haven't quite thought it through). This one, however, does not. issues I can see: - an expiry of 1 day is too short; I would say 3-5 would be better. - what about randomised sender addresses? Some spamtools will generate a new random From: addr for each recipient. I fear the relay IP address is the only trustworthy source id that can be used... --j. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 10:34:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA05903 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:34:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25FjiH04902 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:45:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Fjh504899 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:45:43 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA05857; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:34:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25FiI504728; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:44:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25FhM504623 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:43:22 -0500 Received: from mail-na2.baxter.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA05502 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:31:50 -0500 (EST) From: don_zawada@baxter.com Received: from ns-2.baxter.com (baxter-relay2.baxter.com [10.8.1.25]) by mail-na2.baxter.com (Pro-8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA02239 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:33:24 -0600 (CST) Received: from baxmms2.deerfield.baxter.com (baxmms2.deerfield.baxter.com [10.8.1.51]) by ns-2.baxter.com (Pro-8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA23626 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:33:51 -0600 (CST) Received: from 10.8.144.96baxmms2.deerfield.baxter.com with ESMTP ( Tumbleweed MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v5.0)); Wed, 05 Mar 2003 09:32:15 -0600 X-Server-Uuid: 880CEE06-2199-4900-AA87-C708441752F7 To: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on USDFHUB1/H/Servers/Baxter(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 03/05/2003 09:33:16 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 X-WSS-ID: 1278C7F51266589-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] RE: Standardization of RFC headers for email content Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:47:25 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I feel this is a worthy suggestion. We have multiple layers of SPAM fighting tools and it would be a benefit if they all played nice together. Don Zawada Baxter Global Messaging/Collaboration Team don_zawada@baxter.com Voice: 847.948.4742 Fax: 847.948.3222 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 10:42:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA06674 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:42:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25Frbe05410 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:53:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Frb505407 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:53:37 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA06601; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:42:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Fq2505258; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:52:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Fpw505239 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:51:58 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA06363 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:40:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h25FgRBD029720 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:42:27 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal In-Reply-To: <200303051523.h25FNx7p019253@calcite.rhyolite.com> Message-ID: References: <200303051523.h25FNx7p019253@calcite.rhyolite.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:42:27 -0500 (EST) On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > What are the *detectable* differences between a spammer and a legitimate > > mass mailer, assuming we can't read the minds of the recipients? > There are no such differences, detectable or not. Then this ASRG is a waste of time. > ] > This means that purely from > ] > message contents and headers it is difficult to tell the difference. > ] Exactly. > "Exactly"? Who blocks messages simply because they have List-Unsubscribe > and similar headers such as those listed in RFC 2369? You misunderstood. I meant "Exactly -- it's hard to tell the difference purely from message contents and headers." > I disagree, because many spammers work hard to remove bad addresses > from their target lists. Really? Don't you think it's worth a shot to try to gather hard data? If you're right, then my idea is no good. If you're wrong, then it is. Unfortunately, without setting up a system to gather this data, we'll never know. > Generalizations such as > "all spammers have lots of bad addresses in their lists" are as wrong > as "all spammers use open relays" or "spam involves forged headers." I never said that. I said I believe that many spammers have lots of bad addresses, simply based on how they obtain addresses in the first place. Maybe you're right; I don't know. But we should at least try to find out. > I think the only way to detect spam runs is to examine passing mail bodies > and look for those that are substantially identical and therefore bulk. Bulk != Spam. Any system to detect "similar but not identical" messages can be thwarted if it uses a checksum scheme, and is too slow to be practical if it uses more sophisticated message-closeness measures. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 10:47:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA07261 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:47:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25Fwg805804 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:58:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Fwg505801 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:58:42 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA07187; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:47:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Fu2505606; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:56:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25FtA505524 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:55:10 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA06810 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:43:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h25FjeBD029737 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:45:40 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal In-Reply-To: <200303051531.h25FVVmf016889@new.agentzero.com> Message-ID: References: <20030305090933.130ffaac.moore@cs.utk.edu> <3E660EA9.1010208@iroise.net> <200303051531.h25FVVmf016889@new.agentzero.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:45:40 -0500 (EST) On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Jim Youll wrote: > I think it can only work with a feedback mechanism so that users who > receive the first messages can "report" them somewhere. No, the system is totally automatic. All it reports is that IP address x.y.z.w submitted a message with a valid RCPT TO: or invalid RCPT TO: address. That's it. > I think that overall, if you really want to manage spam, the mail > delivery process has to be slowed down slightly to allow received > spams at site A to be matched up with spams at B through Z and a > probability-of-spam set. My scheme doesn't care about message content. It merely punishes those with a large set of invalid recipient addresses on their mailing list. My intuition tells me spammers are more likely to have bad addresses than legitimate bulk e-mailers. We need experiments to see if that's true. > Two linked issues that arise are maintaining the privacy of the > original message, and determining that two messages are fundamentally > the same message, despite slight differences. Again, I don't report or care about message content; only good or bad RCPT TO: commands. We don't even report actual recipient addresses. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 10:49:25 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA07440 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:49:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25G0QQ05946 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:00:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25G0Q505943 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:00:26 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA07378; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:48:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Fw2505776; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:58:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Fvh505753 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:57:43 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA07079 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:46:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h25FmDBD029755 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:48:13 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal In-Reply-To: <200303051523.h25FNx7p019253@calcite.rhyolite.com> Message-ID: References: <200303051523.h25FNx7p019253@calcite.rhyolite.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:48:13 -0500 (EST) On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Vernon Schryver wrote: > I disagree, because many spammers work hard to remove bad addresses > from their target lists. Other spammers don't, but still others work > hard to honor "unsubscribes" or "removes." In order to remove bad addresses (as Justin Mason pointed out), or honor unsubscribes, spammers would need to supply either a valid return address or a Web page somewhere that's trackable. That's the whole goal of all the authentication proposals on this scheme. You can't clean your list unless you can receive bounces, and to receive bounces, you need to use a valid (and presumably somewhat traceable) sender address. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 10:52:18 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA07771 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:52:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25G3Ja06437 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:03:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25G3J506434 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:03:19 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA07713; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:51:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25G12506061; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:01:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25G09505919 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:00:09 -0500 Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA07334 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:48:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h25FoZA01052; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:50:35 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Moore To: "David F. Skoll" Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal Message-Id: <20030305105035.3f71f973.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: References: <20030305090933.130ffaac.moore@cs.utk.edu> <3E660EA9.1010208@iroise.net> <200303051531.h25FVVmf016889@new.agentzero.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:50:35 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > My scheme doesn't care about message content. It merely punishes > those with a large set of invalid recipient addresses on their mailing > list. My intuition tells me spammers are more likely to have bad > addresses than legitimate bulk e-mailers. you're probably right. but that doesn't mean it's reasonable to punish those who happen to have lots of bad mail addresses. consider the organization that mails out one announcement per year to its members. lots of people will change addresses in that year. is that organization's mail somehow illegitimate because its addresses bounce? for that matter, is a spammer's mail any less annoying simply because it deletes addresses that do bounce? Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 10:52:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA07819 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:52:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25G3id06469 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:03:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25G3i506466 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:03:44 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA07739; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:52:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25G1D506143; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:01:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25G0r505986 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:00:53 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA07437 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:49:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (zcard307.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h25FpMd02061 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:51:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDFBCMML; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:51:23 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id FSK7YZN8; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:51:22 -0500 Message-ID: <3E661DBD.9080203@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal References: <20030305090933.130ffaac.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305100529.4cfd97ad.moore@cs.utk.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 10:54:37 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit David F. Skoll wrote: > Right. Are you sure you read my proposal? If you can be an > omniscient being and see what happens to every message sent in a > bulk-email run, I believe you will see a difference between spamming > and legitimate bulk e-mailing. The question is associating the messages to get your counts. A spammer merely needs to have a big set of open proxies/relays and seriously randomize froms, and you can no longer generate counts of anything because you can't associate report "a" with report "b". I have some considerable experience with this having built a tool that attempts to group "similar" already-blocked spams from multiple IPs within a given IP range to send off LARTs. Based on subject lines, with considerable hackery to strip hashbusters, and lump, say, all "horsy" spam together, I'm getting about a 40% success rate. Based on IPs and Froms, it'd be no better, and considerably worse once the spammers notice and evolve. Some of the existing distributed methods based upon body checking do a better job at this, because it's very hard to make the payload vary that much to fool the hash preprocessing and still sell what you want to sell. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 10:52:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA07832 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:52:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25G3ju06485 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:03:45 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25G3j506482 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:03:45 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA07745; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:52:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25G22506234; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:02:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25G1K506157 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:01:20 -0500 Received: from cambridge.merl.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA07479 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:49:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from tsumi.merl.com (tsumi.merl.com [137.203.134.9]) by cambridge.merl.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id h25Fphf32757; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:51:43 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (spoo.merl.com [137.203.128.30]) by tsumi.merl.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h25FphLv025260; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:51:43 -0500 From: Bill Yerazunis Received: (from wsy@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.6/8.8.3) id h25Fphk21709; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:51:43 -0500 Message-Id: <200303051551.h25Fphk21709@localhost.localdomain> To: jm@jmason.org CC: dfs@roaringpenguin.com, asrg@ietf.org In-reply-to: <20030305153145.C59C216F16@jmason.org> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal References: <20030305153145.C59C216F16@jmason.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:51:43 -0500 From: jm@jmason.org (Justin Mason) issues I can see: - what about randomised sender addresses? Some spamtools will generate a new random From: addr for each recipient. I fear the relay IP address is the only trustworthy source id that can be used... You're probably correct. I've seen spammers send from randomized addresses at all of (known | forged | random) addresses, and also with forged addresses from others in the same organization. I expect this spammer was was hoping to take advantage of a likely "whitelist" for intra-organization email. My opinion: there are only two things that can be trusted: the IP address of the machine on the other end of the TCP connection that hit your firewall, and the meaningless pattern of bits in the message, which only has significance in a statistical (rather than a formatted) sense. You can't trust anything else in the message, in particular, you must _not_ trust any of the information that's in headers you recieved from the far end, as spammers have become particularly adroit at forging _everything_. -Bill Yerazunis ( CRM114 author, I'll post an intro later) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 10:52:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA07847 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:52:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25G3k606501 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:03:46 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25G3k506498 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:03:46 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA07751; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:52:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25G23506255; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:02:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25G12506055 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:01:02 -0500 Received: from new.agentzero.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA07458 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:49:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.123.193] (h0050e4251179.ne.client2.attbi.com [66.30.24.79]) by new.agentzero.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h25FqJmf017592 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:52:20 -0500 Message-Id: <200303051552.h25FqJmf017592@new.agentzero.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <200303051523.h25FNx7p019253@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org From: Jim Youll Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:51:26 -0500 At 10:48 -0500 3/5/03, David F. Skoll wrote: >On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Vernon Schryver wrote: > >> I disagree, because many spammers work hard to remove bad addresses >> from their target lists. Other spammers don't, but still others work > > hard to honor "unsubscribes" or "removes." > >You can't clean your list unless you can receive bounces, and to receive >bounces, you need to use a valid (and presumably somewhat traceable) >sender address. I don't see that "intent" of the sender is really a factor one way or another. It's the net outcome that is at issue with spam. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 10:53:46 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA07979 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:53:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25G4lh06613 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:04:47 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25G4l506610 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:04:47 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA07931; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:53:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25G31506411; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:03:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25G2Z506295 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:02:35 -0500 Received: from m1.imap-partners.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA07667 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:51:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from HAYEK (adsl-66-125-172-19.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [66.125.172.19]) by m1.imap-partners.net (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id ABJ09007; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 07:53:04 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200303051553.ABJ09007@m1.imap-partners.net> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Deprecating plain POP accounts From: "Raymie Stata" Reply-To: "Raymie Stata" X-Priority: 3 (normal) X-Mailer: NewMonix 1.0.5 Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 07:51:54 -0800 Using the vocabulary from my previous message, I believe Hadmut Danisch is arguing as follows. He's agreeing that sender domain tracking is desireable, but at the same time he thinks that MTA-chaing tracking is more practical. By requiring all mail from a domain D to be injected via an MTA blessed by domain D, MTA-chain tracking achieves sender-domain tracking. So he's asking, why not impose such a requirement? First, it seems to me that any scheme involving sender-domain tracking will require messages "From:" domain D to eventually pass through an MTA blessed by D. Thus, Hadmut's requirement of juswt making this the first MTA seems reasonable from this perspective. My only concern is this. Networks often block outgoing connections to port 25 (and for good reason). Pop-before-smtp and/or authenticated smtp don't help with this problem. How do we deal with this problem? Maybe requiring smtp-over-SSL in these situations will work (most MUAs seem to support this now). However, this solution assumes most "ISP-like" networks will allow port 925 traffic to go out, I don't have 1st-hand experience, perhaps even this won't work. Other solutions? Or is this a show-stopper for requiring the first MTA be an MTA blessed by the sending domain? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 10:53:47 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA07994 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:53:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25G4mq06629 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:04:48 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25G4m506626 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:04:48 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA07933; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:53:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25G30506391; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:03:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25G2L506271 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:02:21 -0500 Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA07640 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:50:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h25FqpA01062 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:52:51 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Moore To: Jim Youll Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu Message-Id: <20030305103853.1d6ceb30.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <200303051532.h25FWBmf016908@new.agentzero.com> References: <200303050158.UAA18848@ietf.org> <20030305023337.GQ7500@main.templetons.com> <3E66111F.9040605@americasm01.nt.com> <20030305102442.2574399b.moore@cs.utk.edu> <200303051532.h25FWBmf016908@new.agentzero.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new and ClamAntivirus Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:52:51 -0500 Resent-From: Keith Moore Resent-To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] filtering at connect time Resent-Message-Id: <20030305105251.12a993fc.moore@cs.utk.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:38:53 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >we used to run an "open relay". we had measures in place to keep it > >from being used by spammers, and they worked. but it would pass the > >blacklisters' tests for open relays, so we got blacklisted. and > >people started to refuse mail from us. > > Could you elaborate a bit about the measures you used to prevent is > use by spammers? we counted the number of non-local recipients of mail sent through our relay from non-local, unauthenticated users. we would only allow a few recipients (I think the number was 15) from any one IP address per day. this was sufficient for our mobile users, who sent only a few messages per session, most of which were to local recipients. but it was a small enough number to discourage spammers from using us as a relay. a couple of them tried it, but gave up when only a few messages got out. actually we were pleased that they wasted their time trying to use our relay :) > I'm not sure why open relays are useful now... don't all networks/ISPs > have local SMTP servers these days? it's a pain in the wazoo to have to change your SMTP server every time you connect to a different network. authenticated submission is a better fix. but it's still not widely used. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 10:54:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA08052 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:54:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25G5h806739 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:05:43 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25G5h506736 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:05:43 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA08021; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:54:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25G41506534; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:04:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25G3B506426 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:03:11 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA07710 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:51:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h25FrdBD029788; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:53:39 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: Keith Moore cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal In-Reply-To: <20030305105035.3f71f973.moore@cs.utk.edu> Message-ID: References: <20030305090933.130ffaac.moore@cs.utk.edu> <3E660EA9.1010208@iroise.net> <200303051531.h25FVVmf016889@new.agentzero.com> <20030305105035.3f71f973.moore@cs.utk.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:53:39 -0500 (EST) On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Keith Moore wrote: > > My intuition tells me spammers are more likely to have bad > > addresses than legitimate bulk e-mailers. > you're probably right. but that doesn't mean it's reasonable to punish > those who happen to have lots of bad mail addresses. Well, any anti-spam scheme will have its side effects. This is a pretty mild side-effect, I think > consider the organization that mails out one announcement per year to > its members. lots of people will change addresses in that year. is that > organization's mail somehow illegitimate because its addresses bounce? No. That's a side-effect, and such organizations will need to work harder to keep their lists clean. (Do any organizations *really* mail out that infrequently?) > for that matter, is a spammer's mail any less annoying simply because it > deletes addresses that do bounce? In order to delete addresses that bounce, the spammer must be able to receive bounce notifications, and therefore becomes more traceable -- the #1 goal of many other proposals on this forum. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 10:55:24 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA08096 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:55:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25G6QZ06779 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:06:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25G6P506776 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:06:25 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA08075; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:54:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25G41506558; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:04:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25G3t506519 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:03:55 -0500 Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA07792 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:52:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h25FsOA01068; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:54:24 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Moore To: "David F. Skoll" Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal Message-Id: <20030305105424.39c7d48c.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: References: <200303051523.h25FNx7p019253@calcite.rhyolite.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:54:24 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > In order to remove bad addresses (as Justin Mason pointed out), or > honor unsubscribes, spammers would need to supply either a valid > return address or a Web page somewhere that's trackable. yes, but they don't have to use the same return address or web address for subsequent spam. thus the value of this identifier in blacklisting them is near zero. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 10:56:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA08282 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:56:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25G7UB07484 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:07:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25G7U507481 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:07:30 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA08133; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:55:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25G51506679; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:05:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25G4U506587 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:04:30 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA07881 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:52:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h25FswBD029811; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:54:58 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: Keith Moore cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal In-Reply-To: <20030305105424.39c7d48c.moore@cs.utk.edu> Message-ID: References: <200303051523.h25FNx7p019253@calcite.rhyolite.com> <20030305105424.39c7d48c.moore@cs.utk.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:54:58 -0500 (EST) On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Keith Moore wrote: > yes, but they don't have to use the same return address or web address > for subsequent spam. thus the value of this identifier in blacklisting > them is near zero. Which is higher than zero -- the current state of affairs. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 10:56:46 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA08321 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:56:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25G7lR07629 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:07:47 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25G7l507626 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:07:47 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA08257; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:56:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25G50506661; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:05:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25G4P506578 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:04:25 -0500 Received: from coyote.tatanka.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA07870 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:52:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from biscuit.tatanka.com (biscuit.tatanka.com [66.224.69.113]) by coyote.tatanka.com (8.12.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Fst0t020838; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:54:55 -0700 (MST) From: Michael Marking To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] filtering at connect time In-Reply-To: <200303051532.h25FWrmf016946@new.agentzero.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 07:58:26 -0800 (PST) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > I'm not sure why open relays are useful now... don't all networks/ISPs > have local SMTP servers these days? Some ISPs restrict use of their servers to those who have dialed in from the ISP's own networks. Therefore, if you are a customer of ISP X travelling away from home, you may not have access to that ISP's SMTP servers. Even if you make arrangements to use a different ISP while travelling, you may find when you arrive that the system doesn't work (which can be very frustrating if you don't speak the language of the country you are visiting). Also, some people have no ISPs, but gain access by being a guest on someone else's network. For various reasons, they may not want to use that person's network to send mail. (For instance, they may not want anyone to know they are visiting a certain person, while they are using that person's network.) Finally, open relays provide some measure of anonymity for the sender. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+Zh5T3fFKt0vOYhYRAj9wAKCLKub1Fo7t8CdtAQ3eegXxO7OSvgCg+NwU RSE69ozIrKp+jQe7j8YtKAg= =Eq9f -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 10:59:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA08565 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:59:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25GAUD07941 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:10:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25GAU507938 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:10:30 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA08483; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:58:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25G83507707; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:08:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25G81507665 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:08:01 -0500 Received: from relay06.indigo.ie (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA08274 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:56:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 45531 messnum 1052303 invoked from network[194.125.220.185/ts06-058.dublin.indigo.ie]); 5 Mar 2003 15:58:29 -0000 Received: from ts06-058.dublin.indigo.ie (HELO jmason.org) (194.125.220.185) by relay06.indigo.ie (qp 45531) with SMTP; 5 Mar 2003 15:58:29 -0000 Received: by jmason.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id B158716F16; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:58:27 +0000 (GMT) Received: from jmason.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE29EF721; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:58:27 +0000 (GMT) To: "David F. Skoll" Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal In-Reply-To: Message from "David F. Skoll" of "Wed, 05 Mar 2003 10:45:40 EST." From: jm@jmason.org (Justin Mason) X-GPG-Key-Fingerprint: 0A48 2D8B 0B52 A87D 0E8A 6ADD 4137 1B50 6E58 EF0A X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to . Message-Id: <20030305155827.B158716F16@jmason.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 15:58:22 +0000 David F. Skoll said: > My scheme doesn't care about message content. It merely punishes those > with a large set of invalid recipient addresses on their mailing list. > My intuition tells me spammers are more likely to have bad addresses than > legitimate bulk e-mailers. We need experiments to see if that's true. There are some legit bulk mailers with bad list hygiene, and large numbers of bad addresses. However, I would hazard a guess that there's a *huge* margin of difference between their bounce ratio and a spammer's, and it will be easy to differentiate. --j. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 10:59:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA08588 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:59:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25GAZM07957 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:10:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25GAZ507954 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:10:35 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA08490; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:59:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25G91507825; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:09:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25G8a507803 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:08:36 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA08354 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:57:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h25Fx5BD029845; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:59:05 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: Keith Moore cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal In-Reply-To: <20030305105424.39c7d48c.moore@cs.utk.edu> Message-ID: References: <200303051523.h25FNx7p019253@calcite.rhyolite.com> <20030305105424.39c7d48c.moore@cs.utk.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:59:05 -0500 (EST) On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Keith Moore wrote: > > In order to remove bad addresses (as Justin Mason pointed out), or > > honor unsubscribes, spammers would need to supply either a valid > > return address or a Web page somewhere that's trackable. > yes, but they don't have to use the same return address or web address > for subsequent spam. thus the value of this identifier in blacklisting > them is near zero. Consider: To receive DSN notifications, the spammer can expect to receive between 10-20% of all the mail he sends out. Sending 1,000,000 messages to different addresses is cheap. Receiving 100,000 to 200,000 copies of that same message to a single address (or even a few addresses) is not. If the spammer doesn't want to receive the message body in the DSN's, he or she will have to use a bulk precedence header. :-) To reduce his own costs, the spammer is forced to play nicely. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 10:59:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA08613 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:59:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25GAf207980 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:10:41 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25GAf507977 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:10:41 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA08518; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:59:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25G82507683; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:08:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25G7c507622 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:07:38 -0500 Received: from zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA08167 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:56:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h25Fw7L29366 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:58:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF4T15J; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:58:08 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id FSK7YZ3D; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:58:07 -0500 Message-ID: <3E661F53.8000700@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal References: <200303051523.h25FNx7p019253@calcite.rhyolite.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 11:01:23 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit David F. Skoll wrote: > On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Vernon Schryver wrote: >>>What are the *detectable* differences between a spammer and a legitimate >>>mass mailer, assuming we can't read the minds of the recipients? >>There are no such differences, detectable or not. > Then this ASRG is a waste of time. Depends on the level you take the "no ... differences". Clearly there is no definitive simple test from a header or body whether it's spam. Nor is there a single test that works for everyone. But there are many clues, some of which need external consultation (eg: DCC or blacklists), and some which don't, that can lead to heuristics that are within your comfort zone. If there weren't, I wouldn't be doing what I'm doing. >>I think the only way to detect spam runs is to examine passing mail bodies >>and look for those that are substantially identical and therefore bulk. > Bulk != Spam. Any system to detect "similar but not identical" > messages can be thwarted if it uses a checksum scheme, Unsolicited bulk == Spam. Everything else is just quibbling about thresholds. That's a dangerous assertion to make to the person who invented DCC. Because he can prove otherwise. As can Razor or Cloudmark. Not perfect, but they _do_ work quite well. > and is too slow > to be practical if it uses more sophisticated message-closeness > measures. You'd be surprised. There's a lot of techniques that we use routinely with considerable success that people swear up and down are totally impractical. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 11:01:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA08811 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:01:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25GCcw08140 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:12:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25GCc508137 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:12:38 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA08762; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:01:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25GA1507904; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:10:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25G9H507855 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:09:17 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA08393 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:57:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18qWX8-0003Yv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 05:53:58 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] MTP drafty In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 05 Mar 2003 09:38:23 EST." <3E660BDF.2000703@americasm01.nt.com> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 05:53:58 -0500 "Chris Lewis" wrote: > Brad Templeton wrote: > > However, the key test is this -- what's the volume compared to that > > of normal mail. If, for example, it's 1% of normal mail, there > > really isn't a server load question of significance. If currently > > spam is 80% of all mail, a factor of 1000 would make it .4% of all > > mail. Is spam now over 80% of all mail? > > In some cases yes. Ours is getting close to 80%. I know of at least one site which would *love* to get only 80% spam. It's currently sitting at 99.99%, the last time I heard from them. That statistic alone drives most of my opinions about spam. Nearly all of the "solutions" or "descriptions" I've heard won't work with that low a signal to noise ratio. Spam has become a permanent DDoS attack. No other description of the problem is accurate. I'm not sure that any other protocol allows anonymous IP's to send reams of unrequested traffic to a server. Pretty much every other protocol either has a client requesting data from a server, or the client-server conversation is authenticated (signed, or administrator configured.) That says SMTP is different. It should be treated differently from any other protocol. So I'm less interested in the definition of spam, or why it's being sent. What I would like to know is: How can we fix SMTP to remove it's designed-in DDoS capability? It's the Slashdot effect in reverse. What do you do when 100,000 people suddenly decide that they all want to send you mail? The answer usually is that you spend the next day fixing your systems after they crashed... Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 11:05:23 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA09125 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:05:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25GGPB08344 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:16:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25GGP508341 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:16:25 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA09071; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:04:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25GE4508222; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:14:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25GDB508192 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:13:11 -0500 Received: from new.agentzero.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA08830 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:01:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.123.193] (h0050e4251179.ne.client2.attbi.com [66.30.24.79]) by new.agentzero.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h25G4Smf018017; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:04:29 -0500 Message-Id: <200303051604.h25G4Smf018017@new.agentzero.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: Michael Marking , Asrg@ietf.org From: Jim Youll Subject: Re: [Asrg] filtering at connect time Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:00:56 -0500 At 7:58 -0800 3/5/03, Michael Marking wrote: > > I'm not sure why open relays are useful now... don't all networks/ISPs >> have local SMTP servers these days? > >Some ISPs restrict use of their servers to those who have dialed in >from the ISP's own networks. Therefore, if you are a customer of ISP >X travelling away from home, you may not have access to that ISP's >SMTP servers. Even if you make arrangements to use a different ISP >while travelling, you may find when you arrive that the system doesn't >work (which can be very frustrating if you don't speak the language of >the country you are visiting). POP-before-smtp solves this quite well, stands up to analysis. if not, use AT&T or whatever it's called. They have POPs in every country, and support pages in every language. This is not a particularly compelling argument. >Also, some people have no ISPs, but gain access by being a guest on >someone else's network. For various reasons, they may not want to >use that person's network to send mail. (For instance, they may not >want anyone to know they are visiting a certain person, while they >are using that person's network.) Source IP is still on there even with the most sloppy remailers these days. >Finally, open relays provide some measure of anonymity for the sender. Not compelling at all. If the relay is at all responsible, the source IP is on there just the same. If the sender is a member of a large ISP (e.g. even a cable modem user) then the message is pooled with millions... no anonymity benefit whatever. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 11:08:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA09354 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:08:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25GJVd08580 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:19:31 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25GJV508577 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:19:31 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA09332; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:07:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25GI1508427; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:18:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25GHK508390 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:17:20 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA09187; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:05:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h25G7kGN024041 env-from ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:07:46 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303051607.h25G7kGN024041@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] SHEESH! Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:07:46 -0700 (MST) I guess I shouldn't have used the V-word when talking about spam on the IRTF's mailing list about spam. sheesh!--talk about utterly lame and misguided spam filters. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com > From: postmaster@ietf.org > To: > Subject: Spam mail warning notification! (Drugs and Narcotics) > This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > > ------=_NextPart_000_1046878265_B78506032.R82506026 > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > **************** eManager Notification ***************** > > The following mail was blocked since it contains sensitive content. > > Source mailbox: > Destination mailbox(es): asrg@ietf.org > Policy: Drugs and Narcotics > Action: Quarantine > > Content filter has detected a drug/narcotic related e-mail. > > ******************* End of message ********************* > > ------=_NextPart_000_1046878265_B78506032.R82506026 > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Received: (from vjs@localhost) > by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h25Fn1Ng021209 > for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; > Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:49:01 -0700 (MST) > Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:49:01 -0700 (MST) > From: Vernon Schryver > Message-Id: <200303051549.h25Fn1Ng021209@calcite.rhyolite.com> > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal > References: <20030305153145.C59C216F16@jmason.org> > > ------=_NextPart_000_1046878265_B78506032.R82506026-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 11:08:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA09371 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:08:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25GJcq08603 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:19:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25GJc508600 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:19:38 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA09340; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:08:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25GI2508443; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:18:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25GHd508402 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:17:39 -0500 Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA09231 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:06:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h25G88A01091; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:08:08 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Moore To: "David F. Skoll" Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal Message-Id: <20030305110808.63ca6440.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: References: <20030305090933.130ffaac.moore@cs.utk.edu> <3E660EA9.1010208@iroise.net> <200303051531.h25FVVmf016889@new.agentzero.com> <20030305105035.3f71f973.moore@cs.utk.edu> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:08:08 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > consider the organization that mails out one announcement per year > > to its members. lots of people will change addresses in that year. > > is that organization's mail somehow illegitimate because its > > addresses bounce? > > No. That's a side-effect, and such organizations will need to work > harder to keep their lists clean. (Do any organizations *really* mail > out that infrequently?) yes, damnit. I work with several organizations that have a once-a-year social event, and send out one bulk email per year. > > for that matter, is a spammer's mail any less annoying simply > > because it deletes addresses that do bounce? > > In order to delete addresses that bounce, the spammer must be able to > receive bounce notifications, and therefore becomes more traceable -- nope. not in any useful sense. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 11:12:03 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA09610 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:12:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25GN5308948 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:23:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25GN5508945 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:23:05 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA09574; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:11:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25GK1508663; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:20:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25GJB508564 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:19:11 -0500 Received: from zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA09327 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:07:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h25G9dL08271 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:09:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF4TFH1; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:09:40 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id FSK7YZ3S; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:09:39 -0500 Message-ID: <3E662207.5060604@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal References: <200303051523.h25FNx7p019253@calcite.rhyolite.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 11:12:55 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit David F. Skoll wrote: > On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > >>I disagree, because many spammers work hard to remove bad addresses >>from their target lists. Other spammers don't, but still others work >>hard to honor "unsubscribes" or "removes." > In order to remove bad addresses (as Justin Mason pointed out), or honor > unsubscribes, spammers would need to supply either a valid return address > or a Web page somewhere that's trackable. Sorry, wrong. All bad address removal requires is spamware that understands SMTP error codes. No reverse channel of any kind required. > You can't clean your list unless you can receive bounces, Wrong as per above. Most spammers don't care about rejects. They really don't. Really. Truly. 2 years ago we decommissioned (de-MX'd out of DNS) several domains we no longer used, but were getting 50,000 spams/day. After 18 months of solid failures, I reenabled the domains to see what's happening. 500,000-700,000 spams/day. Plus a big chunk of bounces from ISPs from spam forged in these old domains. Or, see http://striker.ottawa.on.ca for a situation that's even worse. A domain is so badly hit with spamming attempts for addresses that _never_ existed, that he can no longer afford the SYN packets to reject inbounds at the TCP layer. Hell, even some legitimate emailers don't notice rejects and never clean bogus addresses. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 11:13:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA09700 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:13:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25GOgd09071 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:24:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25GOf509067 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:24:41 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA09672; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:13:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25GN5508963; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:23:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25GMa508905 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:22:36 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA09509 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:11:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h25GD7BD029992 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:13:07 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal In-Reply-To: <3E661DBD.9080203@americasm01.nt.com> Message-ID: References: <20030305090933.130ffaac.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305100529.4cfd97ad.moore@cs.utk.edu> <3E661DBD.9080203@americasm01.nt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:13:07 -0500 (EST) On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Chris Lewis wrote: > The question is associating the messages to get your counts. No, you just associate IP address to count. You can't possibly associate to the message, because failed RCPT TO: commands never get to the DATA phase. > A spammer merely needs to have a big set of open proxies/relays and > seriously randomize froms, and you can no longer generate counts of > anything because you can't associate report "a" with report "b". It is quite expensive to gather a large set of open relays. If you're sending out 500K messages, and you want to limit it to 1,000 messages/IP, you need to find 500 open relays. Also, a lot of spammers are pretty unsophisticated and send from DSL or cable-modem lines. This scheme would get them pretty fast. > Based on IPs and Froms, it'd be no better, and considerably worse > once the spammers notice and evolve. We need experiments to tell for sure. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 11:14:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA09748 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:14:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25GPWc09172 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:25:32 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25GPW509169 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:25:32 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA09727; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:13:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25GO2509036; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:24:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25GNa508996 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:23:36 -0500 Received: from mail.asianet.co.th (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA09609 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:12:03 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200303051612.LAA09609@ietf.org> Received: from virscan1.asianet.co.th (HELO mx.asianet.co.th) ([203.144.222.197]) (envelope-sender ) by mail2.asianet.co.th (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 5 Mar 2003 23:14:04 +0700 Received: from ppp-203.144.179.84.revip.asianet.co.th (HELO localhost) ([203.144.179.84]) (envelope-sender ) by mx2.asianet.co.th (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 5 Mar 2003 23:04:43 +0700 From: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" To: "asrg@ietf.org" Reply-To: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" Priority: Normal X-Mailer: PMMail 1.96a For OS/2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] filtering at connect time Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 23:13:51 +0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:38:53 -0500, Keith Moore wrote: >it's a pain in the wazoo to have to change your SMTP server every time >you connect to a different network. Takes me 5 seconds (I do it twice daily, going to the office and coming home, different DSL networks). Jeffrey Race _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 11:15:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA09902 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:15:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25GQkq09268 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:26:46 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25GQk509265 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:26:46 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA09846; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:15:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25GJ0508513; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:19:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25GID508456 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:18:13 -0500 Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA09269 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:06:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h25G8gA01095; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:08:42 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Moore To: "David F. Skoll" Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal Message-Id: <20030305110842.32b7a333.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: References: <200303051523.h25FNx7p019253@calcite.rhyolite.com> <20030305105424.39c7d48c.moore@cs.utk.edu> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:08:42 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > yes, but they don't have to use the same return address or web > > address for subsequent spam. thus the value of this identifier in > > blacklisting them is near zero. > > Which is higher than zero -- the current state of affairs. marginal gain in response to signifcant harm sounds like a losing idea to me. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 11:15:59 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA09946 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:15:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25GR0409317 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:27:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25GR0509314 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:27:00 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA09863; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:15:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25GJB508562; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:19:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25GIp508489 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:18:51 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA09317 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:07:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h25G9JBD029959; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:09:19 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: Keith Moore cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal In-Reply-To: <20030305110808.63ca6440.moore@cs.utk.edu> Message-ID: References: <20030305090933.130ffaac.moore@cs.utk.edu> <3E660EA9.1010208@iroise.net> <200303051531.h25FVVmf016889@new.agentzero.com> <20030305105035.3f71f973.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305110808.63ca6440.moore@cs.utk.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:09:19 -0500 (EST) On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Keith Moore wrote: > yes, damnit. I work with several organizations that have a once-a-year > social event, and send out one bulk email per year. What's the bounce rate, and how many addresses are on the list? You'd only want to start using this info to block spammers once you get at least a few hundred or 1,000 samples or so, and only if the bounce rate is fairly high. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 11:16:21 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA09978 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:16:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25GRNa09402 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:27:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25GRN509399 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:27:23 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA09921; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:15:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25GP2509133; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:25:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25GOt509091 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:24:55 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA09691 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:13:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h25GFO1R024728 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:15:24 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303051615.h25GFO1R024728@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:15:24 -0700 (MST) > From: "David F. Skoll" > > I disagree, because many spammers work hard to remove bad addresses > > from their target lists. Other spammers don't, but still others work > > hard to honor "unsubscribes" or "removes." > > In order to remove bad addresses (as Justin Mason pointed out), or honor > unsubscribes, spammers would need to supply either a valid return address > or a Web page somewhere that's trackable. That's the whole goal of all > the authentication proposals on this scheme. > > You can't clean your list unless you can receive bounces, and to receive > bounces, you need to use a valid (and presumably somewhat traceable) > sender address. That is even more deeply confused than the authentication proposals. The authentication proposals cannot force spammers to process bounces. They can only force spammers to have sender addresses that are authenticated. On the other hand, that many spammers now use valid return addresses and process bounces without authentication shows that authentication is indpendent of clean lists. The authentication proposals are confused about the nature of authentication. They imagine that it would ever be possible (not to mention desirable) to force all mail to be inextricably linked to a human identity such as a U.S. social security number (or EIN for corporations). As long as it is possible to phone an ISP and get a new account within minutes, or to sign up for an accout on-line, the notion of authenticating all mail senders to mail recipients is crazy. On the other hand, all mail senders are already sufficient authenticated to ISPs for ISPs to prevent spam if they care. ISPs that demand credit card numbers and impose significant financial penalties for bad behavior do not have spam problems. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 11:19:13 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA10108 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:19:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25GUF609571 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:30:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25GUF509568 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:30:15 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA10076; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:18:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25GR3509340; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:27:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25GQU509245 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:26:30 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA09801 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:14:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h25GGxBD030029 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:16:59 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal In-Reply-To: <3E661F53.8000700@americasm01.nt.com> Message-ID: References: <200303051523.h25FNx7p019253@calcite.rhyolite.com> <3E661F53.8000700@americasm01.nt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:16:59 -0500 (EST) On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Chris Lewis wrote: > > Bulk != Spam. Any system to detect "similar but not identical" > > messages can be thwarted if it uses a checksum scheme, [...] > That's a dangerous assertion to make to the person who invented DCC. > Because he can prove otherwise. I'd like to see that proof. It's very easy to prove that any (useful) checksum algorithm can be thwarted. Any useful checksum algorithm must produce different results for "substantially different" messages. Furthermore, you can examine the algorithm to see what it considers "substantially different", and write a generator to make substantially-different messages. You can do this (for example) by taking your archive of received mail from the last 5 years and adding random paragraphs from legitimate mail messages to your spam. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 11:19:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA10152 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:19:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25GUef09597 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:30:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25GUe509594 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:30:40 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA10089; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:19:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25GR4509356; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:27:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25GQe509254 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:26:40 -0500 Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA09828 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:15:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h25GH8A01301; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:17:09 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Moore To: "David F. Skoll" Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal Message-Id: <20030305111708.0d7b6305.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: References: <200303051523.h25FNx7p019253@calcite.rhyolite.com> <20030305105424.39c7d48c.moore@cs.utk.edu> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:17:08 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Consider: To receive DSN notifications, the spammer can expect to > receive between 10-20% of all the mail he sends out. Sending > 1,000,000 messages to different addresses is cheap. Receiving 100,000 > to 200,000 copies of that same message to a single address (or even a > few addresses) is not. so the spammer pays that price once to clean up his list, and after that, he only gets a few bounces back each time. > If the spammer doesn't want to receive the message body in the DSN's, > he or she will have to use a bulk precedence header. :-) which is not an indication of spam, and shouldn't be treated as such. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 11:21:25 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA10282 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:21:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25GWRQ09815 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:32:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25GWR509812 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:32:27 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA10245; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:20:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25GS0509448; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:28:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25GRb509422 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:27:37 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA09966 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:16:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h25GI7BD030042 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:18:07 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal In-Reply-To: <200303051552.h25FqJmf017592@new.agentzero.com> Message-ID: References: <200303051523.h25FNx7p019253@calcite.rhyolite.com> <200303051552.h25FqJmf017592@new.agentzero.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:18:07 -0500 (EST) On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Jim Youll wrote: > I don't see that "intent" of the sender is really a factor one way > or another. It's a huge factor, because the motivation of the sender produces detectable differences in the way he/she gathers recipient addresses and sends mail. This is empirically proven, today, with my simple "tempfail-first-time" heuristic. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 11:21:51 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA10343 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:21:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25GWrR09847 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:32:53 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25GWr509844 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:32:53 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA10274; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:21:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25GU3509547; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:30:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25GTm509506 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:29:48 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA10066 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:18:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18qWqy-0003aH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 06:14:28 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] MTP drafty In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 04 Mar 2003 21:28:42 PST." <20030305052842.GJ14655@main.templetons.com> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 06:14:28 -0500 Brad Templeton wrote: On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 07:01:40PM -0500, Alan DeKok wrote: > > Even at 1/1000 the rate, 100,000 spams a day is > > problematic to deal with. > > Surely no more than a couple of ISPs get that sort of volume? That's what I disagree with. Many, many domains get that kind of volume. Someone who gets 99.99% spam would be pleased if the spam went down by 3 orders of magnitude, but it would still be a serious problem. > ... So what are you arguing against that I said? Your belief as to the scope of the problem. For some people, the spam problem is 3 orders of magnitude larger than what you're seeing. So dropping their spam loads by that amount simply means they're now dealing with as much spam as you are. And you're on this list, talking about your current spam loads, and trying to fight the problem. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 11:24:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA10563 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:24:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25GZZF10186 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:35:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25GZY510183 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:35:34 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA10527; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:24:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25GX0509888; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:33:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25GWu509861 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:32:56 -0500 Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA10280 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:21:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h25GNPA01319; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:23:25 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Moore To: "David F. Skoll" Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal Message-Id: <20030305112325.02b345af.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: References: <20030305090933.130ffaac.moore@cs.utk.edu> <3E660EA9.1010208@iroise.net> <200303051531.h25FVVmf016889@new.agentzero.com> <20030305105035.3f71f973.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305110808.63ca6440.moore@cs.utk.edu> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:23:25 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > yes, damnit. I work with several organizations that have a > > once-a-year social event, and send out one bulk email per year. > > What's the bounce rate, and how many addresses are on the list? don't know about the bounce rate for email - for one group the snail mail bounce rate was on the order of 15% (yes, that many people had moved in meatspace during the year). I suspect the email bounce rate was comperable. lots of people change email addresses periodically to try to escape spammers. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 11:26:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA10756 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:26:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25GbZr11190 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:37:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25GbZ511187 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:37:35 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA10686; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:25:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25GZ4510124; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:35:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25GYd510041 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:34:39 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA10475 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:23:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h25GP6BD030120; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:25:06 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: Keith Moore cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal In-Reply-To: <20030305111708.0d7b6305.moore@cs.utk.edu> Message-ID: References: <200303051523.h25FNx7p019253@calcite.rhyolite.com> <20030305105424.39c7d48c.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305111708.0d7b6305.moore@cs.utk.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:25:06 -0500 (EST) On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Keith Moore wrote: > > Consider: To receive DSN notifications, the spammer can expect to > > receive between 10-20% of all the mail he sends out. Sending > > 1,000,000 messages to different addresses is cheap. Receiving 100,000 > > to 200,000 copies of that same message to a single address (or even a > > few addresses) is not. > so the spammer pays that price once to clean up his list, and after > that, he only gets a few bounces back each time. I believe that even that one-time price is sufficiently high to deter a lot of spammers. Furthermore, the system can be tuned. For example, it might be possible to send to the clearing house the SHA1 hash of each recipient address (hash to preserve privacy) as well as the success/failure notification. The next time the spammer spams, if you notice a lot of recipient addresses that were the same as a previously-detected spam run, you can use that as an indication of spam. Again, my intuition tells me that the exact address lists used by spammers are very different from legitimate mailing lists. This enhancement would be pretty expensive to implement, but is doable. It means that anyone who cleans a list with a lot of bad addresses will find his remaining list of good addresses is marked as suspect. This does, as you say, hurt infrequent mailers. That's an unavoidable side-effect. > > If the spammer doesn't want to receive the message body in the DSN's, > > he or she will have to use a bulk precedence header. :-) > which is not an indication of spam, and shouldn't be treated as such. That's true, but forcing any kind of detectable behaviour onto spammers is a good thing. Even apart from detecting spam, the bandwidth saved by not bouncing bodies is good for everyone. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 11:27:15 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA10817 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:27:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25GcHG11259 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:38:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25GcH511256 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:38:17 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA10774; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:26:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Ga1510252; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:36:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25GZl510199 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:35:47 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA10532; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:24:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h25GQ7d05445; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:26:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF4TFVZ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:26:07 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id FSK7YZPA; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:26:07 -0500 Message-ID: <3E6625E3.8050603@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vernon Schryver CC: asrg@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] SHEESH! References: <200303051607.h25G7kGN024041@calcite.rhyolite.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 11:29:23 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Vernon Schryver wrote: > I guess I shouldn't have used the V-word when talking about spam on > the IRTF's mailing list about spam. > sheesh!--talk about utterly lame and misguided spam filters. But in the case of the V word, it works. The only concern I'd have is whether the rejection message implies that it's far more unnecessarily draconian on other words/phrases. 8+ months of blocking on it, 10's of thousands of rejects, approximately 4 false positives. 5 if Vern had gotten it thru the mailing list. Better than a .01% FP rate. Not bad. IETF mailing lists are particularly prone to high volumes of spam. I for one am particularly glad that they're moving to filters. Takes a _huge_ load of end-user complaints off _my_ head, as well as those of my colleagues running IETF mailing lists of their own. Speaking of which, I should whitelist asrg@ietf.org. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 11:29:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA10924 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:29:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25Gf6W11748 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:41:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Gf6511744 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:41:06 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA10918; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:29:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Gd1511322; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:39:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Gc5511248 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:38:05 -0500 Received: from new.agentzero.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA10754 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:26:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.123.193] (h0050e4251179.ne.client2.attbi.com [66.30.24.79]) by new.agentzero.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h25GTMmf018857 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:29:23 -0500 Message-Id: <200303051629.h25GTMmf018857@new.agentzero.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <200303051523.h25FNx7p019253@calcite.rhyolite.com> <20030305105424.39c7d48c.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305111708.0d7b6305.moore@cs.utk.edu> To: asrg@ietf.org From: Jim Youll Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:28:23 -0500 At 11:25 -0500 3/5/03, David F. Skoll wrote: >On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Keith Moore wrote: > >> > Consider: To receive DSN notifications, the spammer can expect to >> > receive between 10-20% of all the mail he sends out. Sending >> > 1,000,000 messages to different addresses is cheap. Receiving 100,000 >> > to 200,000 copies of that same message to a single address (or even a >> > few addresses) is not. > >> so the spammer pays that price once to clean up his list, and after >> that, he only gets a few bounces back each time. > >I believe that even that one-time price is sufficiently high to deter >a lot of spammers. 200K messages is a few hours of processing on even a slow machine with a slow connection. Surely anyone who can generate a million messages can deal with what comes back. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 11:30:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA11006 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:30:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25GfK911982 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:41:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25GfK511979 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:41:20 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA10958; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:29:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Gd2511346; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:39:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25GcW511284 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:38:32 -0500 Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA10788 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:26:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h25GT0A01329; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:29:00 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Moore To: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] filtering at connect time Message-Id: <20030305112859.48c1b11b.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <200303051612.LAA09609@ietf.org> References: <200303051612.LAA09609@ietf.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:28:59 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >it's a pain in the wazoo to have to change your SMTP server every > >time you connect to a different network. > > Takes me 5 seconds (I do it twice daily, going to the office > and coming home, different DSL networks). how nice for you. then again, you're connecting to the same two networks over and over. that's not like users connecting to random networks. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 11:34:04 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA11194 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:34:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25GjPq12453 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:45:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25GjO512450 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:45:24 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA11186; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:33:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Gh2512162; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:43:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Ggw512104 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:42:58 -0500 Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA11109 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:31:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h25GXMA01408; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:33:22 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Moore To: "David F. Skoll" Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal Message-Id: <20030305113322.72c2fe2a.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: References: <200303051523.h25FNx7p019253@calcite.rhyolite.com> <20030305105424.39c7d48c.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305111708.0d7b6305.moore@cs.utk.edu> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:33:22 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > so the spammer pays that price once to clean up his list, and after > > that, he only gets a few bounces back each time. > > I believe that even that one-time price is sufficiently high to deter > a lot of spammers. forgive me if I'm skeptical. > Furthermore, the system can be tuned. you're still trying to evaluate messages based on some criteria that have nothing to do with whether the recipient wants it or not. > This does, as you say, hurt infrequent mailers. That's an unavoidable > side-effect. we can certainly avoid it by not using this scheme. > > > If the spammer doesn't want to receive the message body in the > > > DSN's, he or she will have to use a bulk precedence header. :-) > > > which is not an indication of spam, and shouldn't be treated as > > such. > > That's true, but forcing any kind of detectable behaviour onto > spammers is a good thing. not if it's a waste of effort. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 11:35:01 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA11238 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:35:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25Gk3f12694 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:46:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Gk3512691 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:46:03 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA11212; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:34:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Gh1512129; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:43:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Gge512085 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:42:40 -0500 Received: from zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA11095 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:31:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (zcard307.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h25GX8P08061 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:33:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDFBCRR7; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:33:09 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id FSK7YZPJ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:33:09 -0500 Message-ID: <3E662788.8060101@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal References: <20030305090933.130ffaac.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305100529.4cfd97ad.moore@cs.utk.edu> <3E661DBD.9080203@americasm01.nt.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 11:36:24 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit David F. Skoll wrote: > On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Chris Lewis wrote: >>The question is associating the messages to get your counts. >>A spammer merely needs to have a big set of open proxies/relays and >>seriously randomize froms, and you can no longer generate counts of >>anything because you can't associate report "a" with report "b". > It is quite expensive to gather a large set of open relays. If you're > sending out 500K messages, and you want to limit it to 1,000 > messages/IP, you need to find 500 open relays. Which isn't hard. If you refuse to get your fingers dirty, you just have to download one of the open relay/proxy blacklists... But if you don't mind getting your fingers dirty, just point a scanner at Brazil. Thousands within a few hours. > Also, a lot of spammers are pretty unsophisticated and send from DSL > or cable-modem lines. This scheme would get them pretty fast. You're seeing the open relays and proxies, not the spammers themselves. >>Based on IPs and Froms, it'd be no better, and considerably worse >>once the spammers notice and evolve. > We need experiments to tell for sure. We can already see the spammers doing this. My autobitch bot routinely shows me specific spams that have been sent from several hundred or even a thousand different IPs in one day. And this is the viewpoint from just _one_ MTA... _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 11:56:52 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12556 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:56:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25H7tJ15350 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:07:55 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25H7t515347 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:07:55 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12526; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:56:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25H4L513923; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:04:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Gx8513224 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:59:08 -0500 Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA11747 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:47:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h25GnZA01598; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:49:35 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Moore To: "David F. Skoll" Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal Message-Id: <20030305114935.2e5a6fbe.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: References: <200303051523.h25FNx7p019253@calcite.rhyolite.com> <20030305105424.39c7d48c.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305111708.0d7b6305.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305113322.72c2fe2a.moore@cs.utk.edu> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:49:35 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit [resend - sorry, I hit the wrong button last time] > Fine. What do you suggest instead? People already use a lot more > brute-force approaches with a lot worse side-effects, so I think you > are simply being disagreeable. you're probably right :) I don't think there's a simple answer. I think we need a combination of - a way to find out whether a message is sent by someone who has a history of spamming, a history of not spamming, or no history - an automatic way of handling spam complaints, in order to accumulate that history - a way for recipients to indicate that mail meeting certain criteria that they specify should not be sent to them (because it will get bounced or discarded anyway) Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 11:57:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12611 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:57:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25H8YP15463 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:08:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25H8Y515460 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:08:34 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12577; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:57:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25H3e513709; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:03:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Gow512940 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:50:58 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA11412 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:39:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18qXBS-0003bV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 06:35:38 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Deprecating plain POP accounts In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 05 Mar 2003 11:43:02 +0100." <20030305104302.GA3979@danisch.de> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 06:35:38 -0500 Hadmut Danisch wrote: > The reason is simple: It's mainly the POP account. > > People need to exchange e-mail from virtually anywhere, > whether from home with a dynamically allocated IP address, > of from any phone plug in a hotel right in the middle of nowhere, > with an IP address of any local ISP. That's OK, I agree with that. > I do it the same way. Let me re-phrase that: "People need to be able to send email from anywhere, to anyone, using any email address they choose." I don't think that's a good idea. > But when sending e-mail, things dramatically change: > > - Many ISPs deny to support their clients in mail delivery. > > - Even if they do, most clients deny to use it. > > - Instead, clients insist on directly deliver their email > to the world through SMTP without any authorization/authentication. Too bad. I can't drive 200 MPH on city streets, much as I may like to. There are technical solutions to this problem. Authenticated SMTP exists, and should be used. It's ugly to to create hacks to work around the fact that people are unwilling to use existing protocols. It just makes the problem worse. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 11:57:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12627 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:57:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25H8cb15489 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:08:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25H8c515486 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:08:38 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12586; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:57:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25H3h513793; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:03:43 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Gur513144 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:56:53 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA11683 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:45:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h25GlLbl027468 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:47:21 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303051647.h25GlLbl027468@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:47:21 -0700 (MST) > From: "David F. Skoll" > > I don't see that "intent" of the sender is really a factor one way > > or another. > > It's a huge factor, because the motivation of the sender produces > detectable differences in the way he/she gathers recipient addresses > and sends mail. This is empirically proven, today, with my simple > "tempfail-first-time" heuristic. No, by your own numbers, that's empirically suggested for only 20% of spam. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 11:58:20 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12700 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:58:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25H9Nf15566 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:09:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25H9N515563 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:09:23 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12673; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:57:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25H3i513809; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:03:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25GvJ513154 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:57:19 -0500 Received: from harvee.billerica.ma.us (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA11688 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:45:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from harvee.org (rufus.billerica.ma.us [192.168.0.10]) by harvee.billerica.ma.us (8.12.8/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h25GtBd6022587; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:55:11 -0500 Message-ID: <3E662A25.1030408@harvee.org> From: "Eric S. Johansson" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brad Templeton CC: Shannon Jacobs , Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Economic model is borken. (sic.) Let's fix it References: <005501c2e2ac$2b43c870$0100a8c0@ymtshanen> <20030305022115.GN7500@main.templetons.com> In-Reply-To: <20030305022115.GN7500@main.templetons.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 11:47:33 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Brad Templeton wrote: > I was one of the first people to propose e-stamps for internet > mail. I have since renounced the idea. > > Fully detailed reasons are at: > > http://www.templetons.com/brad/spume/estamps.html > > But in short: > a) You can't get there from here, since you can't reject mail > that is unstamped until lots of people use stamps and nobody > will want to use stamps unless people are demanding them. > > b) CPU coins are better than money but still face problem (a) > c) Putting an artifical cost on something that was designed to > be cheap is a lousy answer. > d) It has free speech implications. (in both senses of the word.) > e) Mailing lists are a problem. > f) Major virus problem if you use real money on the other hand, I'm a strong proponent (still) of using postage with e-mail. Take a look at HTTP://harvee.billerica.ma.us/camram/ for a paper describing the current state of camram project addressing all of the issues you listed above. In a nutshell: a) you can get there from here. You just need to use a mixture of techniques in order to deal with unstamped mail. b) they certainly are. Including the reason that real money will have everybody sticking their hand out as the message flows by. c) yup. It's a trade-off d) The free speech implications are less than filters. If you generate a stamp, your message gets delivered. It's no bigger burden than physical postage. e) not anymore. Strangers pay, friends fly free. Mailing lists are your friends (if you signed up for them) f) I'm not sure I understand the virus problem. I'll take a look at your paper and see if it gives a better explanation. I'm currently working on a paper describing the 12+- properties I think an antispam system should have. I'll publish it in the next few days. another thing that seems to be missing from this discussion is that e-mail systems really are two separate protocols that interact. The low-level protocol is the transport system (i.e. SMTP). As much as people complain about it, the fact that it has survived for twenty plus years speaks to its strengths. It also speaks to how difficult it will be to dislodge. Look at the success we have had with IPv6 and BEEP. Moving away from SMTP will take about 15 years. the second level protocol is the client to client protocol defined by rfc2822. Granted, it is a one-way protocol but it's still communicating instructions and operations to the recipients e-mail client. In the camram environment, I've tried to focus on modifying just the client to client protocol by adding postage. The rest of the infrastructure focuses on appropriate interpretation of that message and how to dispose of it. at the end of the day, I look at antispam techniques through the lens of this principle: Any measure for stopping spam must ensure that all non-spam messages have a means for bypassing that measure to reach their intended recipient. ---eric _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 11:58:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12749 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:58:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25H9aU15603 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:09:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25H9a515600 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:09:36 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12683; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:58:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25H3i513825; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:03:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Gva513162 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:57:36 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA11692 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:46:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h25GlvBD030343; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:47:57 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: Chris Lewis cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal In-Reply-To: <3E662207.5060604@americasm01.nt.com> Message-ID: References: <200303051523.h25FNx7p019253@calcite.rhyolite.com> <3E662207.5060604@americasm01.nt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:47:57 -0500 (EST) On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Chris Lewis wrote: > Sorry, wrong. All bad address removal requires is spamware that > understands SMTP error codes. No reverse channel of any kind required. Unless your recipient is running MS Exchange: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;304897 or happens to have a Yahoo or AOL account (Yahoo and AOL do not fail bad addresses at RCPT time.) I'd imagine this would cover a large class of spam victims. My additional proposal (for making the remaining good addresses on a spam list suspect) will handle the case of more intelligent spamware. > > You can't clean your list unless you can receive bounces, > Wrong as per above. See URL. > Most spammers don't care about rejects. They really don't. Good! Then they won't bother cleaning their lists, and my scheme will work. > Hell, even some legitimate emailers don't notice rejects and never clean > bogus addresses. Then this punishes them too -- good. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 11:59:11 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12810 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:59:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25HAEs15675 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:10:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25HAE515672 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:10:14 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12781; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:58:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25H3e513682; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:03:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25GnL512863 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:49:21 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA11321 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:37:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h25GdoBD030264; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:39:50 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: Keith Moore cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal In-Reply-To: <20030305113322.72c2fe2a.moore@cs.utk.edu> Message-ID: References: <200303051523.h25FNx7p019253@calcite.rhyolite.com> <20030305105424.39c7d48c.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305111708.0d7b6305.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305113322.72c2fe2a.moore@cs.utk.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:39:50 -0500 (EST) On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Keith Moore wrote: > > I believe that even that one-time price is sufficiently high to deter > > a lot of spammers. > forgive me if I'm skeptical. You're forgiven. But it's worth a shot. > > Furthermore, the system can be tuned. > you're still trying to evaluate messages based on some criteria that > have nothing to do with whether the recipient wants it or not. Well, it is *impossible* to tell if the recipient wants a message or not. So if that's the only measure we can use, we might as well quit right now. I don't know if I want a message or not until I've read it, and by then it's too late. And even if I didn't want it, it doesn't mean the other recipients didn't either. > > This does, as you say, hurt infrequent mailers. That's an unavoidable > > side-effect. > we can certainly avoid it by not using this scheme. Fine. What do you suggest instead? People already use a lot more brute-force approaches with a lot worse side-effects, so I think you are simply being disagreeable. > > That's true, but forcing any kind of detectable behaviour onto > > spammers is a good thing. > not if it's a waste of effort. It's not a waste of effort even if it only reduces bandwidth from bounced message bodies. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 12:01:58 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA13090 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:01:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25HD1s15871 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:13:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25HD1515853 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:13:01 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA13027; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:01:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25H3f513737; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:03:41 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Gpc512960 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:51:38 -0500 Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA11483 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:40:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h25Gg6A01443; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:42:06 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Moore To: "David F. Skoll" Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal Message-Id: <20030305114206.6ea66742.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: References: <200303051523.h25FNx7p019253@calcite.rhyolite.com> <20030305105424.39c7d48c.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305111708.0d7b6305.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305113322.72c2fe2a.moore@cs.utk.edu> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:42:06 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > we can certainly avoid it by not using this scheme. > > Fine. What do you suggest instead? I suggest we stop trying to decide which scheme to use, and try to confine our immediate activitiy to People already use a lot more > brute-force approaches with a lot worse side-effects, so I think you > are simply being disagreeable. > > > > That's true, but forcing any kind of detectable behaviour onto > > > spammers is a good thing. > > > not if it's a waste of effort. > > It's not a waste of effort even if it only reduces bandwidth from > bounced message bodies. > > -- > David. -- "Of course the people don't want war. But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger... It works the same way in any country." - Hermann Goering, Nuremburg, 1947. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 12:10:07 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA13653 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:10:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25HLAB16909 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:21:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25HLA516906 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:21:10 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA13598; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:09:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25HJ5516210; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:19:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25H42513884 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:04:02 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12218 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:52:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h25GsOBD030404; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:54:24 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: Keith Moore cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal In-Reply-To: <20030305114935.2e5a6fbe.moore@cs.utk.edu> Message-ID: References: <200303051523.h25FNx7p019253@calcite.rhyolite.com> <20030305105424.39c7d48c.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305111708.0d7b6305.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305113322.72c2fe2a.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305114935.2e5a6fbe.moore@cs.utk.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:54:24 -0500 (EST) On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Keith Moore wrote: > I don't think there's a simple answer. Of course not. I don't think there's any answer at all, if by "answer" we mean something automatic that stops almost all spam with almost no bad side effects. > I think we need a combination of > - a way to find out whether a message is sent by someone who has > a history of spamming, a history of not spamming, or no history That would be nice. I have no idea how to do this. As you said, it's easy to change sender address, Web address, etc. How do you know who to attach the history to? [...] > - a way for recipients to indicate that mail meeting certain criteria > that they specify should not be sent to them (because it will get > bounced or discarded anyway) But this requires cooperation from the sender, or else a level of AI to analyze messages that I think is simply impossible. It's safe to assume that spammers will go out of their way to be uncooperative. I think schemes that can detect this kind of wilful lack of cooperation are good candidates for partial solutions. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 12:10:11 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA13672 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:10:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25HLEx16926 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:21:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25HLE516923 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:21:14 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA13605; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:09:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25HJC516337; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:19:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25H9M515557 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:09:22 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12671 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:57:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h25Gxnd08457 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:59:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF4TGTV; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:59:50 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id FSK7YZQ3; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:59:49 -0500 Message-ID: <3E662DC9.8080504@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal References: <200303051523.h25FNx7p019253@calcite.rhyolite.com> <3E662207.5060604@americasm01.nt.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 12:03:05 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit David F. Skoll wrote: > On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Chris Lewis wrote: >>Sorry, wrong. All bad address removal requires is spamware that >>understands SMTP error codes. No reverse channel of any kind required. > Unless your recipient is running MS Exchange: > > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;304897 > > or happens to have a Yahoo or AOL account (Yahoo and AOL do not fail > bad addresses at RCPT time.) I'd imagine this would cover a large > class of spam victims. But no means all, nor, can we guarantee that they will always be that way. Given evidence of our spamtrap, it appears to be MSN that's the only bouncer that "stands out". Have seen few, if any, AOL blowback in our spamtrap. >>Most spammers don't care about rejects. They really don't. > Good! Then they won't bother cleaning their lists, and my scheme will work. Except for the difficulty of associating From: x@y, IP: 1.2.3.4 with the same spam from a@b, IP: 4.3.2.1. >> Hell, even some legitimate emailers don't notice rejects and never >> clean bogus addresses. > Then this punishes them too -- good. Iffen you can make the associations (which you can't) it'll still get you into trouble. Case in point: us. Anyone sending, say, a mailing list to our users, with a 6 month gap, will see a 40-60% bounce rate. :-( _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 12:10:14 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA13688 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:10:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25HLIr16944 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:21:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25HLH516941 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:21:17 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA13611; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:09:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25H3g513773; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:03:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Gtg513104 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:55:42 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA11652; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:44:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h25Gk9XL027458 env-from ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:46:09 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303051646.h25Gk9XL027458@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] SHEESH! References: <3E6625E3.8050603@americasm01.nt.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:46:09 -0700 (MST) > From: "Chris Lewis" > > I guess I shouldn't have used the V-word when talking about spam on > > the IRTF's mailing list about spam. > > > sheesh!--talk about utterly lame and misguided spam filters. > > But in the case of the V word, it works. ... I wonder if you'd say that if your employer were in the drug industry. > IETF mailing lists are particularly prone to high volumes of spam. I for > one am particularly glad that they're moving to filters. Takes a _huge_ > load of end-user complaints off _my_ head, as well as those of my > colleagues running IETF mailing lists of their own. > ... There are other things the IETF lists should do instead. To start, they should rejectm mail with MIME content headers declaring mail is not English, and specifically reject JP, KR, and GB character sets. They should probably also reject any MIME multipart mail, except that that would not only reject HTML junk but also signed messages. On the other hand, the messages with 5 KBytes of signature are at best irritating. I think they should also use the DCC to reject all bulk mail, but that's probably only my bias speaking. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 12:10:20 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA13720 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:10:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25HLNx16965 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:21:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25HLN516962 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:21:23 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA13626; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:09:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25HJD516366; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:19:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25HA8515649 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:10:08 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA12766 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:58:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 15747 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2003 16:58:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.2.100.178?) (10.2.100.178) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 4 Mar 2003 16:58:55 -0000 From: Matt Sergeant X-X-Sender: matt@localhost.localdomain To: "don_zawada@baxter.com" cc: "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] RE: Standardization of RFC headers for email content In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:13:14 +0000 (GMT) On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, don_zawada@baxter.com wrote: > I feel this is a worthy suggestion. We have multiple layers of SPAM > fighting tools and it would be a benefit if they all played nice together. That's what SpamAssassin is for - its a spam fighting tool aggregation system. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 12:10:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA13774 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:10:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25HLZ116995 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:21:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25HLZ516992 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:21:35 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA13647; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:10:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25HJT516490; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:19:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25HCX515822 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:12:33 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA12965 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:00:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h25H2xQK028983 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:02:59 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303051702.h25H2xQK028983@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:02:59 -0700 (MST) > From: "David F. Skoll" > > That's a dangerous assertion to make to the person who invented DCC. > > Because he can prove otherwise. > > I'd like to see that proof. See http://www.dcc-servers.net/dcc/graphs/ There are outfits pushing lots of msgs through DCC clients. The network is seeing nearly 20 M msgs/day. The major costs are disk bandwidth and memory for the DCC servers, not CPU cycles on any modern CPU. > It's very easy to prove that any (useful) checksum algorithm can be > thwarted. In theory, yes. In practice, that has not been true since I started compute spam checksums to prove that that is right and Paul Vixie was wrong half a dozen years ago. Instead I proved that he is right in practice. > Any useful checksum algorithm must produce different > results for "substantially different" messages. Furthermore, you can > examine the algorithm to see what it considers "substantially > different", and write a generator to make substantially-different > messages. You can do this (for example) by taking your archive of > received mail from the last 5 years and adding random paragraphs from > legitimate mail messages to your spam. That last sentence is not necessarily true, depending on the nature of the fuzzy checksum. However, please let's not talk about ways to defeat specific checksum systems, unless you are a spammer, and in that case I trust you'll be unsubscribed by the management. There's no profit in making more work for those of us who tweak our checksums to counter the new tactics of spammers. For example, as those who've been watching spam know, a recent cycle of that involves . Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 12:10:46 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA13801 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:10:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25HLnd17024 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:21:49 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25HLn517021 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:21:49 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA13689; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:10:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25HJV516522; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:19:31 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25HF7515969 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:15:07 -0500 Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA13185 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:03:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h25H5ZA01625; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:05:35 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Moore To: "David F. Skoll" Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal Message-Id: <20030305120534.5f579119.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: References: <200303051523.h25FNx7p019253@calcite.rhyolite.com> <20030305105424.39c7d48c.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305111708.0d7b6305.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305113322.72c2fe2a.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305114935.2e5a6fbe.moore@cs.utk.edu> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:05:34 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > I think we need a combination of > > > - a way to find out whether a message is sent by someone who has > > a history of spamming, a history of not spamming, or no history > > That would be nice. I have no idea how to do this. As you said, > it's easy to change sender address, Web address, etc. How do you > know who to attach the history to? sigh. I really think we need to be talking more in generalities at this point, rather than reviewing detailed proposals. and since the details are important, I don't think this can be evaluated without supplying the details. also, I think we need to get to the point that we can look at the variety of ideas and brainstorm about how to combine them effectively, and we can't do that as long as people are trying to champion their proposals. (I suppose shooting them down doesn't help either, though.) > > - a way for recipients to indicate that mail meeting certain > > criteria > > that they specify should not be sent to them (because it will get > > bounced or discarded anyway) > > But this requires cooperation from the sender, no it just requires cooperation from upstream mail servers. ISPs don't want to pay for bandwidth or server cycles that won't be used. if they can find out that lots of recipients don't want from big@boss.com, (or some other criteria, this is just a handy example) they probably won't mind not delivering that mail to those recipients. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 12:10:48 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA13816 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:10:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25HLpc17040 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:21:51 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25HLp517037 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:21:51 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA13710; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:10:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25HJX516594; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:19:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25HID516118 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:18:13 -0500 Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA13370 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:06:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h25H8dA01630; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:08:40 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Moore To: "Alan DeKok" Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Deprecating plain POP accounts Message-Id: <20030305120839.63708d42.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: References: <20030305104302.GA3979@danisch.de> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:08:39 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I do it the same way. > > Let me re-phrase that: > > "People need to be able to send email from anywhere, to anyone, > using any email address they choose." > > I don't think that's a good idea. the people who need to do this don't care whether you think it's a good idea or not. the place where you happened to be connected to the network has nothing to do with your identity. to the extent that there is a correlation now, it will get less useful as time goes on, because networks are becoming more diverse. > I can't drive 200 MPH on city streets, much as I may like to. driving 200 miles per hour causes problems. submitting mail from random places on the net does not. > There are technical solutions to this problem. Authenticated SMTP > exists, and should be used. > > It's ugly to to create hacks to work around the fact that people are > unwilling to use existing protocols. It just makes the problem worse. you have it backwards. authenticated smtp is a clean solution; tying identity to network location is a hack. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 12:10:54 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA13835 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:10:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25HLvB17065 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:21:57 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25HLv517062 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:21:57 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA13739; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:10:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25HJ3516178; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:19:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25H35513532 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:03:05 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12113 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:51:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h25GrXb9028079 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:53:33 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303051653.h25GrXb9028079@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal References: <3E662207.5060604@americasm01.nt.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:53:33 -0700 (MST) > From: "Chris Lewis" > David F. Skoll wrote: > ... > Most spammers don't care about rejects. They really don't. > > Really. Truly. > ... Certainly "many" spammers don't care about rejects, but "most" is not supported by the evidence. It's possible that most spammer don't care about rejects, but unless you have numbers, let's please limit the over generalizations. In line with your point about computing "false positive," how do you define "most spammers"? By messages transmitted? Warm spammer bodies? Domain names? Obvious aliases but that you've not yet related to other obvious aliases? Spam in your personal mailbox? As I keep saying, there are only a few serious spammers, but they are quite varied. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 12:10:54 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA13838 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:10:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25HLvG17081 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:21:57 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25HLv517078 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:21:57 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA13740; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:10:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25H3b513631; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:03:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Gkx512758 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:46:59 -0500 Received: from coyote.tatanka.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA11269 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:35:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from biscuit.tatanka.com (biscuit.tatanka.com [66.224.69.113]) by coyote.tatanka.com (8.12.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25GbRBZ030288; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:37:28 -0700 (MST) From: Michael Marking To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] filtering at connect time In-Reply-To: <200303051604.h25G4Smf018017@new.agentzero.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:40:59 -0800 (PST) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > POP-before-smtp solves this quite well, stands up to analysis. > > if not, use AT&T or whatever it's called. They have POPs in every country, and > support pages in every language. This is not a particularly > compelling argument. Not everyone has such a choice of internet providers. There are still some places in the world with telco monopolies, and even here in the US there are rural areas without many choices. And why should I be required to use XYZ provider so I can get access in one other country for a short vacation every year? I know people who use those $9-a-month internet services quite happily, but who might occasionally travel to places where they are not available. Why should they pay twice as much for the privilege of using a mail relay a few times a year? > Source IP is still on there even with the most sloppy remailers these days. Not all applications require cryptographic levels of anonymity. Maybe I just don't want to make it obvious to Customer X that I am on good enough terms with Customer Y to use the latter's SMTP server. (Perhaps Customer Y won't let me, anyway.) > Not compelling at all. If the relay is at all responsible, the source IP is > on there just the same. If the sender is a member of a large ISP (e.g. even a > cable modem user) then the message is pooled with millions... no anonymity > benefit whatever. There is a difference between the mail header saying the message came from CustomerX.com and the mail header saying the message came from IP address 192.168.1.1, especially if the IP address is from a pool of dynamically assigned addresses. The level of privacy required for some purposes is different from that required for other purposes. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+Zig83fFKt0vOYhYRAtHhAKCcLmGyVE/Zpy6VwX5V5aR1V52ErwCgwuAA pIZ0YJbLF1+Te716I6l0vyI= =ICse -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 12:11:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA13896 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:11:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25HMd917159 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:22:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25HMd517156 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:22:39 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA13874; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:11:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25HJZ516653; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:19:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25H2m513495 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:02:48 -0500 Received: from harvee.billerica.ma.us (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12087 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:51:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from harvee.org (rufus.billerica.ma.us [192.168.0.10]) by harvee.billerica.ma.us (8.12.8/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h25H0gd6022632; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:00:42 -0500 Message-ID: <3E662B70.40108@harvee.org> From: "Eric S. Johansson" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Matt Sergeant CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Sender pays vs the third world References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 11:53:04 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (re-send with proper return address. Changing domains is so traumatic)) Matt Sergeant wrote: > I'm new on the list so forgive me if this has been mentioned already (the > archives don't seem complete). > > It seems to me that sender pays means the third world gets excluded from > email communication. Whether it's actual money or if it's just CPU cycles, > that model simply doesn't work for a group of people trying to communicate > effectively with "richer" nations. You might as well just use > http://www.blackholes.us/ not true. If you design the sender pays system correctly, even weak machines can participate. In the camram model, only the first couple of messages have "high-cost" Stamps. Every other message to a known recipient or from a known recipient comes at a much lower cost. ---eric _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 12:11:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA13909 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:11:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25HMjk17177 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:22:45 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25HMi517174 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:22:44 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA13879; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:11:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25HJA516297; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:19:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25H8O515444 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:08:24 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12551 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:56:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h25GwmBD030435; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:58:49 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: Chris Lewis cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal In-Reply-To: <3E662788.8060101@americasm01.nt.com> Message-ID: References: <20030305090933.130ffaac.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305100529.4cfd97ad.moore@cs.utk.edu> <3E661DBD.9080203@americasm01.nt.com> <3E662788.8060101@americasm01.nt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:58:48 -0500 (EST) On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Chris Lewis wrote: > Which isn't hard. If you refuse to get your fingers dirty, you just > have to download one of the open relay/proxy blacklists... But if you > don't mind getting your fingers dirty, just point a scanner at Brazil. > Thousands within a few hours. OK. > We can already see the spammers doing this. My autobitch bot routinely > shows me specific spams that have been sent from several hundred or even > a thousand different IPs in one day. And this is the viewpoint from > just _one_ MTA... I see that ocasionally also (not several hundred, though!). Nevertheless, I think my scheme is worth doing. Anything that forces a certain kind of behavior on spammers is good. If they're forced to use open relays and proxies to send spam to avoid being marked as a person with a bad list, then it makes RBL's that blacklist open relays, proxies, and dial-up blocks more valuable. We need a broad-spectrum multi-faceted approach. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 12:12:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA13950 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:12:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25HNKp17244 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:23:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25HNK517241 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:23:20 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA13927; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:11:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25HJY516614; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:19:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25HIa516140 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:18:36 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA13379 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:07:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h25H93d09131 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:09:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF4TG5K; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:09:04 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id FSK7YZQ9; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:09:04 -0500 Message-ID: <3E662FF3.3050207@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal References: <20030305090933.130ffaac.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305100529.4cfd97ad.moore@cs.utk.edu> <3E661DBD.9080203@americasm01.nt.com> <3E662788.8060101@americasm01.nt.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 12:12:19 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit David F. Skoll wrote: > On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Chris Lewis wrote: >>We can already see the spammers doing this. My autobitch bot routinely >>shows me specific spams that have been sent from several hundred or even >>a thousand different IPs in one day. And this is the viewpoint from >>just _one_ MTA... > I see that ocasionally also (not several hundred, though!). > Nevertheless, I think my scheme is worth doing. Anything that forces > a certain kind of behavior on spammers is good. If they're forced to > use open relays and proxies to send spam to avoid being marked as a > person with a bad list, then it makes RBL's that blacklist open > relays, proxies, and dial-up blocks more valuable. > We need a broad-spectrum multi-faceted approach. I agree. When presented in that manner as being part of an overall technique, it's worth a try. But I don't have my hopes up, except in the case of static spammers (eg: Marin/Lauderdale.net) which you should blackhole via SBL or local blacklist anyway. However, do realize that open relays/proxies/socks/dialup-block RBLs have difficulties of their own. Perhaps the most important being that the first three generally lag closure by quite a bit, and are thus subject to problems about staleness of information. I raise the latter, not because it's necessarily a show stopper (it isn't for us), but the factor _is_ there. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 12:37:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15606 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:37:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25Hm9n02126 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:48:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Hm9A02123 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:48:09 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15563; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:37:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Hi9A01584; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:44:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25HSK517567 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:28:20 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA14301 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:16:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h25HIiBD030624 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:18:44 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal In-Reply-To: <20030305120534.5f579119.moore@cs.utk.edu> Message-ID: References: <200303051523.h25FNx7p019253@calcite.rhyolite.com> <20030305105424.39c7d48c.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305111708.0d7b6305.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305113322.72c2fe2a.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305114935.2e5a6fbe.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305120534.5f579119.moore@cs.utk.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:18:44 -0500 (EST) On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Keith Moore wrote: > sigh. I really think we need to be talking more in generalities at > this point, rather than reviewing detailed proposals. OK. Then I think it is useful to research ways to follow and summarize the flow of mail on the entire Internet. We need to figure out how to collect statistics from a large proportion of MTA's in a way that doesn't grind the system to a halt. We need to work out what statistics we want to collect, and (most important) whether or not any of these statistics can be analyzed to distinguish spam runs from legitimate bulk mailings. It would be a bonus if the collected statistics preserved privacy of senders and recipients as much as possible, and didn't require disclosure of message bodies. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 12:38:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15658 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:38:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25Hmgx02162 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:48:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25HmgA02159 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:48:42 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15620; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:37:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25HjSA01843; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:45:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25HgfA01306 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:42:41 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15278 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:31:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18qXzw-0003eF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 07:27:48 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Deprecating plain POP accounts In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 05 Mar 2003 12:08:39 EST." <20030305120839.63708d42.moore@cs.utk.edu> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 07:27:47 -0500 Keith Moore wrote: > > "People need to be able to send email from anywhere, to anyone, > > using any email address they choose." > > > > I don't think that's a good idea. > > the people who need to do this don't care whether you think it's a good > idea or not. My statement may have been unclear. I agree they need to send email. I don't agree that they need to be the SMTP originator, and to connect to any SMTP destination. Authenticated SMTP allows them to relay via a well-known home server. HTTPS allows them to tunnel that traffic through broken filters at remote sites. > driving 200 miles per hour causes problems. submitting mail from random > places on the net does not. I disagree completely, and I won't argue about it. SPAM is a DDoS attack, originating from SMTP senders with random IP's. That's a problem. If getting rid of the "random SMTP sender" problem means that the roaming user is required to use a home server, then that's fine. It stops the spammer, and has little cost to the roaming user. > you have it backwards. authenticated smtp is a clean solution; tying > identity to network location is a hack. Hmm.. I don't think I wanted to tie identity to network location. If a user from your domain is roaming, and wants to send email, I don't see why it's *my* problem to authenticate him. Your laziness is requiring me to: - allow SMTP from any IP - allow those people to claim to be anyone - allow those people to send to any of my users That looks a *whole* lot like spam to me. I'm inclined to bit-bucket your roaming users into the same garbage bin as spammers, because I *can't tell them apart*. In contrast, if I can guarantee that: - SMTP comes only from machines which *intend* to send SMTP - DNS for a domain tell you which machines intend to send SMTP - email from users at a domain originates only from SMTP servers for that domain Then that looks like a pretty good solution to 99.9% of the spam problem. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 12:38:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15725 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:38:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25HnLM02249 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:49:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25HnLA02245 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:49:21 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15675; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:38:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Hk9A01901; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:46:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25HgrA01365 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:42:53 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15228 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:29:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h25HVOBD030719; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:31:26 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: Kee Hinckley cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:31:24 -0500 (EST) On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Kee Hinckley wrote: > I have had technical support people at bulk mailer providers tell me > that they are not allowed to prune bounces out of lists because > marketing doesn't want to tell the customer that the list just shrank Well, they *deserve* to be punished, IMO. > Oh please. Not poisoning. Just what we wanted. More bandwidth use. > Every one of those poisoned message gets an attempted delivery. > Every one generates a bounce. Not necessarily; see Chris Lewis's post earlier. > Every bounce tries to go somewhere else. Have you ever been the > return address on a spam mailing? Yes. It's not fun. But I do not think poisoning address lists will make all that much difference. > You want to see your mail server go to its knees? It's a risk I face whether we poison lists or not. > Poisoning spam lists is just contributing to the spam-as-DoS problem. I don't think it makes that much difference; people change e-mail addresses all the time. > And God-forbid your poisoner uses an address that is > fake today, but real tomorrow. Ah, no; a responsible poisoner only releases poisoned addresses under a domain he/she owns. You have a point there. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 12:39:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15762 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:39:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25HoML02331 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:50:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25HoLA02328 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:50:22 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15756; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:39:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Hl3A01977; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:47:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25HhtA01563 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:43:55 -0500 Received: from zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15379 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:32:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (zcard307.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h25HYmP08973 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:34:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDFBCY6A; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:34:49 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id FSK7YZRW; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:34:49 -0500 Message-ID: <3E6635FC.9060003@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] definition of spam (was Re: consent expression) References: <20030304205916.56614a9f.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305040008.GB14655@main.templetons.com> <20030304234928.5485710d.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305051840.GI14655@main.templetons.com> <20030305051936.55246a31.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305062722.3d36f607.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305085043.700fb87a.moore@cs.utk.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 12:38:04 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Keith Moore wrote: >>>>Any consent has to be given from the receipient to the sender, >>>>and should be non-transferable and revokable at any time. >>>no, that's clearly unworkable. >>Could you be a bit more specific ? > sigh. I could, but it's probably just a rathole. I hope not ;-) > any mechanism has problems and limitations. I don't think we're going > to find any single mechanism, or even type of mechanism, that satisfies > everyone. nor do I think it's in scope for this group to try do so. I don't think, for consent per-se, that we have to find a single mechanism or classes of mechanism that works all the time everywhere. But at the conceptual level, being able to express and enforce _somehow_: Any consent has to be given from the receipient to the sender, and should be non-transferable and revokable at any time. is critical. Anything else just means you'll be spammed to death. Or e-mail dies. Or both. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 12:51:24 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA16449 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:51:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25I23j02029 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:02:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25I22O02026 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:02:02 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA16440; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:50:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25HwJO01615; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:58:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25HukO01481 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:56:46 -0500 Received: from emu.st (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA16151 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:45:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 50854 invoked by uid 1015); 5 Mar 2003 17:47:39 -0000 Delivered-To: qmda-intercept-asrg@ietf.org@intercept Comments: QMDA 0.1 - see http://www.geocities.com/mark_delany/qmda.html Received: (qmail 14334 invoked from network); 5 Mar 2003 17:47:39 -0000 Received: from prefix-internal.emu.st (HELO emu.st) (10.100.100.36) by f1-external.emu.st with SMTP; 5 Mar 2003 17:47:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 26293 invoked by uid 1001); 5 Mar 2003 17:47:39 -0000 Message-ID: <20030305174739.26292.qmail@prefix.emu.st> From: "Mark Delany" Mail-Followup-To: asrg@ietf.org To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal References: <20030305090933.130ffaac.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305100529.4cfd97ad.moore@cs.utk.edu> <3E661DBD.9080203@americasm01.nt.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: ; from dfs@roaringpenguin.com on Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 11:13:07AM -0500 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 5 Mar 2003 17:47:39 +0000 On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 11:13:07AM -0500, David F. Skoll allegedly wrote: > It is quite expensive to gather a large set of open relays. If you're > sending out 500K messages, and you want to limit it to 1,000 > messages/IP, you need to find 500 open relays. > > Also, a lot of spammers are pretty unsophisticated and send from DSL > or cable-modem lines. This scheme would get them pretty fast. > > We need experiments to tell for sure. No we don't. Plenty of people on this list, such as myself, are on the end of systems that routinely get hit by thousands of Open Proxies per day. (Open Relays btw are currently rarely used by spammers in comparison). I can tell you as a fact that spammers do have large OP lists and routinely use them. There are companies/people that make a living out of making these lists and selling s/w that uses them. send-safe.com is just one very public example of that. All the spammer does is pay the bucks to send-safe and he gets a regular feed of fresh OPs from the send-safe mothership. (Talk about dynamic. Send-safe were dumped by their Russian hosters earlier this week and now they pop up in the UK). Regards. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 12:54:07 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA16514 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:54:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25HS8t17548 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:28:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25HS8517545 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:28:08 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA14283; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:16:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25HP7517360; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:25:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25HOq517319 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:24:52 -0500 Received: from nber13.nber.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA14030 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:13:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from nber13.nber.org (localhost.nber.org [127.0.0.1]) by nber13.nber.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h25HFL0Z048767 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:15:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by nber13.nber.org (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id h25HFLrr048766 for asrg@ietf.org.KAV; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:15:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from nber1.nber.org (nber1.nber.org [207.113.108.252]) by nber13.nber.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h25HFK0a048748; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:15:20 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Feenberg To: Keith Moore cc: Jim Youll , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] filtering at connect time In-Reply-To: <20030305103853.1d6ceb30.moore@cs.utk.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:15:20 -0500 (EST) On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Keith Moore wrote: > > it's a pain in the wazoo to have to change your SMTP server every time > you connect to a different network. > There is something to this line of argument. However necessary the closing of open relays is (and I agree that it is), none of the methods for solving the roaming user problem is a easy as it should be. Authentication (without plaintext password) is quite complex at the MTA, and not default at the MUA. SMTP after POP is complex at the MTA, especially if POP and SMTP occur on different servers. Some of this will cure itself in the fullness of time, as these procedures become widely adopted. They don't need to be hard. I think a simple standard could eliminate the pain of changing smtp hosts for each ISP used. Isn't there an RFC that suggests "mail" as the hostname for the SMTP server? I seem to remember that, but it is hard to search for such a common word, and I can't find it now. In any case, if each ISP established a CNAME of "mail" that accepted local mail for relay, users could just put that in the smtp server field of their MUA, and could leave it no matter what ISP they were connecting through. The resolver on the personal computer would add the correct local domain. No protocol change at all. Of course, the ISP might need a lot of CNAMES, if it had lots of subdomains, such as mail.ne.mediaone.net, mail.nw.mediaone.net, etc. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 12:55:06 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA13089 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:01:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25HD1x15856 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:13:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25HD0515851 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:13:00 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA13028; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:01:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25H3j513842; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:03:45 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Gvh513167 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:57:43 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA11703 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:46:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h25GmAd07457 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:48:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF4TGK1; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:48:11 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id FSK7YZQA; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:48:11 -0500 Message-ID: <3E662B0F.8060205@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal References: <200303051523.h25FNx7p019253@calcite.rhyolite.com> <200303051552.h25FqJmf017592@new.agentzero.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 11:51:27 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jim Youll wrote: > I don't see that "intent" of the sender is really a factor one way or > another. > It's the net outcome that is at issue with spam. The intent of the sender is what determines it to be spam - unsolicited bulk email. Spamming is a behaviour, not a content or an origin. The net outcome of a spammer's actions is why spam is bad and this mailing list exists. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 13:09:26 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA17866 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:09:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25IK3T04061 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:20:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25IK3O04058 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:20:03 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA17817; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:08:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25IGoO03848; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:16:50 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25IEQO03546 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:14:26 -0500 Received: from aismtp4g.bellsouth.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA17600 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:03:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from 01AL10015010060.ad.bls.com ([90.152.5.135] [90.152.5.135]) by aismtp4g.bellsouth.com with ESMTP for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:07:07 -0500 Received: by 01al10015010060.ad.bls.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:05:20 -0500 Message-Id: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D53F@bremocag> From: "Sauer, Damon" To: "'asrg@ietf.org'" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [Asrg] Multiple Suggestions Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:05:13 -0500 Hello Colleagues, I truly do not think that there is a "Magic bullet" to kill all spam. However, I think that there are definite things that can be changed and introduced to make spamming a lot harder to accomplish successfully and much easier to identify and control. When spamming becomes "hard work" for the spammer, the cost vs. profit ratio for a spammer gets mighty thin and makes spamming no longer an easy way to earn extra gas money. As someone who has blocked over 1.1 billion spam messages last year at 49.8tb, I have come up with a few things that I would like to see discussed or implemented in some fashion. I call it "Spam herding", the migration of spammers off of legitimate ISP's and networks, to more "rogue" networks and ISP's. Once there, they can be penned, trapped and killed. (skinning is preferred by me) If they don't do it already, legitimate ISP's should close port 25. Route all SMTP traffic through their own servers and staff their abuse departments with enough people empowered to take direct and immediate action in spamming issues and in a timely fashion. ISP's should track credit cards. If an account is disabled for abuse (investigated and found to have merit) this credit card should be flagged by the ISP. All accounts established and/or associated with this card disabled and no further orders from this card should be taken. Charge for overuse of SMTP, over a certain level, for commercial email. Want to send 100,000 commercial emails? Charge a penny a piece over 10,000. This will not hurt list-serves as they are not commercial in nature and John Q. Public wont send 100,000 emails in his life. If you want to send legitimate commercial email, it is a value add service and should be charged for accordingly. A DNS type addition would be very helpful. Spammer connects as [196.68.1.12](example address only) and says "mail from: mom@momandpop.com" Currently doing a reverse lookup or momandpop.com would show receiving SMTP servers but not authorized sending servers. 196.68.1.12 shows up as a valid address but is in no way associated with momandpop.com. Although this domain is valid to the ISP, there is no way currently to specifically validate the true identity of the sender from the "mail from:" address alone. The addition of authorized SMTP servers IPs or IP ranges in the DNS record for momandpop.com (I will call it a PMX record) would allow a reverse look up of the "mail from:" address to the authorized ip or ip range. So a lookup of let say, spammer@yahoo.com, from a connecting host of 195.1.2.3, the reverse lookup of PMX would show that the authorized servers for Yahoo.com are IP range 200.1.1.1 /32. This connection could therefore be rejected as an unauthorized sender. This would require a major change in DNS and an additional RFC, but, there is no way to do what we need to do completely painlessly. A trusted and well respected (FREE) service for warehousing spam and publish spammer hosts and ip's. (Not going to comment on this one at all) Once all this is in place, the spammers will be uprooted and we will be herding them to servers and services that will do their work for them. These servers are rouge and will be killed one by one. Will big (short-sighted) ISP's be hurt? Maybe, but the change is the right thing to do and should be forced via RFC. Regards, Damon Sauer postmaster "If I had a penny for every spam message I ever blocked- I would have ALL the pennies!" ***** "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers." _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 13:10:06 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA17957 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:10:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25IKi104127 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:20:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25IKiO04124 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:20:44 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA17892; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:09:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25IHaO03890; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:17:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25IEvO03645 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:14:57 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA17629 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:03:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2082079; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 13:05:52 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3E662207.5060604@americasm01.nt.com> References: <200303051523.h25FNx7p019253@calcite.rhyolite.com> <3E662207.5060604@americasm01.nt.com> To: "Chris Lewis" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:00:28 -0500 At 11:12 AM -0500 3/5/03, Chris Lewis wrote: >Sorry, wrong. All bad address removal requires is spamware that >understands SMTP error codes. No reverse channel of any kind >required. You are assuming that the connection is directly to the validating mail server. That is certainly not the case with a secondary MX, and it's often not the case with large systems. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 13:10:54 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA18070 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:10:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25ILXE04201 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:21:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25ILXO04198 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:21:33 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA18015; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:10:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25IIMO03935; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:18:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25IEwO03649 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:14:58 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA17631 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:03:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2082081; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 13:05:53 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <20030305090933.130ffaac.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305100529.4cfd97ad.moore@cs.utk.edu> <3E661DBD.9080203@americasm01.nt.com> To: "David F. Skoll" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:01:53 -0500 At 11:13 AM -0500 3/5/03, David F. Skoll wrote: >It is quite expensive to gather a large set of open relays. If you're >sending out 500K messages, and you want to limit it to 1,000 >messages/IP, you need to find 500 open relays. I know an ISP which has blocked over 10,000 IP addresses that have sent test probes against his server. This in a matter of just a few months. As soon as he blocks one, the spammer starts using a different one. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 13:11:57 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA18203 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:11:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25IMam04345 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:22:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25IMaO04342 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:22:36 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA18105; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:11:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25IG3O03786; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:16:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25IEPO03542 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:14:25 -0500 Received: from mr07.lodo.exactis.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA17591 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:03:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from denex03.corp.exactis.com (denex03.corp.exactis.com [10.249.0.69]) by mr07.lodo.exactis.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA08690 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:05:18 -0700 Received: by denex03.corp.exactis.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:05:17 -0700 Message-ID: <6956D00165F4CB4583BB9CC33D77364F1E3079@denca00.corp.exactis.com> From: "Barclay, Robert" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: consent expression (was RE: [Asrg] ASRG next steps) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C2E341.C7757BE0" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:05:17 -0700 This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2E341.C7757BE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sorry if all of this has already been covered. I am just beginning to go through the archives of these discussions to gte up to speed. It is kind of ironic how much email can be generated by a discussion ABOUT spam. In an attempt to step back from specific implementation proposals for a minute and here is an attempt to describe what a solution might include based on the charter of this specific group. 1) Authentication/non-repudiation of the sender of an email. For individuals or very low volume email it might be enough for the ISP to verify that the sender listed in the envelope really is who they say they are (which implies that open relays become basically impossible to manage). For larger volumes of email from a specific envelope sender such as mailing lists, purchase confirmations, etc.. this may mean involvement and verification against some trusted certification authority(ies). Anonymous email would still be possible, but individual senders would get to decide whether or not to accept unverifiable senders. 2) Some expression of "mailing type" from the sender. Part of validating that a sender is who they say they are would also be validating that they don't lie about what kind of email they send. On the recipient level you could decide not only whether you want to accept a given mailing type, but whether you trust the certifying authority to actually certify a specific sender. 3) The system itself should be non-judgemental. Basically whatever is put in place should not be making decisiosn for me about whether a piece of mail is good or bad. That should be left either to the ISP and ultimately to the individual email recipient to decide what types of email they want to accept. To meet this goal the system should be a means to convey the information necessary for those groups to make meaningful decisions 4) The ability on the receiving side to "express consent" in a way that validates against the information in #2. In this world basically the flow of a piece of email would be: I am a sender. I send a piece of email and in some way communicate what it is I am sending. If I doing the actual sending myself (so I am someone running my own mailserver) I connect to destination mail transfer agent. I announce who I am along with some means to verify that information (either in the helo or the envelope) I announce what I am sending and to whom. Recipient mail transfer agent optionally validates my identity and determines whether they trust me to honestly describe what mailing type I am sending. Recipient mail transfer agent optionally decides whether the mailing type is one that they will accept. If the mail is accepted, this same information is passed along to destination user so that if the end user has their own rules their mail user agent can apply them. This flow is basically based on one evening of throwing away everything I know about spam filters and trying to create a data flow consistent with this groups charter. It is admittedly shallow on details and is only intended as a talking point for a more general discussion of what goals a solution should meet to be considered. Regards, Robert -----Original Message----- From: Paul Judge [mailto:paul.judge@ciphertrust.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 4:52 PM To: 'Vernon Schryver'; asrg@ietf.org Subject: consent expression (was RE: [Asrg] ASRG next steps) > > What is "consent expression"? Consent expression means that someone can state which communication they wish to receive or not to receive. This allows a very granular definition by each user(individual or organization). > If it is not a trivial boolean like > "I do [not] like spam," how can it not be a magnet for abuse ranging > from minor privacy violations to more spam to literal visits from > death squads reducing their political enemies? trivial boolean? spam can not be expressed as a boolean. We realized that the definition is inconsistent and people in this community have spent many years debating "unsolicited bulk" versus "unsolicited commercial bulk" versus a host of other definitions seeking some form of optimal cover set of everyone's personal definition. The problem is that while these broad definitions are good, they are not perfect. There are many messages that people consider spam that do not fit these definitions (this leads to false negatives). Likewise there are messages that fall within these definitions that are not considered spam (this leads to false positives). Spam is in many cases an individual preference. It is a subjective opinion of unwanted messages. One approach is to continue to try to confine the definition to one that covers only the subset of what everyone considers spam without including anyone's wanted messages. A different approach is to step away from the binary decision of spam and non-spam and realize that communication can be more granularly defined. For example, "product offers", "chain letters", "mailing lists", "newsletters", "greeting cards", "fradulent offers", "unauthenticated messages", "unverifiable messages", etc. By developing a robust categorization of messages, we can allow users to express consent for certain types of communication. This allows the common lack-of-consent policies to be implemented as close to the source as possible. From there, we require an architecture that can support these policies. This architecture may very well be a combination of current and new approaches. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2E341.C7757BE0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: consent expression (was RE: [Asrg] ASRG next steps)

Sorry if all of this has already been covered. I am = just beginning to go through the archives of these discussions to gte = up to speed. It is kind of ironic how much email can be generated by a = discussion ABOUT spam.

In an attempt to step back from specific = implementation proposals for a minute and here is an attempt to = describe what a solution might include based on the charter of this = specific group.

1) Authentication/non-repudiation of the sender of an = email. For individuals or very low volume email it might be enough for = the ISP to verify that the sender listed in the envelope really is who = they say they are (which implies that open relays become basically = impossible to manage). For larger volumes of email from a specific = envelope sender such as mailing lists, purchase confirmations, etc.. = this may mean involvement and verification against some trusted = certification authority(ies).

Anonymous email would still be possible, but = individual senders would get to decide whether or not to accept = unverifiable senders.

2) Some expression of "mailing type" from = the sender. Part of validating that a sender is who they say they are = would also be validating that they don't lie about what kind of email = they send. On the recipient level you could decide not only whether you = want to accept a given mailing type, but whether you trust the = certifying authority to actually certify a specific sender.

3) The system itself should be non-judgemental. = Basically whatever is put in place should not be making decisiosn for = me about whether a piece of mail is good or bad. That should be left = either to the ISP and ultimately to the individual email recipient to = decide what types of email they want to accept. To meet this goal the = system should be a means to convey the information necessary for those = groups to make meaningful decisions

4) The ability on the receiving side to "express = consent" in a way that validates against the information in = #2.


In this world basically the flow of a piece of email = would be:
I am a sender. I send a piece of email and in some = way communicate what it is I am sending.
If I doing the actual sending myself (so I am = someone running my own mailserver) I connect to destination mail = transfer agent.

I announce who I am along with some means to verify = that information (either in the helo or the envelope)
I announce what I am sending and to whom.
Recipient mail transfer agent optionally validates = my identity and determines whether they trust me to honestly describe = what mailing type I am sending.

Recipient mail transfer agent optionally decides = whether the mailing type is one that they will accept.
If the mail is accepted, this same information is = passed along to destination user so that if the end user has their own = rules their mail user agent can apply them.

This flow is basically based on one evening of = throwing away everything I know about spam filters and trying to create = a data flow consistent with this groups charter. It is admittedly = shallow on details and is only intended as a talking point for a more = general discussion of what goals a solution should meet to be = considered.

Regards,
Robert


-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Judge [mailto:paul.judge@ciphertrust= .com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 4:52 PM
To: 'Vernon Schryver'; asrg@ietf.org
Subject: consent expression (was RE: [Asrg] ASRG = next steps)



>
> What is "consent expression"?  =

Consent expression means that someone can state which = communication they
wish to receive or not to receive. This allows a = very granular definition by
each user(individual or organization).


> If it is not a trivial boolean like
> "I do [not] like spam," how can it = not be a magnet for abuse ranging
> from minor privacy violations to more spam to = literal visits from
> death squads reducing their political = enemies?

trivial boolean? spam can not be expressed as a = boolean. We realized that
the definition is inconsistent and people in this = community have spent many
years debating "unsolicited bulk" versus = "unsolicited commercial bulk"
versus a host of other definitions seeking some form = of optimal cover set of
everyone's personal definition. The problem is that = while these broad
definitions are good, they are not perfect. There = are many messages that
people consider spam that do not fit these = definitions (this leads to false
negatives). Likewise there are messages that fall = within these definitions
that are not considered spam (this leads to false = positives). Spam is in
many cases an individual preference. It is a = subjective opinion of unwanted
messages. One approach is to continue to try to = confine the definition to
one that covers only the subset of what everyone = considers spam without
including anyone's wanted messages. A different = approach is to step away
from the binary decision of spam and non-spam and = realize that communication
can be more granularly defined. For example, = "product offers", "chain
letters", "mailing lists", = "newsletters", "greeting cards", = "fradulent
offers", "unauthenticated messages", = "unverifiable messages", etc. By
developing a robust categorization of messages, we = can allow users to
express consent for certain types of communication. = This allows the common
lack-of-consent policies to be implemented as close = to the source as
possible. From there, we require an architecture = that can support these
policies. This architecture may very well be a = combination of current and
new approaches.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg=

------_=_NextPart_001_01C2E341.C7757BE0-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 13:17:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA18958 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:17:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25ISKR05063 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:28:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25ISKO05060 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:28:20 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA18929; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:17:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25IP6O04720; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:25:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25IOqO04566 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:24:52 -0500 Received: from nber13.nber.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA14640 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:20:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from nber13.nber.org (localhost.nber.org [127.0.0.1]) by nber13.nber.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h25HMg0Z049456 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:22:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by nber13.nber.org (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id h25HMfsO049455 for asrg@ietf.org.KAV; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:22:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from nber1.nber.org (nber1.nber.org [207.113.108.252]) by nber13.nber.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h25HMf0a049438; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:22:41 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Feenberg To: Keith Moore cc: "David F. Skoll" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal In-Reply-To: <20030305111708.0d7b6305.moore@cs.utk.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:22:40 -0500 (EST) On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Keith Moore wrote: > > so the spammer pays that price once to clean up his list, and after > that, he only gets a few bounces back each time. > If the spammer is using an open relay, the relay pays the price. Actually, I think that is good, it will encourage them to close the relay. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 13:18:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA19062 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:18:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25ITCL05181 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:29:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25ITCO05178 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:29:12 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA18974; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:18:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25IPrO04753; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:25:53 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25IOrO04575 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:24:53 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA14646 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:20:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2081958; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 12:22:44 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: Michael Marking From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] desirable characteristics of source tracking Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:07:27 -0500 At 7:20 AM -0800 3/5/03, Michael Marking wrote: >Homeless people, human rights workers, members of abused >social groups, etc should be able to send mail without >establishing an "identity". (And intended recipients should >be able to refuse such mail.) In many cases those people may want a reliable and verifiable identity. They just don't necessarily want it traceable to a physical person. This could be analogous to a self-signed certificate vs. one from a bonded provider. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 13:19:16 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA19142 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:19:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25ITtO05246 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:29:55 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25ITtO05243 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:29:55 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA19088; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:18:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25IQeO04809; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:26:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25IOsO04593 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:24:54 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA14562 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:19:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 17027 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2003 17:19:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.2.100.178?) (10.2.100.178) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 4 Mar 2003 17:19:49 -0000 From: Matt Sergeant X-X-Sender: matt@localhost.localdomain To: Chris Lewis cc: "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal In-Reply-To: <3E662207.5060604@americasm01.nt.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:34:08 +0000 (GMT) On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Chris Lewis wrote: > David F. Skoll wrote: > > On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > > > > >>I disagree, because many spammers work hard to remove bad addresses > >>from their target lists. Other spammers don't, but still others work > >>hard to honor "unsubscribes" or "removes." > > > In order to remove bad addresses (as Justin Mason pointed out), or honor > > unsubscribes, spammers would need to supply either a valid return address > > or a Web page somewhere that's trackable. > > Sorry, wrong. All bad address removal requires is spamware that > understands SMTP error codes. No reverse channel of any kind required. Not all mail goes direct to a server that can issue a 5xx if its an invalid user. If it goes through a service like MessageLabs' it gets through the first connection just fine. You may get a bounce from us though at delivery time. Matt. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 13:19:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA19179 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:19:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25IUZY05313 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:30:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25IUZO05310 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:30:35 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA19163; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:19:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25IRQO04846; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:27:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25IOuO04610 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:24:56 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA14633 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:20:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2081944; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 12:22:40 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20030305052842.GJ14655@main.templetons.com> References: <20030305034949.GA14655@main.templetons.com> <20030305052842.GJ14655@main.templetons.com> To: Brad Templeton From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] MTP drafty Cc: Alan DeKok , asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:56:14 -0500 At 9:28 PM -0800 3/4/03, Brad Templeton wrote: >Surely no more than a couple of ISPs get that sort of volume? Keep in mind that spammers don't check bounces (and neither do a lot of "legitimate" bulk mailers). Add in subscriber churn. I seriously doubt you could subscribe at any ISP with the name "john" and not immediately start receiving spam. So you need to measure two things. Percentage of traffic to valid email addresses, and overall mail to invalid addresses. The latter is poisoning the email address space. My domain currently has about a dozen valid accounts, and bounces 10,000,000 messages a year (doubling every year). That's an extreme example. But last summer I turned on a domain that had been offline for two years and got 400 messages in 4 hours. 20% from legitimate companies who had apparently been ignoring bounces for two years. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 13:20:48 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA19228 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:20:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25IVRU05374 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:31:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25IVRO05371 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:31:27 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA19199; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:20:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25ISCO05037; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:28:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25IOvO04614 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:24:57 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA14622 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:20:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2081951; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 12:22:33 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20030305104302.GA3979@danisch.de> References: <20030305104302.GA3979@danisch.de> To: Hadmut Danisch From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Deprecating plain POP accounts Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:24:06 -0500 At 11:43 AM +0100 3/5/03, Hadmut Danisch wrote: >Surprise: That already exists. Many POP providers also offer the >service of delivering the mail. Authentication is possible through >either a so called "SMTP after POP" or a simple Password >authentication in the SMTP protocol, typically the same password as for >the POP account. If this were a solution, then ISP's wouldn't be blocking outbound SMTP connections. Since there is no way to tell the difference between an outbound SMTP session from a client, and one from a server, your solution provides a mechanism for authorized delivery, but does not require it. Therefore the user sets up mail broadcaster at some safe location (or uses open relays) and sits happily at home using his ISP to send out email. From the ISP's standpoint this looks just like legitimate use. But he's spamming like crazy, and it's the ISP that gets the complaints. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 13:22:15 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA19424 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:22:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25IWs505491 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:32:54 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25IWsO05488 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:32:54 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA19344; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:21:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25ISwO05170; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:28:58 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25IOvO04616 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:24:57 -0500 Received: from new.agentzero.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA14671 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:22:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.123.193] (h0050e4251179.ne.client2.attbi.com [66.30.24.79]) by new.agentzero.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h25HP0mf020758; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:25:00 -0500 Message-Id: <200303051725.h25HP0mf020758@new.agentzero.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: Michael Marking , Asrg@ietf.org From: Jim Youll Subject: Re: [Asrg] filtering at connect time Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:24:11 -0500 At 8:40 -0800 3/5/03, Michael Marking wrote: >Not everyone has such a choice of internet providers. There are >still some places in the world with telco monopolies, and even >here in the US there are rural areas without many choices. And >why should I be required to use XYZ provider so I can get access >in one other country for a short vacation every year? I think if you were able to make arrangements for internet access, you must be conversant enough to read the config page and use the local SMTP server. >I know people who use those $9-a-month internet services quite >happily, but who might occasionally travel to places where they >are not available. Why should they pay twice as much for the >privilege of using a mail relay a few times a year? pop before smpt, no worries > > Source IP is still on there even with the most sloppy remailers these days. > >Not all applications require cryptographic levels of anonymity. >Maybe I just don't want to make it obvious to Customer X that >I am on good enough terms with Customer Y to use the latter's >SMTP server. (Perhaps Customer Y won't let me, anyway.) If you're trying to hide that kind of info, either get a VPN or a wireless client. That's an absurd justification for random open relays. ... not to mention that absent policy information, there's no way to demonstrate that an open relay is actually intended for your use at all... >There is a difference between the mail header saying the message >came from CustomerX.com and the mail header saying the message >came from IP address 192.168.1.1, especially if the IP address is >from a pool of dynamically assigned addresses. The level of >privacy required for some purposes is different from that required >for other purposes. You are totally missing the point that there is nothing added by embedding an open SMTP server in the middle of this process. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 13:22:23 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA19452 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:22:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25IX2L05510 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:33:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25IX2O05507 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:33:02 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA19366; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:21:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25ITiO05224; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:29:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25IOvO04619 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:24:57 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA14628 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:20:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2081955; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 12:22:36 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: "Alan DeKok" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] MTP drafty Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:50:12 -0500 At 7:01 PM -0500 3/4/03, Alan DeKok wrote: > Email from companies I already deal with is a tiny part of the spam >problem. Even if every company I did business sent me one spam a day, >the result would be less than 100 extra messages. Plus, I know where >they are, and can physically track them down and yell at them. Never underestimate the end-user's capability to not understand what they are doing. The things that we call spam, and our capability to deal with it, are *very* different from the average user. When we signed my father up for our alpha service, we discovered that he was reporting 90% of his email as spam. Looking it over it very quickly became obvious that he hadn't been unchecking all those little "do you want to receive email from us our our obscure affiliates" checkboxes when he bought stuff on the web. He didn't understand them or their consequences. (And in fact, neither would you or I, without going off and reading the details of their privacy agreements and discovering that this company has N affiliates who share it's information.) So why didn't he just unsubscribe? Because we've all been telling people for years not to use the unsubscribe links in spam. And he couldn't tell which were legit and which were not. A verified sender model would allow us to automatically fix this problem, by reliably allowing him to unsubscribe. Spam services or MUAs could use that information and present the option to the user. With legal backing, companies that ignored the request could be reported for abuse. Of course, confirmed opt-in would prevent the problem from occurring at all. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 13:23:21 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA19604 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:23:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25IY0h05656 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:34:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25IY0O05653 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:34:00 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA19548; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:22:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25IUUO05301; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:30:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25IOvO04622 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:24:57 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA14625 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:20:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2081953; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 12:22:35 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: Matt Sergeant From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Sender pays vs the third world Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:35:34 -0500 At 11:52 AM +0000 3/5/03, Matt Sergeant wrote: >I'm new on the list so forgive me if this has been mentioned already (the >archives don't seem complete). No kidding. I looked at the archives and thought, "Boy, this is low volume for a list about spam." Then I got today's email! >It seems to me that sender pays means the third world gets excluded from >email communication. Whether it's actual money or if it's just CPU cycles, >that model simply doesn't work for a group of people trying to communicate >effectively with "richer" nations. You might as well just use This is not an obviously solvable problem. What we love about email is that it allows anybody to communicate with anybody on an equal basis. Anyone who argues that we need to move to a sender-pays model is going to inherently screw with that beauty. To strike a balance, you need to move the bulk of the cost to bulk senders, and give the individuals a free ride. Spammers will, however, find ways around that. Even a system in which all email is "identified" doesn't prevent people from adopting multiple identities. In addition, spammers may elicit help of individuals (willingly or unwillingly). We've already seen some trojan spam software. And reportedly some "free" porn sites are asking their users to periodically type in the text that see in a graphic image--an image that they snarfed from the automatic signup for a free email account. (The irony of a computer enlisting the help of the distributed computing capabilities of human pattern recognition is lovely.) None of which is to say that we shouldn't use such a model. Merely that we need to figure out what the unintended consequences are, and whether the cost of the new model outweighs the cost of the consequences. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 13:24:18 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA19706 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:24:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25IYvU05883 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:34:57 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25IYvO05880 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:34:57 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA19670; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:23:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25IVkO05409; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:31:46 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25IOvO04628 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:24:57 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA14618 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:20:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2081950; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 12:22:31 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200303050840.ABJ06911@m1.imap-partners.net> References: <200303050840.ABJ06911@m1.imap-partners.net> To: "Raymie Stata" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Requirements for source tracking Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:17:59 -0500 At 12:39 AM -0800 3/5/03, Raymie Stata wrote: >Another dimension of the design space is the use of cryptographic >signatures versus DNS-mappings to authenticate domains and/or MTAs. >Rather than debate this issue in the context of specific proposals, it >may be worthwhile debating it at a more abstract level. > >I personally favor cryptographic approaches: I've just joined, and I did skim the archives first, but I may have missed this. What exactly is meant by DNS-mapping? Only allowing outbound mail with a given from domain from within that domain? I think that's clearly unworkable given how many people send mail "from" their primary address while using a secondary. (A situation aggravated by port 25 blocking and, more recently, port 25 hijacking, where the connection is transparently routed to the ISP's server.) Would you see cryptographic domain verification as being something where (for example) the sending client or initial MTA would verify the from domain by using some embedded cryptographic information in the message and comparing it to information retrieved from the domain server for that domain? Note that not all spammers use fake domains. We ran into one who was generating new domain names every week and using those. We were finally able to spot his spam reliably from the headers, but he didn't fail any domain forgery tests. One issue with verification techniques (and this comes from someone who normally signs all of his email--just waiting for the PGP Eudora plugin to come back), is that the next consequence will be trojans and viruses that steal the keys. Any system in this space should have a very simple mechanism for canceling and reissuing keys. Poor ease of use has always been a major factor in keeping signed email from wide deployment. (As attested by my previous comment about the Eudora plugin :-). -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 13:25:07 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA19807 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:25:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25IZkG05962 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:35:46 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25IZkO05957 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:35:46 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA19736; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:24:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25IWWO05466; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:32:32 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25IOwO04631 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:24:58 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA14651 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:20:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2081959; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 12:22:47 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: "David F. Skoll" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:21:18 -0500 At 9:03 AM -0500 3/5/03, David F. Skoll wrote: >1) Spammers want to send out lots of messages cheaply, and don't >particularly care if any one message gets through. Legitimate mass >mailers want all of their messages to get through. Actually that is different in theory than in practice. I have had technical support people at bulk mailer providers tell me that they are not allowed to prune bounces out of lists because marketing doesn't want to tell the customer that the list just shrank 25% (Not to mention that they are charging per-address, not per-delivered-message.) If they do that, the customer will take their business elsewhere, because they don't want to tell *their* boss that they don't have nearly as many contacts as they thought. They avoid confirmed opt-in for the same reason. If there were a substantial cost of delivery, or a legal cost for screwing up, this would change. Currently the cost of cleaning a list is greater than the cost of sending undeliverable mail or quietly unwanted mail; even for legitimate mailers. >2) This is just a hunch, but I bet it's true: Spammers probably have a >higher proportion of bad addresses on their lists than mass-mailers. We >can help ensure this by poisoning their lists with web pages of fake >addresses. Oh please. Not poisoning. Just what we wanted. More bandwidth use. Every one of those poisoned message gets an attempted delivery. Every one generates a bounce. Every bounce tries to go somewhere else. Have you ever been the return address on a spam mailing? You want to see your mail server go to its knees? Poisoning spam lists is just contributing to the spam-as-DoS problem. Please don't. And God-forbid your poisoner uses an address that is fake today, but real tomorrow. I don't trust anybody's idea of what kind of address is "fake". Why do you think somewhere.com bounced ten million messages last year? -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 13:26:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20015 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:26:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25IbGv06519 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:37:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25IbGO06516 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:37:16 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA19916; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:26:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25IY1O05703; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:34:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25IQKO04758 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:26:20 -0500 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA18801 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:15:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com [171.71.163.14]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h25IHAv2004160; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:17:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from CSCOAMERA19540.cisco.com (stealth-10-32-253-238.cisco.com [10.32.253.238]) by mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.1-GA) with SMTP id AES05760; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:11:59 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030305100842.03ffee38@mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com> X-Sender: fred@mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: "J. Noel Chiappa" From: Fred Baker Cc: "asrg@ietf.org" In-Reply-To: <200303051403.h25E35Lx012447@ginger.lcs.mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [Asrg] Re: More advertising crap Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 10:09:33 -0800 Interesting thought... At 09:03 AM 3/5/2003 -0500, J. Noel Chiappa wrote: >Huh: > > as e-mail in-boxes get jammed with junk e-mail, IM has become the most > reliable way to ensure that an electronic message receives priority > attention. > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30944-2003Mar2.html > >Can Junk I-M be far behind, then? > > Noel _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 13:28:12 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20197 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:28:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25IcpD06956 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:38:51 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25IcpO06953 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:38:51 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20143; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:27:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25IYpO05862; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:34:51 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25ITrO05239 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:29:53 -0500 Received: from new.agentzero.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA19084 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:18:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.123.193] (h0050e4251179.ne.client2.attbi.com [66.30.24.79]) by new.agentzero.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h25ILTmf022605; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:21:30 -0500 Message-Id: <200303051821.h25ILTmf022605@new.agentzero.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: Kee Hinckley , Michael Marking From: Jim Youll Subject: Re: [Asrg] desirable characteristics of source tracking Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:20:41 -0500 At 12:07 -0500 3/5/03, Kee Hinckley wrote: >At 7:20 AM -0800 3/5/03, Michael Marking wrote: >>Homeless people, human rights workers, members of abused >>social groups, etc should be able to send mail without >>establishing an "identity". (And intended recipients should >>be able to refuse such mail.) > >In many cases those people may want a reliable and verifiable >identity. They just don't necessarily want it traceable to a >physical person. This could be analogous to a self-signed >certificate vs. one from a bonded provider. Web mail services such as Hotmail provide a consistent (pseudonymous if desired) identity that's not bound to anything else. However, the source IP is still on there. I think this anonymity talk is a bit of a distraction to the fundamental discussion. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 13:39:57 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20846 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:39:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25Iobp07497 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:50:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25IoaO07494 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:50:36 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20747 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:39:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Ig0O07158; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:42:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25IZnO05980 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:35:49 -0500 Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA19744 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:24:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h25IQeA01723; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:26:40 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Moore To: Daniel Feenberg Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, jim@media.mit.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] filtering at connect time Message-Id: <20030305132640.29970329.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: References: <20030305103853.1d6ceb30.moore@cs.utk.edu> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:26:40 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I think a simple standard could eliminate the pain of changing smtp > hosts for each ISP used. the SUBMISSION protocol (basically SMTP on another port, but requiring authentication) is simpler than that. see RFC 2476. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 13:40:57 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20890 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:40:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25Ipau07552 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:51:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25IpaO07549 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:51:36 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20876 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:40:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25IglO07193; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:42:47 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Ia3O06023 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:36:03 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15047 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:27:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h25HTPd10642; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:29:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF4TH23; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:29:26 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id FSK7YZRR; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:29:26 -0500 Message-ID: <3E6634B9.5090807@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brad Templeton CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] definition of spam (was Re: consent expression) References: <20030304205916.56614a9f.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305040008.GB14655@main.templetons.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 12:32:41 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Brad Templeton wrote: > The purpose of a definition of spam is to use legal tactics against > it, typically in contract law, but also possibly in statute. But that's not what we're defining spam _here_ for. Here we merely need a rough working definition so that we know what we're talking about. Here, a rough working definition of "Unsolicited bulk email" is more than satisfactory and can help guide potential solutions. Because "unsolicited" and "bulk" is what is causing the problem we're seeing today. Whether your practise of sending out party invitations is "actionable spam" is quibbling about thresholds, and can be deferred to the point where we want to talk about "how much bulk" does the law step in at. Certainly, while it may be difficult for an individual recipient to determine the bulkishness of a specific email message, the spammer certainly does, and clearing houses (things similar to SpamCop) can, so can the law. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 13:56:03 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21707 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:56:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25J6hl08256 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:06:43 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25J6gO08253 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:06:42 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21675 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:55:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25J3CO08075; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:03:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25IicO07289 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:44:38 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20555 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:33:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18qYxr-0003gl-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 08:29:43 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Good versus bad (was Re: RMX Records ) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 04 Mar 2003 20:55:18 MST." <200303050355.h253tIVB009502@calcite.rhyolite.com> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 08:29:43 -0500 Vernon Schryver wrote: > > If my ISP is under serious attack from spammers, then some level of > > "good" mail will probably be thrown out with the spam. > > That's wrong, unless mail is a mere frill or recreation for you. It's also reality. The cost of getting 100% accuracy is prohibitive. > My personal set of filters have a false positive rate of much less > than 0.1% or about the normal failure rate of email. I thought that's what I was saying... > People whose livelihoods depend on mail cannot, will not, and do not > accept false positive rates above 1%. That you can talk about changing > the false positive rate by 2% brands you as outside that class. I agree completely. My false positive rate is zero. As is my false negative. As is the total amount of mail I receive at some domains. Filtering is a complete waste of time for some domains. It's simpler to give up, and walk away from the domain. If you can live with filtering, that's nice for you. But you should also realize that by some standards, you're not receiving any appreciable amount of spam. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 13:58:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21819 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:58:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25J9CS09127 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:09:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25J9CO09124 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:09:12 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21795 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:58:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25J4lO08152; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:04:47 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25IlIO07370 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:47:18 -0500 Received: from nycsmtp1out.rdc-nyc.rr.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20652 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:36:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from BOBDEV (66-108-193-77.nyc.rr.com [66.108.193.77]) by nycsmtp1out.rdc-nyc.rr.com (8.12.1/Road Runner SMTP Server 1.0) with ESMTP id h25Ic2k5012538 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:38:03 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: Message-ID: <002d01c2e346$600bff10$6401a8c0@BOBDEV> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h25IlIO07371 Subject: [Asrg] All mail is anonymous (and, therein lies much of the problem) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:38:11 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sometimes, the words we use to discuss a problem can have a big impact on the way we think about solving it. Often, it is observed that the "From" and other headers in mail messages can be easily forged. What this technical fact means, when translated into "Plain Speak" is that: All mail is anonymous... Since the headers are easily forged, this means that you can't "trust" anything said in the "From" header. Thus, even when someone sends an unforged From header, it provides essentially no useful information on its own. The best you can do with a "From" header on its own is "white-list" or "black-list" it. For instance, you may regularly communicate with someone named "Tom Jones" and you may know that you have not yet received spam from anyone forging the name "Tom Jones." Knowing this, you might have a policy of opening mail that comes from "Tom Jones." However, what you're doing here, at best, is playing the odds and relying on experience with the mail system rather than relying only on the message received. The "information" you get from the header isn't so much that it came from Tom Jones, but rather that the From field is not one that you have seen come from a spammer. The situation is much the same with postal mail. With postal mail, the only identification you have of a sender is what may appear on the envelope. However, as we learned well during the anthrax scare of last year, the 'return address' is essentially "information free" in that it contains no trustworthy information. Some might suggest that you can compare the return address to the cancellation on the stamp (such cancellations often identify the post office from which the mail was sent) however, a policy of always refusing mail whose return address didn't match the cancellation would not be a good one. Much mail comes without a cancellation (for instance, commercial mail) and often, someone will post a letter from a post office not local to the return address. There are, of course, some mail systems that do provide "trusted" From fields and headers. For instance, systems which rely on S/MIME or other PKI solutions. I know of no systems for sending postal mail with a verifiable return address. This business of "anonymous" FROM fields was one of the reasons why some folk objected to the conversion to SMTP back in the 80's. For instance, those of us using VMSmail or other Digital email systems (ALL-IN-1, etc.) had learned the hard way that FROM fields could be easily forged. This is why our mail systems included both a "FROM" and a "SENDER" field. The FROM field was provided by the author of the mail (or their client software) and was easily forged while the "SENDER" field was inserted by the mail server and identified the account that had been used to originate the email. The same approach was incorporated into X.400 mail, the ISO standard. While mail servers could still, of course, forge their entries, some level of increased trust results in such systems since there are simply fewer servers in the world and thus fewer potential message sources that need to be trusted. I believe that an important part of a comprehensive solution to the spam problem will be to provide effective and efficient methods for sending messages that are not anonymous. There are many known methods for doing this. All have positive and negative points. But, one of the known methods, or one that is yet to be described will need to be chosen before we have a comprehensive solution to the spam problem. bob wyman _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 14:00:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA21914 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:00:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25JB7X09286 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:11:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JB7O09283 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:11:07 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21896 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:59:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25J41O08114; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:04:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25IkCO07342 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:46:12 -0500 Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20610 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:35:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h25Ib3A01738; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:37:03 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Moore To: "Alan DeKok" Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Deprecating plain POP accounts Message-Id: <20030305133703.7a843f62.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: References: <20030305120839.63708d42.moore@cs.utk.edu> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:37:03 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > driving 200 miles per hour causes problems. submitting mail from > > random places on the net does not. > > I disagree completely, and I won't argue about it. SPAM is a DDoS > attack, originating from SMTP senders with random IP's. legitimate mail originates from random IPs also. > If getting rid of the "random SMTP sender" problem means that the > roaming user is required to use a home server, then that's fine. It > stops the spammer, and has little cost to the roaming user. no, it doesn't stop the spammer. it just makes life harder for legitimate users. just because spam is bad doesn't mean it's a good idea to impose any random and useless barrier on ordinary people's ability to send mail that someone comes up with. > > you have it backwards. authenticated smtp is a clean solution; > > tying identity to network location is a hack. > > Hmm.. I don't think I wanted to tie identity to network location. that's just what happens when you try to make IP addresses significant. > If a user from your domain is roaming, and wants to send email, I > don't see why it's *my* problem to authenticate him. you're not authenticating him in any event. source IP addresses are not authentication. and domains have nothing to do with IP addresses. > Then that looks like a pretty good solution to 99.9% of the spam > problem. only because you haven't thought it through. many spammers use throwaway accounts anyway. the fact that they are using their ISP's SMTP server to relay spam doesn't keep them from spamming. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 14:02:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA22027 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:02:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25JDHU09460 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:13:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JDHO09457 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:13:17 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA22014 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:02:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25J9rO09192; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:09:53 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25ImUO07412 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:48:30 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20693 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:37:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18qZ1Z-0003h1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 08:33:33 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] definition of spam (was Re: consent expression) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 05 Mar 2003 05:19:36 EST." <20030305051936.55246a31.moore@cs.utk.edu> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 08:33:33 -0500 Keith Moore wrote: > well, I'm uneasy with the term "consent" anyway. but part of the problem > may be that I don't know what the charter means by that. I agree completely. The charter is unclear to me, and I'm not sure it's even addressing the real issue (as I see it.) Some questions: - Did an ISP consent to have their router/proxy hacked, and used to source/relay spam? - did everyone else on the net consent to accept email from that router/proxy? - why is this sort of behaviour permitted in SMTP? Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 14:04:11 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA22100 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:04:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25JEpg09559 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:14:51 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JEpO09556 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:14:51 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA22075 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:03:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JBPO09320; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:11:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Ia4O06037 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:36:04 -0500 Received: from pfortin.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15076 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:27:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from gypsy.pfortin.com (gypsy [192.168.1.14]) by pfortin.com (Postfix) with SMTP id EFFED13B8B for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:31:36 -0500 (EST) From: Pierre Fortin To: asrg@ietf.org Message-Id: <20030305122941.32fb1f47.pf@pfortin.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10claws81 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] new to the list... Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:29:41 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, I'm new to this list; but I've been quietly fighting spam for some time on my domains. As a form of introduction, here is what I'm doing to fight spam, and a simple idea for reducing the spoofed IP attempts. I realize much may already have been discussed here; but, trying to read the archives was just too painful, so I decided to jump right in... :> Yesterday, got 3 failed attempts and no spam... so my anti-spam measures seem to be working so far. My general feelings are that spammers will not follow any rules, except those they can't circumvent. So, it's up to me to force the spam attempts through a mine-field before a message can even start to be delivered... any legit mailers that get caught are usually resolved by convincing the user/ISP to correct their configs... yes, it *does* work -- sometimes, a penalty for not correcting when sufficiently warned is required... :^) My main defenses are: 0. I turn *some* delivery failures into a bounce to the registered owner of the domain (in one case, the bounces went to the providing telco -- boy did that one stop fast... :^). Bouncing is only done as a last resort -- today, I do this with @21cn.com and @cyberproxy.com. Interestingly, the latter sent me a couple of msgs claiming that the source was really in Madrid, Spain with a bogus "that's where we've tracked it to" -- yet, since implementing my counter-measure, the IP spoofed checker@cyberproxy.com attempts have virtually stopped... :> 1. sender must be in DNS -- including reverse lookup Large companies like Ameritrade and BellSouth have corrected this, though slowly, when I used step #0 on them... :> 2. EHLO/HELO must match 3. valid userids must be used; no long number, etc. 4. using *my* IP/hostname in EHLO/HELO gets bounced with a nasty 550 response. 5. changed default 450 responses to 550 -- this greatly reduced the retries. 6. rare spam that makes it through now is usually from some DSL user in .br 7. probably an average of once a week now, my mailer queries an RBL. 8. fixed (non-spoofed) IP addresses which won't give up are a very short list here: 211.154.65.253 is the only one permanently blocked in my iptables 9. use of pop-before-smtp Probably other means that escape me at the moment; but I don't use any spam filters which work on mail already delivered... I no longer see false-positives for me and my users, except those who fail the above tests... usually, the senders or their ISPs fix their DNS/mailhost_name problems... I have my postfix setup to email me with information on every delivery failure -- this is currently quite manageable, though a bit of hell for a while... even the cron daily failure reports (scanning of logs) are now very short. Now that I've said this, some scumbag will try to swamp me... :> Looking forward to some *simple* solutions to the spam problem... Something I've been thinking about relates to IP spoofers... in those cases, the spammer simply continues to blindly send -- it just gets rejected anyway... I'm wondering about some "challenge" that any and all spammer implementations would not be able to get around... one idea I'm wondering about is this: what if my mailer did a temporary (one packet) partial close of the TCP window (down to some small non-zero value) forcing the sender to respect it. Failure to do so, would indicate either a blind spoofer or broken stack... either way, resulting in an immediate FIN. Anyway, just wanted to throw in my experiences to date which are quite simple, yet quite successful... HTH, Pierre (retired) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 14:04:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA22125 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:04:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25JF9I09583 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:15:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JF8O09580 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:15:08 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA22084 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:03:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JAeO09267; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:10:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Ia4O06032 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:36:04 -0500 Received: from emu.st (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA14805 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:25:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 96555 invoked by uid 1015); 5 Mar 2003 17:27:43 -0000 Delivered-To: qmda-intercept-asrg@ietf.org@intercept Comments: QMDA 0.1 - see http://www.geocities.com/mark_delany/qmda.html Received: (qmail 40703 invoked from network); 5 Mar 2003 17:27:42 -0000 Received: from prefix-internal.emu.st (HELO emu.st) (10.100.100.36) by f1-external.emu.st with SMTP; 5 Mar 2003 17:27:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 26215 invoked by uid 1001); 5 Mar 2003 17:27:42 -0000 Message-ID: <20030305172742.26214.qmail@prefix.emu.st> From: "Mark Delany" Mail-Followup-To: asrg@ietf.org To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal References: <200303051523.h25FNx7p019253@calcite.rhyolite.com> <3E662207.5060604@americasm01.nt.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: ; from dfs@roaringpenguin.com on Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 11:47:57AM -0500 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 5 Mar 2003 17:27:42 +0000 On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 11:47:57AM -0500, David F. Skoll allegedly wrote: > > Sorry, wrong. All bad address removal requires is spamware that > > understands SMTP error codes. No reverse channel of any kind required. > > Unless your recipient is running MS Exchange: > > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;304897 > > or happens to have a Yahoo or AOL account (Yahoo and AOL do not fail > bad addresses at RCPT time.) Really, did you check? telnet mailin-01.mx.aol.com smtp Trying 64.12.136.57... Connected to mailin-01.mx.aol.com. Escape character is '^]'. 220-rly-xa03.mx.aol.com ESMTP mail_relay_in-xa3.3; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 12:15:05 -0500 220-America Online (AOL) and its affiliated companies do not 220- authorize the use of its proprietary computers and computer 220- networks to accept, transmit, or distribute unsolicited bulk 220 e-mail sent from the internet. helo example.com 250 rly-xa03.mx.aol.com OK mail from: 250 OK rcpt to: 550 MAILBOX NOT FOUND Not quite at RCPT time, but certainly at SMTP time, which is the same effect as far as this discussion is concerned: telnet mx1.mail.yahoo.com smtp Trying 64.157.4.82... Connected to mx1.mail.yahoo.com. Escape character is '^]'. 220 YSmtp mta418.mail.yahoo.com ESMTP service ready mail from: 250 sender ok rcpt to: 250 recipient ok data 354 go ahead subject: reject me . 554 delivery error: dd This user doesn't have a yahoo.com account (idontexist4567@yahoo.com) [0] - mta418.mail.yahoo.com Besides, low frequency list checking is already routinely done these days. So low that it can, does, and will keep smart spammers out of any radar detection you want to set up. It's also so low that they can deal with bounces. Eg, my vanity domain gets address probes about twice a day, every day. It's not enough to say how do we stop spam today, it has to be how do we stop the evolution of smart, viral, motivated spammers. Your suggestion makes them evolve to do more list-cleaning. Doesn't sound like an insurmountable hurdle to me. Regards. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 14:04:55 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA22157 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:04:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25JFZP09632 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:15:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JFZO09629 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:15:35 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA22119 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:04:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JCCO09385; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:12:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25IbQO06688 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:37:26 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA19954 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:26:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18qYqt-0003gY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 08:22:31 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 04 Mar 2003 21:46:33 EST." Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 08:22:31 -0500 "David F. Skoll" wrote: > Automatic filters will get you so far, maybe up to 90-98% accuracy, > depending on which filter you use and what your mail mix looks like. Automatic filters only work if you're not receiving any significant amount of spam. If you're receiving 100K+ spams a day, then the machines to run the filters cost a fair amount of money. Not everyone can afford to spend $10K on a mailer instead of $2K, just to get legitimate mail through. With the spam volume Chris Lewis is saying Nortel gets, I'd be surprised if their infrastructure costs were less than $100K. Large companies can afford that. Small ones can't. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 14:05:55 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA22218 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:05:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25JGZH09679 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:16:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JGYO09676 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:16:34 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA22196 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:05:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JCxO09434; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:12:59 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25IcFO06921 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:38:15 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20111 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:27:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (ebola [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.localdomain (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h25IcD0q001174 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:38:13 -0800 Received: (from peter@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h25IcD7X001172; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:38:13 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: localhost.localdomain: peter set sender to octavian@corp.earthlink.net using -f From: "Peter A. Friend" To: Asrg In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.8 (1.0.8-10) Message-Id: <1046889493.1124.7.camel@ebola> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Re: False Positives Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 05 Mar 2003 10:38:13 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 05:49, David F. Skoll wrote: > Spam does not really cost ISP's anything except bandwidth and storage. > They don't care (nor should they) if their end-users are less productive; > that's a worry only for companies. Not quite: 1. SA fight spammers literally ALL DAY LONG. Null routes sometimes are the only thing that will shut a spammer up for a while. 2. The bulk of incoming MX hardware is there because of the massive cycles that merely accepting connections from spammers incurs. 3. Spammers can potentially delay delivery of valid mail my tying up all MX resources until the server detects them and spanks them, or an SA detects them and spanks them. 4. Spam takes up a lot of disk space. One may think that disk space is cheap, and it is. But, depending on what kind of network attached storage you use, and how you store your mail, having the spam just sitting on those disks reduces performance for valid mail. 5. Customer complaints 6. Customer churn (I get too much spam at this ISP) 7. Development resources tied up adding new ways to fight spammers instead of adding new features. 8. Good SAs that sit there and fight spam all day cost a lot of money. I could probably go on for days... ;-) Peter _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 14:06:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA22249 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:06:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25JHKI09710 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:17:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JHKO09707 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:17:20 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA22241 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:06:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JDkO09502; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:13:46 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25IcqO06969 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:38:52 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20144 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:27:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h25IGiZ29932; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:16:44 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: Chris Lewis Cc: Brad Templeton , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] definition of spam (was Re: consent expression) Message-ID: <20030305181644.GM14655@main.templetons.com> References: <20030304205916.56614a9f.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305040008.GB14655@main.templetons.com> <3E6634B9.5090807@americasm01.nt.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E6634B9.5090807@americasm01.nt.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:16:44 -0800 On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:32:41PM -0500, Chris Lewis wrote: > Brad Templeton wrote: > >The purpose of a definition of spam is to use legal tactics against > >it, typically in contract law, but also possibly in statute. > > But that's not what we're defining spam _here_ for. Here we merely > need a rough working definition so that we know what we're talking > about. > > Here, a rough working definition of "Unsolicited bulk email" is more > than satisfactory and can help guide potential solutions. Because > "unsolicited" and "bulk" is what is causing the problem we're seeing > today. So long as any proposed protocol change doesn't have to say things like, "If it meets our definition of spam, it must be tagged as thus, or the user's consent must be confirmed." I agree, and am happy to move on to the next issue. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 14:12:59 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA22496 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:12:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25JNcv10079 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:23:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JNbO10076 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:23:37 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA22473 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:12:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JK4O09888; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:20:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25J4LO08117 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:04:21 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21586 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:53:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h25It7AV010854; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:55:07 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h25Iq2sT011685 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:52:02 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h25Iq2vh011683; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:52:02 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Alan DeKok Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Deprecating plain POP accounts Message-ID: <20030305185202.GA11412@danisch.de> References: <20030305104302.GA3979@danisch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:52:02 +0100 On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 06:35:38AM -0500, Alan DeKok wrote: > Hadmut Danisch wrote: > > The reason is simple: It's mainly the POP account. > > > > People need to exchange e-mail from virtually anywhere, > > whether from home with a dynamically allocated IP address, > > of from any phone plug in a hotel right in the middle of nowhere, > > with an IP address of any local ISP. That's OK, I agree with that. > > I do it the same way. > > Let me re-phrase that: > > "People need to be able to send email from anywhere, to anyone, > using any email address they choose." No. You re-phrase it to the opposite. I said: exchange from anywhere with any IP address. I didn't say "send" in the context of SMTP. And I didn't say send to anybody. I meant: Exchange e-mail with my home mail hub to download incoming mail and to upload outgoing mail. No IP traffic with any other machine at all, so the local IP address doesn't matter in any way. > > - Many ISPs deny to support their clients in mail delivery. Many do. And other's will follow once symmetry is defined as a standard. > > - Even if they do, most clients deny to use it. Most clients don't deny it, they just don't use it because they don't know it. No denial, just poor configuration. > > - Instead, clients insist on directly deliver their email > > to the world through SMTP without any authorization/authentication. > > Too bad. I can't drive 200 MPH on city streets, much as I may like > to. Huh? What are you talking about??? > There are technical solutions to this problem. Authenticated SMTP > exists, and should be used. Yes, but how does that fit to your former statement? Maybe you're confusing authenticated SMTP a little bit? Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 14:16:57 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA22787 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:16:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25JRZF10586 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:27:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JRZO10583 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:27:35 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA22727 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:16:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JO5O10131; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:24:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JD8O09450 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:13:08 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA22008 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:01:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h25J40G30821; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:04:00 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: Michael Marking Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] filtering at connect time Message-ID: <20030305190400.GR14655@main.templetons.com> References: <200303051532.h25FWrmf016946@new.agentzero.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:04:00 -0800 On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 07:58:26AM -0800, Michael Marking wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > > I'm not sure why open relays are useful now... don't all networks/ISPs > > have local SMTP servers these days? > > Some ISPs restrict use of their servers to those who have dialed in > from the ISP's own networks. Therefore, if you are a customer of ISP > X travelling away from home, you may not have access to that ISP's > SMTP servers. Even if you make arrangements to use a different ISP > while travelling, you may find when you arrive that the system doesn't > work (which can be very frustrating if you don't speak the language of > the country you are visiting). Worse, thanks to the efforts of us (well, the anti-spam community) there are now ISPs that don't allow you to use their outgoing SMTP server with an e-mail address that is not in their domain. Pain in the butt, and a great example of something that does more damage to the utility of the open e-mail system than it does to stop spam. I don't know if they have combined port 25 block/redirect with "force you to use our domain" but that's coming next I fear. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 14:18:18 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA22933 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:18:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25JSum10803 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:28:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JSuO10800 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:28:56 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA22897 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:17:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JOqO10209; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:24:52 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JE3O09518 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:14:03 -0500 Received: from net-graphics.nl (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA22045 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:02:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from alex2.net-graphics.lan [192.168.1.10] by net-graphics.nl [192.168.1.110] with SMTP (MDaemon.PRO.v5.0.5.R) for ; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 20:04:44 +0100 From: Alex Curvers To: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1046891083.1460.11.camel@alex2.net-graphics.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-MDRemoteIP: 192.168.1.10 X-Return-Path: curvers@net-graphics.nl X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: asrg@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] well is this a good idea ?! Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 05 Mar 2003 20:04:43 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hey I was hoping to get some response from you people, on the following post, Im working on a smtp like program, but it doesnt handle mail. It just acts like its a smtp server. If a spammer will use it to relay bulk email through. My program will blacklist the spammer. Im halfway finished with the program, if it would be widely distributed and used. It would make it difficult for spammers to hide their ip by using open relays. Every open relay could then be a trap. I would like some feedback and some help testing the program. This is a good idea right ?! -- Alex Curvers _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 14:18:21 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA22946 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:18:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25JT0W10821 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:29:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JT0O10818 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:29:00 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA22917 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:17:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JPcO10272; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:25:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JEHO09524 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:14:17 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA22049 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:03:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h25J57kA011024; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 20:05:07 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h25J2wsT011842 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 5 Mar 2003 20:02:58 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h25J2wK8011840; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 20:02:58 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Alan DeKok Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Deprecating plain POP accounts Message-ID: <20030305190257.GC11412@danisch.de> References: <20030305120839.63708d42.moore@cs.utk.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 20:02:58 +0100 On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 07:27:47AM -0500, Alan DeKok wrote: > > If getting rid of the "random SMTP sender" problem means that the > roaming user is required to use a home server, then that's fine. It > stops the spammer, and has little cost to the roaming user. It's even better than having "little costs": It it cheaper than delivering directly. I'm doing it this way for several years now and it proved to be much better than direct SMTP delivery. When I dial in with my notebook, it opens a uucp over ssl connection to my home server, to download incoming mail and to upload outgoing mail. Since I use bsmtp, the mail is compressed. It has those benefits: - Single action to down- and upload all messages queued on both machines. Only a single TCP connection required. - Much faster than SMTP due to the compression - Always fully encrypted, no chance for eavesdroppers - Works without DNS - doesn't need to wait for other SMTP relays to be available - doesn't need to wait for other SMTP releays to positively reply a DATA command which can take several minutes - Home server is always connected to the internet and automatically tries to resend the message if the receiving relay is unavailable or answered a 4xy code. So having a central home hub does not even cause only little costs, it is much better, cheaper, faster, and more effective than direct SMTP delivery. Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 14:20:08 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23016 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:20:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25JUkN10959 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:30:46 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JUkO10956 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:30:46 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23004 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:19:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JRIO10541; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:27:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25IpJO07542 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:51:19 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20868 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:40:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h25Ig5H30337; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:42:05 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: "Eric S. Johansson" Cc: Brad Templeton , Shannon Jacobs , Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Economic model is borken. (sic.) Let's fix it Message-ID: <20030305184205.GN14655@main.templetons.com> References: <005501c2e2ac$2b43c870$0100a8c0@ymtshanen> <20030305022115.GN7500@main.templetons.com> <3E662A25.1030408@harvee.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E662A25.1030408@harvee.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:42:05 -0800 On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 11:47:33AM -0500, Eric S. Johansson wrote: > a) you can get there from here. You just need to use a mixture of > techniques > in order to deal with unstamped mail. The only reason you are going to add stamps to your mail is if your mail is getting rejected due to lack of stamps and you are getting notified of it (postage due noticies.) You might add cpu-stamps over time if they are installed by default in a new MUA you bring in for other reasons, and you don't turn off the stamp option. Deployment of such would take many years unless Microsoft and Qualcomm were willing to agree to it. So effectively it is a precondition that people are bouncing (postage-due) your mail. And some people would be willing to do that, but I'm not. The reason is, that if I sent you a mail where I thought I was doing you a favour with the mail (and this is true in much of the mail I send to strangers, and I got back a note that said: I will not read your mail until you: a) Get some new software for your MUA or a whole new MUA b) Mail me the magic token from that software c) (with real money) pay money to get that token Well, my answer would be to say screw you. I try to send you a message as a courtesy to you, or just to reply to a message you posted to a mailing list, and I get back a demand like this? I am going to leave it in the dust. And while you might have whitelisted the asrg mailing list when I joined it, you didn't whitelist me if I'm a lurker and responding to your question on the mailing list. Now as far as I know, I wrote the first challenge/response spam blocker 6 years ago, so I've been running tools like these longer than anybody else. All my tool asks for is any reply at all. Some newer ones ask for just a click on a web link. And even then, not all real mailers reply to the message. Some have broken MUAs. Some probably get annoyed. At this point it's very few, though, though earlier on it was around one a week. But if we can't get 100% with a simple demand for any reply at all to the challenge, to prove there is a human there, what rate can we expect for a demand they get new software? > c) yup. It's a trade-off True -- and in keeping with principles, we want the "least restrictive means" so if we can think of better means, that do not have as much violation of the principles of open mail we value (or used to value), we should follow them. Indeed, the goal of a project like this should be to examine many different approaches, and pick the one with the best combination of breaking open-email the least, and stopping sufficient spam to restore the usefulnes of our mailboxes. Save the village without destroying it. > d) The free speech implications are less than filters. If you > generate a I agree, but that's like saying Saddam is better than bin Ladin. My personal conclusion after much research is I would like to see no interference at all with individual, person to person e-mail. I'm willing to put burdens on bulk mail to attain that, though clearly there is a balance where we might sway the other way with the right results. I conclude this because everybody on the internet uses person to person e-mail, but I would expect that only a very small fraction host a mailing list above, say, 200 people. Now, stamps -- if they could be deployed everywhere by fiat -- do in fact have that attribute. That's why I was one of their earliest advocates in the unix community. The problem remains in the deployment. > e) not anymore. Strangers pay, friends fly free. Mailing lists > are your > friends (if you signed up for them) That's how I did my system too, though it takes a bit of work to implement detection of subscribe requests. I ended up using a much simpler solution. I have addresses that are open and those that use my spam tools. I send out mail under open addresses -- replies don't even have to bother with the filtering. I post to public places using addresses that use the tools. This has holes but was a quick and effective solution for a while. There is also the problem of the mailing lists you were already on when you start the system. Perhaps you saved mail so this can be detected. > f) I'm not sure I understand the virus problem. I'll take a look > at your > paper and see if it gives a better explanation. This applies only if real money is involved. Any system which allows your computer to spend a small amount of money (like 50 cents) in an irrepudiable way without getting your consent is a prime target for a virus writer, who would get millions of such stamps mailed to his throwaway account in the caymans. You can fix this if the stamps are repudiable, but you need to stop the spammers from repudiating theirs. > > I'm currently working on a paper describing the 12+- properties I > think an antispam system should have. I'll publish it in the next > few days. I've done such though I should gather it all in one place. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 14:20:50 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23072 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:20:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25JVSO11035 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:31:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JVSO11032 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:31:28 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23032 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:20:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JS4O10686; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:28:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25IqjO07587 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:52:45 -0500 Received: from malasada.lava.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20926 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:41:34 -0500 (EST) Received: by malasada.lava.net (Postfix, from userid 102) id 800E1179FE4; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:43:37 -1000 (HST) From: Clifton Royston To: Fred Baker Cc: "J. Noel Chiappa" , "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: More advertising crap Message-ID: <20030305084337.A4523@lava.net> References: <200303051403.h25E35Lx012447@ginger.lcs.mit.edu> <5.2.0.9.2.20030305100842.03ffee38@mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030305100842.03ffee38@mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com>; from fred@cisco.com on Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 10:09:33AM -0800 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:43:37 -1000 On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 10:09:33AM -0800, Fred Baker wrote: > Interesting thought... > > At 09:03 AM 3/5/2003 -0500, J. Noel Chiappa wrote: > >Huh: > > > > as e-mail in-boxes get jammed with junk e-mail, IM has become the most > > reliable way to ensure that an electronic message receives priority > > attention. > > > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30944-2003Mar2.html > > > >Can Junk I-M be far behind, then? Ask people who use IM a lot - it's already here, though still at a relatively low volume. There are also people spamming via the "Windows Popup" messages that many Windows systems will respond to. -- Clifton -- Clifton Royston -- LavaNet Systems Architect -- cliftonr@lava.net "If you ride fast enough, the Specialist can't catch you." "What's the Specialist?" Samantha says. "The Specialist wears a hat," says the babysitter. "The hat makes noises." She doesn't say anything else. Kelly Link, _The Specialist's Hat_ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 14:21:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23127 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:21:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25JWDg11107 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:32:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JWDO11104 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:32:13 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23091 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:21:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JSpO10790; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:28:51 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25IwIO07832 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:58:18 -0500 Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21325 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:47:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h25IiDA01748; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:44:13 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Moore To: "Chris Lewis" Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] definition of spam (was Re: consent expression) Message-Id: <20030305134413.2988c5b7.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <3E6635FC.9060003@americasm01.nt.com> References: <20030304205916.56614a9f.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305040008.GB14655@main.templetons.com> <20030304234928.5485710d.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305051840.GI14655@main.templetons.com> <20030305051936.55246a31.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305062722.3d36f607.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305085043.700fb87a.moore@cs.utk.edu> <3E6635FC.9060003@americasm01.nt.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:44:13 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > But at the conceptual level, being able to express and enforce > _somehow_: > > Any consent has to be given from the receipient to the sender, > and should be non-transferable and revokable at any time. > > is critical. no, I think that's a non-starter. oh I suppose people can impose such constraints if they wish, but it basically means they'll never get any mail from somebody they don't know, because they have no way to give them consent. at the very least, let's recognize that the kind of consent you are talking about is different than a recipient giving consent to the mail system to do filtering on a recipient's behalf. and as I read the charter, it's talking about the latter. Ketih _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 14:23:06 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23282 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:23:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25JXjN11239 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:33:45 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JXiO11236 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:33:44 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23210 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:22:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JTbO10885; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:29:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25IxhO07875 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:59:43 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA21374 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:48:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 22457 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2003 18:48:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.2.100.178?) (10.2.100.178) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 4 Mar 2003 18:48:54 -0000 From: Matt Sergeant X-X-Sender: matt@localhost.localdomain To: Fred Baker cc: "J. Noel Chiappa" , "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: More advertising crap In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030305100842.03ffee38@mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:03:15 +0000 (GMT) On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Fred Baker wrote: > At 09:03 AM 3/5/2003 -0500, J. Noel Chiappa wrote: > >Huh: > > > > as e-mail in-boxes get jammed with junk e-mail, IM has become the most > > reliable way to ensure that an electronic message receives priority > > attention. > > > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30944-2003Mar2.html > > > >Can Junk I-M be far behind, then? It's already here. If you're on ICQ it's a nightmare as your user id is a ten digit number. Easy to guess and generate. Same for SMS. AIM is a little harder because it's letters and numbers, but I suspect it can't be too far behind. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 14:23:07 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23295 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:23:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25JXks11255 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:33:46 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JXkO11252 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:33:46 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23214 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:22:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JUNO10947; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:30:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25J0AO07915 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:00:10 -0500 Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21386 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:48:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h25Ip2A01759; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:51:02 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Moore To: "Sauer, Damon" Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Multiple Suggestions Message-Id: <20030305135102.4f0b3cc4.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D53F@bremocag> References: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D53F@bremocag> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:51:02 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > If they don't do it already, legitimate ISP's should close port 25. I understand why ISPs do this, but it's a Bad Thing. My home ISP blocks port 25. As a result, I can't debug problems with email from home. We need to be providing better ways of solving this problem so that the Internet can stay transparent. The last thing I want is for my ISP to be deciding what kind of traffic I can send to and from my own machines. (as if port number were a reliable indication of that anyway...) > Charge for overuse of SMTP, over a certain level, for commercial > email. if ISPs charge for SMTP then they have even more incentive to harbor spammers. > A DNS type addition would be very helpful. > Spammer connects as [196.68.1.12](example address only) and says > "mail > from: mom@momandpop.com" > Currently doing a reverse lookup or momandpop.com would show receiving > SMTP servers but not authorized sending servers. 196.68.1.12 shows up > as a valid address but is in no way associated with momandpop.com. it's perfectly legitimate to send mail through other servers. mobile users need to do this quite often. let's just say I'm glad you are not my ISP. it's abuse like this that illustrate just how important it is to let any ISP sell DSL over the LEC's phone lines. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 14:24:25 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23408 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:24:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25JZ4Q11390 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:35:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JZ4O11387 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:35:04 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23366 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:23:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JV9O11021; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:31:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25J0pO07935 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:00:51 -0500 Received: from chimta01.algx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21445 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:49:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from JHS ([67.92.23.74]) by chimmx01.algx.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.10 (built Jan 23 2003)) with SMTP id <0HBA005G5HQ74L@chimmx01.algx.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 12:51:44 -0600 (CST) From: Jason Hihn Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: More advertising crap In-reply-to: <5.2.0.9.2.20030305100842.03ffee38@mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 13:51:43 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT It's already here. ICQ has this problem. Fortunately there are some measures you can do to limit it, and ICQ never got that popular. I'm more worried about SMS spam - some people actually pay per text message, or have a limit then per-pay! -----Original Message----- From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Fred Baker Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 1:10 PM To: J. Noel Chiappa Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] Re: More advertising crap Interesting thought... At 09:03 AM 3/5/2003 -0500, J. Noel Chiappa wrote: >Huh: > > as e-mail in-boxes get jammed with junk e-mail, IM has become the most > reliable way to ensure that an electronic message receives priority > attention. > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30944-2003Mar2.html > >Can Junk I-M be far behind, then? > > Noel _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 14:25:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23460 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:25:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25JZuf11446 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:35:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JZuO11443 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:35:56 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23432 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:24:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JVuO11090; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:31:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25J7PO08952 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:07:25 -0500 Received: from relay07.indigo.ie (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA21727 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:56:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 14355 messnum 1029147 invoked from network[194.125.172.83/ts12-083.dublin.indigo.ie]); 5 Mar 2003 18:58:15 -0000 Received: from ts12-083.dublin.indigo.ie (HELO jmason.org) (194.125.172.83) by relay07.indigo.ie (qp 14355) with SMTP; 5 Mar 2003 18:58:15 -0000 Received: by jmason.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 3016A16F16; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:57:56 +0000 (GMT) Received: from jmason.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 129B0F721; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:57:56 +0000 (GMT) To: "David F. Skoll" Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal In-Reply-To: Message from "David F. Skoll" of "Wed, 05 Mar 2003 12:15:22 EST." From: jm@jmason.org (Justin Mason) X-GPG-Key-Fingerprint: 0A48 2D8B 0B52 A87D 0E8A 6ADD 4137 1B50 6E58 EF0A X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to . Message-Id: <20030305185756.3016A16F16@jmason.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 18:57:51 +0000 David F. Skoll said: > On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > > No, by your own numbers, that's empirically suggested for only 20% of spam. > > A cheap test that stops 20% of spam is good. Yes. *Very* few tests supported by SpamAssassin get rates that high with few FPs. --j. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 14:26:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23514 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:26:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25JbEI11820 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:37:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JbDO11809 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:37:13 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23505 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:26:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JXOO11215; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:33:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25J9GO09140 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:09:16 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21800 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:58:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h25J05jX010942; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 20:00:05 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h25ItksT011756 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:55:46 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h25Itk7w011754; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:55:46 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Raymie Stata Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Deprecating plain POP accounts Message-ID: <20030305185546.GB11412@danisch.de> References: <200303051553.ABJ09007@m1.imap-partners.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200303051553.ABJ09007@m1.imap-partners.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:55:46 +0100 On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 07:51:54AM -0800, Raymie Stata wrote: > Using the vocabulary from my previous message, I believe Hadmut > Danisch is arguing as follows. He's agreeing that sender domain > tracking is desireable, but at the same time he thinks that > MTA-chaing tracking is more practical. By requiring all mail from a > domain D to be injected via an MTA blessed by domain D, MTA-chain > tracking achieves sender-domain tracking. So he's asking, why not > impose such a requirement? Exactly. That's it. :-) > My only concern is this. Networks often block outgoing connections > to port 25 (and for good reason). Pop-before-smtp and/or > authenticated smtp don't help with this problem. How do we deal with > this problem? Maybe requiring smtp-over-SSL in these situations will > work (most MUAs seem to support this now). However, this solution > assumes most "ISP-like" networks will allow port 925 traffic to go > out, I don't have 1st-hand experience, perhaps even this won't work. I didn't understand what you wanted to say. Where exactly do you see a problem? regards Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 14:27:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23564 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:27:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25JcCY12413 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:38:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JcBO12410 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:38:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23535 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:27:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JYAO11324; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:34:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JAMO09218 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:10:22 -0500 Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21858 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:59:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h25IwOA01768; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:58:24 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Moore To: "Chris Lewis" Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, brad@templetons.com, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] definition of spam (was Re: consent expression) Message-Id: <20030305135824.46f5b0e7.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <3E6634B9.5090807@americasm01.nt.com> References: <20030304205916.56614a9f.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305040008.GB14655@main.templetons.com> <3E6634B9.5090807@americasm01.nt.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:58:24 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Here, a rough working definition of "Unsolicited bulk email" is more > than satisfactory disagree. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 14:27:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23580 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:27:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25JcIJ12434 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:38:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JcIO12431 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:38:18 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23543 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:27:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JYuO11371; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:34:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JBkO09336 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:11:46 -0500 Received: from aismtp1g.bellsouth.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA21931 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:00:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from 01AL10015010060.ad.bls.com ([90.152.5.135] [90.152.5.135]) by aismtp1g.bellsouth.com with ESMTP; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:02:47 -0500 Received: by 01al10015010060.ad.bls.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:02:38 -0500 Message-Id: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D545@bremocag> From: "Sauer, Damon" To: "'Keith Moore'" , "Sauer, Damon" Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Multiple Suggestions MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:02:28 -0500 -----Original Message----- From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore@cs.utk.edu] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 1:51 PM To: Sauer, Damon Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu; asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Multiple Suggestions > If they don't do it already, legitimate ISP's should close port 25. I understand why ISPs do this, but it's a Bad Thing. My home ISP blocks port 25. As a result, I can't debug problems with email from home. --- Considering debugging a major issue in not allowing a closed port 25? I believe that this could be simply resolved with an internal only server. It is not a insurmountable problem, just a technical one. We need to be providing better ways of solving this problem so that the Internet can stay transparent. The last thing I want is for my ISP to be deciding what kind of traffic I can send to and from my own machines. (as if port number were a reliable indication of that anyway...) > Charge for overuse of SMTP, over a certain level, for commercial > email. if ISPs charge for SMTP then they have even more incentive to harbor spammers. ---- But easier to identify. Also, at this point you have destroyed the reason why there is so much spam... because it truly costs next to nothing. > A DNS type addition would be very helpful. > Spammer connects as [196.68.1.12](example address only) and says > "mail > from: mom@momandpop.com" > Currently doing a reverse lookup or momandpop.com would show receiving > SMTP servers but not authorized sending servers. 196.68.1.12 shows up > as a valid address but is in no way associated with momandpop.com. it's perfectly legitimate to send mail through other servers. mobile users need to do this quite often. --- Sure it is, if you are connected to another service through a dialup, the sending email should be able to be relayed to the "home" server for delivery. (A part that I missed in my explanation, I apologize for the oversight ) let's just say I'm glad you are not my ISP. it's abuse like this that illustrate just how important it is to let any ISP sell DSL over the LEC's phone lines. --- Keith, my ideas are my own and in no way reflect the position of my employer. This is why I have not referenced their name at all. I was truly hoping that the criticisms to this email would be constructive and ideas that build upon other ideas. I did not take your remarks as constructive at all and I hope that you can possibly value add in further discussions. Keith ***** "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers." _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 14:28:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23623 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:28:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25JdMQ12518 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:39:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JdMO12515 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:39:22 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23611 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:28:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Ja4O11526; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:36:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JLdO10005 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:21:39 -0500 Received: from zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA22377 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:10:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (zcard307.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h25JCUP10457 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:12:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDFBDDNA; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:12:31 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id FSK7YZ47; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:12:31 -0500 Message-ID: <3E664CE2.1000105@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal References: <200303051523.h25FNx7p019253@calcite.rhyolite.com> <3E662207.5060604@americasm01.nt.com> <20030305172742.26214.qmail@prefix.emu.st> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 14:15:46 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mark Delany wrote: > On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 11:47:57AM -0500, David F. Skoll allegedly wrote: >>or happens to have a Yahoo or AOL account (Yahoo and AOL do not fail >>bad addresses at RCPT time.) > Really, did you check? That's what I thought too. MSN doesn't check. Unless they've changed in the past week or two... I have the spam blowback to prove it. So does Steve Linford ;-) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 14:29:23 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23669 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:29:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25Je1g12589 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:40:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Je1O12586 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:40:01 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23641 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:28:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JamO11578; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:36:48 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JNnO10092 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:23:49 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA22481 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:12:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h25JEed19706 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:14:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF4TJ0R; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:14:40 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id FSK7YZ49; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:14:40 -0500 Message-ID: <3E664D63.3010707@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal References: <200303051523.h25FNx7p019253@calcite.rhyolite.com> <3E662207.5060604@americasm01.nt.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 14:17:55 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kee Hinckley wrote: > At 11:12 AM -0500 3/5/03, Chris Lewis wrote: > >> Sorry, wrong. All bad address removal requires is spamware that >> understands SMTP error codes. No reverse channel of any kind required. > You are assuming that the connection is directly to the validating mail > server. That is certainly not the case with a secondary MX, It is with ours. > and it's often not the case with large systems. Like AOL or Yahoo or us? Nope. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 14:30:52 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23834 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:30:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25JfVS12861 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:41:31 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JfUO12858 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:41:30 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23786 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:30:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JbYO12245; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:37:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JNtO10100 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:23:55 -0500 Received: from coyote.tatanka.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA22485 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:12:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from biscuit.tatanka.com (biscuit.tatanka.com [66.224.69.113]) by coyote.tatanka.com (8.12.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JEiBk066496; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:14:44 -0700 (MST) From: Michael Marking To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] filtering at connect time In-Reply-To: <200303051725.h25HP0mf020758@new.agentzero.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:18:14 -0800 (PST) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > You are totally missing the point that there is nothing added by > embedding an open SMTP server in the middle of this process. No, that is not what is going on. I gave some reasons to keep open relays (and no doubt others could give more), and you simply valued your approach more than the ones I suggested. Our charter (http://www.irtf.org/charters/asrg.html) is "to understand the problem and collectively propose and evaluate solutions to the problem". This includes evaluations of "the usefulness and cost of proposed solutions." It is certainly premature to assume that the net cost of one solution (such as eliminating open relays) exceeds or trails the net cost of another solution (such as content filtering). This is especially true in that one user's individual situation may differ greatly from that of others' situations. If there is not an extremely good and compelling reason to impose the values of the majority on everyone, then it is both unethical, and poor engineering, to do so. You appear to assume that, since open relays are not "necessary", then they have no value, however slight. There are two flaws in this argument: First, you arrogantly dismiss the cost to others of your solution. Simply because I have access to resources does not give me any moral right to require everyone else to acquire those same capabilities. If you were willing to go out at your own expense and personally reconfigure all of those open relays, then perhaps I would be convinced there is no cost to anyone (except you). Second, there may be no benefit whatsoever to requiring closure of all open relays. Even if all open relays were closed, then the spam problem would not be solved. If (when) we determine that some other solution would be effective and cost little, then why close the relays? Therfore, you cannot rightly say that "there is nothing added by embedding an open SMTP server in the middle of this process". You may be (and I believe probably are) wrong regarding both the cost and benefits. Until we can quantify, or at least describe, the benefits of all reasonable solutions, it is inappropriate to rule one out merely because an alternative does the same thing. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+ZkwA3fFKt0vOYhYRAu76AJ96bCZpOAu/LkTmeJhEWpvp1M0FKQCfe1cb GFTArxfsI0jOE9YTkpb54z8= =7wef -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 14:34:13 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24011 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:34:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25JiqP13212 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:44:52 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JiqO13209 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:44:52 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23985 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:33:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JeoO12763; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:40:50 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JSMO10723 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:28:22 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA22841 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:17:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2082300; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 14:19:09 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030305100842.03ffee38@mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030305100842.03ffee38@mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com> To: Fred Baker From: Kee Hinckley Subject: [Asrg] Re: More advertising crap Cc: "J. Noel Chiappa" , "asrg@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:12:07 -0500 At 10:09 AM -0800 3/5/03, Fred Baker wrote: >> as e-mail in-boxes get jammed with junk e-mail, IM has become the most >> reliable way to ensure that an electronic message receives priority >> attention. >> >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30944-2003Mar2.html >> >>Can Junk I-M be far behind, then? One of the things that AOL got right with AIM was the ability to dis the sender. That, combined with a centralized server system, makes it difficult to spam. All it takes is annoying three or four people and suddenly your messages aren't getting through for some period of time. If you could trivially sign up for accounts, then you could get around this. But that requires email verification. Not to say that spammers couldn't work around those problems, but it has made it harder. AIM has two of the ingredients that make spam control much easier. A centralized server and a verifiable identity. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 14:34:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24039 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:34:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25Jj9k13291 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:45:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Jj9O13287 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:45:09 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24001 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:33:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JfcO12940; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:41:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JWCO11100 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:32:12 -0500 Received: from chimta05.algx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23089 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:21:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from JHS ([67.92.23.74]) by chimmx05.algx.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.10 (built Jan 23 2003)) with SMTP id <0HBA00EM5J64J2@chimmx05.algx.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 13:22:52 -0600 (CST) From: Jason Hihn To: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] How to can the spam Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 14:23:03 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT We need to start from scratch, with a new system capable of embracing, extending and exterminating the current system, while preventing spam. (Dubbed "ENG" (Next Generation Email) for this thread) At the heart of NGE is the following idea: Deprecate '@'. It was a very good choice, but is tainted with the taste of spam. We need to switch to another character. I find any of the following acceptable: !#%&~|{} This char is called the 'promoted' char. The old '@' is the demoted char. This new symbol will only be used by the NGE system. Use of it will require advanced capabilities by the sender and receiver. If no such capability exists, (the next-generation-ness was lied about) it modifies the address to use the '@' character. The I'd deferring technical details to those who have thought about it more, but I'd like to offer up a few technical things: 1) username{whatever-character}@domain.name is still the same account to the user. The user will never need to know the difference. Optionally, they can learn that emails using the new character are always legit. 2) After wide-spread adoption, spam filters (user-based) or servers (organization/ISP-based) can be set to drop incoming unsolicited mail using '@'. 3) we can still run SMTP, just they need a patch for the new separator. This NGE system will/can talk SMTP to the local host (SMTP mail server) for easy upgrading. Note: SMTP hosts must be configured to talk to local host (or trusted) addresses only! 4) The NGE software (receiver side) will be required to verify the sender as legit. How this is done needs to be discussed. Once legit is decided it can be promoted (if we want to be aggressive and try for NGE capabilities anyway, and it passes) or demoted. On to my technical approach: I'm entertaining using signatures issued by the ISP, and verified against the server in the ISP's MX record. If an ISP sees too many inquires for a user, then that user maybe flagged as spammer, and the account can be suspended/revoked/throttled back. Eventually the sender will exhaust his checking accounts or credit card numbers at the ISP and he'll have to move to a new ISP. The key to this approach is to keep the limits low, make let them only get off a few hundred before they are yanked. Also watch the undeliverables. It is rare for me to send to a wrong address, maybe 1 a month. Surely 10 a month is reasonable? (And they'll all happen in minutes!) The problem with the above is the MX record can be untrustworthy AND spammers can multiplex through multiple accounts and/or ISP's. Maybe certs from a Cert Authority is to be required on the MX? Multiplexing through accounts (as to not trip the send/sig inquiry limit) should still trip on the undeliverables as well. (At this point I might recommend planting invalid email addresses on the web so the spammer using email address gathering from web pages will trip the undeliverable limit) Thoughts/comments/suggestions? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 14:35:12 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24111 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:35:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25Jjo813443 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:45:50 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JjoO13440 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:45:50 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24069 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:34:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JgOO12976; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:42:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JWvO11153 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:32:57 -0500 Received: from mail.neosinteractive.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23155 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:21:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from tthompson ([217.35.105.172] unverified) by mail.neosinteractive.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:28:52 +0000 From: "Tom Thomson" To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20030305021209.1792.97690.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Mar 2003 19:28:52.0175 (UTC) FILETIME=[743A25F0:01C2E34D] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Usefulness or otherwise of RMX records Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:23:09 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > From: "Gary Feldman" > To: > Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records > Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:57:33 -0500 > Organization: Ready-to-Run Software, Inc. >> Requiring that the reverse DNS domain name matches the >> Mail_From domain name is as wrong aad silly as it would be to >> requirer that when you send a picture postcard while on >> vacation you use your current hotel as your return address. >> Neither requirement would reduce fraud, spam, or anything >> else that is bad. > > While that's often done, the real requirement is that the > sending computer have the authorization to send on behalf > of the purported (i.e. mail_from) domain -- or perhaps > it needs to be at the user level or some other granularity). > > However, let me observe that a significant proportion of the > spam I receive can be rejected on the reverse DNS basis, while > only a tiny proportion of legitimate mail would result in a false > positive. So, while it's far from perfect, I don't agree > with your conclusion that it doesn't reduce spam, based on > my own personal empirical evidence. A significant proportion - I don't know what yopu call significant, but back in the days when I still tried to trace ISPs or domain owners so that I could make complaints only about 20% of spam had headers that indicated an origin outside the domain from which they really originated. Well, I guess 20% is significant, so I won't argue with your choice of term there. On the other hand, there are so many people who don't understand Reply-To: headers who decide to tell there MUA to use an address which doesn't match the machine on which it is running (for example when they use a relay sevice such as (to pick two current examples) name@bcs.org.uk or name@acm.org - although users of those two particular institutional relays ought to be better educated) that maybe am equivalent proportion of legitimate mail fails to pass the test (at least of legitimate mail addressed to me at the address I used back then). So, based on my personal experience and empirical evidence, I think rejection on the reverse DNS basis would do as much damage to legitimate mail as to spam. Of course the senders of legitimate mail might then become educated and use the Reply-To: header instead, so the 20% hit on legitimate mail would fall off quickly (assuming MUAs are generally intelligent to distinguish Mail From and From:, which not all are; but presumably spammers would also become more educated, and the 20% hit on spam would fall off nearly as quickly. So I think this approach is not particularly useful. On other grounds (the cost of these DNS lookups, which falls on the transfer systems and on the DNS operators not on the spammer; the general flakiness of some DNS implementations; the ease of breaking the method by spoofing DNS responses; the likelihood that sysadmins will not cause these records to be up to date) I think this approach is a terrible idea. Tom Thomson _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 14:35:58 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24153 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:35:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25JkbR13507 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:46:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JkbO13504 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:46:37 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24140 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:35:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JhGO13104; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:43:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JPwO10280 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:25:58 -0500 Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA22603 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:14:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h25JGoA01797; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:16:50 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Moore To: "Sauer, Damon" Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, Damon.Sauer@BellSouth.com, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Multiple Suggestions Message-Id: <20030305141650.4281fa8c.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D545@bremocag> References: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D545@bremocag> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:16:50 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > My home ISP blocks port 25. As a result, I can't debug problems with > email from home. > > --- Considering debugging a major issue in not allowing a closed port > 25? I believe that this could be simply resolved with an internal only > server. It is not a insurmountable problem, just a technical one. oh, they'd be happy to let me send to port 25 if I paid them $300/month. mainly it's a bad precedent. > if ISPs charge for SMTP then they have even more incentive to harbor > spammers. > > ---- But easier to identify. Also, at this point you have destroyed > the reason why there is so much spam... because it truly costs next to > nothing. no it just means I get spammed for Ivory Soap instead of Fireman's Pump. it's still spam, and it's still obnoxious. > it's perfectly legitimate to send mail through other servers. mobile > users need to do this quite often. > > --- Sure it is, if you are connected to another service through a > dialup, the sending email should be able to be relayed to the "home" > server for delivery. it's also perfectly legitimate to originate mail from a dialup line, without relaying through some third party's server. > let's just say I'm glad you are not my ISP. it's abuse like this that > illustrate just how important it is to let any ISP sell DSL over the > LEC's phone lines. > > --- Keith, my ideas are my own and in no way reflect the position of > my employer. nor did I say that they did. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 14:37:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24266 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:37:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25Jlur13591 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:47:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JluO13588 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:47:56 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24214 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:36:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Ji2O13163; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:44:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JQ8O10287 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:26:08 -0500 Received: from zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA22610 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:14:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (zcard307.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h25JGxP10474 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:17:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDFBD1CD; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:16:59 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id FSK7YZVB; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:16:59 -0500 Message-ID: <3E664DEF.1080607@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: More advertising crap References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030305100842.03ffee38@mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 14:20:15 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Fred Baker wrote: > Interesting thought... But several months late. There are several spammers using junk I-M now. Including one of our perennial favourites, the "diplomas from prestigious non-accredited universities" spammer. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 14:38:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24323 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:38:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25JnDN13686 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:49:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JnDO13683 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:49:13 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24306 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:38:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JjkO13437; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:45:46 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JiLO13169 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:44:21 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23970 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:33:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h25JZ8c8012138; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 20:35:08 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h25JXjsT012498 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 5 Mar 2003 20:33:45 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h25JXi2W012496; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 20:33:44 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Keith Moore Cc: Alan DeKok , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Deprecating plain POP accounts Message-ID: <20030305193344.GA12295@danisch.de> References: <20030305120839.63708d42.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305133703.7a843f62.moore@cs.utk.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030305133703.7a843f62.moore@cs.utk.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 20:33:44 +0100 On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 01:37:03PM -0500, Keith Moore wrote: > > > If getting rid of the "random SMTP sender" problem means that the > > roaming user is required to use a home server, then that's fine. It > > stops the spammer, and has little cost to the roaming user. > > no, it doesn't stop the spammer. it just makes life harder for > legitimate users. Could you elaborate this? I don't see how this should make life harder. In my experience, it makes legitimate users's life much easier and cheaper. > you're not authenticating him in any event. source IP addresses are not > authentication. and domains have nothing to do with IP addresses. Currently domain have nothing to do with IP addresses. Currently we have a severe spam problem. Maybe it's not so wise to insist on keeping the current status quo. > only because you haven't thought it through. many spammers use > throwaway accounts anyway. the fact that they are using their ISP's > SMTP server to relay spam doesn't keep them from spamming. Again, could you elaborate? If they had to use their ISP's SMTP server, this server will stop them using wrong domains. That's the first step to stop spam. Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 14:39:08 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24353 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:39:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25Jnl513750 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:49:47 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JnlO13747 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:49:47 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24344 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:38:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Jj3O13269; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:45:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JeDO12622 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:40:13 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23645 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:29:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h25JV2X31211; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:31:02 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: "David F. Skoll" Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal Message-ID: <20030305193102.GS14655@main.templetons.com> References: <200303051523.h25FNx7p019253@calcite.rhyolite.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:31:02 -0800 On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 10:42:27AM -0500, David F. Skoll wrote: > On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > > > What are the *detectable* differences between a spammer and a legitimate > > > mass mailer, assuming we can't read the minds of the recipients? > > > There are no such differences, detectable or not. > > Then this ASRG is a waste of time. Even though I am a coder at heart, sometimes I realize the real world has something to offer when it comes to dealing with abusers. The real world doesn't usually do security with physical security. It punishes after the fact and uses that as deterrence. Thus the proposal I sent in my opening message. The difference between spammers and legit bulk mailers is that legit bulk mailers are willing to be accountable if they abuse bulk mail. Spammers, of course, are not. Very few of the world's low level security problems are solved by putting up a clever high fence. You notice that there is nobody checking your bags as you leave the Sears store. That's how we like it. We don't want to close up open societies and open protocols for a bit more security against abuse. There are tricks you can use to detect patterns between spammers and legit bulk mails. One trick is the spam-trap, which is what BrightMail does. If a mail came to a spam trap, especially if it's checked by a human being, you have a fully reliable identification of a spam attack. The number of bad addresses is another test, but not nearly so reliable. Spamasassin style filters are another test, possibly of some use. In the end, though, if we can get most of the legit bulk mailers to do something -- anything -- to let us know they are accountable for abuse, I think we can lick this thing. Some of the things that they can do to show accountability are: a) Sign a contract b) Offer money / hashcash / post a bond c) Be vouched for by somebody else who is accountable d) Simply have a good reputation, have a well known established mailing list found in any of the existing databases of mailing lists. e) Live in a legal jurisdiction which punishes spammers _effectively_. (ie. not any of the current U.S. state spam laws which do more harm than good.) f) Be a member of an association reliably pledged to not abuse bulk mail. This could include, I kid you not the DMA, or BBB or similar. Or Habeus if it is shown to work. g) Host your list with somebody who meets the above criteria as a host, like Topica, Yahoo eGroups, etc. There are a lot of choices and there can be more. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 14:41:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24449 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:41:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25JpuO13877 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:51:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JpuO13874 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:51:56 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24424 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:40:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Jm1O13618; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:48:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JlPO13572 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:47:25 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24175 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:36:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h25JcD031387; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:38:13 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" Cc: "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] MTP drafty Message-ID: <20030305193813.GT14655@main.templetons.com> References: <200303050807.DAA21240@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200303050807.DAA21240@ietf.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:38:13 -0800 On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 03:09:47PM +0700, Dr. Jeffrey Race wrote: > On Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:49:49 -0800, Brad Templeton wrote: > > >I simply have seen no evidence of a problem here, and I get a lot of > >spam and do a lot of buying online. We should all want to see a real > >study showing more than anecdotal evidence, before making any moves > >in this direction. > > Has more to do with content than volume. I run a firm and I have > a legal obligation to prevent certain kinds of (e.g. obscene) mail > from being seen by female employees. I also have a daughter and > the same issue arises in the home environment. It needs to be > absolutely stopped. > > Jeffrey Race You've lost me. I'm talking about getting mail from Verizon because they are my cell phone provider. You're talking about porn spam, or so it seems. I have never gotten a porn spam from a company I have done business with. Not even from the porn companies. :-) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 14:41:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24491 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:41:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25JqKJ13922 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:52:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JqJO13919 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:52:20 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24444 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:41:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Jn1O13673; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:49:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JmJO13631 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:48:19 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24250 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:37:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (zcard307.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h25Jd9d21626 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:39:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDFBDGHQ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:39:09 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id FSK7YZVZ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:39:09 -0500 Message-ID: <3E665320.1030004@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Good versus bad (was Re: RMX Records ) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 14:42:24 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alan DeKok wrote: > Filtering is a complete waste of time for some domains. It's > simpler to give up, and walk away from the domain. If you can live > with filtering, that's nice for you. But you should also realize that > by some standards, you're not receiving any appreciable amount of > spam. Alan knows of what he speaks. See http://striker.ottawa.on.ca Our spamtrap domains are about as bad: DATE PASS BLOCK FILT SPAMTRP CPT 20030226 297092 33250 16817 970828 191 20030227 316610 31600 11376 820258 211 20030228 262716 33066 8282 825232 190 20030301 83534 24279 6285 709274 56 20030302 88370 22862 5684 923656 86 20030303 282078 34845 9663 822272 374 20030304 297998 27606 9590 866320 149 20030305 0 0 0 568238 120 PASS = email getting thru (production email) BLOCK = IP-based blocking (DNSBL and local, production email) FILT = content filtering (production email) SPAMTRP = spamtrap domains. CPT = end-user complaints on what got thru (production email). We average one or two complaints per hundred spams that get thru. The last day only shows complaints and spamtrap so far today. Don't get other three numbers til tomorrow. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 14:42:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24556 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:42:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25JrNL14008 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:53:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JrNO14005 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:53:23 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24539 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:42:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Jo0O13786; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:50:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JnGO13699 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:49:16 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24313 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:38:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h25Je3BD031661 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:40:03 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal In-Reply-To: <20030305193102.GS14655@main.templetons.com> Message-ID: References: <200303051523.h25FNx7p019253@calcite.rhyolite.com> <20030305193102.GS14655@main.templetons.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:40:03 -0500 (EST) On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Brad Templeton wrote: > The real world doesn't usually do security with physical security. > It punishes after the fact and uses that as deterrence. Right. But you need a way to detect the problem before you can punish it. A distributed mechanism for detecting anomalous SMTP behavior is like an alarm sytem. And alarm systems are pretty common in the real world. > Very few of the world's low level security problems are solved by > putting up a clever high fence. You notice that there is nobody > checking your bags as you leave the Sears store. It depends where in the world you live. :-) Lots of stores I've been in demand you leave parcels at the front, and if you walk through with a bag, you will be searched. In North America, this isn't so common, of course. > The number of bad addresses is another test, but not nearly so > reliable. Well, isn't it? I don't know, and I don't think you know either. Some posters have complained how their systems are stressed from bounce messages during spam attacks. This suggests to me that a large number of invalid addresses is a good indicator of a spam attack. Unfortunately, it's not necessarily the case that a spam attack always yields a large number of bad addresses; there probably are spammers out there who keep their lists clean. > In the end, though, if we can get most of the legit bulk mailers to > do something -- anything -- to let us know they are accountable for > abuse, I think we can lick this thing. That would help, but it requires buy-in from a lot of different groups with a lot of different vested interests. And I'm not sure that non-technical solutions fall within the charter of the IETF, although it certainly should consider them and recommend them to legislators. I don't advocate distributed statistics-gathering and analysis as a panacea. But I do believe it could be one more effective detection tool in our arsenal. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 14:43:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24637 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:43:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25Js8L14074 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:54:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Js8O14071 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:54:08 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24609 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:42:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JolO13823; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:50:47 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JnHO13703 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:49:17 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24316 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:38:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h25JeAhZ012312; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 20:40:10 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h25Jb6sT012564 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 5 Mar 2003 20:37:06 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h25Jb6H2012562; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 20:37:06 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Bob Wyman Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] All mail is anonymous (and, therein lies much of the problem) Message-ID: <20030305193706.GB12295@danisch.de> References: <002d01c2e346$600bff10$6401a8c0@BOBDEV> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <002d01c2e346$600bff10$6401a8c0@BOBDEV> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 20:37:06 +0100 On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 01:38:11PM -0500, Bob Wyman wrote: > > I believe that an important part of a comprehensive solution to > the spam problem will be to provide effective and efficient methods for > sending messages that are not anonymous. There are many known methods > for doing this. All have positive and negative points. But, one of the > known methods, or one that is yet to be described will need to be chosen > before we have a comprehensive solution to the spam problem. > I fully agree with that. Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 14:45:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24785 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:45:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25JuH814265 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:56:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JuHO14262 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:56:17 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24750 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:45:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JqgO13967; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:52:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JoPO13801 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:50:25 -0500 Received: from chimta01.algx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24373 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:39:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from JHS ([67.92.23.74]) by chimmx01.algx.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.10 (built Jan 23 2003)) with SMTP id <0HBA007ITK0UNV@chimmx01.algx.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 13:41:18 -0600 (CST) From: Jason Hihn Subject: RE: [Asrg] well is this a good idea ?! In-reply-to: <1046891083.1460.11.camel@alex2.net-graphics.lan> To: Alex Curvers , asrg@ietf.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 14:41:18 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT I think it's called a "honey pot" http://www.everything2.org/index.pl?node_id=1113714&displaytype=printable Oh, and a good idea. -----Original Message----- From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Alex Curvers Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 2:05 PM To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] well is this a good idea ?! Hey I was hoping to get some response from you people, on the following post, Im working on a smtp like program, but it doesnt handle mail. It just acts like its a smtp server. If a spammer will use it to relay bulk email through. My program will blacklist the spammer. Im halfway finished with the program, if it would be widely distributed and used. It would make it difficult for spammers to hide their ip by using open relays. Every open relay could then be a trap. I would like some feedback and some help testing the program. This is a good idea right ?! -- Alex Curvers _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 14:47:48 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24967 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:47:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25JwRk14458 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:58:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JwRO14455 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:58:27 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24925 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:47:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Jt2O14185; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:55:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Jr2O13991 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:53:02 -0500 Received: from mercury.ex.ac.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24525 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:41:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from [144.173.6.20] (helo=cronus.ex.ac.uk) by mercury.ex.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18qenn-00Coc4-00; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 19:43:43 +0000 From: Adam Back To: Brad Templeton Cc: Keith Moore , Paul Judge , vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com, asrg@ietf.org Subject: principles / first do no damage (Re: [Asrg] definition of spam) Message-ID: <20030305194342.A4412039@exeter.ac.uk> References: <20030304205916.56614a9f.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305040008.GB14655@main.templetons.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.2i In-Reply-To: <20030305040008.GB14655@main.templetons.com>; from brad@templetons.com on Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 08:00:08PM -0800 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:43:42 +0000 To avoid the trend of people only airing negative opinions, let me say that I think Brad's narrow content-neutral unsolicited high volume definition to be spot-on. We really must avoid solutions which reduce functionality, reliability and freedoms of email. I'd also encourage everyone who hasn't to read Brad's principles page: http://www.templetons.com/brad/spume/prin.html I'd like to see the group adopt this set of principles as basic requirements of the "first do no damage" kind, where as we evaluate technology we hold it up to these principles. It's easy to notionally fix spam, if one starts out with assumptions that include damaging reliability and functionality, or could work if fully deployed but offer no obvious route to deployment. I think solutions need to provides value to people who upgrade, without damaging backwards compatibility so that there is incentive to upgrade. As one example (not that it hasn't got other problems) on the CAMRAM list (CAMRAM is a hashcash related proposal) someone proposed using hashcash to white list to avoid false negatives of Bayesian filters. This seems good from the above perspective because as a sender you have an incentive: if you use this system mail you send will not get falsely filtered by Bayesian filters; and it is backwards compatible because people who don't use it to send can still send and receive mail (modulo the false negatives of Bayesian filters). And as well as slowing spam if it becomes widely deployed, due to the computational cost of hashcash, it increases reliability as the false negative problem is reduced for it's users. That plus signatures as white-lists so that hashcash is only used on the first email is the basis of the CAMRAM proposal: http://www.camram.org Adam On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 08:00:08PM -0800, Brad Templeton wrote: > The purpose of a definition of spam is to use legal tactics against > it, typically in contract law, but also possibly in statute. > > That's because you must be clear on what it is you're going to punish, > so people should be able to know when they have violated the rule, > or been the subject of it, and so a fair and impartial body can > objectively determine it. > > To that end, a legal definition of spam must include nothing but spam, > and will not include all things that you think are spam. > > That's because, to get people to agree to enforce it, they do not > wish to be in the position of punishing that which they think is > legitimate mail, nor do those who are creating the system want to > be in the position of chilling legitimate communications. > > (In the USA and some other nations, laws are constitutionally required > to block nor chill any legitimate communications, and to be precise, > and to be the least restrictive means possible to solve the problem.) > > That least restrictive means test is also a good one to borrow. > > Should the global system have a narrower definition, as it must, > this does not preclude private systems from working to stop things > not covered by that definition as best they can. > > Thus if a system based on national law, new protocols, or pooling of > MX servers only stops bulk mail above volume X form parties matching > description Y, and you want to add onto it a system which blocks > based on content (Viagara) or intent (advertising) or source (blacklists) > then you are in no way stopped from doing so. Indeed you can > even make the system big as the population that wants it. > > > However, for a system to be implemented by the IETF or similar body, > a much narrower concensus is required, as this will be the default > for much of the E-mail system of the world. > > That's a pretty heavy burden. E-mail is all based on private > property, and thus not subject in many cases to 1st amendment and > related protections from private action, but we as architects of > such systems must think of that as a bug, not a feature. We should > not be glad that we don't have to worry about that pesky first > amendment. > > > Do people disagree with these principles? If so, let us know. > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 14:48:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25035 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:48:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25JxN314517 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:59:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JxMO14514 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:59:22 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25000 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:48:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JtnO14245; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:55:49 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Js7O14066 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:54:07 -0500 Received: from escher.ties.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24606 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:42:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (deven@localhost) by escher.ties.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Jiqb01309; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:44:52 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: escher.ties.org: deven owned process doing -bs From: "Deven T. Corzine" To: Vernon Schryver cc: Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal In-Reply-To: <200303051702.h25H2xQK028983@calcite.rhyolite.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:44:51 -0500 (EST) On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Vernon Schryver wrote: > However, please let's not talk about ways to defeat specific checksum > systems, unless you are a spammer, and in that case I trust you'll be > unsubscribed by the management. There's no profit in making more work > for those of us who tweak our checksums to counter the new tactics of > spammers. For example, as those who've been watching spam know, a > recent cycle of that involves . There's a Catch-22 here. We don't want to aid spammers, but we want to be able to combat them effectively. It's the same problem computer security researchers deal with daily. We probably need to adopt a similar strategy of open peer review, to establish faith in a technique by having many smart people try to break it, with full knowledge of the technique. To avoid discussions of how to defeat any particular technique may provide some temporary security through obscurity, but it could backfire. We might spend a lot of time and effort on a technique that turns out to be easily subverted. It might work well as a niche effort, but if it ever becomes mainstream, the spammers will take notice and work on countermeasures. Security through obscurity is more effective for those who are agile enough to change direction when that obscurity is pierced. The Internet email infrastructure, as a whole, has the least agility of all. If we want to find a way to save the world from spam, we need a solution that can be entrenched, and that will take time. Spammers have the benefit of agility, so obscurity plays to their advantage. I believe we need to find a solution that can withstand intense scrutiny, even if it imperils the current effectiveness of niche solutions. We need a mainstream solution, and to know it will work, we need to try to think like a spammer and look for every sneaky way to subvert the system. That's the only realistic route to a long-term solution. Personally, I believe an effective solution will probably require a massive change in the email infrastructure. SMTP is just too easily abused, in its current form. I'm thinking ESMTP extensions coupled with a PGP-style web of trust (between servers and/or users) has real possibilities... Deven _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 14:49:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25069 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:49:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25K08c14637 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:00:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25K08O14634 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:00:08 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25054 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:48:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JuaO14312; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:56:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JsKO14104 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:54:20 -0500 Received: from relay07.indigo.ie (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id OAA24618 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:43:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 67906 messnum 1022123 invoked from network[194.125.172.235/ts12-235.dublin.indigo.ie]); 5 Mar 2003 19:45:11 -0000 Received: from ts12-235.dublin.indigo.ie (HELO jmason.org) (194.125.172.235) by relay07.indigo.ie (qp 67906) with SMTP; 5 Mar 2003 19:45:11 -0000 Received: by jmason.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 020FE16F16; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:28:16 +0000 (GMT) Received: from jmason.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD37AF721; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:28:16 +0000 (GMT) To: Pierre Fortin Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] new to the list... In-Reply-To: Message from Pierre Fortin of "Wed, 05 Mar 2003 12:29:41 EST." <20030305122941.32fb1f47.pf@pfortin.com> From: jm@jmason.org (Justin Mason) X-GPG-Key-Fingerprint: 0A48 2D8B 0B52 A87D 0E8A 6ADD 4137 1B50 6E58 EF0A X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to . Message-Id: <20030305192816.020FE16F16@jmason.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 19:28:11 +0000 Pierre Fortin said: > Probably other means that escape me at the moment; but I don't use any > spam filters which work on mail already delivered... I no longer see > false-positives for me and my users, except those who fail the above > tests... hmm. Well, SpamAssassin never causes any false positives either, except those caused by its ruleset ;) It's worth noting that in particular the rDNS test is extremely FP-prone. For example, from about 6 months ago until about a week ago, you would never have seen any mail from me, since I used an ISP with no rDNS on its outgoing SMTP server. Yes, I know they suck. But they were a *lot* cheaper than the competition, and in a non-competitive market like Ireland, that counts a lot more than "somebody's overzealous spam filter might drop my mail". ;) --j. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 14:50:07 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25101 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:50:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25K0k914682 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:00:46 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25K0kO14679 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:00:46 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25089 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:49:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JvMO14352; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:57:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JsaO14126 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:54:36 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24635 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:43:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h25JjSm31613; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:45:28 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] definition of spam (was Re: consent expression) Message-ID: <20030305194527.GU14655@main.templetons.com> References: <20030304205916.56614a9f.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305040008.GB14655@main.templetons.com> <20030304234928.5485710d.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305051840.GI14655@main.templetons.com> <20030305061401.23988.qmail@prefix.emu.st> <20030305071700.GK14655@main.templetons.com> <20030305081139.24231.qmail@prefix.emu.st> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030305081139.24231.qmail@prefix.emu.st> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:45:27 -0800 On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 08:11:39AM +0000, Mark Delany wrote: > Okay. You'll need to use small words and short sentences for me. We > don't change MUAs, we don't change the inbound MTAs, we don't change > the ratware used by spammers, yet somehow by changing just the MTAs > used by legit bulk mailers we reduce spam? I've obviously missed > something. I'm saying that I think getting all the users of the world to get a new MUA is not possible, except over the course of many years. I mean even with many companies offering MUAs that block 95% of spam or more, including free ones, what is the adoption rate? These are highly motivated people? I think even getting all the MTAs upgraded is a major project. Yes, desire to get rid of spam is huge. However, any new protocol asks the _sender_ to get new software, not the recipient of the spam. The only way you get the sender to get new software is if the sender sees all his mail bouncing, which is a pretty dramatic step to take. To one day get your MTA to say, "Sorry, you don't speak the new anti-spam ESMTP. We don't take mail from you until you get a new MTA!" As I noted, there are people running old, wide-open versions of sendmail out there. Nonetheless, I think if we came up with a really workable solution that people could endorse in this fractious community, and a way to make the changeover take place over a year or more, it could be done. It would be hard, but it could be done, and when the final cutoff came, it would be very very hard, and a lot of people would be very angry. Like a million small businesses where some consultant installed Microsoft Exchange or Sendmail for them, and they don't have the slightest idea how to upgrade it, and aren't happy about paying $500 to get another consultant to come in and do it. You're not thinking like the joe ordinary computer user, most of whom are like the above small biz. Sure, the big ISPs would put in the new MTAs, but that's not the issue. My view is, if we do it only for bulk mail, that's OK because that small business is probably not hosting a mailing list. If they run a mailing list the probably host it somewhere else. I would be curious about stats on this, though. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 14:51:46 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25159 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:51:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25K2P314780 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:02:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25K2PO14777 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:02:25 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25129 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:51:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Jx2O14506; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:59:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JtnO14239 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:55:49 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24724 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:44:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h25JkeBD031719; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:46:40 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: Mark Delany cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal In-Reply-To: <20030305172742.26214.qmail@prefix.emu.st> Message-ID: References: <200303051523.h25FNx7p019253@calcite.rhyolite.com> <3E662207.5060604@americasm01.nt.com> <20030305172742.26214.qmail@prefix.emu.st> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:46:40 -0500 (EST) On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Mark Delany wrote: > Really, did you check? Yes. But I typed in a random received name, which (alas) must have been legitimate. :-( > It's not enough to say how do we stop spam today, it has to be how do > we stop the evolution of smart, viral, motivated spammers. You cannot stop that. It's an arms race, and just because there are a few smart, viral, motivated spammers doesn't mean we shouldn't take measures to stop the less smart ones. The only way to stop smart, viral, motivated spammers is to change the nature of e-mail so that strangers cannot communicate with you. That's a solution that's worse than the problem. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 14:52:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25187 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:52:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25K3HC14842 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:03:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25K3HO14839 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:03:17 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25176 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:52:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25K02O14626; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:00:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25JxEO14510 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:59:14 -0500 Received: from aismtp1g.bellsouth.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24990 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:48:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from 01al10015010057.ad.bls.com ([90.152.5.141] [90.152.5.141]) by aismtp1g.bellsouth.com with ESMTP; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:50:14 -0500 Received: by 01al10015010057.ad.bls.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:50:06 -0500 Message-Id: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D547@bremocag> From: "Sauer, Damon" To: "'Keith Moore'" Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Multiple Suggestions MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:49:59 -0500 -----Original Message----- From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore@cs.utk.edu] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 2:17 PM To: Sauer, Damon Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu; Sauer, Damon; asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Multiple Suggestions > My home ISP blocks port 25. As a result, I can't debug problems with > email from home. > > --- Considering debugging a major issue in not allowing a closed port > 25? I believe that this could be simply resolved with an internal only > server. It is not a insurmountable problem, just a technical one. oh, they'd be happy to let me send to port 25 if I paid them $300/month. mainly it's a bad precedent. ---------- Ok.. then we can agree that this is not a show stopper. > if ISPs charge for SMTP then they have even more incentive to harbor > spammers. > > ---- But easier to identify. Also, at this point you have destroyed > the reason why there is so much spam... because it truly costs next to > nothing. no it just means I get spammed for Ivory Soap instead of Fireman's Pump. it's still spam, and it's still obnoxious. ---------- By getting rid of John Q. Public spammers allows for the drastic reduction in spam. Killing the big spamhauses at this point is then easier. Herd and control. I am not talking about the utter cessation of spam. But, I would be happy if I reduced all my spam to only one type of hand soap rather that 3,000. > it's perfectly legitimate to send mail through other servers. mobile > users need to do this quite often. > > --- Sure it is, if you are connected to another service through a > dialup, the sending email should be able to be relayed to the "home" > server for delivery. it's also perfectly legitimate to originate mail from a dialup line, without relaying through some third party's server. ----------- This one requires the most thought. I am not sure that my idea of sending to the "home" server for relay is a good idea because how does the home server authenticate the relayed email? However, if we can find a way, the network traffic caused by mobile users is not even measurable compared to the amount of traffic that is removed due to less spamming. If I could reduce spam traffic by 50% I could get rid of some VERY expensive servers, software, etc. > let's just say I'm glad you are not my ISP. it's abuse like this that > illustrate just how important it is to let any ISP sell DSL over the > LEC's phone lines. > > --- Keith, my ideas are my own and in no way reflect the position of > my employer. nor did I say that they did. ------------ I apologize if I misunderstood. :-) Regards, Damon ***** "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers." _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 14:55:11 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25308 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:55:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25K5oe14952 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:05:50 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25K5oO14949 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:05:50 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25281 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:54:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25K21O14766; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:02:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25K1VO14735 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:01:31 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25116 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:50:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h25JqJBD031802 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:52:19 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:52:19 -0500 (EST) On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Alan DeKok wrote: > > Automatic filters will get you so far, maybe up to 90-98% accuracy, > > depending on which filter you use and what your mail mix looks like. > Automatic filters only work if you're not receiving any significant > amount of spam. Delegation is the key. You delegate spam handling down to the level that minimizes your cost. It's not cost-effective for a few people to handle 100K spams. It's not cost effective for 20,000 end-users to handle 50 spams each. It's probably cheapest for 1000 department-level clerical people to deal with 1,000 spams each. Note that you cannot eliminate the cost of dealing with spam. But you can minimize it. > If you're receiving 100K+ spams a day, then the machines to run the > filters cost a fair amount of money. Nah. If you're receiving that kind of mail volume, you have big machines with under-utilized CPUs anyway. Content-scanning just uses up CPU cycles that would be wasted. Nik Clayton says he filters 2 million messages/day with SpamAssassin; I'd be amazed if fewer than 100K of those are spam. > With the spam volume Chris Lewis is saying Nortel gets, I'd be > surprised if their infrastructure costs were less than $100K. > Large companies can afford that. Small ones can't. Small companies don't get 100K spams/day. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 14:55:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25335 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:55:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25K6LI14982 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:06:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25K6LO14979 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:06:21 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25307 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:55:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25K31O14837; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:03:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25K2DO14768 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:02:13 -0500 Received: from cmailm4.svr.pol.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25123 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:51:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from modem-3837.baboon.dialup.pol.co.uk ([81.78.30.253] helo=CPQ28140326195) by cmailm4.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 4.10.11) id 18qewl-0000BP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 19:52:59 +0000 Message-ID: <001401c2e350$d168f280$fd1e4e51@CPQ28140326195> Reply-To: "Richard" From: "Richard" To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0011_01C2E350.CE10EDE0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1123 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1123 Subject: [Asrg] Time for the ISPs to fight back! Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:52:51 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0011_01C2E350.CE10EDE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I believe that it is not enough to just keep developing ever more = complex methods of filtering out spam, the spammers will just continue = to circumvent the filters. Witness the recent use of spacing between = letters such as "L_O_OS_E W_E_I_G_H_T" in emails. Instead I suggest that the detection software at ISPs should respond to = the spam it detects. This wouldn't effect the few false positives that = are found, in fact it would be a service as it would advise them to = rephrase their subject line. Spam works like all mass marketing by fooling a small percentage of = those contacted into responding, if a high percentage responded then = their system would collapse or at least become a lot more expensive to = run. If the detection software used by ISPs harvested the unsubscribe = email addresses or links from the spam and responded to them wit false = emails then the computers of the spammer would be overwhelmed. AT the = every least it would kill the unsubscribe link. Pinging every spam link discovered would dramatically increase the = bandwidth the spammer was using and therefore their costs.=20 And low cost is what makes spam so attractive. That's my contribution to the debate, I don't have the technical = expertise to know how to do this but it seems relatively cheap and = simple to implement to me. Richard Warwick ------=_NextPart_000_0011_01C2E350.CE10EDE0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I believe that it is not enough to just = keep=20 developing ever more complex methods of filtering out spam, the spammers = will=20 just continue to circumvent the filters. Witness the recent use of = spacing=20 between letters such as "L_O_OS_E W_E_I_G_H_T" in emails.
 
Instead I suggest that the detection = software at=20 ISPs should respond to the spam it detects. This wouldn't effect the few = false=20 positives that are found, in fact it would be a service as it would = advise them=20 to rephrase their subject line.
 
Spam works like all mass marketing by = fooling a=20 small percentage of those contacted into responding, if a high = percentage=20 responded then their system would collapse or at least become a lot more = expensive to run. If the detection software used by ISPs harvested the=20 unsubscribe email addresses or links from the spam and responded to them = wit=20 false emails then the computers of the spammer would be = overwhelmed. AT the=20 every least it would kill the unsubscribe link.
 
Pinging every spam link discovered = would=20 dramatically increase the bandwidth the spammer was using and therefore = their=20 costs.
 
And low cost is what makes spam so=20 attractive.
 
That's my contribution to the debate, I = don't have=20 the technical expertise to know how to do this but it seems relatively = cheap and=20 simple to implement to me.
 
Richard = Warwick
------=_NextPart_000_0011_01C2E350.CE10EDE0-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 14:59:21 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25524 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:59:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25KA1D15972 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:10:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25KA0O15967 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:10:00 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25496 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:58:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25K6EO14976; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:06:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25K5NO14937 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:05:23 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25265 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:54:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h25JuABD031821 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:56:10 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Good versus bad (was Re: RMX Records ) In-Reply-To: <3E665320.1030004@americasm01.nt.com> Message-ID: References: <3E665320.1030004@americasm01.nt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:56:10 -0500 (EST) On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Chris Lewis wrote: > Alan knows of what he speaks. > See http://striker.ottawa.on.ca I have a hard time believing that's typical, except for large companies and ISP's. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 15:00:58 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA25626 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:00:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25KBbh16045 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:11:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25KBbO16042 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:11:37 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA25590 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:00:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25K82O15879; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:08:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25K7wO15851 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:07:58 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25430 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:56:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by ietf-mx.ietf.org (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) id h25JepT08990 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:40:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h25G54BL023815 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:05:04 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303051605.h25G54BL023815@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:05:04 -0700 (MST) > From: "David F. Skoll" > > > What are the *detectable* differences between a spammer and a legitimate > > > mass mailer, assuming we can't read the minds of the recipients? > > > There are no such differences, detectable or not. > > Then this ASRG is a waste of time. I think this ASRG less about distinguishing spammers and legitimate mass mailers than spam from legitimate mail. > ... > > I disagree, because many spammers work hard to remove bad addresses > > from their target lists. > > Really? Don't you think it's worth a shot to try to gather hard data? > If you're right, then my idea is no good. If you're wrong, then it is. > Unfortunately, without setting up a system to gather this data, we'll > never know. If you look at a few 1000 spam, you'll find hard data proving that many spammers do care about removing bad addresses. Notice the whines in spam about how wrong it is to complain to ISPs hosting remove addresses. Notice how many envelope Mail_From values are valid addresses owned by the spammer at free ISPs. Notice the spammers using bulk mail packages (not spamware) that do automatic removal of bad addresses using synthetic Mail_From values encoding the target address. If spammers didn't want bounces or "removes", they would not continually sign up for and use new free-provider drop-boxes. Consider also reports that big ISPs automatically blacklist IP addresses after they've sent to "too many" bad addresses. This provides a strong incentive for clean target lists. Of course, there are plenty of other spammers who do not care how dirty their target lists are. > > Generalizations such as > > "all spammers have lots of bad addresses in their lists" are as wrong > > as "all spammers use open relays" or "spam involves forged headers." > > I never said that. I said I believe that many spammers have lots of bad > addresses, simply based on how they obtain addresses in the first place. > Maybe you're right; I don't know. But we should at least try to find out. "Finding out" seems to be based on the false notion that all spammers do one or the other. There are only about 1500 current serious spammers, but their tactics and goals are quite varied. > > I think the only way to detect spam runs is to examine passing mail bodies > > and look for those that are substantially identical and therefore bulk. > > Bulk != Spam. of course "spam" != "bulk", but "bulk" is a lot closer to "spam" than "mentions viagra" or "was sent to a (temporarily) bad address." > Any system to detect "similar but not identical" > messages can be thwarted if it uses a checksum scheme, and is too slow > to be practical if it uses more sophisticated message-closeness > measures. You are quite wrong about that. Simplistic checksum schemes are easily thwarted, but the DCC and other checksum schemes including Cloudmark are not simplistic checksums. I've been computing what I call fuzzy checksums since about 1997, and not yet had serious problems detecting bulk mail. (In 1997 it was at a Fortune 500's corporate gateway. Today it's the DCC.) You are also quite wrong about the speed of checksumming with modern cheap CPUS. There are ISPs and others that are pushing a lot of messages per day through DCC clients. The significant costs are in disk and network bandwidth, not CPU cycles. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 15:01:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA25662 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:01:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25KCGa16117 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:12:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25KCGO16114 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:12:16 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA25654 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:01:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25K8nO15913; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:08:49 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25K7wO15855 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:07:58 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25433 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:56:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by ietf-mx.ietf.org (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) id h25Jeq309008 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:40:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h25Fn1Ng021209 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:49:01 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303051549.h25Fn1Ng021209@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal References: <20030305153145.C59C216F16@jmason.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:49:01 -0700 (MST) > From: jm@jmason.org (Justin Mason) > David F. Skoll said: > ... [clearinghouse of sources of mail sent to bad addresses] > - what about randomised sender addresses? Some spamtools will generate > a new random From: addr for each recipient. I fear the relay IP > address is the only trustworthy source id that can be used... Not only do some spammers forge random source addresses (now often from their target lists), but they also use open proxies and relays so that the IP address varies and is not a reliable mark of evil. Worse, looking for delivery failures is still looking for side issues. A batch of bulk mail sent to 1000 bad addresses is not necessarily spam any more than a batch of bulk mail that mentions Viagra. What happens if a big ISP accidentally messes up its user database for a few hours and so bounces a bunch of copies of mail from list. Does that make messages from this list spam? "Spam" is unwanted mail, with "unwanted" determined by individual targets. One person's spam is another person's important newsletter, regardless of whether 1000 other copies bounce, whether the messages came through an SMTP relay or TCP proxy, or it mentions Viagra. Again, if you are going to do distributed spam detection (as opposed to the things this mailing list is charted to consider), I think you must look at mail bodies. Besides the DCC, there are Pyzor and Cloudmark, and even SpamAssassin if you squint at the updates to the default rules right. The DCC is currently looking at approaching 20 million messages per day and finding that about 60% of them are extremely bulky. See http://www.dcc-servers.net/dcc/graphs/ Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 15:03:18 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA25741 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:03:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25KDv316182 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:13:57 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25KDvO16179 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:13:57 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA25707 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:02:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25KA2O15995; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:10:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25K98O15924 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:09:08 -0500 Received: from escher.ties.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25466 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:57:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (deven@localhost) by escher.ties.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Jxxu01546; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:59:59 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: escher.ties.org: deven owned process doing -bs From: "Deven T. Corzine" To: "David F. Skoll" cc: Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:59:58 -0500 (EST) On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, David F. Skoll wrote: > The only way to stop smart, viral, motivated spammers is to change the > nature of e-mail so that strangers cannot communicate with you. That's > a solution that's worse than the problem. That's one way, and unfortunately it's gaining ground -- it seems to be increasing common for people to eschew email (or the Internet) entirely rather than suffer spam, while some are going whitelist-only. Meanwhile, most Internet users are scared to death of having their true email address accidently revealed in public where the spammers will harvest it... Another way to stop smart spammers is to change it so that strangers CAN still communicate with you easily, while ensuring that they somehow remain accountable for their actions. For example, if a spammer could be forced to pay a fine (in real money) if the recipient felt abused, there would be little incentive to spam people... Of course, enforcement is another issue, but that's where pervasive changes to the email infrastructure would probably come into play. Deven _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 15:14:55 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA26901 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:14:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25KPZD16837 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:25:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25KPYO16834 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:25:34 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA26890 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:14:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25KM3O16588; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:22:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25KLCO16548 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:21:12 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA26657 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:10:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18qaTH-0003mA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 10:06:15 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Deprecating plain POP accounts In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 05 Mar 2003 13:37:03 EST." <20030305133703.7a843f62.moore@cs.utk.edu> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 10:06:14 -0500 Keith Moore wrote: > > I disagree completely, and I won't argue about it. SPAM is a DDoS > > attack, originating from SMTP senders with random IP's. > > legitimate mail originates from random IPs also. I thought that legitimate email originated only from mailers that administrators had configured to send mail. Q: Why are open HTTP proxies allowed to relay email? A: Because no one at the site notices that they can send mail, and no one receiving the mail knows that that machine was not intended to send mail. Any mail system which allows such nonsense is broken. > > If getting rid of the "random SMTP sender" problem means that the > > roaming user is required to use a home server, then that's fine. It > > stops the spammer, and has little cost to the roaming user. > > no, it doesn't stop the spammer. it just makes life harder for > legitimate users. Ah, I see. In order for your "legitimate users" to save small amounts of effort, you require others to accept massive volumes of spam. That's the cost of your roaming user requirements. > > If a user from your domain is roaming, and wants to send email, I > > don't see why it's *my* problem to authenticate him. > > you're not authenticating him in any event. source IP addresses are not > authentication. and domains have nothing to do with IP addresses. If I want to be able to distinguish his traffic from spam, then there must be some way for me to do that. Maybe "qualifying" is a better word to use. Filters "qualify" email as valid. So your roaming user requires me to do extra work to filter, qualify, or authenticate them, because the traffic doesn't originate from the domain he claims to be sending from. Can I bill you for that extra time and effort? If not, why should I care about accepting email from such broken systems? > > Then that looks like a pretty good solution to 99.9% of the spam > > problem. > > only because you haven't thought it through. many spammers use > throwaway accounts anyway. the fact that they are using their ISP's > SMTP server to relay spam doesn't keep them from spamming. That traffic is less than .01% of the spam I'm seeing. It's so far off of my radar that it's indistinguishable from normal email traffic for me. The spam you're worried about is so inconsequential that if my domains were getting it, I wouldn't even be on this list. It just wouldn't be a problem. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 15:15:50 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA26960 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:15:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25KQU516914 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:26:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25KQUO16911 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:26:30 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA26933 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:15:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25KN1O16623; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:23:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25KMMO16597 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:22:22 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA26775 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:11:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h25KD3BD031974; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:13:03 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: Vernon Schryver cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal In-Reply-To: <200303051605.h25G54BL023815@calcite.rhyolite.com> Message-ID: References: <200303051605.h25G54BL023815@calcite.rhyolite.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:13:03 -0500 (EST) On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > Any system to detect "similar but not identical" > > messages can be thwarted if it uses a checksum scheme, and is too slow > > to be practical if it uses more sophisticated message-closeness > > measures. > You are quite wrong about that. Simplistic checksum schemes are easily > thwarted, but the DCC and other checksum schemes including Cloudmark are > not simplistic checksums. Any checksum scheme that can be made to produce different values for different messages that I select can be thwarted. Any checksum scheme that cannot be made to produce different values for different messages that I select is useless for distinguishing spam from non-spam. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 15:22:55 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27121 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:22:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25KXZB17341 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:33:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25KXZO17338 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:33:35 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27108 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:22:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25KU4O17096; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:30:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25KTvO17061 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:29:57 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27020 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:18:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (ebola [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.localdomain (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h25KTs0q010258 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:29:54 -0800 Received: (from peter@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h25KTr2Z010256; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:29:53 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: localhost.localdomain: peter set sender to octavian@corp.earthlink.net using -f Subject: Re: [Asrg] Time for the ISPs to fight back! From: "Peter A. Friend" To: Asrg In-Reply-To: <001401c2e350$d168f280$fd1e4e51@CPQ28140326195> References: <001401c2e350$d168f280$fd1e4e51@CPQ28140326195> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.8 (1.0.8-10) Message-Id: <1046896193.1124.21.camel@ebola> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 05 Mar 2003 12:29:53 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 11:52, Richard wrote: > I believe that it is not enough to just keep developing ever more complex methods of filtering out spam, the spammers will just continue to circumvent the filters. Witness the recent use of spacing between letters such as "L_O_OS_E W_E_I_G_H_T" in emails. > > Instead I suggest that the detection software at ISPs should respond to the spam it detects. This a very dangerous and essentially unusable suggestion for reasons I'll point out below. > Spam works like all mass marketing by fooling a small percentage of > those contacted into responding if a high percentage responded then > their system would collapse or at least become a lot more expensive > to run. If the detection software used by ISPs harvested the > unsubscribe email addresses or links from the spam and responded to > them wit false emails then the computers of the spammer would be > overwhelmed. AT the every least it would kill the unsubscribe link. > Pinging every spam link discovered would dramatically increase the > bandwidth the spammer was using and therefore their costs. Problems: 1. How to "detect" the spam in the first place. Didn't you just say above that spammers will continue to outwit filters? Detection is essentially the same as filtering in this case. 2. Given a false positive, we would be pinging or emailing a valid non spammer IP. This is called a Denial Of Service. People get sued for crap like this. 3. For a large ISP, the outbound pings, emails, whatever to an IP deemed to be a spammer would quickly cause a problem on outbound links. Bandwidth costs money. 4. Vigilantism will create more problems than it solves. 5. Could easily be used for a distributed DOS against a person or site. 6. There was someone who suggested this at the recent spam conference in Boston. It wasn't a popular suggestion for the reasons above and more. Peter _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 15:26:57 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27216 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:26:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25Kbb918201 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:37:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25KbbO18198 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:37:37 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27198 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:26:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25KY2O17381; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:34:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25KY0O17363 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:34:00 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27117 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:22:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h25KOgBD032060; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:24:42 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: Vernon Schryver cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal In-Reply-To: <200303051549.h25Fn1Ng021209@calcite.rhyolite.com> Message-ID: References: <20030305153145.C59C216F16@jmason.org> <200303051549.h25Fn1Ng021209@calcite.rhyolite.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:24:42 -0500 (EST) On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Vernon Schryver wrote: > Again, if you are going to do distributed spam detection (as opposed > to the things this mailing list is charted to consider), I think you must > look at mail bodies. You're right. But I took a look at the DCC checksum. It's very easy to fool. Add a few words here or there in the body and DCC is toast. However, that doesn't mean DCC is useless; on the contrary, it's extremely valuable to catch the spammers who don't evade it. Adding a clearing-house for bounced messages is simply one more indicator. You can integrate it into your SpamAssassin rule set with a score that makes you comfortable, just as right now SpamAssassin can use DCC, Razor, etc. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 15:27:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27239 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:27:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25KcGi18299 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:38:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25KcGO18296 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:38:16 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27230 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:27:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25KZ1O17461; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:35:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25KYmO17404 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:34:48 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27158 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:23:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h25KPbYn021492 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:25:37 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303052025.h25KPbYn021492@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:25:37 -0700 (MST) > From: "Alan DeKok" > Automatic filters only work if you're not receiving any significant > amount of spam. > > If you're receiving 100K+ spams a day, then the machines to run the > filters cost a fair amount of money. Not everyone can afford to spend > $10K on a mailer instead of $2K, just to get legitimate mail through. No, the DCC is not the only automated filter that handles a lot more than 100K spam/day generally on commodity hardware (PCs). > With the spam volume Chris Lewis is saying Nortel gets, I'd be > surprised if their infrastructure costs were less than $100K. > Large companies can afford that. Small ones can't. No, filtering is cheap even if you use Perl schemes such as SPamAssassin and it's almost invisible with others. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 15:33:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27405 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:33:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25KiNl18483 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:44:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25KiMO18480 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:44:22 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27362 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:33:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Kf2O18408; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:41:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Ke7O18391 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:40:07 -0500 Received: from mercury.ex.ac.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27283 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:28:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from [144.173.6.20] (helo=cronus.ex.ac.uk) by mercury.ex.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18qfXW-00CnAW-00; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 20:30:58 +0000 From: Adam Back To: Keith Moore Cc: Hadmut Danisch , raymie@cs.ucsc.edu, Asrg@ietf.org Subject: privacy is a feature (Re: [Asrg] desirable characteristics of source tracking) Message-ID: <20030305203057.B4412039@exeter.ac.uk> References: <200303050840.ABJ06911@m1.imap-partners.net> <20030305061230.1cf246a7.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305113323.GA4939@danisch.de> <20030305070437.60bdfd34.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305122021.GA6748@danisch.de> <20030305073217.46f79dcb.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305125322.GA7179@danisch.de> <20030305080032.59d50373.moore@cs.utk.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.2i In-Reply-To: <20030305080032.59d50373.moore@cs.utk.edu>; from moore@cs.utk.edu on Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 08:00:32AM -0500 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 20:30:57 +0000 Keith wrote: > > Privacy in our flavour means that you keep control of what > > information is leaking out about you. > > well, that seems reasonable. I mean, if when I sign up for an > account my ISP can say "is it okay if we tell people that you send > mail to these things that might help them decide whether to accept > your mail?" and I can opt-in or opt-out to that service, would there > be a problem then? Identity is largely pseudo-private on the internet today. Screen names are frequently nick-names, fun names, or nom-de-plumes which look like real names but are not the senders real name, plus the odd cryptographically protected anonymous and psuedonymous users. I'd sooner keep identity out of email receipt as far as anti-spam is concerned as it erodes these current freedoms to be anonymous and pseudonymous to varying degrees. Having an option to not receive anonymous mail for anti-spam motivated is from this perspective undersirable in that it makes anonymous users second class citizens -- their email will be likely discarded. Adam _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 15:59:50 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA28231 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:59:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25LAVj20470 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:10:31 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25LAVO20467 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:10:31 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA28209 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:59:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25L64O19202; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:06:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25KsKO18757 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:54:20 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27624 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:43:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18qazL-0003nX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 10:39:23 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 05 Mar 2003 13:25:37 MST." <200303052025.h25KPbYn021492@calcite.rhyolite.com> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 10:39:22 -0500 Vernon Schryver wrote: > No, filtering is cheap even if you use Perl schemes > such as SPamAssassin and it's almost invisible with others. I'll be honest, and admit that I haven't even bothered with those kind of filtering solutions, so I don't know what their expense would be. Why? My filtering involved firewalling port 25, and sending ICMP "port unreachable" messages to anyone not on a whitelist of IP's. The expense of doing that has turned out to be too much for me to handle. (bandwidth, time, cpu power, email from clueless admins complaining about my machine "attacking" them). I hate to think of what would happen if I opened port 25 again, and ran DCC or even Perl over every incoming email. My legitimate mail would *stop*. That's my point. I don't *care* how cheap it is to run any kind of filtering software. It's still too expensive. Look at the numbers Chris Lewis posted for Nortel. A domain I administer gets about as much spam as a company with 50k employees! In what crazy world is that acceptable? Why would it be my problem to filter out that garbage? With the amount of legitimate email I get, I should be able to use a 486-66 on a 56k dialup to handle the traffic. Any expense over that is *directly* attributable to spam. I've spent $1000's upgrading commodity hardware to handle spam. I'm tired of buying a new, faster, PC every year, just to handle the increased load. It's not my problem, and I want it to go away. Maybe you have $1K every year to spend on upgrading your commodity hardware. I don't. And I don't see why I should have to. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 16:02:46 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA28484 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:02:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25LDSe20689 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:13:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25LDRO20684 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:13:27 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA28353 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:02:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25LA1O20442; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:10:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25L9mO20400 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:09:48 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA28130 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:58:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h25L0bt00509; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:00:37 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: Asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <20030305210037.GB14655@main.templetons.com> References: <200303050840.ABJ06911@m1.imap-partners.net> <20030305061230.1cf246a7.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305113323.GA4939@danisch.de> <20030305070437.60bdfd34.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305122021.GA6748@danisch.de> <20030305073217.46f79dcb.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305125322.GA7179@danisch.de> <20030305080032.59d50373.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305203057.B4412039@exeter.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030305203057.B4412039@exeter.ac.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Subject: [Asrg] Whoops -- list volume is way too high, some principles Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:00:37 -0800 I care a lot about these issues and stopping spam without destroying the virtues of an open E-mail system. But this list's volume has just gotten to be way too much. Not that the messages aren't all worthwhile and relevant -- in fact the problem is there is too much signal here, not a bad signal/noise. I have to get some work done. And this has been vastly refreshing compared to places like the net-abuse.email newsgroup. Few flamers. Reasoned argument. No ad hominem. Technically informed folks. Keep that up! So I will have to beg off. That will probably help since I've been as bad as anybody in contributing to the volume. When more complete recommendations come forward I will try to comment. I will leave with these principles... a) Don't interfere with one to one mail at all. If we have to cripple some of the openness of the mail system, stick to doing it for bulk mailers, and even then do it as little as possible. b) Don't forget privacy rights and the (in the USA, constitutionally protected) right of anonymous communication in designing any systems of authentication. c) In general, though not required by law because we are not the government, pay attention to the century of lessons from 1st amendment jurisprudence -- avoid chilling effects, find the least restrictive means that solves the problem, provide no impediment to legitimate speech even if the cost of that is letting some spam get through. The 1st amendment is not just the law, it's a good idea. d) Consider the role of non-technical systems as well as technical as the solution almost surely invovles both. e) Be reasonable in what sort of software upgrades you call for. Forcing all users to get new MUAs won't happen except over many years. Forcing sites to get new MTAs is more doable but still hard. Try to find a migration path rather than a whole new system, even if that lets some spam through. f) Don't decide for somebody else what filtering they want. Let whatever system you build give the user choice about what email of theirs is stopped and what isn't. g) Keep your eyes on the real problem and the real goal. Reduce the overload on mail servers. Make mailboxes fully usable again. Make people not afraid to use their e-mail address in public. Save ISPs from the overload of handling valid and invalid abuse complaints. The goal is not to protect everybody from every mail they might not want or from the occasional annoyances. Those are the cost of free and open communications systems; the benefits of such systems outweigh those costs. h) Get some coding done! The IETF won't adopt anything not demonstrated to be working. i) My spam essays are as always available on my web site. I will update some of them, many were written at the dawn of this battle. There are also amusing, non-political ones you might enjoy, like where I researched the history of the term spam and the earliest spams. You will be highly amused to see the identity of the net's first-ever spam defender! j) I'll continue to advocate and refine my current best plan which is based at the core strictly on volume of traffic from given networks and off-network systems of accountability. I think that's the best blend, and welcome private comments on problems and improvements. www.templetons.com/brad/spume/endspam.html Perhaps I will rejoin when I have some more time for a list of this volume. Or I will gate it to a local newsgroup to make it easier to handle the volume -- newsreaders still outdo any mailer on that issue. -Brad _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 16:03:25 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA28515 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:03:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25LE6I20758 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:14:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25LE6O20755 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:14:06 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA28499 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:02:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25L6xO19250; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:06:59 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25KtkO18815 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:55:46 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27643 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:44:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h25KkVo00315; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:46:31 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: Kee Hinckley Cc: Alan DeKok , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] MTP drafty Message-ID: <20030305204630.GA14655@main.templetons.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:46:30 -0800 On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 11:50:12AM -0500, Kee Hinckley wrote: > A verified sender model would allow us to automatically fix this > problem, by reliably allowing him to unsubscribe. Spam services or > MUAs could use that information and present the option to the user. > With legal backing, companies that ignored the request could be > reported for abuse. Verifying senders with a signature would of course solve some problems, but the free speech implications of this are pretty dramatic. If this is to be done, it should only be done to bulk mailers. I believe we should, in the end, recommend no change be made to person to person e-mail, since there is no problem with that. I'm not even that keen on one aspect of my own draft, that by pooling statistics on the mail from unknowns, you create a convenient single surveillance point for some aspects of information about E-mail. The hope is that most people get on the trusted IP list quickly and don't go through the single point, and that for those who do, information is discarded as soon as it is not needed. Still, it's a concern. > > Of course, confirmed opt-in would prevent the problem from occurring > at all. It helps, but has its own annoyances. Plus it's a loophole, in that spammers will just send out messages saying "This is to confirm your request to subscribe to our mailing list about where to get cheap penis enlargers. Click on this link to confirm your subscription!" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 16:04:23 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA28566 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:04:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25LF4x20833 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:15:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25LF4O20830 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:15:04 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA28532 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:03:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25LB3O20562; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:11:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25LAdO20492 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:10:39 -0500 Received: from nber13.nber.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA28218 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:59:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from nber13.nber.org (localhost.nber.org [127.0.0.1]) by nber13.nber.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h25L1T0Z067431 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:01:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by nber13.nber.org (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id h25L1TEt067430 for asrg@ietf.org.KAV; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:01:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from nber1.nber.org (nber1.nber.org [207.113.108.252]) by nber13.nber.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h25L1S0a067413; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:01:29 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Feenberg To: Keith Moore cc: jim@media.mit.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] filtering at connect time In-Reply-To: <20030305132640.29970329.moore@cs.utk.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:01:28 -0500 (EST) On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Keith Moore wrote: > > > I think a simple standard could eliminate the pain of changing smtp > > hosts for each ISP used. > > the SUBMISSION protocol (basically SMTP on another port, but requiring > authentication) is simpler than that. see RFC 2476. We have implemented a submission port, but it is hardly a panacea. Outlook only supports plain text passwords (which is a step down from no passwords, in my opinion) and Eudora requires installing the "esoteric features" (which are not part of the default install). It does have the advantage that it by passes outbound port 25 blocks, which is why we use it. I believe this is an excellent long run solution, but till the MUAs take it seriously, it will be hard to impose it on recalcitrant operators of open relays. > > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 16:14:22 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA28953 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:14:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25LP4g21309 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:25:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25LP4O21306 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:25:04 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA28942 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:13:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25LN4O21192; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:23:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25LDYO20706 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:13:34 -0500 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA28371 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:02:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com [171.71.163.14]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h25L4J0P019835; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:04:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from CSCOAMERA19540.cisco.com (stealth-10-32-253-238.cisco.com [10.32.253.238]) by mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.1-GA) with SMTP id AES24740; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:59:09 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030305130201.045a1b90@mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com> X-Sender: fred@mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Vernon Schryver From: Fred Baker Cc: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <200303051607.h25G7kGN024041@calcite.rhyolite.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [Asrg] Re: SHEESH! Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 13:02:30 -0800 At 09:07 AM 3/5/2003 -0700, Vernon Schryver wrote: >I guess I shouldn't have used the V-word... I think that falls under "false positives"... :^) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 16:18:24 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA29177 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:18:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25LT6X21740 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:29:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25LT6O21737 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:29:06 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA29148 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:17:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25LR3O21589; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:27:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25LOXO21273 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:24:33 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA28926 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:13:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h25LF7mi014461; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:15:07 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h25LEhsT015327 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:14:43 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h25LEhuw015324; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:14:43 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Adam Back Cc: Keith Moore , raymie@cs.ucsc.edu, Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: privacy is a feature (Re: [Asrg] desirable characteristics of source tracking) Message-ID: <20030305211443.GA15047@danisch.de> References: <200303050840.ABJ06911@m1.imap-partners.net> <20030305061230.1cf246a7.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305113323.GA4939@danisch.de> <20030305070437.60bdfd34.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305122021.GA6748@danisch.de> <20030305073217.46f79dcb.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305125322.GA7179@danisch.de> <20030305080032.59d50373.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305203057.B4412039@exeter.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030305203057.B4412039@exeter.ac.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:14:43 +0100 On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 08:30:57PM +0000, Adam Back wrote: > > I'd sooner keep identity out of email receipt as far as anti-spam is > concerned as it erodes these current freedoms to be anonymous and > pseudonymous to varying degrees. Sending anonymous mail is not a right or freedom of the sender. That view is as common as wrong. Anonymous mail is a violation of the freedom of the recipient. Freedom always has to end where other people's freedom starts. Freedom doesn't include violation of someone else's freedom. > Having an option to not receive anonymous mail for anti-spam motivated > is from this perspective undersirable in that it makes anonymous users > second class citizens -- their email will be likely discarded. Pure Nonsense. Nobody can be required to pay time and money for providing e-mail infrastructure designed to be vulnerable just to make anonymous senders not feel as second class citizens. Your demanding everybody to be open for denial of service attacks and fraud. In the same way you could demand to immediately stop this working/research group, because spammers could feel as being "second class citizens". Why do I have to pay time and money to allow others to stay anonymous? Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 16:23:46 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA29472 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:23:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25LYSW22201 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:34:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25LYSO22198 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:34:28 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA29432 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:23:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25LW1O21978; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:32:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25LVBO21931 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:31:11 -0500 Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA29282 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:19:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h25LLuA01912; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:21:57 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Moore To: Hadmut Danisch Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, aland@freeradius.org, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Deprecating plain POP accounts Message-Id: <20030305162156.484c4750.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <20030305193344.GA12295@danisch.de> References: <20030305120839.63708d42.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305133703.7a843f62.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305193344.GA12295@danisch.de> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:21:56 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > If getting rid of the "random SMTP sender" problem means that > > > the > > > roaming user is required to use a home server, then that's fine. > > > It stops the spammer, and has little cost to the roaming user. > > > > no, it doesn't stop the spammer. it just makes life harder for > > legitimate users. > > Could you elaborate this? I don't see how this should make > life harder. In my experience, it makes legitimate users's life much > easier and cheaper. there are legitimate needs to be able to send SMTP from random places on the Internet, even from dialup lines. preventing users from doing so makes it easier for the ISP to trace complaints, but it really doesn't prevent people from spamming. it just means they have to use throwaway accounts. > > you're not authenticating him in any event. source IP addresses are > > not authentication. and domains have nothing to do with IP > > addresses. > > Currently domain have nothing to do with IP addresses. > Currently we have a severe spam problem. > Maybe it's not so wise to insist on keeping the current status quo. that's like Mr. Bush's logic: no matter what the source of the problem is, bomb Iraq. maybe it's not wise to impose barriers that block legitimate use, decrease network transparency, and don't actually solve any problem. > > only because you haven't thought it through. many spammers use > > throwaway accounts anyway. the fact that they are using their ISP's > > SMTP server to relay spam doesn't keep them from spamming. > > Again, could you elaborate? > > If they had to use their ISP's SMTP server, this server will stop them > using wrong domains. That's the first step to stop spam. there's no such thing as a wrong domain. people need to be able to originate mail from other domains than the ISP's. and it won't stop spam, because the spammers will just use throwaway accounts. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 16:24:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA29583 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:24:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25LZLU22334 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:35:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25LZLO22329 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:35:21 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA29551 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:24:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25LX1O22089; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:33:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25LWaO22040 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:32:36 -0500 Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA29341 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:21:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h25LNHA01916; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:23:17 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Moore To: Adam Back Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, brad@templetons.com, paul.judge@ciphertrust.com, vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: principles / first do no damage (Re: [Asrg] definition of spam) Message-Id: <20030305162317.198af413.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <20030305194342.A4412039@exeter.ac.uk> References: <20030304205916.56614a9f.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305040008.GB14655@main.templetons.com> <20030305194342.A4412039@exeter.ac.uk> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:23:17 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:43:42 +0000 Adam Back wrote: > To avoid the trend of people only airing negative opinions, let me say > that I think Brad's narrow content-neutral unsolicited high volume > definition to be spot-on. We really must avoid solutions which reduce > functionality, reliability and freedoms of email. I don't agree with the spam definition, but am very much in agreement with the "do no damage" principle. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 16:26:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA29755 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:26:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25LbBn22595 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:37:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25LbAO22592 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:37:10 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA29728 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:25:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25LZ3O22297; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:35:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25LYVO22214 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:34:31 -0500 Received: from farpoint.newfrontiersw.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA29436 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:23:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from newfrontiersw.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by farpoint.newfrontiersw.com (TransPhasicMail) with SMTP id 7AF3FE38C for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:25:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from 207.127.152.83 (SquirrelMail authenticated user terry) by www.newfrontiersw.com with HTTP; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:25:21 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <43978.207.127.152.83.1046899521.squirrel@www.newfrontiersw.com> Subject: Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) From: "Terry Carmen" To: In-Reply-To: References: X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal X-Mailer: SquirrelMail (version 1.2.10) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:25:21 -0500 (EST) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Alan DeKok wrote: > Nah. If you're receiving that kind of mail volume, you have big > machines with under-utilized CPUs anyway. Content-scanning just uses up > CPU cycles that would be wasted. Nik Clayton says he filters > 2 million messages/day with SpamAssassin; I'd be amazed if fewer > than 100K of those are spam. > >> With the spam volume Chris Lewis is saying Nortel gets, I'd be >> surprised if their infrastructure costs were less than $100K. >> Large companies can afford that. Small ones can't. > > Small companies don't get 100K spams/day.network Small companies routinely get several hundred, up to several thousand spams/day. I found the biggest improvement by blacklisting Korea and China. Mail from IPs within their netblocks is simply refused. There are a few South-American countries that I may add next. Using an RBL in-progress spam attacks and another for open relays has reduced the spam that makes it through from thousands to only a dozen or so per day. Unfortunately, this still wastes my bandwidth. Server utilization isn't really an issue, since even a slow box by today's standards can handle a huge amount of rejected connections. Blacklists (fixed and dynamic) are the technological equivilant of "shunning", and seem to be quite effective if practiced on a widespread basis. It can range from "If you break our social contract, we will ignore you", to "we will ignore your network", or even "we will ignore your region of the earth" if the spam continues. The trick is to make spamming painful for the network owners, so THEY will control the spammers. Networks are expensive and nobody wants to own one that can't talk to anybody else. At some point in the world of spam, there is a network operator who has allowed a spammer a connection. This may be an ISP, Network Provider or simply an open relay. It really doesn't matter. The place where the mail enters the netwok should feel pain for polluting our space. Once this happens, spam will again become only a minor annoyance. Terry _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 16:29:48 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA29937 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:29:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25LeUu23640 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:40:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25LeUO23637 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:40:30 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA29913 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:29:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Ld7O23477; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:39:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25LcRO23298 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:38:27 -0500 Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA29812 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:27:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h25LTGA01923; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:29:16 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Moore To: "Sauer, Damon" Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Multiple Suggestions Message-Id: <20030305162915.7c49cf19.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D547@bremocag> References: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D547@bremocag> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:29:15 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > oh, they'd be happy to let me send to port 25 if I paid them > $300/month. mainly it's a bad precedent. > > ---------- Ok.. then we can agree that this is not a show stopper. if would be a show stopper if this group tried to recommend it. as it is, I don't see this group doing anything that specific, much less that stupid, so I'm not worried about it. > ---------- By getting rid of John Q. Public spammers allows for the > drastic reduction in spam. no it doesn't. it just means the spam comes from DMA members. the signal to noise ratio of email will still suck. > But, I would be happy if I reduced all my spam to > only one type of hand soap rather that 3,000. it's not at all clear to me that 3000 ads for 3000 different products is better than 3000 ads for 10 different products. the latter are easier to filter. > it's also perfectly legitimate to originate mail from a dialup line, > without relaying through some third party's server. > > ----------- This one requires the most thought. I am not sure that my > idea of sending to the "home" server for relay is a good idea because > how does the home server authenticate the relayed email? SMTP authentication is already defined. the point is that it's not always appropriate to impose this burden. > > --- Keith, my ideas are my own and in no way reflect the position of > > my employer. > > nor did I say that they did. > > ------------ I apologize if I misunderstood. :-) good. now since these ideas are your own, and you're not speaking for your employer, you might want to get rid of that obnoxious disclaimer - that incidentally violates IETF rules (though to be fair I'm not sure whether IETF rules apply to an IRTF WG): or does your ISP force you to use a relay that appends this garbage? > "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity > to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, > and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this > information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient > is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the > sender and delete the material from all computers." Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 16:30:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00096 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:30:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25LfEl23806 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:41:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25LfEO23803 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:41:14 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA29984 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:29:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Ld3O23403; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:39:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25LakO22434 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:36:46 -0500 Received: from mercury.ex.ac.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA29704 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:25:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from [144.173.6.20] (helo=cronus.ex.ac.uk) by mercury.ex.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18qgQI-00CumH-00; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 21:27:34 +0000 From: Adam Back To: Hadmut Danisch Cc: Keith Moore , raymie@cs.ucsc.edu, Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: privacy is a feature (Re: [Asrg] desirable characteristics of source tracking) Message-ID: <20030305212734.A4463801@exeter.ac.uk> References: <200303050840.ABJ06911@m1.imap-partners.net> <20030305061230.1cf246a7.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305113323.GA4939@danisch.de> <20030305070437.60bdfd34.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305122021.GA6748@danisch.de> <20030305073217.46f79dcb.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305125322.GA7179@danisch.de> <20030305080032.59d50373.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305203057.B4412039@exeter.ac.uk> <20030305211443.GA15047@danisch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.2i In-Reply-To: <20030305211443.GA15047@danisch.de>; from hadmut@danisch.de on Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 10:14:43PM +0100 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 21:27:34 +0000 Dude: Anonymous users and spammers are not the same group. A debate about the rights and wrongs of being allowed to send anonymous mail is a debate and technology for another group. My comment is that I don't want to see unintended fall-outs from anti-spam efforts. Banning anonymous mail, making anonymous mail less reliable are very clearly and unequivocally fall outs. How do you know "Adam Back" is not a pseudonym? You have no way to know, I haven't signed my mail, and I don't want any anti-spam measure to force me to sign it, because it is not in my personal interests to sign general emails I send. Email has no current expecation of identification. You are proposing a change to defacto rights against users interests. I completely disagree with your comments about the right to retain privacy, and right to avoid receiving anonmous communications -- you have no current right in that regard for email, and introducing one takes a way more freedoms than it introduces. In general I find many of your ideas expressed on this list heavy-handed and ignorant of other peoples rights and functionalities. I suggest you read and digest Brad's principles page I posted in a previous list. I happen to think the way email privacy and anonymity works at present is good, and if anything needs improving rather than removing. I think your ideas to reduce privacy are very badly damaging to email freedoms. You can't just make pronouncements and presume your view is the only correct one. Consider there are people who disagree; for them you are proposing to remove freedoms, functionality and reliability. You say "good - that slows spam" or "good - I don't want to recieve anonymous mails". But you _are_ proposing to damange existing functionality and freedoms. Adam On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 10:14:43PM +0100, Hadmut Danisch wrote: > On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 08:30:57PM +0000, Adam Back wrote: > > > > I'd sooner keep identity out of email receipt as far as anti-spam is > > concerned as it erodes these current freedoms to be anonymous and > > pseudonymous to varying degrees. > > > Sending anonymous mail is not a right or freedom of the sender. > That view is as common as wrong. Anonymous mail is a violation > of the freedom of the recipient. > > Freedom always has to end where other people's freedom starts. > Freedom doesn't include violation of someone else's freedom. > > > > > Having an option to not receive anonymous mail for anti-spam motivated > > is from this perspective undersirable in that it makes anonymous users > > second class citizens -- their email will be likely discarded. > > Pure Nonsense. > > Nobody can be required to pay time and money for providing > e-mail infrastructure designed to be vulnerable just to > make anonymous senders not feel as second class citizens. > Your demanding everybody to be open for denial of service attacks > and fraud. > > In the same way you could demand to immediately stop this > working/research group, because spammers could feel as being > "second class citizens". > > Why do I have to pay time and money to allow others to > stay anonymous? > > Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 16:30:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00109 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:30:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25LfGn23840 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:41:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25LfGO23837 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:41:16 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA29988 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:30:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Ld6O23457; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:39:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25LcNO23294 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:38:23 -0500 Received: from emu.st (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id QAA29809 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:27:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 86286 invoked by uid 1015); 5 Mar 2003 21:29:12 -0000 Delivered-To: qmda-intercept-asrg@ietf.org@intercept Comments: QMDA 0.1 - see http://www.geocities.com/mark_delany/qmda.html Received: (qmail 32186 invoked from network); 5 Mar 2003 21:29:11 -0000 Received: from prefix-internal.emu.st (HELO emu.st) (10.100.100.36) by f1-external.emu.st with SMTP; 5 Mar 2003 21:29:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 27357 invoked by uid 1001); 5 Mar 2003 21:29:11 -0000 Message-ID: <20030305212911.27356.qmail@prefix.emu.st> From: "Mark Delany" Mail-Followup-To: asrg@ietf.org To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] definition of spam (was Re: consent expression) References: <20030304205916.56614a9f.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305040008.GB14655@main.templetons.com> <20030304234928.5485710d.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305051840.GI14655@main.templetons.com> <20030305061401.23988.qmail@prefix.emu.st> <20030305071700.GK14655@main.templetons.com> <20030305081139.24231.qmail@prefix.emu.st> <20030305194527.GU14655@main.templetons.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030305194527.GU14655@main.templetons.com>; from brad@templetons.com on Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 11:45:27AM -0800 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 5 Mar 2003 21:29:11 +0000 On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 11:45:27AM -0800, Brad Templeton allegedly wrote: > Nonetheless, I think if we came up with a really workable solution > that people could endorse in this fractious community, and a way > to make the changeover take place over a year or more, it could > be done. I agree and I hope you're right. > people would be very angry. Like a million small businesses where > some consultant installed Microsoft Exchange or Sendmail for them, > and they don't have the slightest idea how to upgrade it, and aren't > happy about paying $500 to get another consultant to come in and > do it. You're not thinking like the joe ordinary computer user, > most of whom are like the above small biz. Don't most of those Joes buy their connectivity from an ISP? Couldn't the ISP proxy for Joe? Perhaps by intercepting port 25 traffic? Sure, lot's of special cases, transitional s/w and what not, but helping most Joes is a possibility. Heck the ISPs won't mind. After all, won't they have lots of idle abuse people and anti-spam servers sitting around just waiting for something to do? (only half joking). Regards. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 16:32:25 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00286 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:32:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25Lh6u24043 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:43:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Lh5O24040 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:43:05 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00236 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:31:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Lf2O23771; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:41:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25LebO23666 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:40:37 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA29923 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:29:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h25LVFBD032506; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:31:15 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: Alan DeKok cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:31:15 -0500 (EST) On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Alan DeKok wrote: > Why? My filtering involved firewalling port 25, and sending ICMP > "port unreachable" messages to anyone not on a whitelist of IP's. The > expense of doing that has turned out to be too much for me to handle. Well, Alan, I have no idea what you did to attract that much spam, but I assure you, it's unusual. None of my clients nor the 500+ people on the MIMEDefang mailing list have reported anywhere near the spam stats on striker.ottawa.on.ca > That's my point. I don't *care* how cheap it is to run any kind of > filtering software. It's still too expensive. For you, maybe so. > Look at the numbers > Chris Lewis posted for Nortel. Those numbers are not unmanageable. And I believe Chris Lewis does run filtering software. > A domain I administer gets about as > much spam as a company with 50k employees! Yes, but why? That's extremely unusual. Did someone have it in for you and sign you up to hundreds of lists? -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 16:33:18 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00331 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:33:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25Li0j24111 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:44:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25LhxO24108 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:43:59 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00313 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:32:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Lg2O23961; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:42:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25LfcO23898 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:41:38 -0500 Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00067 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:30:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h25LWPA01935; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:32:25 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Moore To: Adam Back Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, hadmut@danisch.de, raymie@cs.ucsc.edu, Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: privacy is a feature (Re: [Asrg] desirable characteristics of source tracking) Message-Id: <20030305163225.088b989c.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <20030305203057.B4412039@exeter.ac.uk> References: <200303050840.ABJ06911@m1.imap-partners.net> <20030305061230.1cf246a7.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305113323.GA4939@danisch.de> <20030305070437.60bdfd34.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305122021.GA6748@danisch.de> <20030305073217.46f79dcb.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305125322.GA7179@danisch.de> <20030305080032.59d50373.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305203057.B4412039@exeter.ac.uk> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:32:25 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Identity is largely pseudo-private on the internet today. Screen > names are frequently nick-names, fun names, or nom-de-plumes which > look like real names but are not the senders real name, plus the odd > cryptographically protected anonymous and psuedonymous users. > > I'd sooner keep identity out of email receipt as far as anti-spam is > concerned as it erodes these current freedoms to be anonymous and > pseudonymous to varying degrees. me too. which is why I don't want an identity that is tracable to the actual sender to the message; instead, I want an identity that can only be associated with whether the sender has a history of sending abusive mail. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 16:34:18 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00371 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:34:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25Lj0m24215 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:45:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25LixO24204 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:44:59 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00356 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:33:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Lh1O24028; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:43:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25LguO24005 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:42:56 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00212 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:31:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h25LXdBD032521 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:33:39 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: privacy is a feature (Re: [Asrg] desirable characteristics of source tracking) In-Reply-To: <20030305211443.GA15047@danisch.de> Message-ID: References: <200303050840.ABJ06911@m1.imap-partners.net> <20030305061230.1cf246a7.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305113323.GA4939@danisch.de> <20030305070437.60bdfd34.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305122021.GA6748@danisch.de> <20030305073217.46f79dcb.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305125322.GA7179@danisch.de> <20030305080032.59d50373.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305203057.B4412039@exeter.ac.uk> <20030305211443.GA15047@danisch.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:33:39 -0500 (EST) On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Hadmut Danisch wrote: > Sending anonymous mail is not a right or freedom of the sender. > That view is as common as wrong. Anonymous mail is a violation > of the freedom of the recipient. How so? Do you mean if I'm walking around a city, and I want to ask for directions, I'm not allowed to say: "Excuse me, how do I get to..." I have to say "My name is David Skoll, I can be reached at (613) 555-1212 by phone, and by the way, how do I get to..." > Why do I have to pay time and money to allow others to > stay anonymous? You don't. No-one's forcing you to use e-mail. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 16:35:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00476 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:35:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25LkRR24302 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:46:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25LkRO24299 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:46:27 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00460 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:35:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Li2O24150; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:44:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25LhpO24097 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:43:51 -0500 Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00307 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:32:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h25LYdA01939; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:34:39 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Moore To: Daniel Feenberg Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, jim@media.mit.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] filtering at connect time Message-Id: <20030305163439.60143359.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: References: <20030305132640.29970329.moore@cs.utk.edu> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:34:39 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > the SUBMISSION protocol (basically SMTP on another port, but > > requiring authentication) is simpler than that. see RFC 2476. > > We have implemented a submission port, but it is hardly a panacea. > Outlook only supports plain text passwords (which is a step down from > no passwords, in my opinion) surely it does plain text over SSL/TLS? it's hard to do better than that, as the other solutions (keyed hash functions, client certs, kerberos) require new infrastructure that usually isn't in place. > I believe this is an excellent long run > solution, but till the MUAs take it seriously, it will be hard to > impose it on recalcitrant operators of open relays. we haven't found passwords-over-SSL to be terribly onerous. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 16:36:27 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00526 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:36:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25Ll9C24385 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:47:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Ll9O24382 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:47:09 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00490 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:35:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Lj1O24236; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:45:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25LiLO24180 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:44:21 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00326 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:33:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h25LZ78K014872; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:35:07 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h25LUqsT015616 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:30:52 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h25LUpvQ015614; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:30:51 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Brad Templeton Cc: Kee Hinckley , Alan DeKok , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] MTP drafty Message-ID: <20030305213051.GB15047@danisch.de> References: <20030305204630.GA14655@main.templetons.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030305204630.GA14655@main.templetons.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:30:51 +0100 On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:46:30PM -0800, Brad Templeton wrote: > > Verifying senders with a signature would of course solve some problems, > but the free speech implications of this are pretty dramatic. Huh? Do free speech and sender verification/signatures mutually exclude each other? Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 16:38:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00612 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:38:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25LnB624635 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:49:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25LnBO24632 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:49:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00599 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:37:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25LlBO24405; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:47:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25LkpO24334 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:46:51 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00472 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:35:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (zcard307.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h25Lbdd00991 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:37:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDFBD4C2; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:37:40 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id FSK7YZZP; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:37:39 -0500 Message-ID: <3E666EE6.2090703@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] definition of spam (was Re: consent expression) References: <20030304205916.56614a9f.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305040008.GB14655@main.templetons.com> <20030304234928.5485710d.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305051840.GI14655@main.templetons.com> <20030305051936.55246a31.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305062722.3d36f607.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305085043.700fb87a.moore@cs.utk.edu> <3E6635FC.9060003@americasm01.nt.com> <20030305134413.2988c5b7.moore@cs.utk.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 16:40:54 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Keith Moore wrote: >>But at the conceptual level, being able to express and enforce >>_somehow_: >> >> Any consent has to be given from the receipient to the sender, >> and should be non-transferable and revokable at any time. >> >>is critical. > no, I think that's a non-starter. oh I suppose people can impose such > constraints if they wish, but it basically means they'll never get any > mail from somebody they don't know, because they have no way to give > them consent. The context is bulk, not one-on-one email. With bulk, of course there is a way of giving consent. Subscribing/confirming to it. > at the very least, let's recognize that the kind of consent you are > talking about is different than a recipient giving consent to the mail > system to do filtering on a recipient's behalf. and as I read the > charter, it's talking about the latter. From a definition of spam perspective (see subject line), it's definately the former. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 16:38:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00630 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:38:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25LnNd24652 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:49:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25LnNO24649 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:49:23 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00605 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:38:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Lm3O24529; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:48:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25LlfO24452 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:47:41 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00541 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:36:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2082811; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 16:38:32 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <001401c2e350$d168f280$fd1e4e51@CPQ28140326195> References: <001401c2e350$d168f280$fd1e4e51@CPQ28140326195> To: "Richard" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Time for the ISPs to fight back! Cc: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:53:35 -0500 At 7:52 PM +0000 3/5/03, Richard wrote: >Instead I suggest that the detection software at ISPs should respond >to the spam it detects. This wouldn't effect the few false positives >that are found, in fact it would be a service as it would advise >them to rephrase their subject line. This is why everyone is talking about authenticated senders. You cannot reply until you know who to reply to. The message arrives from a machine not owned by the spammer. The from address isn't owned by the spammer. The web address listed in the email may only be up for a matter of hours before it is shut down. In fact often even the domain records get changed by the spammer after the spam has been out for a few hours. Any form of automatic reply promptly turns into a very convenient way to abuse innocent bystanders. It all comes back to authentication. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 16:38:57 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00651 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:38:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25Lndh24670 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:49:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25LncO24667 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:49:38 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00609 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:38:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Lm4O24545; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:48:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25LlgO24456 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:47:42 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00544 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:36:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2082807 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 16:38:33 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: To: asrg@ietf.org From: Kee Hinckley Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Subject: [Asrg] Summarizing Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:26:49 -0500 Based on monitoring the discussion for the past 18 hours or so, I think I see some trends, but maybe I'm on drugs. I think people are willing to have a solution which creates work for legitimate bulk emailers (e.g. authentication, custom software...). They do not want a solution that interferes with the current peer-to-peer benefits of email. They do not find it practicable to have a solution which requires major infrastructure, MTA or MUA changes. Any solution must support a phased-in process. Those constraints lead me in the following direction. I'm not 100% comfortable with it, because I haven't had time to think through all the ramifications, but I'll throw it out. 1. You need to be able to identify whether email is bulk or not. This enables you to separate peer-to-peer from spam and bulkmail. 2. You need to place a requirement on bulk mailers that their email be authenticated. That authentication carries with it certain technical requirements (e.g. possibly confirmed-opt-in or other restrictions). Those are contractual specifications set forth by the certificate authority. If you can examine an email message and reliably determine those two things, then you can reliably distinguish spam from regular email. Issues. Q. What prevents abuse by certified bulk mailers? A. The legal system. The U.S. courts have already agreed that spamming violates ISP AUPs, and that there is an assumption of knowledge on the part of the spammer (i.e. they don't have to have read the AUP--they should know that spamming is not allowed). Additional laws would probably, especially wrt collecting damages (currently spam suits almost certainly cost more than they recover). But these laws can focus on contractual and trespassing issues, not technical issues. The key is that we have locked down the identity of the abusers, and by giving them an identity, have imposed certain legal constraints on their behavior. Q. Can we reliably detect bulk mail using a distributed system? A. People on this list claim so. The main issue is whether they will remain effective as new countermeasures are introduced. I also worry about abuse of the system via deliberate attempts to discredit companies and/or people. Somewhere.com is on way more blacklists than I care to think about. All from joe-jobs back in the mid-nineties. Everyone adds people to blacklists. Nobody removes them. Q. What authentication? A. My personal preference would be a cryptographic key verified via a DNS lookup against the the domain in the From line (yes, the one the user sees). I think that domain-based authentication has a number of advantages. There's already an infrastructure for selling domain-based certificates. It avoids the need to have certificates on a per-user basis. It puts the onus of keeping track of user behavior on the company owning the domain. It allows the signing to take place in the MTA instead of the MUA. A number of these features aid in the migration of the solution down to general users in addition to just bulk mailers. Over time this means requiring less and less reliance on the need to identify messages as being bulk. So? Tear it apart, but in three parts. Are the initial requirements accurate? Does the proposed solution theoretically address the issues (i.e. assuming the technologies behave as described)? Does it practically address the issues? -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 16:39:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00705 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:39:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25Lo0R24703 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:50:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25LnxO24700 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:49:59 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00648 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:38:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Lm1O24496; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:48:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25LlcO24440 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:47:38 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00521 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:36:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2082809; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 16:38:29 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: Jason Hihn From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] How to can the spam Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:33:46 -0500 At 2:23 PM -0500 3/5/03, Jason Hihn wrote: >choice, but is tainted with the taste of spam. We need to switch to another >character. I find any of the following acceptable: !#%&~|{} This char is >called the 'promoted' char. The old '@' is the demoted char. Well, let's stay away from ones that the email system already uses. ! and % in particular would be rather bad news. Also, keep in mind that there are thousands of web forms out there that think (incorrectly) that they know what an email address is. I'd say that I'm only successfully able to put a "+" in my email address on web forms about 75% of the time. But anyway, nits. >On to my technical approach: >I'm entertaining using signatures issued by the ISP, and verified against >the server in the ISP's MX record. If an ISP sees too many inquires for a >user, then that user maybe flagged as spammer, and the account can be >suspended/revoked/throttled back. Eventually the sender will exhaust his I'm not clear on what you mean here by "inquiry". Are you assuming that I'm a spammer if I send too much email? Or are you assuming that each query comes from a bounce or complaint? And in either case, how do you verify that the site making the query is in fact the site that was sent the email? What keeps me from writing a program to make it look like someone else is spamming? Does the sending ISP have to maintain state and keep track of how many messages I sent and make sure it matches the complaints? >them only get off a few hundred before they are yanked. Also watch the >undeliverables. It is rare for me to send to a wrong address, maybe 1 a >month. Surely 10 a month is reasonable? (And they'll all happen in minutes!) I'm currently the victim of a hoax that has resulted in hundreds of people sending email to wormalert@somewhere.com every day. About 25% of those messages contained that hoax, or other hoaxes. So I decided to be nice and set up an auto-responder. It did a reply-all to the mail and told people that they had just received a hoax. I was easily bouncing 50 messages a day--because people were forwarding these hoaxes to everyone in their address book, and large numbers of those addresses were incorrect. That, combined with people accusing me of spamming them, made me back-off and just reply to the sender. Eventually I had to back off from that and just bounce with an extended bounce message. I'm still getting 300 messages a day, plus another 4-500 viruses. On a related subject. When considering authentication schemes, please consider how you are going to handle bounces. I've seen spam masquerading as a bounce before (and viruses as well, of course). (I've even seen spam masquerading as a spam complaint.) -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 16:39:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00725 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:39:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25LoEt24743 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:50:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25LoDO24740 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:50:13 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00665 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:39:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Lm2O24513; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:48:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25LlcO24444 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:47:38 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00523 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:36:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2082806; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 16:38:30 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20030305134413.2988c5b7.moore@cs.utk.edu> References: <20030304205916.56614a9f.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305040008.GB14655@main.templetons.com> <20030304234928.5485710d.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305051840.GI14655@main.templetons.com> <20030305051936.55246a31.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305062722.3d36f607.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305085043.700fb87a.moore@cs.utk.edu> <3E6635FC.9060003@americasm01.nt.com> <20030305134413.2988c5b7.moore@cs.utk.edu> To: Keith Moore From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] definition of spam (was Re: consent expression) Cc: "Chris Lewis" , moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:39:47 -0500 At 1:44 PM -0500 3/5/03, Keith Moore wrote: >at the very least, let's recognize that the kind of consent you are >talking about is different than a recipient giving consent to the mail >system to do filtering on a recipient's behalf. and as I read the >charter, it's talking about the latter. Is there any help defining this kind of fuzzy problem in the legal system? I'm thinking particularly of how "harassment" gets defined in laws. Does anyone know? -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 16:46:18 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA01134 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:46:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25Lv0r25188 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:57:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Lv0O25181 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:57:00 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA01113 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:45:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Lt3O25038; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:55:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25LsGO24946 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:54:16 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA01016 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:43:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h25Lj5n4015152; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:45:05 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h25LebsT015831 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:40:37 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h25Lebc4015829; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:40:37 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Brad Templeton Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Whoops -- list volume is way too high, some principles Message-ID: <20030305214037.GC15047@danisch.de> References: <200303050840.ABJ06911@m1.imap-partners.net> <20030305061230.1cf246a7.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305113323.GA4939@danisch.de> <20030305070437.60bdfd34.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305122021.GA6748@danisch.de> <20030305073217.46f79dcb.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305125322.GA7179@danisch.de> <20030305080032.59d50373.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305203057.B4412039@exeter.ac.uk> <20030305210037.GB14655@main.templetons.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030305210037.GB14655@main.templetons.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:40:37 +0100 On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 01:00:37PM -0800, Brad Templeton wrote: > > b) Don't forget privacy rights and the (in the USA, constitutionally > protected) right of anonymous communication in designing any systems > of authentication. > Interesting. Could anyone give me a hint which part of the US constitution is stating this? There might be a conflict between constitutions. The german constitution says it is the recipients right to not be bothered with unsolicited communication which includes anonymous communication. So if an american sender claims to have a constitutional right to send anonymously, and the german recipient claims to have a constitutional right to not be incommodated with that, who has the stronger right? Does the US constitutional right of anonymous communication include the right to force others into communication or is it limited to communication with both parties consent? Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 16:59:50 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA01927 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:59:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25MAWv27283 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:10:32 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25MAWO27278 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:10:32 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA01891 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:59:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25M8LO27141; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:08:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25M7fO27053 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:07:41 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA01768 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:56:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18qc8F-0003qc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 11:52:39 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 05 Mar 2003 16:31:15 EST." Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 11:52:39 -0500 "David F. Skoll" wrote: > Well, Alan, I have no idea what you did to attract that much spam, but > I assure you, it's unusual. None of my clients nor the 500+ people on > the MIMEDefang mailing list have reported anywhere near the spam stats > on striker.ottawa.on.ca That's why I joined this list, and why I'm making such noise about the issue. Everyone I talk to complains about the spam "problem", and they get 3 orders of magnitude less spam than I do. > > That's my point. I don't *care* how cheap it is to run any kind of > > filtering software. It's still too expensive. > > For you, maybe so. So what are my alternatives? Give up on email? Pay $2k/year to upgrade my equipment? All of the proposed solutions which talk about filtering mail are a waste of time. Does it really make sense to allow terabytes of garbage to fill the network? Why wouldn't we just solve the problem by minimizing the garbage traffic, instead of upgrading the network? People who propose mail filters as a "solution" are implicitely accepting that wasting network bandwidth and CPU time is OK. My opinion is that we should minimize the problem, and THEN talk about filtering. The filters will be cheaper to use, and will probably have higher accuracy. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 17:02:25 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02066 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:02:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25MD8M27482 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:13:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25MD8O27479 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:13:08 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02051 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:01:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25MB5O27370; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:11:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25MAQO27274 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:10:26 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA01867 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:59:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h25M16BD032752 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:01:06 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) In-Reply-To: <43978.207.127.152.83.1046899521.squirrel@www.newfrontiersw.com> Message-ID: References: <43978.207.127.152.83.1046899521.squirrel@www.newfrontiersw.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:01:06 -0500 (EST) On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Terry Carmen wrote: > Small companies routinely get several hundred, up to several thousand > spams/day. That's manageable, and a couple of orders of magnitude less than what Alan gets. > I found the biggest improvement by blacklisting Korea and China. Yes, that works pretty well. Nigeria and Brazil too. > Unfortunately, this still wastes my bandwidth. To the point where you actually have to pay more money? > At some point in the world of spam, there is a network operator who has > allowed a spammer a connection. This may be an ISP, Network Provider or > simply an open relay. It really doesn't matter. The place where the mail > enters the netwok should feel pain for polluting our space. Right; I agree. And there are ways to do that even now: - Tempfail suspected spam until it is accepted or rejected by a person. This works well for small organizations with spare bandwidth. It won't work for large organizations, unfortunately, but if enough small people do it, the open-relay or spam server will feel the pain. Each recipient will pay for a little bit more bandwidth; the relay will pay for a lot more bandwidth plus clogged queues. - Litigate. The US is lawsuit-happy; even the threat of being sued would probably make an ISP crack down on spammers or an open relay mend its ways. - Blacklist. If ISP's refuse to play ball, blacklist them. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 17:02:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02084 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:02:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25MDFe27498 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:13:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25MDEO27495 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:13:14 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02056 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:02:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25MBBO27392; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:11:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25MAsO27319 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:10:54 -0500 Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA01925 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:59:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h25M1eA01996; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:01:43 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Moore To: Kee Hinckley Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Summarizing Message-Id: <20030305170140.01460441.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:01:40 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:26:49 -0500 Kee Hinckley wrote: > Based on monitoring the discussion for the past 18 hours or so, I > think I see some trends, but maybe I'm on drugs. it's *way* too soon to be trying to draw conclusions. most people who will participate in this discussion haven't even signed up yet. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 17:05:22 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02195 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:05:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25MG5B27718 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:16:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25MG4O27715 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:16:04 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02185 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:04:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25ME1O27553; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:14:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25MD3O27467 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:13:03 -0500 Received: from malasada.lava.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02047 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:01:49 -0500 (EST) Received: by malasada.lava.net (Postfix, from userid 102) id 66D0317A10C; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:03:50 -1000 (HST) From: Clifton Royston To: Kee Hinckley Cc: Richard , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Time for the ISPs to fight back! Message-ID: <20030305120349.C15588@lava.net> References: <001401c2e350$d168f280$fd1e4e51@CPQ28140326195> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: ; from nazgul@somewhere.com on Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 03:53:35PM -0500 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:03:50 -1000 On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 03:53:35PM -0500, Kee Hinckley wrote: > At 7:52 PM +0000 3/5/03, Richard wrote: > >Instead I suggest that the detection software at ISPs should respond > >to the spam it detects. This wouldn't effect the few false positives > >that are found, in fact it would be a service as it would advise > >them to rephrase their subject line. > > This is why everyone is talking about authenticated senders. You > cannot reply until you know who to reply to. The message arrives > from a machine not owned by the spammer. The from address isn't > owned by the spammer. The web address listed in the email may only > be up for a matter of hours before it is shut down. In fact often > even the domain records get changed by the spammer after the spam has > been out for a few hours. Any form of automatic reply promptly turns > into a very convenient way to abuse innocent bystanders. It all > comes back to authentication. People might want to look at the recently-implemented Postfix sender verification feature in current snapshot releases. This is only a few months old, but it does, nicely and carefully, a lot of what people are discussing or asking for. * In verifying the sender address, it gets as far as connecting, doing MAIL FROM: <> and verifying a 250/5xx for the RCPT TO, then does a RSET on the machine it is verifying it on before disconnecting. * If it gets a 250 for the sender address, it passes that particular test, and if the other UCE tests pass it will return a 250 acceptance to the sender. * If it gets a 5xx, it remembers the address as invalid, and returns a failure to the sender. * If it is unable to immediately validate the sender, it returns a 4xx SMTP code requesting a retry, while it continues attempting the validation so it will have the answer when they do retry. * It caches positively and negatively validated sender addresses, so as not to overload real or forged sender sites with queries. * It supports whitelisting of various kinds to prevent hammering mailing list machines. (In particular those that use VERP in which case none of the sender addresses will be "valid" as such.) Note that with this feature, if a spammer domain has no valid MXes, or has MX set to 127.0.0.1 or 0.0.0.0, hey presto! They'll never be able to mail you. Likewise if they are forging a (fake) user at a valid domain, the domain owner would probably rather get the validation query then a whole series of bounces to nonexistent users. It's not a magic bullet, but it provides interesting and useful functionality, and a number of sites are now running it pretty happily. -- Clifton -- Clifton Royston -- LavaNet Systems Architect -- cliftonr@lava.net "If you ride fast enough, the Specialist can't catch you." "What's the Specialist?" Samantha says. "The Specialist wears a hat," says the babysitter. "The hat makes noises." She doesn't say anything else. Kelly Link, _The Specialist's Hat_ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 17:06:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02230 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:06:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25MHHS27789 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:17:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25MHHO27786 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:17:17 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02219 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:06:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25MF2O27665; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:15:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25MEOO27602 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:14:24 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02109 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:03:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h25M57nf015714; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:05:07 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h25M3TsT016282 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:03:29 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h25M3TxZ016280; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:03:29 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Adam Back Cc: Keith Moore , raymie@cs.ucsc.edu, Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: privacy is a feature (Re: [Asrg] desirable characteristics of source tracking) Message-ID: <20030305220329.GD15047@danisch.de> References: <20030305061230.1cf246a7.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305113323.GA4939@danisch.de> <20030305070437.60bdfd34.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305122021.GA6748@danisch.de> <20030305073217.46f79dcb.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305125322.GA7179@danisch.de> <20030305080032.59d50373.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305203057.B4412039@exeter.ac.uk> <20030305211443.GA15047@danisch.de> <20030305212734.A4463801@exeter.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030305212734.A4463801@exeter.ac.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:03:29 +0100 On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 09:27:34PM +0000, Adam Back wrote: > > Anonymous users and spammers are not the same group. The are not sufficiently distinguishable in a technical way. Most spam message I receive has wrong/unusable sender addresses. So I subsume them as anonymous mail. > A debate about the rights and wrongs of being allowed to send > anonymous mail is a debate and technology for another group. Another group? I thought this group ought to deal with spam... > How do you know "Adam Back" is not a pseudonym? I don't know it. But that's not an argument, that's the problem itself. How do you know that "Hadmut Danisch" is not a pseudonym? Quite easy: Do a whois query on danisch.de. Once my relay is covered with a RMX or a signature, you know (at least with a certain level of reliability) that the mail from hadmut@danisch.de has anything to do with that guy mentioned in the whois entry. See the difference? > You have no way to know, Exactly. That's the main problem. Fighting spam involves changing that fact. > You are proposing a change to defacto rights against users > interests. "user interests" are not just "sender interests". They are also "recipients interests". And these interests do conflict here. It's a common failure to limit the "rights" or "interests" to the sender only and to force the whole world to apply the US flavour of constitution. Since the recipient has to pay the costs of spam, it's rights weigh more then the sender's rights. > I completely disagree with your comments about the right to retain > privacy, and right to avoid receiving anonmous communications -- you > have no current right in that regard for email, and introducing one > takes a way more freedoms than it introduces. Pure nonsense. First: I am the owner of my mail relay. So it is my perfect right to decide what goes through it. Second: The german constitution states this right. As a german citizen, I pretty much do have this right. The courts found this right to not be molested with unsolicited and anonymous e-mail and facsimiles. Just today a german computer magazine reported that a german court found that this right also applies to SMS (messages sent to and from cell phones). See http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/jk-05.03.03-001/ (if you understand german). It's a common failure to believe that the american laws apply to all the world and that everybody needs to follow the american way to handle things. > I happen to think the way email privacy and anonymity works at present > is good, and if anything needs improving rather than removing. I > think your ideas to reduce privacy are very badly damaging to email > freedoms. There is only one thing that currently damages email freedom, or at least my email freedom. It's a beast called spam. > You can't just make pronouncements and presume your view is the only > correct one. Consider there are people who disagree; for them you are > proposing to remove freedoms, functionality and reliability. You say > "good - that slows spam" or "good - I don't want to recieve anonymous > mails". But you _are_ proposing to damange existing functionality and > freedoms. I never said anything about what "slows spam". You're confusing me with someone else. Furthermore, I always stated that I don't want to restrict any sender, I want to leave it in the receivers choice whether to take it or not. I never tried to make anonymous mail impossible. I just want to give the receiver a choice to take it or not. So I don't take anybody's freedom, I try to give new freedom, the freedom to decide from whom to accept e-mail. That's a new quality. Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 17:11:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02374 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:11:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25MMBE28045 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:22:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25MMBO28042 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:22:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02356 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:10:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25MK3O27944; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:20:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25MJMO27880 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:19:22 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02282 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:08:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h25MA7EM015859; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:10:07 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h25M9isT016394 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:09:44 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h25M9iNZ016392; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:09:44 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Keith Moore Cc: aland@freeradius.org, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Deprecating plain POP accounts Message-ID: <20030305220944.GE15047@danisch.de> References: <20030305120839.63708d42.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305133703.7a843f62.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305193344.GA12295@danisch.de> <20030305162156.484c4750.moore@cs.utk.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030305162156.484c4750.moore@cs.utk.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:09:44 +0100 On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 04:21:56PM -0500, Keith Moore wrote: > > there are legitimate needs to be able to send SMTP from random > places on the Internet, even from dialup lines. Maybe it would be easier to follow you if you gave an example. > > Currently domain have nothing to do with IP addresses. > > Currently we have a severe spam problem. > > Maybe it's not so wise to insist on keeping the current status quo. > > that's like Mr. Bush's logic: > no matter what the source of the problem is, bomb Iraq. I didn't ask to bomb. I asked to question whether the given statement could be held. So I asked to start thinking, not bombing. > there's no such thing as a wrong domain. people need to be able to > originate mail from other domains than the ISP's. I never doubted this. Of course people need to originate mail from other domains than the ISP's. That's obvious and nobody denied it. But people don't need to be able to originate mail from any domain they want. They need to be limited to the domains they're authorized to use (by the domain owner). Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 17:12:16 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02402 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:12:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25MMwt28084 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:22:58 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25MMwO28081 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:22:58 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02394 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:11:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25ML1O28002; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:21:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25MKnO27975 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:20:49 -0500 Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02326 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:09:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h25MBbA02010; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:11:37 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Moore To: "Alan DeKok" Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Deprecating plain POP accounts Message-Id: <20030305171136.53bb5cd7.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: References: <20030305133703.7a843f62.moore@cs.utk.edu> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:11:36 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I thought that legitimate email originated only from mailers that > administrators had configured to send mail. anybody who has a computer is potentially an administrator. > Q: Why are open HTTP proxies allowed to relay email? > > A: Because no one at the site notices that they can send mail, > and no one receiving the mail knows that that machine was > not intended to send mail. > > Any mail system which allows such nonsense is broken. why. because you said so? is hotmail broken too? it allows people to relay mail. it doesn't know who is really sending it. > > no, it doesn't stop the spammer. it just makes life harder for > > legitimate users. > > Ah, I see. In order for your "legitimate users" to save small > amounts of effort, you require others to accept massive volumes of > spam. nope. these blocks don't do much to deter the massive amounts of spam. > > source IP addresses are > > not authentication. and domains have nothing to do with IP > > addresses. > > If I want to be able to distinguish his traffic from spam, > then there must be some way for me to do that. well, I suppose it depends on how you define spam. everybody has his own definition. now maybe it really would be useful to be able to ask some oracle "did the guy who sent this message also send out thousands of other similar messages?" and "were there lots of complaints about those messages?" but that's not the same thing as blocking port 25. > So your roaming user requires me to do extra work to filter, > qualify, or authenticate them, because the traffic doesn't originate > from the domain he claims to be sending from. domains are just names. traffic doesn't originate from domains. > Can I bill you for that extra time and effort? can I bill you for taking my time to try to explain this to you? YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO INSIST THAT INTERNET TRANSPARENCY BE CRIPPLED FOR THE SAKE OF SOME BRAIN-DAMGED IDEA THAT WILL DO NO GOOD. is that clear enough? that will be $100, please. > If not, why should I > care about accepting email from such broken systems? don't accept the mail if you don't want to. for that matter, don't accept any mail at all. you'll be far better off. and so will we. > > many spammers use > > throwaway accounts anyway. the fact that they are using their ISP's > > SMTP server to relay spam doesn't keep them from spamming. > > That traffic is less than .01% of the spam I'm seeing. traffic from throwaway account is < .01% of the spam you're seeing? well, the rest of the net is getting the other 99.99% of such traffic, because every time I look at spam most of the sender addresses are fairly obvously throwaways. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 17:14:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02471 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:14:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25MPEg28272 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:25:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25MPDO28269 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:25:13 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02459 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:13:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25MN2O28108; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:23:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25MMnO28075 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:22:49 -0500 Received: from new.agentzero.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02390 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:11:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from [18.90.6.164] (MACLAURIN-FOUR-NINETEEN.MIT.EDU [18.90.6.164]) by new.agentzero.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h25MEOmf030238; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:14:25 -0500 Message-Id: <200303052214.h25MEOmf030238@new.agentzero.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: Michael Marking , Asrg@ietf.org From: Jim Youll Subject: Re: [Asrg] filtering at connect time Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:13:28 -0500 At 11:18 -0800 3/5/03, Michael Marking wrote: > > You are totally missing the point that there is nothing added by >> embedding an open SMTP server in the middle of this process. > >No, that is not what is going on. I gave some reasons to keep open >relays (and no doubt others could give more), and you simply valued your >approach more than the ones I suggested. I don't see much use for a wide open mail relay, generally, considering the magnitude of the problem that is caused. With the existence of blacklists and so on, wide open relays are not a workable solution anyway. I would liken a wide open relay to an attractive nuisance, in legal terms. It's there, people use it *very* badly (to such an extent that it even draws toward itself others who use it badly). >It is certainly premature to assume that the net cost of one solution >(such as eliminating open relays) exceeds or trails the net cost of >another solution (such as content filtering). This is especially true in >that one user's individual situation may differ greatly from that of >others' situations. If there is not an extremely good and compelling >reason to impose the values of the majority on everyone, then it is both >unethical, and poor engineering, to do so. A wealth of alternatives exist that do not bear the detrimental effects of wide open mail relays. > >You appear to assume that, since open relays are not "necessary", then >they have no value, however slight. There are two flaws in this >argument: > > First, you arrogantly dismiss the cost to others of your > solution. Simply because I have access to resources does not > give me any moral right to require everyone else to acquire > those same capabilities. If you were willing to go out at your > own expense and personally reconfigure all of those open relays, > then perhaps I would be convinced there is no cost to anyone > (except you). The number of open relays appears to have declined quite a lot from the time I started working on the spam problem generally. It is simply not and never has been in an arbitrary relay operator's interest to allow the use of his resources by others... that's a very, very simple economic argument. If you are trying to advance a theory that the cost of one-time fixes to unnecessarily open relays is anything significantly more than the ordinary cost of mail server maintenance, I definitely won't buy into it. > Second, there may be no benefit whatsoever to requiring closure > of all open relays. Even if all open relays were closed, then > the spam problem would not be solved. If (when) we determine > that some other solution would be effective and cost little, > then why close the relays? Open relays are historically a tremendous source of spam, because they hopelessly complicate the matter of assigning responsibility, and because there is no administrative recourse for the actions of an unaffiliated third party carried out through such an unsupervised system. I don't think there's any model quite like the "open relay" anywhere else on the net or in real life for that matter. If you are running a "somewhat open" relay that knows its own users as they move about, that is a very different matter.. there is administrative oversight, recourse, responsibility... >Therfore, you cannot rightly say that "there is nothing added by >embedding an open SMTP server in the middle of this process". You may be >(and I believe probably are) wrong regarding both the cost and benefits. You were alleging that open relays somehow promote privacy. An open relay does nothing to improve a sender's "privacy". Services such as hotmail or an AOL screen name do much more for privacy than a open SMTP relay every could. >Until we can quantify, or at least describe, the benefits of all >reasonable solutions, it is inappropriate to rule one out merely because >an alternative does the same thing. But when the argument on its face does not support the alleged benefit, i feel obligated to point it out. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 17:15:21 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02500 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:15:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25MQ4Q28323 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:26:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25MQ3O28320 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:26:03 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02487 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:14:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25MO3O28184; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:24:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25MNcO28133 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:23:39 -0500 Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02418 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:12:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h25MEPA02014; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:14:25 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Moore To: Hadmut Danisch Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, adam@cypherspace.org, raymie@cs.ucsc.edu, Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: privacy is a feature (Re: [Asrg] desirable characteristics of source tracking) Message-Id: <20030305171425.6400450d.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <20030305220329.GD15047@danisch.de> References: <20030305061230.1cf246a7.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305113323.GA4939@danisch.de> <20030305070437.60bdfd34.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305122021.GA6748@danisch.de> <20030305073217.46f79dcb.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305125322.GA7179@danisch.de> <20030305080032.59d50373.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305203057.B4412039@exeter.ac.uk> <20030305211443.GA15047@danisch.de> <20030305212734.A4463801@exeter.ac.uk> <20030305220329.GD15047@danisch.de> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:14:25 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > How do you know that "Hadmut Danisch" is not a pseudonym? > Quite easy: Do a whois query on danisch.de. Once my relay is > covered with a RMX or a signature, you know (at least with a certain > level of reliability) that the mail from hadmut@danisch.de has > anything to do with that guy mentioned in the whois entry. it doesn't tell you a thing. you can use a pseydonym to get a domain name. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 17:16:18 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02541 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:16:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25MR1T28372 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:27:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25MR1O28369 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:27:01 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02518 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:15:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25MP1O28246; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:25:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25MONO28199 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:24:23 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02437 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:13:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h25MF5aT016022; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:15:05 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h25MCVsT016467 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:12:31 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h25MCV7U016465; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:12:31 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Keith Moore Cc: adam@cypherspace.org, raymie@cs.ucsc.edu, Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: privacy is a feature (Re: [Asrg] desirable characteristics of source tracking) Message-ID: <20030305221231.GF15047@danisch.de> References: <20030305061230.1cf246a7.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305113323.GA4939@danisch.de> <20030305070437.60bdfd34.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305122021.GA6748@danisch.de> <20030305073217.46f79dcb.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305125322.GA7179@danisch.de> <20030305080032.59d50373.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305203057.B4412039@exeter.ac.uk> <20030305211443.GA15047@danisch.de> <20030305164520.41ca98f0.moore@cs.utk.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030305164520.41ca98f0.moore@cs.utk.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:12:31 +0100 On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 04:45:20PM -0500, Keith Moore wrote: > > strongly disagree. nobody has the right to prevent me from speaking, > by email or any other means, anonymously or not. I didn't ever try to prevent you from speaking. But does your right to speak allow you to break into someone else's house without invitation and force him to listen? > > Anonymous mail is a violation of the freedom of the recipient. > > recipients are free to refuse the mail using whatever criteria they > wish, including whether the mail is anonymous. That's ok. I'd like to refuse anonymous mail for my domain. Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 17:21:25 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02626 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:21:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25MW8r28822 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:32:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25MW8O28819 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:32:08 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02617 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:20:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25MR2O28387; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:27:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25MQEO28338 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:26:14 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02492 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:15:00 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h25KNgKB025217 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:23:42 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h25KNgjO025213 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:23:42 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:23:42 -0800 (PST) I'v been busy first part of the day and ohhh this list has been really really {insert 10 times more} busy. Now to the point, I think its absolutly right, we should not have to transfer so much junk, there should be a way to let spammer now - begone, I don't want your garbage at the tranmission time. This does have a downside, that it will help spammer to identify if their email is getting through or not, but I think they have ways to do it already and are quite inventive about getting around the filters as it is. Also we this list has spent a lot during the day discussion what spam is, I don't think any one definition exists, may have their own definition so its up to the receipient or administrator of the mail server or both to define it for their system and the solution should be good enough to accomodate their preference (preferably during MTA transmission). Now good deal of spampers are really afraid of being traced but there is also good deal of people who like to be anonymous. This problem is really fundamental to our solution and I'm afraid the views are generally opposite, i.e. I do not see any easy way to do both at the same time. Personally I'd rather have more shift to tracebility then anonymity and for anonimity the only way would be for some special mail services to exist that are generally "whitelisted" by ISPs and have good privacy policies. Again, this is fundamental issue that we'll have to choose one way or the other. That is for now, but I'm trying hard to scan through all days discussion to see what else I want to say... Maybe I'll have more time tomorrow. On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Alan DeKok wrote: > "David F. Skoll" wrote: > > Well, Alan, I have no idea what you did to attract that much spam, but > > I assure you, it's unusual. None of my clients nor the 500+ people on > > the MIMEDefang mailing list have reported anywhere near the spam stats > > on striker.ottawa.on.ca > > That's why I joined this list, and why I'm making such noise about > the issue. Everyone I talk to complains about the spam "problem", and > they get 3 orders of magnitude less spam than I do. > > > > That's my point. I don't *care* how cheap it is to run any kind of > > > filtering software. It's still too expensive. > > > > For you, maybe so. > > So what are my alternatives? Give up on email? Pay $2k/year to > upgrade my equipment? > > > All of the proposed solutions which talk about filtering mail are a > waste of time. Does it really make sense to allow terabytes of > garbage to fill the network? Why wouldn't we just solve the problem > by minimizing the garbage traffic, instead of upgrading the network? > > People who propose mail filters as a "solution" are implicitely > accepting that wasting network bandwidth and CPU time is OK. My > opinion is that we should minimize the problem, and THEN talk about > filtering. The filters will be cheaper to use, and will probably have > higher accuracy. > > Alan DeKok. > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 17:25:49 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02783 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:25:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25MaWU28999 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:36:32 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25MaWO28996 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:36:32 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02767 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:25:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25MW2O28788; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:32:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25MVBO28702 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:31:11 -0500 Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02598 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:19:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h25MLvA02206; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:21:57 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Moore To: Hadmut Danisch Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, aland@freeradius.org, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Deprecating plain POP accounts Message-Id: <20030305172157.03f949f0.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <20030305220944.GE15047@danisch.de> References: <20030305120839.63708d42.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305133703.7a843f62.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305193344.GA12295@danisch.de> <20030305162156.484c4750.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305220944.GE15047@danisch.de> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:21:57 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 04:21:56PM -0500, Keith Moore wrote: > > > > there are legitimate needs to be able to send SMTP from random > > places on the Internet, even from dialup lines. > > > Maybe it would be easier to follow you if you gave > an example. Imagine a mobile network, say one that is used in emergency situations. It gets its internet connectivity via whatever means is available in whatever location it finds itself - which might be WLAN, WMAN, dialup, cell phone, satellite, whatever. This might change from one hour to the next. The network has several dozen hosts, mostly laptops. It has its own mail and DNS servers. It's not acceptable to have to reconfigure the hosts in this network every time its means of connectivity changes. > > > Currently domain have nothing to do with IP addresses. > > > Currently we have a severe spam problem. > > > Maybe it's not so wise to insist on keeping the current status > > > quo. > > > > that's like Mr. Bush's logic: > > no matter what the source of the problem is, bomb Iraq. > > I didn't ask to bomb. I asked to question whether the > given statement could be held. So I asked to start thinking, > not bombing. clearly something about the status quo needs to change. it would be very unfortunate if we compromised transparency, or the ability to send anonymous mail, for the sake of spam. > But people don't need to be able to originate mail from any > domain they want. They need to be limited to the domains they're > authorized to use (by the domain owner). I don't disagree in principle. But we're a long way away from having a mechanism that would allow recipients to verify whether the sender has the "right to use" the domain. The protocols are the easy part; what's hard is that this requires upgrading essentially every piece of mail software in existence, as well as a fair amount of infrastructure (espeically if you want to avoid various kinds of DoS attacks). Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 17:25:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02798 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:25:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25Maed29032 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:36:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25MadO29019 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:36:39 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02772 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:25:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25MU2O28514; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:30:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25MTcO28468 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:29:38 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02577 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:18:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h25MKNF01893; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:20:23 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: Hadmut Danisch Cc: Brad Templeton , Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Whoops -- list volume is way too high, some principles Message-ID: <20030305222023.GC14655@main.templetons.com> References: <20030305061230.1cf246a7.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305113323.GA4939@danisch.de> <20030305070437.60bdfd34.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305122021.GA6748@danisch.de> <20030305073217.46f79dcb.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305125322.GA7179@danisch.de> <20030305080032.59d50373.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305203057.B4412039@exeter.ac.uk> <20030305210037.GB14655@main.templetons.com> <20030305214037.GC15047@danisch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030305214037.GC15047@danisch.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:20:23 -0800 On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 10:40:37PM +0100, Hadmut Danisch wrote: > On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 01:00:37PM -0800, Brad Templeton wrote: > > > > b) Don't forget privacy rights and the (in the USA, constitutionally > > protected) right of anonymous communication in designing any systems > > of authentication. > > > > Interesting. Could anyone give me a hint which part of the > US constitution is stating this? > Just waiting for replies before doing the unsubscribe so I will comment. The U.S. supreme court has repeatedly ruled on a right to anonymous speech. That however applies to government laws, it does not require it in private systems. The government is not allowed to pass laws or take actions to force you to identify yourself just to speak or publish. I am however, encouraging us to follow these principles in designing the global architecture for e-mail, since the values that demand them are the same, regardless of enforcement. E-mail and other private internet communications are replacing the old forms of speech which took place in the public commons and thus had the constitutional protection. Many don't want this move from the public commons to an all-private network to mean the end of hard-won free speech protections. Note as well that the courts sometimes consider de facto prohibitions on anonymous speech to be the same as de jure ones. Ie. setting up a regime where "We don't force you do identify yourself, but we've arranged so nobody will listen to you if you don't" can also be a violation of that principle. It's OK, if some people decide to refuse anonymous communication. However, if the system encourages that or makes it the default, so that the majority are refusing anonymous communication, then it is considered to be the same as banning anonymous communication, since the result is the same. There are solutions to this. This is one area where the e-stamps can make sense, if they were to get adopted. A person could communicate anonymously with an e-stamp, and people would listen. Or the person could use a trusted "front", so long as we don't put too much burden on the fronts so that they all have to shut down. In the end it's the result that counts. To use the extreme example, if it is not possible for me to publish the Federalist Papers, or whistle-blow on Enron or Watergate, because we have built an E-mail system where everybody discards anonymous e-mail, then we have failed. If we make it substantially harder than it is now, we have failed. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 17:27:00 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02864 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:27:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25MbhJ29850 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:37:43 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25MbhO29847 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:37:43 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02843 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:26:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25MZ2O28954; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:35:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25MYcO28919 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:34:38 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02716 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:23:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h25MP71R016265; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:25:07 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h25MM0sT016664 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:22:01 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h25MM08I016662; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:22:00 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Keith Moore Cc: Adam Back , raymie@cs.ucsc.edu, Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: privacy is a feature (Re: [Asrg] desirable characteristics of source tracking) Message-ID: <20030305222200.GH15047@danisch.de> References: <200303050840.ABJ06911@m1.imap-partners.net> <20030305061230.1cf246a7.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305113323.GA4939@danisch.de> <20030305070437.60bdfd34.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305122021.GA6748@danisch.de> <20030305073217.46f79dcb.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305125322.GA7179@danisch.de> <20030305080032.59d50373.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305203057.B4412039@exeter.ac.uk> <20030305163225.088b989c.moore@cs.utk.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030305163225.088b989c.moore@cs.utk.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:22:00 +0100 On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 04:32:25PM -0500, Keith Moore wrote: > > me too. which is why I don't want an identity that is tracable to the > actual sender to the message; instead, I want an identity that can only > be associated with whether the sender has a history of sending abusive > mail. > I understand that this is the american way to see things. But not all people on the world share this view. And, btw, it doesn't work if the sender is free to use a new "identity" every day. Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 17:27:08 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02878 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:27:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25MbqT29873 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:37:52 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25MbqO29870 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:37:52 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02854 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:26:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25MW4O28804; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:32:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25MVfO28766 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:31:41 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02606 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:20:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h25MMSBD000514; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:22:28 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: Alan DeKok cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:22:28 -0500 (EST) On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Alan DeKok wrote: > So what are my alternatives? Give up on email? Pay $2k/year to > upgrade my equipment? Change your domain and start fresh. Publish MX records for your old domain that point to 127.0.0.1. > All of the proposed solutions which talk about filtering mail are a > waste of time. Maybe for you and 0.01% of the population. For the other 99.99% of us, filters are a good technology. > Does it really make sense to allow terabytes of garbage to fill the > network? No, but how can you stop it? > Why wouldn't we just solve the problem by minimizing the garbage > traffic, instead of upgrading the network? How? Who says what is or isn't garbage? > People who propose mail filters as a "solution" are implicitely > accepting that wasting network bandwidth and CPU time is OK. No, we're simply acknowledging the fact that a real solution is difficult or impossible, and then coming up with real-world technologies that help most people most of the time. A complete spam solution, which isn't a "solution", actually, but just a way to cope, uses an arsenal of tools. You apply the cheaper tools first (such as tempfail-first-time and blacklists), and then move on to the more expensive tools like filtering. You stop once the cost exceeds the benefit. By "tools", I also include techniques like litigation; they're simply one more cost with an associated benefit. > My opinion is that we should minimize the problem, and THEN talk > about filtering. The filters will be cheaper to use, and will > probably have higher accuracy. I agree, but the need for filters will never go away. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 17:28:18 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02931 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:28:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25Md2L29966 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:39:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Md2O29963 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:39:02 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02913 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:27:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Mb2O29104; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:37:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25MahO29045 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:36:43 -0500 Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02779 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:25:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h25MRQA02226; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:27:27 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Moore To: Clifton Royston Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, nazgul@somewhere.com, richard@ashednearyou.fsnet.co.uk, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Time for the ISPs to fight back! Message-Id: <20030305172726.6e0dd026.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <20030305120349.C15588@lava.net> References: <001401c2e350$d168f280$fd1e4e51@CPQ28140326195> <20030305120349.C15588@lava.net> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:27:26 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > People might want to look at the recently-implemented Postfix > sender verification feature in current snapshot releases. > > This is only a few months old, but it does, nicely and carefully, a > lot of what people are discussing or asking for. > > * In verifying the sender address, it gets as far as connecting, doing > MAIL FROM: <> and verifying a 250/5xx for the RCPT TO, then does a > RSET on the machine it is verifying it on before disconnecting. > > * If it gets a 250 for the sender address, it passes that particular > test, and if the other UCE tests pass it will return a 250 acceptance > to the sender. > > * If it gets a 5xx, it remembers the address as invalid, and returns a > failure to the sender. > > * If it is unable to immediately validate the sender, it returns a 4xx > SMTP code requesting a retry, while it continues attempting the > validation so it will have the answer when they do retry. I've been using exactly this (not postfix, some code I wrote) as a means of filtering mail for at least six years now. It used to be a nearly perfect way of blocking spam. The only 'false positives' came from people who had broken return addresses, usually due to mailer misconfiguration. (so it's not as if you could reply to them and tell them to fix it...) For the last year or so, it's been nearly useless for me. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 17:29:50 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02988 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:29:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25MeXd30086 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:40:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25MeXO30083 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:40:33 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02966 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:29:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Mc2O29919; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:38:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25MbwO29888 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:37:58 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02861 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:26:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h25MShBD000564 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:28:43 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: privacy is a feature (Re: [Asrg] desirable characteristics of source tracking) In-Reply-To: <20030305221943.GG15047@danisch.de> Message-ID: References: <20030305061230.1cf246a7.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305113323.GA4939@danisch.de> <20030305070437.60bdfd34.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305122021.GA6748@danisch.de> <20030305073217.46f79dcb.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305125322.GA7179@danisch.de> <20030305080032.59d50373.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305203057.B4412039@exeter.ac.uk> <20030305211443.GA15047@danisch.de> <20030305221943.GG15047@danisch.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:28:43 -0500 (EST) On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Hadmut Danisch wrote: > You're comparing apples and oranges. Yeah, I know. :-) > - If you ask so, you're visible and not hiding behind a fake name. I could be disguised. > - You do not cause the other any costs. You could be in a hurry. > - You're not getting asked 20 times a day. It's not *my* fault if 19 other people ask you. > - Spam doesn't ask "how do I get to". That's true. > Imagine you're sitting at home and 20 times a day people > come into your living room asking you to buy penis enlargement > devices. Is this still covered by the right to do anonymous > communication? No, because I have to live in my home, and the law recognizes a person's home as a special private area. But I don't have to use e-mail. > Actually, if you're providing commercial services or do > advertising, you have to do this in europe. Over here, people > have the freedom and right to now where to complain. That is a good idea. Contrary to what others have said, I don't believe anyone has the right to anonymous spamming, and I don't believe the US Constitution says that they do. But I still think anonymous (or at least non-authenticated) person-to-person e-mail has its place. > But if I want to use e-mail, I'm forced to pay? Yes, pretty much. > I have the choice only between paying and not using e-mail > at all? Do you call that freedom? Do you get free phone service? It's the cost of doing business; sorry. Stores build shoplifting costs into their prices. Is that fair on the majority of us who don't shoplift? -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 17:30:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03004 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:30:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25Ment30105 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:40:49 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25MemO30102 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:40:49 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02973 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:29:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Mc1O29903; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:38:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25MbmO29864 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:37:48 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02851 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:26:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h25MSX2J016337; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:28:33 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h25MSFsT016794 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:28:15 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h25MSE5A016792; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:28:14 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Adam Back Cc: Brad Templeton , Kee Hinckley , Alan DeKok , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: free-speech and anonymity are related (Re: [Asrg] MTP drafty) Message-ID: <20030305222814.GI15047@danisch.de> References: <20030305204630.GA14655@main.templetons.com> <20030305213051.GB15047@danisch.de> <20030305215844.A3977328@exeter.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030305215844.A3977328@exeter.ac.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:28:14 +0100 On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 09:58:44PM +0000, Adam Back wrote: > Think about it, there is a relationship between free-speech and > anonymity. Yup, of course there is a relationship: The need for anonymity corresponds to the lack of freedom of speech. Think about it. Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 17:31:13 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03124 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:31:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25Mfu630196 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:41:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25MfuO30193 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:41:56 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03080 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:30:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Me3O30067; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:40:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25MddO30009 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:39:39 -0500 Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02945 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:28:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h25MUQA02302; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:30:26 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Moore To: Hadmut Danisch Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, adam@cypherspace.org, raymie@cs.ucsc.edu, Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: privacy is a feature (Re: [Asrg] desirable characteristics of source tracking) Message-Id: <20030305173026.2cc1f628.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <20030305222200.GH15047@danisch.de> References: <200303050840.ABJ06911@m1.imap-partners.net> <20030305061230.1cf246a7.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305113323.GA4939@danisch.de> <20030305070437.60bdfd34.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305122021.GA6748@danisch.de> <20030305073217.46f79dcb.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305125322.GA7179@danisch.de> <20030305080032.59d50373.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305203057.B4412039@exeter.ac.uk> <20030305163225.088b989c.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305222200.GH15047@danisch.de> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:30:26 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > me too. which is why I don't want an identity that is tracable to > > the actual sender to the message; instead, I want an identity that > > can only be associated with whether the sender has a history of > > sending abusive mail. > > > > I understand that this is the american way to see things. I don't know if it's typically american or not. > But not all people on the world share this view. > > And, btw, it doesn't work if the sender is free to use a new > "identity" every day. no, but senders that do that will always have "new" identities, and recipients will (if they choose) be reluctant to accept mail from them. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 17:39:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03420 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:39:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25MoBT30591 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:50:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25MoBO30588 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:50:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03372 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:38:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Mj3O30305; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:45:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25MiPO30269 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:44:25 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03210 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:33:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h25MZ7Yl016490; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:35:07 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h25MXRsT016939 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:33:27 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h25MXRmZ016937; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:33:27 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Keith Moore Cc: adam@cypherspace.org, raymie@cs.ucsc.edu, Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: privacy is a feature (Re: [Asrg] desirable characteristics of source tracking) Message-ID: <20030305223326.GA16824@danisch.de> References: <20030305070437.60bdfd34.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305122021.GA6748@danisch.de> <20030305073217.46f79dcb.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305125322.GA7179@danisch.de> <20030305080032.59d50373.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305203057.B4412039@exeter.ac.uk> <20030305211443.GA15047@danisch.de> <20030305212734.A4463801@exeter.ac.uk> <20030305220329.GD15047@danisch.de> <20030305171425.6400450d.moore@cs.utk.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030305171425.6400450d.moore@cs.utk.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:33:26 +0100 On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 05:14:25PM -0500, Keith Moore wrote: > > > How do you know that "Hadmut Danisch" is not a pseudonym? > > Quite easy: Do a whois query on danisch.de. Once my relay is > > covered with a RMX or a signature, you know (at least with a certain > > level of reliability) that the mail from hadmut@danisch.de has > > anything to do with that guy mentioned in the whois entry. > > it doesn't tell you a thing. you can use a pseydonym to get a domain > name. No, you can't. Domain providers/resellers are required to put the real name of the owner in the whois database. And imprints must not contain pseudonyms. At least in Germany and as far as I know in Europe. This might be difficult to understand for you, but it is a consequence of all other people's rights and freedom. Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 17:39:55 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA01136 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:46:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25Lv1925204 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:57:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Lv0O25193 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:57:00 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA01117 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:45:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Lt4O25058; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:55:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25LsXO24975 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:54:33 -0500 Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA01033 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:43:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h25LjKA01954; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:45:20 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Moore To: Hadmut Danisch Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, adam@cypherspace.org, raymie@cs.ucsc.edu, Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: privacy is a feature (Re: [Asrg] desirable characteristics of source tracking) Message-Id: <20030305164520.41ca98f0.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <20030305211443.GA15047@danisch.de> References: <200303050840.ABJ06911@m1.imap-partners.net> <20030305061230.1cf246a7.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305113323.GA4939@danisch.de> <20030305070437.60bdfd34.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305122021.GA6748@danisch.de> <20030305073217.46f79dcb.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305125322.GA7179@danisch.de> <20030305080032.59d50373.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305203057.B4412039@exeter.ac.uk> <20030305211443.GA15047@danisch.de> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:45:20 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > I'd sooner keep identity out of email receipt as far as anti-spam is > > concerned as it erodes these current freedoms to be anonymous and > > pseudonymous to varying degrees. > > > Sending anonymous mail is not a right or freedom of the sender. strongly disagree. nobody has the right to prevent me from speaking, by email or any other means, anonymously or not. > Anonymous mail is a violation of the freedom of the recipient. recipients are free to refuse the mail using whatever criteria they wish, including whether the mail is anonymous. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 17:41:02 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03501 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:41:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25Mpjm30653 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:51:45 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25MpjO30650 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:51:45 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03486 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:40:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Mk1O30381; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:46:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25MjFO30331 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:45:15 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03239 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:33:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18qciZ-0003t4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 12:30:11 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Deprecating plain POP accounts In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 05 Mar 2003 17:11:36 EST." <20030305171136.53bb5cd7.moore@cs.utk.edu> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 12:30:10 -0500 Keith Moore wrote: > > [ mail from non-mx machines ] > > > > Any mail system which allows such nonsense is broken. > > why. because you said so? Because the behaviour of the network (machines originating mail) does not match the intended behaviour. This isn't hard to see. > now maybe it really would be useful to be able to ask some oracle > "did the guy who sent this message also send out thousands of > other similar messages?" and "were there lots of complaints about > those messages?" but that's not the same thing as blocking port 25. Any solution I'm interested in doesn't involve filtering, data collection, or counting how much email someone sends. It should be possible to perform simple checks. e.g. The recent postfix checks. No MX? Nowhere to send bounces? According to the RFC I shouldn't accept the mail, because there's nowhere to send a possible bounce. e.g. Domains making positive declarations "Mail from my domain originates only from IP X". DUL lists become irrelevant. Misconfigured HTTP proxies become irrelevant. These sort of solutions are nearly zero cost, and can have a significant impact on the volume of spam. > > So your roaming user requires me to do extra work to filter, > > qualify, or authenticate them, because the traffic doesn't originate > > from the domain he claims to be sending from. > > domains are just names. traffic doesn't originate from domains. So when someone sends email FROM "bob@example.com", his traffic isn't originating from any domain. When his IP resolves to "ppp2723.isp.com", I shouldn't care that he's lying to me about who he is, and where his email is coming from. > can I bill you for taking my time to try to explain this to you? > > YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO INSIST THAT INTERNET TRANSPARENCY BE > CRIPPLED FOR THE SAKE OF SOME BRAIN-DAMGED IDEA THAT WILL DO NO GOOD. Having an open mind doesn't mean you let your brain fall out. Having a "transparent" network (whatever that means) doesn't mean it's total anarchy. > traffic from throwaway account is < .01% of the spam you're seeing? ... from known "good business" ISP's, yes. > well, the rest of the net is getting the other 99.99% of such traffic, > because every time I look at spam most of the sender addresses are > fairly obvously throwaways. Don't make me laugh. The sender addresses are forged. I've had a *hell* of a time convincing people that I don't want to see "helpful" notifications about mail with forged addresses from my domain, seen in a spam message (sender, body, etc). Two years ago, I was receiving more such notifications than spam most people received. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 17:47:07 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03818 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:47:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25Mvpu30977 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:57:51 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25MvpO30974 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:57:51 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03801 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:46:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25MtGO30880; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:55:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25MsYO30798 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:54:34 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03606 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:43:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h25MjMBD000747 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:45:22 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Patents (was Re: [Asrg] Time for the ISPs to fight back!) In-Reply-To: <20030305120349.C15588@lava.net> Message-ID: References: <001401c2e350$d168f280$fd1e4e51@CPQ28140326195> <20030305120349.C15588@lava.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:45:22 -0500 (EST) On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Clifton Royston wrote: > People might want to look at the recently-implemented Postfix > sender verification feature in current snapshot releases. This technique is patented and assigned to ESCOM Corporation, in US Patent #6,321,267 (see the section "Active User Testing") The patent was filed 23 November 1999; if you think you have prior art, I encourage you to publish it. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 17:50:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03976 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:50:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25N1Da31327 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:01:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25N1DO31324 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:01:13 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03933 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:49:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25N02O31158; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:00:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25MxMO31103 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:59:22 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03882 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:48:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h25Mo7a5016852; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:50:07 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h25MjssT017156 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:45:54 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h25Mjs9b017154; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:45:54 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Keith Moore Cc: aland@freeradius.org, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Deprecating plain POP accounts Message-ID: <20030305224554.GC16824@danisch.de> References: <20030305120839.63708d42.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305133703.7a843f62.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305193344.GA12295@danisch.de> <20030305162156.484c4750.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305220944.GE15047@danisch.de> <20030305172157.03f949f0.moore@cs.utk.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030305172157.03f949f0.moore@cs.utk.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:45:54 +0100 On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 05:21:57PM -0500, Keith Moore wrote: > > Imagine a mobile network, say one that is used in emergency situations. > It gets its internet connectivity via whatever means is available in > whatever location it finds itself - which might be WLAN, WMAN, dialup, > cell phone, satellite, whatever. This might change from one hour to > the next. The network has several dozen hosts, mostly laptops. It has > its own mail and DNS servers. It's not acceptable to have to > reconfigure the hosts in this network every time its means > of connectivity changes. I don't see how this could be an argument for your opinion. I'm using several notebooks with the mail scheme I proposed. I'm using them in various sitations, at home, at the office, in Wavelans, in the University, in business trips with a modem, I was even travelling through Australia and New Zealand with it. And I never ever had to reconfigure anything. On the contrary: The fact that I use my central relay make the configuration so stable that I never need to change anything, I do not even need a running DNS service. So your example is actually an argument for my proposal... > very unfortunate if we compromised transparency, or the ability to send > anonymous mail, for the sake of spam. I understand that this is a bitter pill, but you can't have one without the other, since it turns out to be basically the same. > I don't disagree in principle. But we're a long way away from having a > mechanism that would allow recipients to verify whether the sender has > the "right to use" the domain. That's what we're here for. Nobody said it would be easy. :-) Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 17:50:46 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03999 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:50:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25N1UN31352 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:01:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25N1UO31349 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:01:30 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03955 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:50:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Mx2O31088; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:59:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25MwZO31058 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:58:35 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03836 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:47:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18qcvX-0003u0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 12:43:35 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: privacy is a feature (Re: [Asrg] desirable characteristics of source tracking) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 05 Mar 2003 23:19:43 +0100." <20030305221943.GG15047@danisch.de> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 12:43:34 -0500 Hadmut Danisch wrote: > Imagine you're sitting at home and 20 times a day people > come into your living room asking you to buy penis enlargement > devices. Is this still covered by the right to do anonymous > communication? No. This is 100% the point I'm trying to make. Any system which is *designed* to be open to such widespread abuse is broken. > I have the choice only between paying and not using e-mail > at all? Do you call that freedom? I had an argument like that with a U.S. libertarian. He said "Spam is free speech!" I said "That's nice. Spam is preventing *me* from speaking. What about *my* free speech?" His reponse? "Oh." Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 17:51:12 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA04029 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:51:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25N1uG31382 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:01:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25N1uO31379 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:01:56 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03993 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:50:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25N03O31174; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:00:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25MxYO31114 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:59:34 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03893 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:48:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h25MoDkI016860; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:50:13 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h25MlYsT017176 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:47:34 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h25MlYxW017174; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:47:34 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Keith Moore Cc: adam@cypherspace.org, raymie@cs.ucsc.edu, Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: privacy is a feature (Re: [Asrg] desirable characteristics of source tracking) Message-ID: <20030305224734.GD16824@danisch.de> References: <20030305113323.GA4939@danisch.de> <20030305070437.60bdfd34.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305122021.GA6748@danisch.de> <20030305073217.46f79dcb.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305125322.GA7179@danisch.de> <20030305080032.59d50373.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305203057.B4412039@exeter.ac.uk> <20030305163225.088b989c.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305222200.GH15047@danisch.de> <20030305173026.2cc1f628.moore@cs.utk.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030305173026.2cc1f628.moore@cs.utk.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:47:34 +0100 On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 05:30:26PM -0500, Keith Moore wrote: > > no, but senders that do that will always have "new" identities, and > recipients will (if they choose) be reluctant to accept mail from them. > Ooops, doesn't it break freedom of speech if a "fresh account" is considered to be a second class citizen and not listened to? Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 17:52:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA04085 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:52:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25N3DM31482 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:03:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25N3DO31479 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:03:13 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA04071 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:51:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25N12O31280; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:01:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25N0GO31193 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:00:16 -0500 Received: from malasada.lava.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03904 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:49:01 -0500 (EST) Received: by malasada.lava.net (Postfix, from userid 102) id 2CE2F179FEB; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:51:04 -1000 (HST) From: Clifton Royston To: Hadmut Danisch Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: privacy is a feature (Re: [Asrg] desirable characteristics of source tracking) Message-ID: <20030305125103.E15588@lava.net> References: <20030305122021.GA6748@danisch.de> <20030305073217.46f79dcb.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305125322.GA7179@danisch.de> <20030305080032.59d50373.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305203057.B4412039@exeter.ac.uk> <20030305211443.GA15047@danisch.de> <20030305212734.A4463801@exeter.ac.uk> <20030305220329.GD15047@danisch.de> <20030305171425.6400450d.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305223326.GA16824@danisch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20030305223326.GA16824@danisch.de>; from hadmut@danisch.de on Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 11:33:26PM +0100 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:51:03 -1000 On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 11:33:26PM +0100, Hadmut Danisch wrote: > On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 05:14:25PM -0500, Keith Moore wrote: > > > How do you know that "Hadmut Danisch" is not a pseudonym? > > > Quite easy: Do a whois query on danisch.de. Once my relay is > > > covered with a RMX or a signature, you know (at least with a certain > > > level of reliability) that the mail from hadmut@danisch.de has > > > anything to do with that guy mentioned in the whois entry. > > > > it doesn't tell you a thing. you can use a pseydonym to get a domain > > name. > > No, you can't. Domain providers/resellers are required to put the > real name of the owner in the whois database. And imprints must > not contain pseudonyms. At least in Germany > and as far as I know in Europe. Perhaps the requirements don't work quite as you think? Or perhaps they only apply to the .de TLD? Joker.com is located in Germany and has been a popular registrar for domains in .com and .org for quite a few years. There is evidently no problem with pseudonyms and/or false addresses being used to register domain names there; or if so, then my officemate is apparently from the Andromedan galaxy and is named rather differently than I think. -- Clifton -- Clifton Royston -- LavaNet Systems Architect -- cliftonr@lava.net "If you ride fast enough, the Specialist can't catch you." "What's the Specialist?" Samantha says. "The Specialist wears a hat," says the babysitter. "The hat makes noises." She doesn't say anything else. Kelly Link, _The Specialist's Hat_ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 17:54:55 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA01928 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:59:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25MAWn27297 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:10:32 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25MAWO27280 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:10:32 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA01892 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:59:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25M8OO27173; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:08:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25M7tO27084 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:07:55 -0500 Received: from mercury.ex.ac.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA01786 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:56:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from [144.173.6.20] (helo=cronus.ex.ac.uk) by mercury.ex.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18qguS-00CsuN-00; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 21:58:44 +0000 From: Adam Back To: Hadmut Danisch Cc: Brad Templeton , Kee Hinckley , Alan DeKok , asrg@ietf.org Subject: free-speech and anonymity are related (Re: [Asrg] MTP drafty) Message-ID: <20030305215844.A3977328@exeter.ac.uk> References: <20030305204630.GA14655@main.templetons.com> <20030305213051.GB15047@danisch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.2i In-Reply-To: <20030305213051.GB15047@danisch.de>; from hadmut@danisch.de on Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 10:30:51PM +0100 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 21:58:44 +0000 Think about it, there is a relationship between free-speech and anonymity. The freest speech is the cryptographically protected anonymous kind because the speaker knows there can be no physical world reprisals. If I sign something I am less anonymous, and probably not anonymous at all; therefore yes my speech becomes less free. There are physical world analogies with the right for anonymous political speech, leafletting etc. Adam On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 10:30:51PM +0100, Hadmut Danisch wrote: > On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:46:30PM -0800, Brad Templeton wrote: > > > > Verifying senders with a signature would of course solve some problems, > > but the free speech implications of this are pretty dramatic. > > Huh? Do free speech and sender verification/signatures mutually > exclude each other? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 17:57:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA04261 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:57:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25N8Cs32569 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:08:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25N8CO32566 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:08:12 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA04221 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:56:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25N63O31622; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:06:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25N36O31475 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:03:06 -0500 Received: from malasada.lava.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA04067 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:51:51 -0500 (EST) Received: by malasada.lava.net (Postfix, from userid 102) id 7CD1317A169; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:53:54 -1000 (HST) From: Clifton Royston To: "David F. Skoll" Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: Patents (was Re: [Asrg] Time for the ISPs to fight back!) Message-ID: <20030305125353.F15588@lava.net> References: <001401c2e350$d168f280$fd1e4e51@CPQ28140326195> <20030305120349.C15588@lava.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: ; from dfs@roaringpenguin.com on Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 05:45:22PM -0500 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:53:53 -1000 On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 05:45:22PM -0500, David F. Skoll wrote: > On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Clifton Royston wrote: > > People might want to look at the recently-implemented Postfix > > sender verification feature in current snapshot releases. > > This technique is patented and assigned to ESCOM Corporation, in US > Patent #6,321,267 (see the section "Active User Testing") > > The patent was filed 23 November 1999; if you think you have prior > art, I encourage you to publish it. I certainly don't have any awareness of any; I did not claim to originate the feature. I appreciate your notice, and will forward it to Wietse Venema, the author of Postfix. This is quite annoying. -- Clifton -- Clifton Royston -- LavaNet Systems Architect -- cliftonr@lava.net "If you ride fast enough, the Specialist can't catch you." "What's the Specialist?" Samantha says. "The Specialist wears a hat," says the babysitter. "The hat makes noises." She doesn't say anything else. Kelly Link, _The Specialist's Hat_ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 17:57:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA04275 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:57:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25N8Dn32585 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:08:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25N8DO32582 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:08:13 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA04225 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:56:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25N64O31638; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:06:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25N4JO31527 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:04:19 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA04109 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:53:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h25Mt7H8016954; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:55:07 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h25MrfsT017283 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:53:41 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h25Mrfum017281; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:53:41 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: "David F. Skoll" Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: privacy is a feature (Re: [Asrg] desirable characteristics of source tracking) Message-ID: <20030305225341.GA17183@danisch.de> References: <20030305070437.60bdfd34.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305122021.GA6748@danisch.de> <20030305073217.46f79dcb.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305125322.GA7179@danisch.de> <20030305080032.59d50373.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305203057.B4412039@exeter.ac.uk> <20030305211443.GA15047@danisch.de> <20030305221943.GG15047@danisch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:53:41 +0100 On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 05:28:43PM -0500, David F. Skoll wrote: > > No, because I have to live in my home, and the law recognizes a > person's home as a special private area. But I don't have to use > e-mail. > That's ridiculous. > But I still think > anonymous (or at least non-authenticated) person-to-person e-mail has > its place. Sure, of course it has. If both persons agree to communicate anonymously (and open their relays for anonymous communication) that's pretty fine. No objections. I do support it to 100%. > > I have the choice only between paying and not using e-mail > > at all? Do you call that freedom? > > Do you get free phone service? It's the cost of doing business; > > sorry. Would you accept advertising phone calls if you had to pay the phone calls? I wouldn't. Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 18:00:15 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA04365 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:00:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25NAxd32755 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:10:59 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25NAxO32752 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:10:59 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA04334 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:59:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25N81O32550; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:08:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25N7tO32529 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:07:55 -0500 Received: from hanta.it.earthlink.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA04214 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:56:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from octavian@localhost) by hanta.it.earthlink.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) id h25MwhD02509; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:58:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Time for the ISPs to fight back! From: "Peter A. Friend" To: Asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <000601c2e35a$6d48bb00$ac3c4e51@CPQ28140326195> References: <001401c2e350$d168f280$fd1e4e51@CPQ28140326195> <1046896193.1124.21.camel@ebola> <000601c2e35a$6d48bb00$ac3c4e51@CPQ28140326195> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.8 Message-Id: <1046905123.2459.30.camel@hanta> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 05 Mar 2003 14:58:43 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 13:01, Richard wrote: > Thanks for taking the suggestion seriously enough to respond. However: > > 1. Yes but the ISPs are detecting millions of spam at the moment and there > idea doesn't rely on them detecting every single one. No, but the possibility of being wrong about just one creates problems and costs far beyond the act of just passively accepting the spam. We are talking about actions a company will be taking, not some Joe off the street with a dialup. > > 2. Once and they are being told that their emails are being seen as spam > which is a good thing. Who being told what? You are assuming that an email in a spam actually maps to a real person somewhere? You haven't been looking at enough spam. > > 3. Why? they are using up no more bandwidth than if they were just > forwarding the spam unfiltered. If the idea worked it will cut the amount of > spam and therefore free bandwidth. This is ADDITIONAL bandwidth on top of that of the spam coming in. Sending an email is a single event, an attack has to last for much longer to be of any "use". > > 4. This is no more vigilantism than is the unilateral filtering of the > spam in the first place. I completely disagree. Per user filtering is in no way like using a DOS attack against an IP you believe belongs to a spammer. Unilateral filtering isn't either. Filtering is not an attack. > > 5. How? There is some criteria for determining what is the spam that you have to respond to. All someone has to do is know what that is and then use that to generate an email that causes you to "attack". Peter > > > Pinging every spam link discovered would dramatically increase the > > > bandwidth the spammer was using and therefore their costs. > > > > Problems: > > > > 1. How to "detect" the spam in the first place. Didn't you just say > > above that spammers will continue to outwit filters? Detection is > > essentially the same as filtering in this case. > > 2. Given a false positive, we would be pinging or emailing a valid non > > spammer IP. This is called a Denial Of Service. People get sued for crap > > like this. > > 3. For a large ISP, the outbound pings, emails, whatever to an IP deemed > > to be a spammer would quickly cause a problem on outbound links. > > Bandwidth costs money. > > 4. Vigilantism will create more problems than it solves. > > 5. Could easily be used for a distributed DOS against a person or site. > > 6. There was someone who suggested this at the recent spam conference in > > Boston. It wasn't a popular suggestion for the reasons above and more. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 18:01:01 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA04392 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:01:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25NBjI00357 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:11:45 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25NBjO00354 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:11:45 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA04381 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:00:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25N95O32646; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:09:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25N8IO32600 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:08:18 -0500 Received: from silk.rtr.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA04243 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:57:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from silk.rtr.com (IDENT:root@localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by silk.rtr.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h25Mx4112177 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:59:04 -0500 Received: from bark (bark [64.241.156.77]) by silk.rtr.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Mx4v12170 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:59:04 -0500 From: "Gary Feldman" To: Subject: RE: [Asrg] definition of spam (was Re: consent expression) Organization: Ready-to-Run Software, Inc. Message-ID: <006d01c2e36a$d407e180$4d9cf140@rtr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20030305134413.2988c5b7.moore@cs.utk.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:59:08 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Keith Moore > Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 1:44 PM > they'll never get any mail from somebody they don't know, > because they have no way to give them consent. Sounds good to me :-)! > at the very least, let's recognize that the kind of consent > you are talking about is different than a recipient giving > consent to the mail system to do filtering on a recipient's > behalf. and as I read the charter, it's talking about the latter. That's not the way I read the charter. I read the statement on consent-based communiccations in the charter as being able to build systems that implement consent policies automatically. The ability of the recipient to choose a particular policy is also included (under "Consent Expression Component"), but that's not how I think the word consent is being used. Gary _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 18:05:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA04731 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:05:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25NGPT00579 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:16:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25NGOO00576 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:16:24 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA04677 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:05:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25NE1O00411; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:14:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25NDAO00394 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:13:10 -0500 Received: from alon1.dhs.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA04423 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:01:54 -0500 (EST) From: ietf@alon.wox.org Received: by alon1.dhs.org (Postfix, from userid 501) id D24B22DE2; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 01:03:51 +0200 (IST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alon1.dhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC8023B448E for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 01:03:51 +0200 (IST) X-X-Sender: alon@alon1.dhs.org To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Asrg] My Suggestion - HashCash + whitelist/auth Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 01:03:51 +0200 (IST) One major problem with detecting spam is that it is hard to seperate bulk mail from legitimate mail for unknown senders. Therefore, I suggest the following two-part system: 1. Unauthenticated senders will be required to add a token to their mail indicating some amount of computation performed, specific to the message and recepient, for example - creating an n-bit hash collission with the message. Messages without this token are returned with an explantion to the sender, and perhaps with a human-verification fallback (such as detecting letters in an image). 2. When signing up to a legitimate bulk mailer (mailing list, website, etc.) you either send a signed certificate with the bulk mailer's public key permiting him to send you mail, or add his public key to your whitelist. The same can be done for friends. The MUA should know if the recepient is on a whitelist by some means. Also, the MUA should know how much work needs to be done, this can be done by modifying the email address to something like me@myhost.com#10, which means 10 bits of hashcash are required to send mail. This method requires the following updates: 1. A user wishing to enjoy spamfree email must use a compatible MUA. 2. Bulk-mailers must upgrade their systems to send signed mails. This can be overcome in the short term using From: whitelisting. 3. An email address should be allowed to have "#n" in the end. It's not required in the transitional phase. 4. The MUA of legitimate unauthenticaed senders should be configured to generate the hashcash. In the transitional phase, other human-detection methods will be used, Alon -- This message was sent by Alon Altman (alon@alon.wox.org) ICQ:1366540 The RIGHT way to contact me is by e-mail. I am otherwise nonexistent :) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -=[ Random Fortune ]=- design, v.: What you regret not doing later on. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 18:06:50 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA04865 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:06:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25NHYE00635 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:17:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25NHYO00632 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:17:34 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA04808 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:06:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25NF2O00502; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:15:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25NESO00450 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:14:28 -0500 Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA04466 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:03:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h25N5CA02517; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:05:12 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Moore To: Hadmut Danisch Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, aland@freeradius.org, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Deprecating plain POP accounts Message-Id: <20030305180512.76bc481a.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <20030305224554.GC16824@danisch.de> References: <20030305120839.63708d42.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305133703.7a843f62.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305193344.GA12295@danisch.de> <20030305162156.484c4750.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305220944.GE15047@danisch.de> <20030305172157.03f949f0.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305224554.GC16824@danisch.de> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:05:12 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I don't see how this could be an argument for your opinion. > > I'm using several notebooks with the mail scheme I proposed. > And I never ever had to reconfigure anything. On the contrary: > The fact that I use my central relay make the configuration > so stable that I never need to change anything, I do not even > need a running DNS service. you're not connecting to different ISPs, each of which insist that you use their relay, and block port 25 for all other hosts. > > very unfortunate if we compromised transparency, or the ability to > > send anonymous mail, for the sake of spam. > > I understand that this is a bitter pill, but you can't have one > without the other, since it turns out to be basically the same. please also understand that we might not want to swallow that bitter bill. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 18:08:53 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA05086 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:08:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25NJbX00716 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:19:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25NJbO00713 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:19:37 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA05030 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:08:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25NH4O00617; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:17:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25NG2O00562 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:16:02 -0500 Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA04640 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:04:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h25N6lA02522; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:06:47 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Moore To: Hadmut Danisch Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, adam@cypherspace.org, raymie@cs.ucsc.edu, Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: privacy is a feature (Re: [Asrg] desirable characteristics of source tracking) Message-Id: <20030305180647.232f86b8.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <20030305224734.GD16824@danisch.de> References: <20030305113323.GA4939@danisch.de> <20030305070437.60bdfd34.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305122021.GA6748@danisch.de> <20030305073217.46f79dcb.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305125322.GA7179@danisch.de> <20030305080032.59d50373.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305203057.B4412039@exeter.ac.uk> <20030305163225.088b989c.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305222200.GH15047@danisch.de> <20030305173026.2cc1f628.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305224734.GD16824@danisch.de> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:06:47 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Ooops, doesn't it break freedom of speech if a "fresh account" > is considered to be a second class citizen and not listened to? no. people have a right to choose who they listen to. nobody forces me to watch cnn either. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 18:11:26 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA05511 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:11:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25NMBp00872 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:22:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25NMAO00869 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:22:10 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA05443 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:10:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25NK1O00771; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:20:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25NJKO00698 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:19:20 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA04998 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:08:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h25NA7hs017357; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 00:10:07 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h25N8NsT017688 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 6 Mar 2003 00:08:23 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h25N8NtR017686; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 00:08:23 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Clifton Royston Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: privacy is a feature (Re: [Asrg] desirable characteristics of source tracking) Message-ID: <20030305230823.GA17368@danisch.de> References: <20030305073217.46f79dcb.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305125322.GA7179@danisch.de> <20030305080032.59d50373.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305203057.B4412039@exeter.ac.uk> <20030305211443.GA15047@danisch.de> <20030305212734.A4463801@exeter.ac.uk> <20030305220329.GD15047@danisch.de> <20030305171425.6400450d.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305223326.GA16824@danisch.de> <20030305125103.E15588@lava.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030305125103.E15588@lava.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 00:08:23 +0100 On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:51:03PM -1000, Clifton Royston wrote: > > Perhaps the requirements don't work quite as you think? Or perhaps > they only apply to the .de TLD? The whois entry is a .de TLD thing, since it is a requirement by the DeNIC, which is responsible for .de. It applies to domains. The imprint is a legal requirement and applies to web services. The jurists are still discussion whether it applies to commercial web pages only, to pages with any editorial content, or even to every web page. The law unfortunately uses a word which is a little bit ambiguous. We (i.e. Rackland association) are a domain reseller, and we are required to keep the whois entries up to date and truthful. > Joker.com is located in Germany and has been a popular registrar for > domains in .com and .org for quite a few years. There is evidently no > problem with pseudonyms and/or false addresses being used to register > domain names there; or if so, then my officemate is apparently from the > Andromedan galaxy and is named rather differently than I think. As I said: .com and .org don't belong to DeNIC, so they are not covered by DeNIC requirements. The web page www.joker.com actually lacks an impress. If you were a competitor of them you could ask a lawyer to admonish them and send them an expensive bill... However, the whois entry for joker.com shows the owner of that domain. So if you have any complaint in context of the domain joker.com you know whom to contact. That's the idea. Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 18:16:24 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA05697 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:16:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25NR8p01072 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:27:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25NR8O01069 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:27:08 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA05677 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:15:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25NP2O01033; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:25:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25NONO00981 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:24:23 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA05598 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:13:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h25NF71R017452; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 00:15:07 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h25NDjsT017792 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 6 Mar 2003 00:13:45 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h25NDjWM017790; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 00:13:45 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Keith Moore Cc: aland@freeradius.org, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Deprecating plain POP accounts Message-ID: <20030305231345.GB17368@danisch.de> References: <20030305120839.63708d42.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305133703.7a843f62.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305193344.GA12295@danisch.de> <20030305162156.484c4750.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305220944.GE15047@danisch.de> <20030305172157.03f949f0.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305224554.GC16824@danisch.de> <20030305180512.76bc481a.moore@cs.utk.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030305180512.76bc481a.moore@cs.utk.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 00:13:45 +0100 On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 06:05:12PM -0500, Keith Moore wrote: > > > I don't see how this could be an argument for your opinion. > > > > I'm using several notebooks with the mail scheme I proposed. > > And I never ever had to reconfigure anything. On the contrary: > > The fact that I use my central relay make the configuration > > so stable that I never need to change anything, I do not even > > need a running DNS service. > > you're not connecting to different ISPs, each of which insist that you > use their relay, and block port 25 for all other hosts. Sure, of course I do. I do not even use port 25 since I don't use SMTP to up/download mail from my home hub. > please also understand that we might not want to swallow that bitter > bill. Sure I understand. Take the pill or stay sick. Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 18:21:12 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA05911 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:21:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25NVuM01260 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:31:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25NVuO01257 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:31:56 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA05900 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:20:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25NU2O01202; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:30:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25NTPO01162 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:29:25 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA05831 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:18:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h25NK7vq017517; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 00:20:07 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h25NFesT017844 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 6 Mar 2003 00:15:40 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h25NFdLB017842; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 00:15:39 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Keith Moore Cc: adam@cypherspace.org, raymie@cs.ucsc.edu, Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: privacy is a feature (Re: [Asrg] desirable characteristics of source tracking) Message-ID: <20030305231539.GC17368@danisch.de> References: <20030305122021.GA6748@danisch.de> <20030305073217.46f79dcb.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305125322.GA7179@danisch.de> <20030305080032.59d50373.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305203057.B4412039@exeter.ac.uk> <20030305163225.088b989c.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305222200.GH15047@danisch.de> <20030305173026.2cc1f628.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305224734.GD16824@danisch.de> <20030305180647.232f86b8.moore@cs.utk.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030305180647.232f86b8.moore@cs.utk.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 00:15:39 +0100 On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 06:06:47PM -0500, Keith Moore wrote: > > Ooops, doesn't it break freedom of speech if a "fresh account" > > is considered to be a second class citizen and not listened to? > > no. people have a right to choose who they listen to. > nobody forces me to watch cnn either. Lovely. Wasn't that my statement which I was heavily critized for? How do you want to choose who you listen to, if there is no authenticity, free forgery, and "who" doesn't have any meaning? Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 18:24:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02797 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:25:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25MadG29017 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:36:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25MadO29013 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:36:39 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02773 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:25:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25MU1O28496; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:30:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25MTIO28462 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:29:18 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02573 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:18:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h25MK7Gh016148; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:20:07 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h25MJhsT016589 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:19:43 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h25MJhMA016587; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:19:43 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: "David F. Skoll" Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: privacy is a feature (Re: [Asrg] desirable characteristics of source tracking) Message-ID: <20030305221943.GG15047@danisch.de> References: <20030305061230.1cf246a7.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305113323.GA4939@danisch.de> <20030305070437.60bdfd34.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305122021.GA6748@danisch.de> <20030305073217.46f79dcb.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305125322.GA7179@danisch.de> <20030305080032.59d50373.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305203057.B4412039@exeter.ac.uk> <20030305211443.GA15047@danisch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:19:43 +0100 On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 04:33:39PM -0500, David F. Skoll wrote: > > How so? Do you mean if I'm walking around a city, and I want to ask > for directions, I'm not allowed to say: > > "Excuse me, how do I get to..." You're comparing apples and oranges. - If you ask so, you're visible and not hiding behind a fake name. - You do not cause the other any costs. - You're not getting asked 20 times a day. - Spam doesn't ask "how do I get to". Imagine you're sitting at home and 20 times a day people come into your living room asking you to buy penis enlargement devices. Is this still covered by the right to do anonymous communication? > "My name is David Skoll, I can be reached at (613) 555-1212 > by phone, and by the way, how do I get to..." Actually, if you're providing commercial services or do advertising, you have to do this in europe. Over here, people have the freedom and right to now where to complain. > > Why do I have to pay time and money to allow others to > > stay anonymous? > > You don't. No-one's forcing you to use e-mail. But if I want to use e-mail, I'm forced to pay? I have the choice only between paying and not using e-mail at all? Do you call that freedom? Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 18:43:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA06448 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:43:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h25NsF202723 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:54:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25NsEO02720 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:54:14 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA06444 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:42:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Nq4O02658; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:52:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25NpeO02627 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:51:40 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA06391 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:40:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h25NgSBD001180 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:42:28 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Asrg] Anonymity and freedom of expression Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:42:28 -0500 (EST) I think any future e-mail system should provide a strong, unforgeable statement (using the usual cryptographic techniques) on each e-mail. The statement should read: The sender of this e-mail is authenticated. Or: The sender of this e-mail is not authenticated. End-users can then choose what to do with mail from unauthenticated senders. I don't see how this hurts anyone's freedom of expression. I don't think we should force all e-mail senders to be authenticated, but we should force the existence (or lack) of authentication to be clearly visible. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 18:50:15 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA06850 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:50:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26011V03146 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:01:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26010O03143 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:01:00 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA06798 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:49:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Nw1O02927; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:58:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25NvJO02852 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:57:19 -0500 Received: from vqx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA06534 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:46:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from (AUTH: e40a9cea) by vqx.net with esmtp (courier-0.40) for ; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 23:47:56 +0000 Orig-Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 00:48:37 +0100 From: Roland To: ASRG Subject: Re: privacy is a feature (Re: [Asrg] desirable characteristics of source tracking) In-Reply-To: <20030305222200.GH15047@danisch.de> References: <200303050840.ABJ06911@m1.imap-partners.net> <20030305061230.1cf246a7.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305113323.GA4939@danisch.de> <20030305070437.60bdfd34.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305122021.GA6748@danisch.de> <20030305073217.46f79dcb.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305125322.GA7179@danisch.de> <20030305080032.59d50373.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305203057.B4412039@exeter.ac.uk> <20030305163225.088b989c.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305222200.GH15047@danisch.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 23:47:56 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --Hadmut Danisch wrote on 05.03.03 23:22 +0100: > I understand that this is the american way to see things. > > But not all people on the world share this view. > > And, btw, it doesn't work if the sender is free to use a new > "identity" every day. Anybody should be able to manually send a couple of mails without any authentication or registration, and a few occasional spams or 419 sent that way dont justify any totalitary approach. This is the nice thing about smtp, and it does not conflict with RMX btw. It should however not be possible to abuse this freedom for sending quantities of unsolicited bulk mail, this is the bad thing about smtp and I hope we could concentrate on that. Roland _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 18:58:03 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA07137 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:58:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2608nn04224 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:08:49 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2608nO04221 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:08:49 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA07087 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:57:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26064O03336; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:06:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2605UO03312 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:05:30 -0500 Received: from mallard.mail.pas.earthlink.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA07019 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:54:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.133.182] helo=envy.indecency.org) by mallard.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18qik7-0002Pr-00; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 15:56:11 -0800 From: Keith Moore To: "Alan DeKok" Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Deprecating plain POP accounts Message-Id: <20030305185244.2b7a92ab.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: References: <20030305171136.53bb5cd7.moore@cs.utk.edu> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:52:44 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > [ mail from non-mx machines ] > > > > > > Any mail system which allows such nonsense is broken. > > > > why. because you said so? > > Because the behaviour of the network (machines originating mail) > does not match the intended behaviour. This isn't hard to see. *whose* intended behavior? it certainly matches the sender's intended behavior. and it's perfectly legal according to the standards, with good reason. > Any solution I'm interested in doesn't involve filtering, data > collection, or counting how much email someone sends. nobody says you have to use it. you can decide whether to accept mail based on the phase of the moon if you want. > e.g. The recent postfix checks. No MX? Nowhere to send bounces? > According to the RFC I shouldn't accept the mail, because there's > nowhere to send a possible bounce. you can accept it if you wish. you just can't bounce the mail. > e.g. Domains making positive declarations "Mail from my domain > originates only from IP X". there's nothing horrible about that, but it's not generally useful. people need to be able to send mail from arbitrary locations on the net. nor is it a good idea to tie IP addresses to domains. > > domains are just names. traffic doesn't originate from domains. > > So when someone sends email FROM "bob@example.com", his traffic > isn't originating from any domain. you've got it. > When his IP resolves to > "ppp2723.isp.com", I shouldn't care that he's lying to me about who he > is, and where his email is coming from. you don't know from the above information whether he is lying or not. this mail is originating from some earthlink.net IP address; the return address is moore@cs.utk.edu. it's perfectly valid for me to be using that return address to send mail from that IP, or from any other IP that my laptop happens to be connected to. I don't want to receive mail at my earthlink email address, and if you sent mail there, chances are I would never see it. > > traffic from throwaway account is < .01% of the spam you're seeing? > > ... from known "good business" ISP's, yes. > > > well, the rest of the net is getting the other 99.99% of such traffic, > > because every time I look at spam most of the sender addresses are > > fairly obvously throwaways. > > Don't make me laugh. The sender addresses are forged. many of the ones I see are perfectly valid. the sender gets the spam sent out long before the account gets shut down. > I've had a *hell* of a time convincing people that I don't want to > see "helpful" notifications about mail with forged addresses from my > domain, seen in a spam message (sender, body, etc). well I don't like it when spammers use my return address either (which they've done once or twice). but IP address is simply not very useful as an authentication token, and it's getting less useful for this over time. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 19:00:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA07246 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:00:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h260BH304344 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:11:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h260BHO04341 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:11:17 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA07223 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:00:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26097O04252; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:09:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2608PO04188 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:08:25 -0500 Received: from albatross.mail.pas.earthlink.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA07058 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:57:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.133.182] helo=envy.indecency.org) by albatross.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18qimu-0002lR-00; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 15:59:04 -0800 From: Keith Moore To: "David F. Skoll" Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: Patents (was Re: [Asrg] Time for the ISPs to fight back!) Message-Id: <20030305185537.40dd21a2.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: References: <001401c2e350$d168f280$fd1e4e51@CPQ28140326195> <20030305120349.C15588@lava.net> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:55:37 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:45:22 -0500 (EST) "David F. Skoll" wrote: > On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Clifton Royston wrote: > > > People might want to look at the recently-implemented Postfix > > sender verification feature in current snapshot releases. > > This technique is patented and assigned to ESCOM Corporation, in US > Patent #6,321,267 (see the section "Active User Testing") > > The patent was filed 23 November 1999; if you think you have prior > art, I encourage you to publish it. > I wish we could shoot people who file bogus patents. [astro] ls -l ~/src/check_mail_addr total 350 -rw-r--r-- 1 moore wheel 4174 Jun 17 1997 822addr.c -rw-r--r-- 1 moore wheel 149 Jun 17 1997 822addr.h -rw-r--r-- 1 moore wheel 508 Nov 4 1999 Makefile.in -rw-r--r-- 1 moore wheel 1141 Oct 11 12:26 README -rw-r--r-- 1 moore wheel 4007 Oct 10 09:07 check_mail_addr.c -rw-r--r-- 1 moore wheel 85 Jun 16 1997 config.h.in -rwxr-xr-x 1 moore wheel 53976 Jun 14 1999 configure -rw-r--r-- 1 moore wheel 581 Jun 14 1999 configure.in -rw-r--r-- 1 moore wheel 541 Jun 14 1999 configure.scan -rw-r--r-- 1 moore wheel 5201 Jul 8 1997 getmxrr.c -rw-r--r-- 1 moore wheel 321 Jul 6 1997 getmxrr.h -r--r--r-- 1 moore wheel 6913 Oct 20 1997 smtp-tcp-bsd.c -rw-r--r-- 1 moore wheel 2588 Oct 27 1997 smtp-vrfy.c -r--r--r-- 1 moore wheel 1245 Jun 17 1997 smtp.h -rw-r--r-- 1 moore wheel 291 Jun 17 1997 strerror.c -rw-r--r-- 1 moore wheel 84449 Oct 11 12:12 test-data -rw-r--r-- 1 moore wheel 347 Oct 11 12:24 test-script -r--r--r-- 1 moore wheel 646 Jun 17 1997 text.c -r--r--r-- 1 moore wheel 628 Jun 16 1997 text.h _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 19:05:14 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA07387 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:05:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h260G0I04487 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:16:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h260G0O04484 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:16:00 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA07374 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:04:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h260D1O04398; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:13:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h260C5O04370 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:12:05 -0500 Received: from mallard.mail.pas.earthlink.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA07266 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:00:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.133.182] helo=envy.indecency.org) by mallard.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18qiqT-0005ut-00; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 16:02:45 -0800 From: Keith Moore To: "David F. Skoll" Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: Patents (was Re: [Asrg] Time for the ISPs to fight back!) Message-Id: <20030305185918.66e58a0e.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: References: <001401c2e350$d168f280$fd1e4e51@CPQ28140326195> <20030305120349.C15588@lava.net> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:59:18 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Clifton Royston wrote: > > > People might want to look at the recently-implemented Postfix > > sender verification feature in current snapshot releases. > > This technique is patented and assigned to ESCOM Corporation, in US > Patent #6,321,267 (see the section "Active User Testing") > > The patent was filed 23 November 1999; if you think you have prior > art, I encourage you to publish it. for what it's worth, source code to do this has been available since at least Jul 9, 1997 at ftp://cs.utk.edu/pub/moore/check_mail_addr.tar.gz if this were enough to get this patent declared invalid, it would make my day. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 19:11:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA07480 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:11:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h260MV204746 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:22:31 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h260MVO04743 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:22:31 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA07462 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:11:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h260K3O04671; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:20:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h260JxO04637 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:19:59 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA07439 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:08:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18qeCH-0003y2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 14:04:57 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Deprecating plain POP accounts In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 05 Mar 2003 18:52:44 EST." <20030305185244.2b7a92ab.moore@cs.utk.edu> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 14:04:57 -0500 Keith Moore wrote: > > Because the behaviour of the network (machines originating mail) > > does not match the intended behaviour. This isn't hard to see. > > *whose* intended behavior? it certainly matches the sender's intended > behavior. and it's perfectly legal according to the standards, with > good reason. Can I cry now? Are you even reading what I write? My example involved a machine which was NOT intended to originate SMTP. Due to misconfiguration/bugs, it does. The machine administrator never intended the spammer to be able to send spam through that machine. Yet the spammer can do so. This is a problem for everybody but the spammer. I don't *care* about the intended behaviour of the spammer. They're abusing systems they were never intended to have access to. That abuse is causing other people problems. > people need to be able to send mail from arbitrary locations on the > net. Why? Are there NO solutions to the roaming problem, other than allowing any IP on the net to originate SMTP to any other IP, and claim to be from any domain? I believe that such solutions exist. They should be used. I believe that using them will help minimize the spam problem. > this mail is originating from some earthlink.net IP address; the return > address is moore@cs.utk.edu. it's perfectly valid for me to be using that > return address to send mail from that IP, or from any other IP that my laptop > happens to be connected to. Why? You're stating it like it's an axiom, or a law of nature. Is it really impossible for you to connect to a well-known SMTP server, which can verify you, and verify itself as a well-known SMTP server to others? Do you understand why such behaviour will make it orders of magnitude easier for other SMTP servers to "qualify" SMTP sources, and to filter out spam? Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 19:14:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA07553 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:14:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h260PK604933 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:25:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h260PKO04930 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:25:20 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA07515 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:14:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h260N4O04825; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:23:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h260MuO04773 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:22:56 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA07473 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:11:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2083403; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 19:13:44 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20030305213051.GB15047@danisch.de> References: <20030305204630.GA14655@main.templetons.com> <20030305213051.GB15047@danisch.de> To: Hadmut Danisch From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] MTP drafty Cc: Brad Templeton , Alan DeKok , asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:10:05 -0500 At 10:30 PM +0100 3/5/03, Hadmut Danisch wrote: >Huh? Do free speech and sender verification/signatures mutually >exclude each other? As discussed previously, it's a cultural thing. The U.S. is very big on protected anonymous speech. We're perfectly happy to tell everyone what prescription drugs you buy, but your right to speak anonymously is protected. About the only things about you that can't be given away to anyone are what videos you buy and what books you check out of the library--and 9/11 got rid of the latter restriction. (I wish I were being funny here.) But in any case I agree with Brad. Requiring identification for bulkmailing is different. Besides, there's always Usenet if you feel like broadcasting your thoughts anonymously. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 19:14:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA07566 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:14:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h260PLQ04949 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:25:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h260PLO04946 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:25:21 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA07519 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:14:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h260N3O04805; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:23:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h260MrO04769 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:22:53 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA07470 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:11:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2083391; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 19:13:42 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20030305204630.GA14655@main.templetons.com> References: <20030305204630.GA14655@main.templetons.com> To: Brad Templeton From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] MTP drafty Cc: Alan DeKok , asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:06:57 -0500 At 12:46 PM -0800 3/5/03, Brad Templeton wrote: >It helps, but has its own annoyances. Plus it's a loophole, in >that spammers will just send out messages saying > >"This is to confirm your request to subscribe to our mailing list >about where to get cheap penis enlargers. Click on this link to >confirm your subscription!" Yes, but when combined with bulk-mailer identifier requirements, they can only do it once. Of course then they keep changing the name of the list and calling it something new. So then you need to determine whether you are talking about one request per-organization or per-list, or per.... So yes, it's not ideal. And then of course lots of people can't figure them out. That could be help with standard's and MUA support though. Or you can just tell the client that they didn't really want clueless people on their mailing list anyway--a year from now they'll forget and report it as spam :-). -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 19:15:27 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA07622 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:15:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h260QDC05026 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:26:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h260QDO05023 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:26:13 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA07587 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:14:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h260O1O04881; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:24:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h260N4O04819 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:23:04 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA07496 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:11:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2083375; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 19:13:51 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20030305170140.01460441.moore@cs.utk.edu> References: <20030305170140.01460441.moore@cs.utk.edu> To: Keith Moore From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Summarizing Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:35:51 -0500 At 5:01 PM -0500 3/5/03, Keith Moore wrote: >On Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:26:49 -0500 >Kee Hinckley wrote: > >> Based on monitoring the discussion for the past 18 hours or so, I >> think I see some trends, but maybe I'm on drugs. > >it's *way* too soon to be trying to draw conclusions. most people who >will participate in this discussion haven't even signed up yet. Especially since it was slashdotted today. But my comments were exactly what I said. My summarization of some of the constraints that there seemed to be consensus on in the past 18 hours. Nothing more was claimed. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 19:15:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA07653 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:15:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h260QSJ05042 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:26:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h260QSO05039 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:26:28 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA07593 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:15:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h260O0O04864; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:24:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h260N2O04791 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:23:02 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA07479 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:11:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2083404; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 19:13:49 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: Daniel Feenberg From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] filtering at connect time Cc: Keith Moore , jim@media.mit.edu, asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:13:02 -0500 At 4:01 PM -0500 3/5/03, Daniel Feenberg wrote: >We have implemented a submission port, but it is hardly a panacea. Outlook >only supports plain text passwords (which is a step down from no >passwords, in my opinion) and Eudora requires installing the "esoteric >features" (which are not part of the default install). It does have the I don't believe that either of those are true anymore. Certainly Outlook supports MSN authentication, if nothing else. And AUTH MSN is simply AUTH NTLM renamed (idiots). A fact with some MTAs are already taking advantage of (Communigate supports it, and we just patched Courier to support it as well.) -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 19:17:47 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA07689 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:17:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h260SY505291 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:28:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h260SXO05288 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:28:33 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA07682 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:17:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h260Q1O05014; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:26:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h260PVO04964 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:25:31 -0500 Received: from malasada.lava.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA07537 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:14:13 -0500 (EST) Received: by malasada.lava.net (Postfix, from userid 102) id CAE2717A188; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:16:15 -1000 (HST) From: Clifton Royston To: Keith Moore Cc: "David F. Skoll" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: Patents (was Re: [Asrg] Time for the ISPs to fight back!) Message-ID: <20030305141615.B2852@lava.net> References: <001401c2e350$d168f280$fd1e4e51@CPQ28140326195> <20030305120349.C15588@lava.net> <20030305185918.66e58a0e.moore@cs.utk.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20030305185918.66e58a0e.moore@cs.utk.edu>; from moore@cs.utk.edu on Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 06:59:18PM -0500 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:16:15 -1000 On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 06:59:18PM -0500, Keith Moore wrote: > > On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Clifton Royston wrote: > > > People might want to look at the recently-implemented Postfix > > > sender verification feature in current snapshot releases. > > > > This technique is patented and assigned to ESCOM Corporation, in US > > Patent #6,321,267 (see the section "Active User Testing") > > > > The patent was filed 23 November 1999; if you think you have prior > > art, I encourage you to publish it. > > for what it's worth, source code to do this has been available since at > least Jul 9, 1997 at ftp://cs.utk.edu/pub/moore/check_mail_addr.tar.gz > > if this were enough to get this patent declared invalid, it would > make my day. It probably is, in fact, since it was implemented and published more than 1 year in advance of the patent filing date, but it typically takes an actual lawsuit resulting from the holder demanding royalties to do it. The patent system is pretty badly broken. I also got a note on the Postfix list that exim has been implementing this since at least 1998. (Apologies if that's code you were involved with that they're talking about; can't tell the players without a scorecard.) -- Clifton -- Clifton Royston -- LavaNet Systems Architect -- cliftonr@lava.net "If you ride fast enough, the Specialist can't catch you." "What's the Specialist?" Samantha says. "The Specialist wears a hat," says the babysitter. "The hat makes noises." She doesn't say anything else. Kelly Link, _The Specialist's Hat_ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 19:19:01 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA07727 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:19:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h260Tlv05329 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:29:47 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h260TlO05326 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:29:47 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA07709; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:18:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25GU3509547; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:30:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25GTm509506 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:29:48 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA10066 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:18:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18qWqy-0003aH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 06:14:28 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] MTP drafty In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 04 Mar 2003 21:28:42 PST." <20030305052842.GJ14655@main.templetons.com> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 06:14:28 -0500 Brad Templeton wrote: On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 07:01:40PM -0500, Alan DeKok wrote: > > Even at 1/1000 the rate, 100,000 spams a day is > > problematic to deal with. > > Surely no more than a couple of ISPs get that sort of volume? That's what I disagree with. Many, many domains get that kind of volume. Someone who gets 99.99% spam would be pleased if the spam went down by 3 orders of magnitude, but it would still be a serious problem. > ... So what are you arguing against that I said? Your belief as to the scope of the problem. For some people, the spam problem is 3 orders of magnitude larger than what you're seeing. So dropping their spam loads by that amount simply means they're now dealing with as much spam as you are. And you're on this list, talking about your current spam loads, and trying to fight the problem. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 19:19:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA07757 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:19:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h260UO905394 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:30:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h260UOO05391 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:30:24 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA07744 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:19:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h260S1O05274; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:28:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h260RxO05256 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:27:59 -0500 Received: from mallard.mail.pas.earthlink.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA07675 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:16:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.133.182] helo=envy.indecency.org) by mallard.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18qj5w-0002UL-00; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 16:18:44 -0800 From: Keith Moore To: "Alan DeKok" Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Deprecating plain POP accounts Message-Id: <20030305191518.1807af4c.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: References: <20030305185244.2b7a92ab.moore@cs.utk.edu> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:15:18 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > My example involved a machine which was NOT intended to originate > SMTP. Due to misconfiguration/bugs, it does. that's what you get for running (probably) microsoft. don't expect us to impair the rest of the network to accomodate their brain damage. > > people need to be able to send mail from arbitrary locations on the > > net. > > Why? Are there NO solutions to the roaming problem, other than > allowing any IP on the net to originate SMTP to any other IP, and > claim to be from any domain? there is no good reason to require them to do so. > > this mail is originating from some earthlink.net IP address; the return > > address is moore@cs.utk.edu. it's perfectly valid for me to be using > > that return address to send mail from that IP, or from any other IP that > > my laptop happens to be connected to. > > Why? You're stating it like it's an axiom, or a law of nature. it's the way mail is supposed to work. it's consciously chosen and highly desirable behavior. > Is it really impossible for you to connect to a well-known SMTP > server, which can verify you, and verify itself as a well-known SMTP > server to others? yes. furthermore, it would be undesirable to force people to connect to servers that verified their identities. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 19:25:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA07901 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:25:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h260aT405603 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:36:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h260aTO05600 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:36:29 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA07877 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:25:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h260Y1O05559; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:34:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h260XVO05522 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:33:31 -0500 Received: from mercury.ex.ac.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA07858 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:22:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from [144.173.6.20] (helo=cronus.ex.ac.uk) by mercury.ex.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18qjBJ-00Ctf7-00; Thu, 06 Mar 2003 00:24:17 +0000 From: Adam Back To: Hadmut Danisch Cc: Keith Moore , raymie@cs.ucsc.edu, Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: privacy is a feature (Re: [Asrg] desirable characteristics of source tracking) Message-ID: <20030306002417.A4477766@exeter.ac.uk> References: <20030305073217.46f79dcb.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305125322.GA7179@danisch.de> <20030305080032.59d50373.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305203057.B4412039@exeter.ac.uk> <20030305163225.088b989c.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305222200.GH15047@danisch.de> <20030305173026.2cc1f628.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305224734.GD16824@danisch.de> <20030305180647.232f86b8.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305231539.GC17368@danisch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.2i In-Reply-To: <20030305231539.GC17368@danisch.de>; from hadmut@danisch.de on Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 12:15:39AM +0100 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 00:24:17 +0000 On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 12:15:39AM +0100, Hadmut Danisch wrote: > How do you want to choose who you listen to, if there is > no authenticity, free forgery, and "who" doesn't have any meaning? I think figuring out who you want to listen to is the receivers problem, so in short practically you can't. This is not a technical problem with email, it is a problem with an ill-thought out governmental law which is not compatible with existing defacto email functionality. If you say I won't receive any email unless it has a true name attached to it signed by the German governments CA, well find go ahead, but don't expect anyone else to do it, and don't expect to receive any communications from anyone else outside Germany. I as a sender have no obligation, and indeed in the US a legally protected right to not have to give you any indication of my identity (anonymity). So your German right to not receive anonymous mail (if you've interpreted German law correctly), is limited by the international nature of email, such that you can't tell which mails are anonymous, pseudonymous, nom-de-plumes etc. I'm not sure what else could be done, different laws conflict. As I mentioned previously laws aside (German, US or other) I think forcing senders to identify themselves is a bad thing; and an undesirable fall-out from your proposed solution which shows nothing other than indicate that your proposed solution is _bad_ because it breaks existing expecations. btw I am not a US citizen (British / Swiss dual national), though that is largely irrelevant; I am however a privacy advocate of cypherpunk type leanings, and this is where the clash comes from. You're defining privacy by some government law, I'm defining privacy by defacto current user control and freedoms and the notion that government laws are bad things. Any time you propose things that make sense to you, or help you enforce German law I will oppose them if they detract from my defacto rights to privacy, and reliability and functionality of privacy relating to email. In an international arena it pretty much comes to the same thing as ignoring laws anyway because what government law there is is all conflicting and variously technically dumb and against user interests, so it would be a very bad idea for this technical discussion to revolve around anything which is biased to any given countries laws. Probably no solution could be found that had to meet all countries legal requirements because I think there are even aspects which are outright opposing (legally required, legally forbidden). So the "we have to do dumb thing X because it's required by German/US law" has no value to me. If it breaks my defacto existing freedoms I say fuck that. I think it makes more sense to look at Brad's principles document which expresses the defacto rights, freedoms and functionalities which email provides; as well as pointing out a few of the above issues with different legal systems, and with laws applying to email in general. Really, go read it! http://www.templetons.com/brad/spume/prin.html Adam > On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 06:06:47PM -0500, Keith Moore wrote: > > > Ooops, doesn't it break freedom of speech if a "fresh account" > > > is considered to be a second class citizen and not listened to? > > > > no. people have a right to choose who they listen to. > > nobody forces me to watch cnn either. > > Lovely. Wasn't that my statement which I was heavily critized > for? > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 19:26:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA07938 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:26:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h260bKa06310 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:37:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h260bKO06307 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:37:20 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA07919 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:26:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h260XiO05540; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:33:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h260U5O05364 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:30:05 -0500 Received: from hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA07720 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:18:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.133.182] helo=envy.indecency.org) by hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18qj7w-0000L4-00; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 16:20:48 -0800 From: Keith Moore To: Clifton Royston Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, dfs@roaringpenguin.com, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: Patents (was Re: [Asrg] Time for the ISPs to fight back!) Message-Id: <20030305191721.4c4b68ed.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <20030305141615.B2852@lava.net> References: <001401c2e350$d168f280$fd1e4e51@CPQ28140326195> <20030305120349.C15588@lava.net> <20030305185918.66e58a0e.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305141615.B2852@lava.net> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:17:21 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I also got a note on the Postfix list that exim has been implementing > this since at least 1998. (Apologies if that's code you were involved > with that they're talking about; can't tell the players without a > scorecard.) as far as I know, they're completely separate. feel free to forward my email address to anoyone who is fighting this. (die patent holder scum!) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 19:31:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA08093 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:31:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h260fqG06653 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:41:52 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h260fqO06650 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:41:52 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA08072 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:30:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h260d1O06552; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:39:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h260c9O06511 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:38:09 -0500 Received: from nycsmtp3out.rdc-nyc.rr.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA07956 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:26:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from BOBDEV (66-108-193-77.nyc.rr.com [66.108.193.77]) by nycsmtp3out.rdc-nyc.rr.com (8.12.1/Road Runner SMTP Server 1.0) with ESMTP id h260StRK006452; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:28:55 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: "'Clifton Royston'" , "'Keith Moore'" Cc: "'David F. Skoll'" , Subject: RE: Patents (was Re: [Asrg] Time for the ISPs to fight back!) Message-ID: <006f01c2e377$63779570$6401a8c0@BOBDEV> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 In-Reply-To: <20030305141615.B2852@lava.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h260c9O06512 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:29:02 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > typically takes an actual lawsuit resulting from > the holder demanding royalties to do it. The patent > system is pretty badly broken. Although rarely used, there is a procedure by which anyone can ask that a US patent be "re-examined" this procedure is documented at: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2200_2208.htm#sect22 09 This part of the Manual for Patent Examiners says, in part: "The reexamination statute and rules permit any person to file a request for reexamination containing certain elements and the fee required under 37 CFR 1.20(c). The Office initially determines if "a substantial new question of patentability" ( 35 U.S.C. 303(a)) is presented. If such a new question has been presented, reexamination will be ordered. The reexamination proceedings which follow the order for reexamination are very similar to regular examination procedures in patent applications; however, there are notable differences. For example, there are certain limitations as to the kind of rejections which may be made, special reexamination forms to be used, and time periods set to provide "special dispatch." When the reexamination proceedings are terminated, a certificate is issued which indicates the status of all claims following the reexamination." _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 19:33:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA08156 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:33:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h260iGZ06758 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:44:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h260iGO06755 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:44:16 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA08127 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:32:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h260g2O06699; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:42:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h260fTO06641 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:41:29 -0500 Received: from silk.rtr.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA08068 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:30:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from silk.rtr.com (IDENT:root@localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by silk.rtr.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h260WDQ13481 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:32:13 -0500 Received: from bark (bark [64.241.156.77]) by silk.rtr.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h260WDj13474 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:32:13 -0500 From: "Gary Feldman" To: Subject: RE: [Asrg] Deprecating plain POP accounts Organization: Ready-to-Run Software, Inc. Message-ID: <007401c2e377$d7a42f30$4d9cf140@rtr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20030305185244.2b7a92ab.moore@cs.utk.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:32:17 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Keith Moore > Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 6:53 PM > this mail is originating from some earthlink.net IP address; > the return > address is moore@cs.utk.edu. it's perfectly valid for me to > be using that > return address to send mail from that IP, or from any other How do I know it's valid? And if I can't tell whether it's valid, what reason do I have to accept it? (Setting aside, for the moment, that the mail has been passed through a list server that has some controls.) I can't imagine any reason why, in theory, I would ever want to accept mail with a return address that I can't validate. If you want to, that's you're right, but that doesn't mean that other people - whether end-users or mail service operators - should. In actual practice, people accept such mail not because they like to get invalid mail, but because the validation mechanisms aren't in place. Since someday I might actually want to receive mail from someone not able to send from their return domain - it means that a way to validate such emails would be useful. Gary _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 19:33:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA08169 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:33:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h260iJu06774 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:44:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h260iJO06771 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:44:19 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA08131 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:33:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h260g1O06679; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:42:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h260ewO06625 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:40:58 -0500 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA08051 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:29:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com [171.71.163.14]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h260Vg0N010548; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:31:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from CSCOAMERA19540.cisco.com (stealth-10-32-253-238.cisco.com [10.32.253.238]) by mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.1-GA) with SMTP id AES44865; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:26:31 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030305162410.0445f9b8@mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com> X-Sender: fred@mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: "Richard" From: Fred Baker Subject: Re: [Asrg] Time for the ISPs to fight back! Cc: In-Reply-To: <001401c2e350$d168f280$fd1e4e51@CPQ28140326195> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 16:26:03 -0800 At 07:52 PM 3/5/2003 +0000, Richard wrote: >Instead I suggest that the detection software at ISPs should respond to >the spam it detects. so you want the ISPs to be reviewing the content of your emails and applying an acceptable use policy? Interesting, China wants ISPs to do that too, and the IETF and my company have been taking a fair bit of flak from the civil liberties folks as a result. You might want to rethink that position... > if a high percentage responded then their system would collapse or at > least become a lot more expensive to run. Not really. They simply state that their return address is someplace that doesn't exist (common), or is on some server other than their spam server (also common). You can pound the ability to unsubscribe into the ground, or ddos some unsuspecting system, but you'll never touch them that way. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 19:38:23 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA08264 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:38:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h260nA907005 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:49:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h260nAO07002 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:49:10 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA08261 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:37:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h260l5O06937; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:47:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h260kcO06916 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:46:38 -0500 Received: from mercury.ex.ac.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA08216 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:35:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from [144.173.6.20] (helo=cronus.ex.ac.uk) by mercury.ex.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18qjO0-00CvBY-00; Thu, 06 Mar 2003 00:37:24 +0000 From: Adam Back To: ietf@alon.wox.org Cc: asrg@ietf.org, Adam Back Subject: Re: [Asrg] My Suggestion - HashCash + whitelist/auth Message-ID: <20030306003723.A4437090@exeter.ac.uk> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.2i In-Reply-To: ; from ietf@alon.wox.org on Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 01:03:51AM +0200 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 00:37:23 +0000 While I like hashcash+white lists (being hashcash inventer;-), I think using signatures for white lists is acutally a bad thing. You as a user don't want to sign every mail you send. That removes your plausible deniability. You can then be pulled into some bogus court case or defamation case based on this true-name signed email. It happens frequently enough. You're not intending casual communications and email frequently gets heated in flame wars etc to be legally binding documents, or things that can come back to haunt you later. Similarly various companies have learnt that signing everything could be a bad idea, even retaining everything can lead to problems -- discovery process etc. So while signing does indeed allow you to better identify the sender, bear in mind also that it is a side-effect which breaks some of the existing functionality of email: the relative anonymity of email, especially with hotmail accounts, etc. compared to ISP accounts where you may have given a credit card anyway. And in addition even with ISP accounts, your identity is not readily available, someone has to get a court-order for the ISP to hand it over. They will not always hand the info over easily either. Identity is not the problem we're trying to solve. We're trying to reduce spam. While identity can be used to add accountability, and therefore the hope that this would reduce spam as penalties could perhaps be better imposed, we should recognize that it has the above unintended negative consequences. In addition I'd argue it's not even clear that accountability via identity of the level that could reasonably extracted for a low cost email account, or a free web-web account would be sufficient to reasonably deter a spammer. Good identification costs money, so likely relatively cheap identification will be used, and cheap identification is likely easy for financially motivated spammers to break. So of course you did say that users could by pass need for identity by sending tokens, but I think a lower fallout approach to white listing is to white list on first response by recipient, either at the recipient side, or via some kind of re-usable white-list token returned to the sender. Then no identity infrastructure is required, no user privacy is lost, and I would think equal amounts of spam protection are provided. Adam On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 01:03:51AM +0200, ietf@alon.wox.org wrote: > One major problem with detecting spam is that it is hard to seperate bulk > mail from legitimate mail for unknown senders. Therefore, I suggest the > following two-part system: > > 1. Unauthenticated senders will be required to add a token to their mail > indicating some amount of computation performed, specific to the > message and recepient, for example - creating an n-bit hash collission > with the message. > Messages without this token are returned with an explantion to the > sender, and perhaps with a human-verification fallback (such as > detecting letters in an image). > > 2. When signing up to a legitimate bulk mailer (mailing list, website, > etc.) you either send a signed certificate with the bulk mailer's public > key permiting him to send you mail, or add his public key to your > whitelist. The same can be done for friends. > > The MUA should know if the recepient is on a whitelist by some means. > Also, the MUA should know how much work needs to be done, this can be done > by modifying the email address to something like me@myhost.com#10, which > means 10 bits of hashcash are required to send mail. > > This method requires the following updates: > > 1. A user wishing to enjoy spamfree email must use a compatible MUA. > 2. Bulk-mailers must upgrade their systems to send signed mails. This can > be overcome in the short term using From: whitelisting. > 3. An email address should be allowed to have "#n" in the end. It's not > required in the transitional phase. > 4. The MUA of legitimate unauthenticaed senders should be configured to > generate the hashcash. In the transitional phase, other human-detection > methods will be used, > > Alon > > -- > This message was sent by Alon Altman (alon@alon.wox.org) ICQ:1366540 > The RIGHT way to contact me is by e-mail. I am otherwise nonexistent :) > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -=[ Random Fortune ]=- > design, v.: > What you regret not doing later on. > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 19:42:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA08384 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:42:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h260rUg07168 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:53:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h260rUO07165 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:53:30 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA08371 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:42:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h260p1O07060; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:51:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h260oIO07044 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:50:18 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA08295 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:39:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h260f3BD001565; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:41:03 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: Keith Moore cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: Patents (was Re: [Asrg] Time for the ISPs to fight back!) In-Reply-To: <20030305185918.66e58a0e.moore@cs.utk.edu> Message-ID: References: <001401c2e350$d168f280$fd1e4e51@CPQ28140326195> <20030305120349.C15588@lava.net> <20030305185918.66e58a0e.moore@cs.utk.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:41:03 -0500 (EST) On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Keith Moore wrote: > if this were enough to get this patent declared invalid, it would > make my day. No such luck, probably. You might be able to invalidate one or two claims, though, which is worthwhile. Also, knowing about prior art might make the patent holder reluctant to enforce those particular claims. Thanks, David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 20:20:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA09168 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 20:20:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h261VRA09237 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 20:31:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h261VRO09234 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 20:31:27 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA09162 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 20:20:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h261Q8O09026; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 20:26:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h261PaO09001 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 20:25:36 -0500 Received: from conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA09070 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 20:14:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.133.182] helo=envy.indecency.org) by conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18qjze-0006NO-00; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 17:16:18 -0800 From: Keith Moore To: "Gary Feldman" Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Deprecating plain POP accounts Message-Id: <20030305201251.28ee401b.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <007401c2e377$d7a42f30$4d9cf140@rtr.com> References: <20030305185244.2b7a92ab.moore@cs.utk.edu> <007401c2e377$d7a42f30$4d9cf140@rtr.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 20:12:51 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:32:17 -0500 "Gary Feldman" wrote: > > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On > > Behalf Of Keith Moore > > Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 6:53 PM > > > this mail is originating from some earthlink.net IP address; > > the return address is moore@cs.utk.edu. it's perfectly valid for me to > > be using that return address to send mail from that IP, or from any other > How do I know it's valid? the same way you know any address is valid - unless the message is signed by a party that you trust, you don't. the IP address certainly doesn't tell you that it's valid. > And if I can't tell whether it's valid, > what reason do I have to accept it? because you want to read it? because in general there's no way for you to know whether any sender address is valid? because chances are, you're not evaluating the content of this message based on who said it anyway, but based on how much sense it makes to you. *who* said it is mostly irrelevant. > I can't imagine any reason why, in theory, I would ever want to accept > mail with a return address that I can't validate. since you probably can't validate ANY email that you receive, why do you read mail at all? do you read snail mail that you can't validate? why? it might contain spam, or worse, anthrax.... Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 20:30:27 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA09459 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 20:30:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h261fDI10414 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 20:41:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h261fDO10411 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 20:41:13 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA09409 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 20:29:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h261d3O10238; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 20:39:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h261cZO10217 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 20:38:35 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA09309 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 20:27:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc01.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53] (may be forged)) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h261R8nR005203 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:27:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:29:20 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Economic model is borken. (sic.) Let's fix it MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg=SHA1; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0013_01C2E355.D9EDF090" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:29:10 -0800 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C2E355.D9EDF090 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Now as far as I know, I wrote the first challenge/response spam >blocker 6 years ago, so I've been running tools like these longer >than anybody else. I believe that John Mallery of the MIT AI lab has a prior claim there. He wrote a challenge/response authentication callback loop back in 1992 for the COMLINK mailer that we used to publish the Clinton/Gore '92 (and the other candidates who made it available) campaign litterature on the Internet. Nathaniel Bornstein applied the same technique to filter his mail, spam was not a severe problem at the time but Bornstein thought he got rather a lot of mail. He then used the same idea yet again as the basis of the First Virtual payment scheme. I don't think that the response loop idea is acceptable as a general solution. In my view it should only be used as a last resort if a mailer has exhausted every other means of authenticating the sender. That means SSL, S/MIME and PGP. Nobody should be using intrusive means of authentication when there are non-intrusive options available. The reason for this should be obvious, response loop messages are just another form of spam. I use the term spam to mean any unnecessary message I don't want. As readers of the IETF list will be aware I have recently taken exception to certain people who send a challenge every time they get an email, unless they think the sender important enough to be put in their whitelist. I think it is acceptable to send a callback loop request if all other means of authentication have been exhausted first and the message in question has been identified as having a high probability of being spam. Otherwise this type of behaviour is simply anti-social. Another problem with some of the challenge response services on the net is that some of them have a pretty poor understanding of privacy and confidentiality. One of these services recently spamed me saying 'we notice that you recently responded to one of our callback loops'. Sounds to me as if someone needs a session at the blunt end of a cluebat. Phill ------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C2E355.D9EDF090 Content-Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIC7jCCAuow ggJToAMCAQICEDnHZh38yomzsfxfGAeS1vIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEEBQAwUTELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMx FzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMRYwFAYDVQQLEw1Db3Jwb3JhdGUgSVNHMREwDwYDVQQD EwhJUFNlYyBDQTAeFw0wMjEyMTcwMDAwMDBaFw0wMzEyMTcyMzU5NTlaMHgxFzAVBgNVBAoUDlZl cmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMRswGQYDVQQLFBJSZW1vdGUgQWNjZXNzIFVzZXIxHDAaBgNVBAMTE1BoaWxp cCBIYWxsYW0tQmFrZXIxIjAgBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWE3BiYWtlckB2ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20wgZ8wDQYJ KoZIhvcNAQEBBQADgY0AMIGJAoGBAKkhaJri8XN1lHlJFV30UZZ39bOHHto7TFDG0Gixhqc88+EH fAtmPBvd/ExR+QliLYhf/EivBniWXAWL/gdrshBhFIJYiBi+XtYF168uKBXV8IQ1tUWR8x0Xmm3H nX0kJ0bdCwYz2XkzCr63PtFVEp9ClOq/rmjm47/uO9yk1BW3AgMBAAGjgZswgZgwCQYDVR0TBAIw ADALBgNVHQ8EBAMCBaAwEQYJYIZIAYb4QgEBBAQDAgeAMFgGA1UdHwRRME8wTaBLoEmGR2h0dHA6 Ly9vbnNpdGVjcmwudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL1ZlcmlTaWduSW5jUmVtb3RlQWNjZXNzVXNlci9MYXRl c3RDUkwuY3JsMBEGCmCGSAGG+EUBBgkEAwEB/zANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQQFAAOBgQAV0/3Sv/jmi+7p Iar2Uunx5DR9fDxw3KqKv5U0wELbEcv9HE0FI4vseT+dYJF3Ca388ssMsHgWXJ+B9K6C5oh11InY Tywy0DAWzq3pqd+vQxMx8Rs7wiUnILFLIjty92OOx9EbONsqlNjK7+BzUeXdoEVkInV738Jjw4LA bmEd/zGCAlowggJWAgEBMGUwUTELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxFzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMu MRYwFAYDVQQLEw1Db3Jwb3JhdGUgSVNHMREwDwYDVQQDEwhJUFNlYyBDQQIQOcdmHfzKibOx/F8Y B5LW8jAJBgUrDgMCGgUAoIIBSzAYBgkqhkiG9w0BCQMxCwYJKoZIhvcNAQcBMBwGCSqGSIb3DQEJ BTEPFw0wMzAzMDYwMTI4NThaMCMGCSqGSIb3DQEJBDEWBBThJuGJYMn0da9ISnSSxksfGhwOMzB0 BgkrBgEEAYI3EAQxZzBlMFExCzAJBgNVBAYTAlVTMRcwFQYDVQQKEw5WZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLjEW MBQGA1UECxMNQ29ycG9yYXRlIElTRzERMA8GA1UEAxMISVBTZWMgQ0ECEDnHZh38yomzsfxfGAeS 1vIwdgYJKoZIhvcNAQkPMWkwZzAKBggqhkiG9w0DBzAOBggqhkiG9w0DAgICAIAwBwYFKw4DAgcw BwYFKw4DAgcwDQYIKoZIhvcNAwICASgwBwYFKw4DAhowBwYFKw4DAhowCgYIKoZIhvcNAgUwCgYI KoZIhvcNAgUwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQAEgYBLWPmwnaFiqp7t/nSHge25LUtIAqYNWi27vAdM+7Z+ r9EYDUzJLN6rq+suSmUdhg8U6Hw4u/2yDfbvb9GeaF7S7ovwEzdkzUuLIe5qi6xaHHWDa5fhbFFD idOjeZVwEtTS5+rYKxL6fLBsmLLdvmVr+hdQdbXJOlIZ7KH2MfOapwAAAAAAAA== ------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C2E355.D9EDF090-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 20:48:27 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA09810 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 20:48:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h261xD111005 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 20:59:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h261xDO11002 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 20:59:13 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA09802 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 20:47:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h261q3O10841; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 20:52:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h261pTO10820 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 20:51:29 -0500 Received: from silk.rtr.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA09633 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 20:40:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from silk.rtr.com (IDENT:root@localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by silk.rtr.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h261gAQ14081 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 20:42:10 -0500 Received: from bark (bark [64.241.156.77]) by silk.rtr.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h261gAj14074 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 20:42:10 -0500 From: "Gary Feldman" To: Organization: Ready-to-Run Software, Inc. Message-ID: <007701c2e381$9d71c340$4d9cf140@rtr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Back to the charter Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 20:42:15 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'm finding the large amount of discussion, albeit interesting, also depressing, as it doesn't seem directed towards making progress. So let me try to get back to the earlier question concerning the charter: 1. On the use of "Consent-Based Communication" The charter begins by arguing that spam is not well-defined, and therefore moves to generalize the problem with consent- based communications. Let me first observe that based on the discussion here, the definition of consent and consent- based communication isn't clear enough. In engineering, when a problem seems intractable, it's certainly a legitimate strategy to consider a different problem, as is being done here. But then, unless the original problems falls out (as is frequently but not always the case), we must compare the original problem to the problem being solved. In this case, my initial reaction was that consent-based communication was sufficient but not necessary. That is, such a system could significantly address the underlying problem, but as defined, is more general than is necessary (at least by any obvious necessity). But then, it occurred to me that the approach is really just obscuring the original problem. My first take on "Consent Expression Component" was that it was merely the mechanism to communicate my policy to the software. We still need a way to identify policies - and that means coming up with some sort of meaningful definitions for spam. The trick is doing so, without forcing a single definition of spam down everyone's throat. 2. A framework for classifying definitions of spam: So let me propose a framework: Spam, as indicated in the charter, is loosely defined as unwanted email. Within that set, there are a number of very large categories. The categories are not exclusive (they may overlap), nor do they necessarily cover the entire space (some may slip through). Some categories are defined intuitively, e.g. "unsolicited, commercial, bulk". Others are defined formally, e.g. mail for which the From field specifies a non-existent domain (ignoring issues of DNS reliability and timing windows). Sometimes there will be a relationship between an intuitive definition and a formal one; the relationship may be perfect, or it may have holes (false positives or negatives). The closeness of a formal definition to an intuitive definition is one particular measure of quality for that formal definition. At this point in time, arguing about the appropriateness of any particular category (whether intuitive or formal) is inappropriate. Rather, the point is to establish the structure in which those categories can be documented and analyzed. 3. Legal issues The statement about legal issues limits the investigation to the extent that legal issues affect the technology. This needs to be "and vice versa", i.e. should also consider the extent to which the technology affects the legal issues. In particular, it is a legitimate question to ask whether the technology can and should play a role in aided the encorceability of legal sanctions, e.g. can and should the technology make it easier to find someone who violates an anti-spam law. 4. Social issues The charter is silent on the effect on social (and political) issues. The discussion here suggests that these are extremely important to some number of people. I'm not convinced that adding such issues to the charter would be a wise move, but in the interest of completeness and fairness, I feel the need to point it out. 5. Premises or Constraints The charter say very little about the premises or constraints of what falls within its scope. The current set of discussions indicates that many people are working under the premise that existing (low-level) functionality must not be changed, or other assumptions about approaches that would be out of bounds. Since this is a research group, I believe it important to do away with preconceived notions about limits. I also believe it important to be explicit about this - precisely to avoid ratholes. In particular, proposed solution should not be rejected a priori solely on the basis of change of functionality, but should be evaluated according to the same criteria mentioned in the charter (usefulness, cost, effectivness, accuracy, etc.) Furthermore, individual subsolutions should be evaluated in the context of a complete solution strategy. In particular, if one part of a solution breaks existing functionality, but that purposes served by that functionality can be served by other, new functionality, then rather than dismissing the subsolution, the entire solution, including the replacement of existing functionality should be evaluted. (Implicit in this is that we also don't jump to a priori conclusions concerning the cost of replacing functionality, but rather evaluate such costs seriously.) I'm sure some won't agree with the above specifics. Regardless of the actual specifics chosen, I believe that such high-level constraints should be clearly identfied early on and documented, either in the charter or elsewhere. Gary _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 21:17:19 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA10318 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 21:17:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h262S6b12897 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 21:28:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h262S6O12894 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 21:28:06 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA10311 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 21:16:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h262PZO12774; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 21:25:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h262OmO12720 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 21:24:48 -0500 Received: from pfortin.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA10216 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 21:13:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from gypsy.pfortin.com (gypsy [192.168.1.14]) by pfortin.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 7D65913B8B for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 20:17:17 -0500 (EST) From: Pierre Fortin To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] How to can the spam Message-Id: <20030305211524.0ae49835.pf@pfortin.com> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10claws81 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 21:15:24 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:33:46 -0500 Kee Hinckley wrote: > I'm only successfully able to put a "+" in my email address on web > forms about 75% of the time. Getting a + in there is generally easy... the problem is unsub'ing from a list you no longer want... had a heated go-around with orbitz.com; but they did "discover" their error and corrected it... I make it a point to go after a big misconfigured mailer on a regular basis... "abuse@" attempts are pretty much ignored; but bounced failure notices to the right people delivers an amazing level of success. Try it and make the world a little better for all of us... besides... no delivery attempt == no bounce -- which means they share in my pain and no more... :> Pierre PS: just talking about spam doesn't do much; fighting back makes the world better a misconfigured mailer at a time... _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 21:53:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA10796 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 21:53:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2634Wl14815 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:04:32 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2634WO14812 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:04:32 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA10784 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 21:53:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h262x2O14623; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 21:59:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h262wEO14591 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 21:58:14 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA10710 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 21:46:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2083791; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 21:49:00 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: "Alan DeKok" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 21:48:53 -0500 At 11:52 AM -0500 3/5/03, Alan DeKok wrote: >"David F. Skoll" wrote: >> Well, Alan, I have no idea what you did to attract that much spam, but >> I assure you, it's unusual. None of my clients nor the 500+ people on >> the MIMEDefang mailing list have reported anywhere near the spam stats > > on striker.ottawa.on.ca > > That's why I joined this list, and why I'm making such noise about >the issue. Everyone I talk to complains about the spam "problem", and >they get 3 orders of magnitude less spam than I do. I have to say that your stats certainly are up there. Have you looked at the incoming email at all? For instance when I was getting tens of thousands of messages to olga@somewhere.com some investigation showed that it was due to one company shipping their internet-enabled video camera configured to send email to that address. And half a million of my bounces (just over the past year) are due to skynetworks.fi, which has a misconfigured program and refuses to reply to my messages. (Summary of somewhere.com's traffic at http://www.spamwatcher.com/tools/logs/cgp/, it's done as though bounces were web hits, but it works). -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 21:54:01 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA10809 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 21:54:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2634nl14832 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:04:49 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2634nO14829 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:04:49 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA10790 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 21:53:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h262x3O14639; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 21:59:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h262wFO14595 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 21:58:15 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA10713 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 21:46:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2083780; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 21:49:01 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20030305120349.C15588@lava.net> References: <001401c2e350$d168f280$fd1e4e51@CPQ28140326195> <20030305120349.C15588@lava.net> To: Clifton Royston From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Time for the ISPs to fight back! Cc: Richard , asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:22:47 -0500 At 12:03 PM -1000 3/5/03, Clifton Royston wrote: > This is only a few months old, but it does, nicely and carefully, a >lot of what people are discussing or asking for. > >* In verifying the sender address, it gets as far as connecting, doing >MAIL FROM: <> and verifying a 250/5xx for the RCPT TO, then does a RSET >on the machine it is verifying it on before disconnecting. This verifies that the mail from is valid, or is at an ISP that doesn't do front-line checking of user validity. If it becomes wide spread then spammers have two obvious solutions. 1. Use real from addresses from real users (but not the spammers of course). This is already happening some, this just makes it worse. 2. Assemble lists of of mail servers that don't immediately validate users, but say "yes" to everything. At which point of course, some RBL will be set up to blacklist such servers :-). I'd put this in the category of techniques that work well only because they aren't widely deployed. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 21:56:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA10856 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 21:56:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2637WJ15690 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:07:32 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2637WO15684 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:07:32 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA10848 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 21:56:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h262w5O14581; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 21:58:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h262vrO14562 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 21:57:53 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA10687 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 21:46:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18qgf0-000414-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 16:42:46 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Deprecating plain POP accounts In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 05 Mar 2003 19:15:18 EST." <20030305191518.1807af4c.moore@cs.utk.edu> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 16:42:45 -0500 Keith Moore wrote: > > My example involved a machine which was NOT intended to originate > > SMTP. Due to misconfiguration/bugs, it does. > > that's what you get for running (probably) microsoft. don't expect us to > impair the rest of the network to accomodate their brain damage. Ad hominem attacks don't validate your position. Reasoned, evidence-based arguments validate your position. > > > this mail is originating from some earthlink.net IP address; the return > > > address is moore@cs.utk.edu. it's perfectly valid for me to be using > > > that return address to send mail from that IP, or from any other IP that > > > my laptop happens to be connected to. > > > > Why? You're stating it like it's an axiom, or a law of nature. > > it's the way mail is supposed to work. it's consciously chosen and highly > desirable behavior. Ah. So it's an axiomatic property of the network, and you're unwilling or unable to justify your position. Thanks for verifying that little bit of nonsense. > yes. furthermore, it would be undesirable to force people to connect to > servers that verified their identities. Why? Oh, never mind. You've made it clear that you have no intention of showing *reasons* for your opinions. Everyone should just believe you, because (by Jove) they're *you're* opinions. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 22:05:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11053 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:05:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h263GPr15987 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:16:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h263GPO15984 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:16:25 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11046 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:05:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h263B5O15848; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:11:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h263AfO15811 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:10:41 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA10894 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 21:59:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2631OBD002347 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:01:24 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Time for the ISPs to fight back! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <001401c2e350$d168f280$fd1e4e51@CPQ28140326195> <20030305120349.C15588@lava.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:01:24 -0500 (EST) On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Kee Hinckley wrote: > 1. Use real from addresses from real users (but not the spammers of > course). This is already happening some, this just makes it worse. Even easier, use <> as the sender address. Or abuse@somedomain, postmaster@somedomain, or any other address that is very likely to exist. I'm already seeing an increase in spam from <>. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 22:10:15 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11117 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:10:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h263L4a16180 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:21:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h263L4O16177 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:21:04 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11113 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:09:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h263G1O15970; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:16:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h263FdO15953 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:15:39 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11041 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:04:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18qgwD-00041S-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 17:00:33 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Back to the charter In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 05 Mar 2003 20:42:15 EST." <007701c2e381$9d71c340$4d9cf140@rtr.com> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 17:00:33 -0500 "Gary Feldman" wrote: > 1. On the use of "Consent-Based Communication" > > The charter begins by arguing that spam is not well-defined, > and therefore moves to generalize the problem with consent- > based communications. Let me first observe that based > on the discussion here, the definition of consent and consent- > based communication isn't clear enough. Everyone talks about "consent" in relation to the end user who receives email. The other parties in the process are ignored. When someone installs a broken piece of software which can be abused to send spam, did they consent to such abuse? When someone receives email with forged 'from' lines, did the other domain consent to that forgery? When someone receives email from another site, do they consent to accepting any kind of lies or deception embodied in that email? The answer to all of these questions, I believe, is "No." Achieving consent-based email for these parties will *not* involve content filtering, and will get rid of probably 90% of the spam. The left over spam will come from people who publicly admit that they consent to sending spam. Everyone else can individually agree that they do *not* consent to receiving email from such people. (But that's a political decision, not a technical one.) A goal of this group should be updating the technology to allow people to have informed consent, and to make informed decisions as to which email satisifes their political or ecomonical objectives. The current lies and deception which are permitted in SMTP do not allow these sort of informed decisions to be made. Instead, we have ad-hoc filters, which try to insinuate someone else's intent, or consent, by doing content-based filtering. That doesn't scale. > We still need a way to identify policies - and > that means coming up with some sort of meaningful definitions > for spam. The trick is doing so, without forcing a single > definition of spam down everyone's throat. Sure. Multiple definitions would help. A start could be: "Spam is AT LEAST any email which is not intended to be sent from a network." e.g. Unknowing open relays in schools in Korea, abused by people in the U.S. If it was legitimate email from Korea, then the 'from' line would be from the school. If it was legitimate email from someone in the U.S., then they could send the mail directly themselves. > So let me propose a framework: Spam, as indicated in the > charter, is loosely defined as unwanted email. Unwanted by who? Odds are often that the administrator of the IP sending the spam doesn't want it, either. > At this point in time, arguing about the appropriateness of > any particular category (whether intuitive or formal) is > inappropriate. Rather, the point is to establish the structure > in which those categories can be documented and analyzed. I agree. Proposed solutions to a vague and ill-defined problem aren't helpful. > In particular, it is a legitimate question to ask whether the > technology can and should play a role in aided the encorceability of > legal sanctions, e.g. can and should the technology make it easier > to find someone who violates an anti-spam law. I would say that the technology should make it possible to make informed legal decisions. Tracking down a spammer is just one part of that process. > The charter say very little about the premises or constraints > of what falls within its scope. The current set of discussions > indicates that many people are working under the premise that > existing (low-level) functionality must not be changed, or other > assumptions about approaches that would be out of bounds. I know I would appreciate it if people made their assumptions explicit. > Furthermore, individual subsolutions should be evaluated in the > context of a complete solution strategy. ... within a well-defined problem space. I'm not even sure we have that. But I think you've made a good start on narrowing the discussion. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 22:18:27 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11268 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:18:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h263TFE16421 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:29:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h263TFO16418 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:29:15 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11243 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:17:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h263R5O16357; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:27:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h263QuO16338 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:26:56 -0500 Received: from emu.st (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id WAA11188 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:15:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 38226 invoked by uid 1015); 6 Mar 2003 03:17:33 -0000 Delivered-To: qmda-intercept-asrg@ietf.org@intercept Comments: QMDA 0.1 - see http://www.geocities.com/mark_delany/qmda.html Received: (qmail 87954 invoked from network); 6 Mar 2003 03:17:33 -0000 Received: from prefix-internal.emu.st (HELO emu.st) (10.100.100.36) by f1-external.emu.st with SMTP; 6 Mar 2003 03:17:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 28758 invoked by uid 1001); 6 Mar 2003 03:17:33 -0000 Message-ID: <20030306031733.28757.qmail@prefix.emu.st> From: "Mark Delany" Mail-Followup-To: asrg@ietf.org To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Back to the charter References: <007701c2e381$9d71c340$4d9cf140@rtr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <007701c2e381$9d71c340$4d9cf140@rtr.com>; from gaf@rtr.com on Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 08:42:15PM -0500 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 6 Mar 2003 03:17:33 +0000 On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 08:42:15PM -0500, Gary Feldman allegedly wrote: > I'm finding the large amount of discussion, albeit interesting, > also depressing, as it doesn't seem directed towards making > progress. So let me try to get back to the earlier question > concerning the charter: > > 1. On the use of "Consent-Based Communication" > > The charter begins by arguing that spam is not well-defined, > and therefore moves to generalize the problem with consent- > based communications. Let me first observe that based > on the discussion here, the definition of consent and consent- > based communication isn't clear enough. True enough, Gary. As with others I have no idea about the original intent and meaning of "Consent-Based Communication". A term I would prefer is "Permission-Based Communication" but that's really a nit. The key to me is this: with the current system, the sender has way too much influence over whether an email shows up in my Inbox or not. To my mind, "Consent-Based" means that the decision about whether an email shows up in my Inbox needs to be slanted much more towards me rather than the sender. In short, we need to give Inbox control back to the recipient. In that light I guess that "consent" means something like "I consent to your mail showing up in my Inbox and if I choose otherwise, you cannot override my lack of consent". Or crudely, "My Inbox, my rules". That to me is the high level goal. Return control to the user. Regards. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 22:35:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11573 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:35:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h263kJS17735 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:46:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h263kJO17732 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:46:19 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11569 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:34:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h263i8O17599; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:44:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h263hrO17557 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:43:53 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11518 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:32:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h263YXN2008474 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 20:34:33 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303060334.h263YXN2008474@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 20:34:33 -0700 (MST) > From: "David F. Skoll" > To: Alan DeKok > > So what are my alternatives? Give up on email? Pay $2k/year to > > upgrade my equipment? > > Change your domain and start fresh. Publish MX records for your old > domain that point to 127.0.0.1. It is also effective to become known as a net-nazi anti-comerz flamer by reporting spam to ISPs and especially spammer-friendly ISPs that will pass your addresses to the less insane spammers. I recommend never contacting spammers directly unless you are entertained by odd phone calls, mail bombs, legal threats, more and sometimes less veiled threats of violence, sendsys bombs, test-group bombs, and so forth from the less stable spammers. I've long since become bored by such stuff, and so try hard to never contact spammers. Spam friendly ISPs are pretty good at shielding spam reporters from the whackos but helping the others "list-wash." I say this based on reports from other people and comparisons between the spam sent toward my mailbox and spam sent to my several 100 traps. The traps see a lot more spam that hits my filters. Even the traps that exist only hidden among the HTML of my web pages do pretty well compared to vjs@rhyolite.com which is openly visible on the same web pages as well as many other places. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 22:36:11 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11618 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:36:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h263l0017758 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:47:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h263l0O17755 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:47:00 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11589 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:35:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h263j1O17655; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:45:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h263iTO17620 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:44:29 -0500 Received: from conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11545 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:33:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.133.182] helo=envy.indecency.org) by conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18qm9v-0005RX-00; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 19:35:03 -0800 From: Keith Moore To: "Alan DeKok" Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Deprecating plain POP accounts Message-Id: <20030305223136.7fe36926.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: References: <20030305191518.1807af4c.moore@cs.utk.edu> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:31:36 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > My example involved a machine which was NOT intended to originate > > > SMTP. Due to misconfiguration/bugs, it does. > > > > that's what you get for running (probably) microsoft. don't expect us to > > impair the rest of the network to accomodate their brain damage. > > Ad hominem attacks don't validate your position. Reasoned, > evidence-based arguments validate your position. fair enough. so I'll state the same thing with less flamage: if you have software bugs, the thing you need to do is fix your software, not expect people to degrade the flexibility of the network. the network needs to be predictable and behave in a uniform fashion, independently of location, if software is to be able to work correctly from one machine to another, and one location to another. > > > > this mail is originating from some earthlink.net IP address; the > > > > return address is moore@cs.utk.edu. it's perfectly valid for me to > > > > be using that return address to send mail from that IP, or from any > > > > other IP that my laptop happens to be connected to. > > > > > > Why? You're stating it like it's an axiom, or a law of nature. > > > > it's the way mail is supposed to work. it's consciously chosen and highly > > desirable behavior. > > Ah. So it's an axiomatic property of the network, and you're > unwilling or unable to justify your position. it's not an axiom. it's part of the design. it is desirable for domains to be independent of network location (for instance, so a domain can encompass multiple locations that are distant from one another, or so a domain can have multiple network prefixes -- but more generally because domains are not intended to name locations in the network topology). it's also part of the design that email addresses are not tied to locations in the network, and that the From address is settable by the originator. if you look at RFC 822 then you'll see examples of this. > > yes. furthermore, it would be undesirable to force people to connect to > > servers that verified their identities. > > Why? because anonymous speech is valuable, and valuable speech can be suppressed when people are not allowed to speak anonymously. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 22:36:21 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11631 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:36:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h263lAL17777 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:47:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h263lAO17774 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:47:10 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11593 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:35:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h263j2O17671; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:45:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h263iTO17622 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:44:29 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11546 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:33:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2083898; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 22:35:13 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Economic model is borken. (sic.) Let's fix it Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:21:50 -0500 At 5:29 PM -0800 3/5/03, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >there. He wrote a challenge/response authentication callback >loop back in 1992 for the COMLINK mailer that we used to >publish the Clinton/Gore '92 (and the other candidates who made >it available) campaign litterature on the Internet. The other problem with challenge/response systems is that there's a missing link in the interface. I go to a web site and purchase something. They send me an email receipt. How exactly are they going to automatically get through my challenge response? And don't say "you should have whitelisted them." J. Random User is not going to do it unless it's as simple as hitting a single button. Not to mention the question of "whitelist *what*?" Their sales address? Their support address? Their domain? And using what authentication system? -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 22:37:08 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11652 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:37:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h263lv317819 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:47:57 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h263lvO17816 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:47:57 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11649 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:36:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h263k3O17722; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:46:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h263jbO17683 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:45:37 -0500 Received: from turkey.mail.pas.earthlink.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11565 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:34:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.133.182] helo=envy.indecency.org) by turkey.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18qmB6-0006FY-00; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 19:36:16 -0800 From: Keith Moore To: Kee Hinckley Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, cliftonr@lava.net, richard@ashednearyou.fsnet.co.uk, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Time for the ISPs to fight back! Message-Id: <20030305223249.638a33a5.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: References: <001401c2e350$d168f280$fd1e4e51@CPQ28140326195> <20030305120349.C15588@lava.net> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:32:49 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > I'd put this in the category of techniques that work well only > because they aren't widely deployed. it doesn't even work well any more. okay, it does still catch some spam from naive spammers, but it's nowhere nearly sufficient. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 23:07:47 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA12008 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:07:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h264Ib419409 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:18:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h264IaO19406 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:18:36 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA12005 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:07:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h264GHO19338; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:16:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h264F8O19294 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:15:08 -0500 Received: from mail.asianet.co.th (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA11987 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:03:47 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200303060403.XAA11987@ietf.org> Received: from virscan1.asianet.co.th (HELO mx.asianet.co.th) ([203.144.222.197]) (envelope-sender ) by mail3.asianet.co.th (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 6 Mar 2003 11:06:24 +0700 Received: from ppp-203.144.179.84.revip.asianet.co.th (HELO localhost) ([203.144.179.84]) (envelope-sender ) by mx1.asianet.co.th (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 6 Mar 2003 11:05:46 +0700 From: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" To: "Asrg@ietf.org" Reply-To: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" Priority: Normal X-Mailer: PMMail 1.96a For OS/2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] filtering at connect time Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 11:05:36 +0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:18:14 -0800 (PST), Michael Marking wrote: >It is certainly premature to assume that the net cost of one solution >(such as eliminating open relays) exceeds or trails the net cost of >another solution (such as content filtering). This is especially true in >that one user's individual situation may differ greatly from that of >others' situations. If there is not an extremely good and compelling >reason to impose the values of the majority on everyone, then it is both >unethical, and poor engineering, to do so. I beg to add a perspective here that seems missing, which is that society values the principle that each person must be responsible for his actions, and those causing injury must cover the losses, not the victims. This is a grave flaw with all the filtering technologies: it is living in the "make the victims pay" world. No proposal will gather public acceptance which is based on the "make the victims pay" model. The burden is rightly on the owners of the open relays, not on their victims. Jeffrey Race _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 23:09:12 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA12045 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:09:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h264K2I19477 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:20:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h264K2O19469 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:20:02 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA12028 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:08:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h264I1O19382; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:18:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h264HFO19358 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:17:15 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA11994 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:05:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from video.attbi.com (12-235-20-211.client.attbi.com[12.235.20.211]) by rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (rwcrmhc52) with SMTP id <2003030604075705200ps6d6e>; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 04:07:57 +0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030305190533.048718b8@mail.attbi.com> X-Sender: schear@mail.attbi.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: Hadmut Danisch From: Steve Schear Subject: Re: free-speech and anonymity are related (Re: [Asrg] MTP drafty) Cc: Brad Templeton , Kee Hinckley , Alan DeKok , asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20030305222814.GI15047@danisch.de> References: <20030305215844.A3977328@exeter.ac.uk> <20030305204630.GA14655@main.templetons.com> <20030305213051.GB15047@danisch.de> <20030305215844.A3977328@exeter.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 20:09:46 -0800 At 11:28 PM 3/5/2003 +0100, you wrote: >On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 09:58:44PM +0000, Adam Back wrote: > > Think about it, there is a relationship between free-speech and > > anonymity. > >Yup, of course there is a relationship: > >The need for anonymity corresponds to the lack of freedom of speech. >Think about it. Agreed, but like all freedoms its up to each of us to perfect it, as it applies to us, as much as we can. Its an acknowledgement that legal or not if you upset the powerful you may face unpleasant consequences. Depending on mathematics to protect our freedoms, when it is capable, is a lot safer than trusting laws, police, judges, juries and especially politicians. steve _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 23:18:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA12165 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:18:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h264Stn19786 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:28:55 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h264StO19783 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:28:55 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA12161 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:17:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h264P2O19639; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:25:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h264OgO19595 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:24:42 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA12113 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:13:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc01.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53] (may be forged)) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h264DCnR002217 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 20:13:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 20:15:24 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Back to the charter MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg=SHA1; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00AC_01C2E36D.145F5E50" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 20:15:22 -0800 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00AC_01C2E36D.145F5E50 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Furthermore, individual subsolutions should be evaluated in the > context of a complete solution strategy. I believe that this is the alpha and omega of this problem. I don't think that any authentication based approach is practical unless filters are first deployed on a widespread basis. The early adopter value of authentication based approaches is to ensure that bona fide messages can get past filters that support authentication. Contrawise filters are only going to get so far. I have sen people spend a considerable amount of time and effort on Bayesian approaches to events data. Those results suggest that it is highly unlikely that Bayes is a magic bullet that eliminates 99.5% of spam with no false positives in the general case. If the spam continues to increase at an exponential rate no filter that is less than 100% accurate is going to provide an acceptable solution for very long. Combine filtering with authentication and you have the elements of a robust short and long term solution. Another aspect of the complete solution approach is the legal and policy side. I do not believe that we should simply abandon that aspect on ideological grounds. I know that many members of the group have little faith in their governments, I do not share that view (although I may share it in the case of particular governments). At the very least we should recognize that even if legislation may not make the spam problem better bad legislation could make it worse. The possibility should not be excluded that a technological proposal might make a the difference between a particular legislative proposal being feasible or not. For example in the US the crux of the policy issue is the problem of OPT-IN/OPT-OUT. If you read the Nixon decision you will see that any blanket ban on spam risks being stuck down on first ammendment grounds. But an onp-out list can be abused by spamers. I believe that the proposal I made some time ago while I was at MIT for one way encrypted opt-out lists finnesses the difficulties identified in this respect. I will circulate a paper on that topic shortly. Phill ------=_NextPart_000_00AC_01C2E36D.145F5E50 Content-Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIC7jCCAuow ggJToAMCAQICEDnHZh38yomzsfxfGAeS1vIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEEBQAwUTELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMx FzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMRYwFAYDVQQLEw1Db3Jwb3JhdGUgSVNHMREwDwYDVQQD EwhJUFNlYyBDQTAeFw0wMjEyMTcwMDAwMDBaFw0wMzEyMTcyMzU5NTlaMHgxFzAVBgNVBAoUDlZl cmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMRswGQYDVQQLFBJSZW1vdGUgQWNjZXNzIFVzZXIxHDAaBgNVBAMTE1BoaWxp cCBIYWxsYW0tQmFrZXIxIjAgBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWE3BiYWtlckB2ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20wgZ8wDQYJ KoZIhvcNAQEBBQADgY0AMIGJAoGBAKkhaJri8XN1lHlJFV30UZZ39bOHHto7TFDG0Gixhqc88+EH fAtmPBvd/ExR+QliLYhf/EivBniWXAWL/gdrshBhFIJYiBi+XtYF168uKBXV8IQ1tUWR8x0Xmm3H nX0kJ0bdCwYz2XkzCr63PtFVEp9ClOq/rmjm47/uO9yk1BW3AgMBAAGjgZswgZgwCQYDVR0TBAIw ADALBgNVHQ8EBAMCBaAwEQYJYIZIAYb4QgEBBAQDAgeAMFgGA1UdHwRRME8wTaBLoEmGR2h0dHA6 Ly9vbnNpdGVjcmwudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL1ZlcmlTaWduSW5jUmVtb3RlQWNjZXNzVXNlci9MYXRl c3RDUkwuY3JsMBEGCmCGSAGG+EUBBgkEAwEB/zANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQQFAAOBgQAV0/3Sv/jmi+7p Iar2Uunx5DR9fDxw3KqKv5U0wELbEcv9HE0FI4vseT+dYJF3Ca388ssMsHgWXJ+B9K6C5oh11InY Tywy0DAWzq3pqd+vQxMx8Rs7wiUnILFLIjty92OOx9EbONsqlNjK7+BzUeXdoEVkInV738Jjw4LA bmEd/zGCAlowggJWAgEBMGUwUTELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxFzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMu MRYwFAYDVQQLEw1Db3Jwb3JhdGUgSVNHMREwDwYDVQQDEwhJUFNlYyBDQQIQOcdmHfzKibOx/F8Y B5LW8jAJBgUrDgMCGgUAoIIBSzAYBgkqhkiG9w0BCQMxCwYJKoZIhvcNAQcBMBwGCSqGSIb3DQEJ BTEPFw0wMzAzMDYwNDE1MTVaMCMGCSqGSIb3DQEJBDEWBBRqPJl3zkn+2yM/a4Lw2lPAiMnf1DB0 BgkrBgEEAYI3EAQxZzBlMFExCzAJBgNVBAYTAlVTMRcwFQYDVQQKEw5WZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLjEW MBQGA1UECxMNQ29ycG9yYXRlIElTRzERMA8GA1UEAxMISVBTZWMgQ0ECEDnHZh38yomzsfxfGAeS 1vIwdgYJKoZIhvcNAQkPMWkwZzAKBggqhkiG9w0DBzAOBggqhkiG9w0DAgICAIAwBwYFKw4DAgcw BwYFKw4DAgcwDQYIKoZIhvcNAwICASgwBwYFKw4DAhowBwYFKw4DAhowCgYIKoZIhvcNAgUwCgYI KoZIhvcNAgUwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQAEgYCVQrTEmzztCtuG/pJ2s+t8qTmP1YxZ1EpLWxm4pmd1 9dM0Lh90EQ4raynlTOAZHYmP7Lxls7vIl2Xo41uOxLKNv8t/P110gsmoXgMjgQLhRFFDFeLgbMRz XWYzqphYahwJI3GlW15/8kJs9sM5sJpQMvKURKl4sjkgENI3wngyVQAAAAAAAA== ------=_NextPart_000_00AC_01C2E36D.145F5E50-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 23:19:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA12184 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:19:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h264UWA19839 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:30:32 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h264UWO19836 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:30:32 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA12180 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:19:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h264S6O19762; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:28:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h264S1O19730 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:28:01 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA12158 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:16:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h264IgBL013535 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 21:18:42 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303060418.h264IgBL013535@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] My Suggestion - HashCash + whitelist/auth References: <20030306003723.A4437090@exeter.ac.uk> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 21:18:42 -0700 (MST) > From: Adam Back > ... > So of course you did say that users could by pass need for identity by > sending tokens, but I think a lower fallout approach to white listing > is to white list on first response by recipient, either at the > recipient side, or via some kind of re-usable white-list token > returned to the sender. Then no identity infrastructure is required, > no user privacy is lost, and I would think equal amounts of spam > protection are provided. > On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 01:03:51AM +0200, ietf@alon.wox.org wrote: > ... > > 1. Unauthenticated senders will be required to add a token to their mail > ... As far as I can tell, both of you are talking about the same thing that http://habeas.com is offering. I'm not really a fan of that idea, but it seems to be a complete and upward compatible implementation of what you want. It also does not require a lot of new, implausible (or already proven impossible) PKI or similar infrastructure. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 5 23:35:50 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA12580 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:35:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h264kf321182 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:46:41 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h264kfO21179 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:46:41 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA12569 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:35:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h264iRO21053; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:44:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h264gZO20960 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:42:35 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA12354 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:31:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h264XFqj015225 for Asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 21:33:15 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303060433.h264XFqj015225@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: privacy is a feature (Re: [Asrg] desirable characteristics of source tracking) References: <20030305163225.088b989c.moore@cs.utk.edu> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 21:33:15 -0700 (MST) > From: Keith Moore > ... > me too. which is why I don't want an identity that is tracable to the > actual sender to the message; instead, I want an identity that can only > be associated with whether the sender has a history of sending abusive Because even in Germany it is evidently easy to get new Internet identities, I susepct you don't want a token or identity associate with *whether* there is a history of abuse but an identity that has a long history of no abuse, or for non-spam-friendly ISPs, just a long history. Contrary to recent claims, it is evidently easy to get throw-away, practically anonymous online identities in Germany. Check your spam archives and notice how much there is from the several free mail providers in .de and from the mcdeutschland.de/gmx.co.uk/gmx.net/inminds.co.uk/- kundenserver.de/schlund.de/schlund.net spam haus. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 00:07:03 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA13129 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 00:07:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h265Ht922891 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 00:17:55 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h265HtO22888 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 00:17:55 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA13120 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 00:06:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h265B4O22712; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 00:11:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h265AfO22696 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 00:10:41 -0500 Received: from albatross.mail.pas.earthlink.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA12912 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:59:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.133.182] helo=envy.indecency.org) by albatross.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18qnVL-00012k-00; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 21:01:15 -0800 From: Keith Moore To: Vernon Schryver Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: privacy is a feature (Re: [Asrg] desirable characteristics of source tracking) Message-Id: <20030305235748.639aa7e8.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <200303060433.h264XFqj015225@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <20030305163225.088b989c.moore@cs.utk.edu> <200303060433.h264XFqj015225@calcite.rhyolite.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:57:48 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 5 Mar 2003 21:33:15 -0700 (MST) Vernon Schryver wrote: > > From: Keith Moore > > > ... > > me too. which is why I don't want an identity that is tracable to the > > actual sender to the message; instead, I want an identity that can only > > be associated with whether the sender has a history of sending abusive > > Because even in Germany it is evidently easy to get new Internet identities, > I susepct you don't want a token or identity associate with *whether* > there is a history of abuse but an identity that has a long history of > no abuse, or for non-spam-friendly ISPs, just a long history. depends on the point-of-view. speaking as a sender of email, I'd like to be able to establish a good reputation for not sending spam, and I'd like to be able to carry this identity and reputation with me from one ISP to another, and perhaps even from one email address to another. speaking as a recipient of email, I'd like to have the ability to find out something about the originator of any message that I might receive, before I receive it. if the originator has a long history, that's really useful. but if not, it's useful if I can tell that the originator has a very short history. e.g. oh, you just got your account today? and your ISP is notorious for harboring spammers? sorry, I'm not going to accept any mail from you for 3 days - after which time I'll see if your reputation has suddenly become worse... alternatively: oh, you just got your account, but your ISP is a serious anti-spam AUP with stiff fines for those who violate it? okay, I'll accept mail from you then even though you are a newbie. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 00:12:23 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA13256 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 00:12:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h265NFZ23135 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 00:23:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h265NFO23132 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 00:23:15 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA13250 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 00:11:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h265J6O22957; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 00:19:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h265J0O22943 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 00:19:00 -0500 Received: from srv1.fecyk.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id AAA13146 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 00:07:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from gordshome (wnpgmb08dc1-res-83-70.mts.net [142.161.83.70]) by srv1.fecyk.ca (SMTPRCV 0.48) with SMTP id ; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 23:09:38 -0600 From: "Gordon Fecyk - Home" To: "Anti-Spam Research Group of IETF \(E-mail\)" Message-ID: <000d01c2e39e$df096cf0$0100a8c0@fecyk.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4920.2300 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] dsprotocol and Underscores in DNS node names Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:11:39 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I've reread RFC 2052 which doesn't have underscores in their examples. Strange, I could've sworn they were there. No matter, it's a simple matter of searching and destroying them in the draft, and I haven't submitted it to the IETF yet, so no need to change the revision number. Updated copy: -- PGP key (0x0AFA039E): What's a PGP Key? See GOD BLESS AMER, er, THE INTERNET. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 00:43:13 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA13893 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 00:43:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h265s6m24824 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 00:54:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h265s6O24821 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 00:54:06 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA13889 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 00:42:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h265o6O24761; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 00:50:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h265n8O24735 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 00:49:08 -0500 Received: from srv1.fecyk.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id AAA13833 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 00:37:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from gordshome (wnpgmb08dc1-res-83-70.mts.net [142.161.83.70]) by srv1.fecyk.ca (SMTPRCV 0.48) with SMTP id ; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 23:39:48 -0600 From: "Gordon Fecyk - Home" To: Subject: RE: [Asrg] DS and Underscores Message-ID: <001101c2e3a3$16530870$0100a8c0@fecyk.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <3E65BD19.31781.6112F3A0@localhost> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4920.2300 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:41:50 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > The idea is interesting, nonetheless... but I think you > should take a look > into RFC 1034/1035 and their updates before going any further... RFC 2181 section 11 clairifies this. Already we see things like "/" in in-addr-arpa records (RFC 2317) and it's clear that these aren't host names and therefore aren't bound by host name restrictions. I am looking at using these in A RR records though where they could be assumed to be host records, and RFC 2052 seems to have dropped the underscore character. There was concern that not having underscores would make it possible to not distinguish DS records from hosts named "ds". I have to concede, however, that hosts named like "ds.client.smtp.tcp" are not very likely. -- PGP key (0x0AFA039E): What's a PGP Key? See GOD BLESS AMER, er, THE INTERNET. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 02:42:52 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA27173 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 02:42:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h267rm310218 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 02:53:48 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h267rlO10215 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 02:53:47 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA27163 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 02:42:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h267pLO10138; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 02:51:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h267oMO10087 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 02:50:22 -0500 Received: from mail016.syd.optusnet.com.au (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA27118 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 02:38:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from co3001591-a.troy.rollo.name (c18374.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [210.49.142.222]) by mail016.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h267evI29706 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 18:40:57 +1100 Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20030306181200.02632e10@mail> X-Sender: (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Troy Rollo Subject: Re: [Asrg] definition of spam (was Re: consent expression) In-Reply-To: References: <20030305134413.2988c5b7.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030304205916.56614a9f.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305040008.GB14655@main.templetons.com> <20030304234928.5485710d.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305051840.GI14655@main.templetons.com> <20030305051936.55246a31.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305062722.3d36f607.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305085043.700fb87a.moore@cs.utk.edu> <3E6635FC.9060003@americasm01.nt.com> <20030305134413.2988c5b7.moore@cs.utk.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 18:32:53 +1100 At 15:39 5/03/03 -0500, Kee Hinckley wrote: >At 1:44 PM -0500 3/5/03, Keith Moore wrote: >> > >Is there any help defining this kind of fuzzy problem in the legal >system? I'm thinking particularly of how "harassment" gets defined in >laws. Does anyone know? Consent is a fairly mature concept in law. In fact there's an entire book on it. In fact there's probably several, but the one I'm thinking of is by a NSW judge (Chief Justice in Equity Young, as he is now) who has had very enlightening things to say about consent from the bench. Having consent means that the person has given another permission to do something. Consent can only be given, it can't be assumed, although it may be capable of being inferred by some other words or action. For example, if a girl leans in and puckers her lips, she's probably consenting to be kissed. Consent can also be "implied" by circumstances, for example, having an electronic mailbox accessible via SMTP implies consent to receive personal email, because that's the exact thing SMTP was designed for. This implied consent is available to everybody until explicitly revoked. So Keith's concerns about the impact of Chris's definition of consent aren't particularly justified if we look at consent as the law defines it, since the circumstances he cites as objections are circumstances where implied consent already clearly exists. There are, however, other potential objections, so I won't deny that in isolation the definition is problematic, since Chris also mentioned an accompanying definition - a definition of spam as being "unsolicited bulk email". If we are saying that consent of the kind Chris described is required for "unsolicited bulk email", we have probably narrowed it down to a level that is within the realms of agreeability. Happily, you have also narrowed it down to the realms where implied consent no longer exists. You see, consent - however it arises - only goes to the specific type of action that would normally be contemplated in the consent. There is implied consent for somebody to use your front garden path to gain access to your front door to knock on it, but if the path goes by your bedroom window there is no implied consent to use the path for the purpose of peering into that window at night. In both cases the act of using the path is the same, but in one case there is consent, and in the other case the very use of the path is outside of the consent. Similarly, an open shop door implies consent to enter, but the consent does not extend to consent to enter for the purpose of theft - a thief is a trespasser even though a person who walked in and followed their exact trail is not a trespasser because they were within the scope of consent. So the commonly expressed view in anti-spam circles is: Person to person email does not require consent. One to many email does require consent. The view in legal circles is: Person to person email has implied consent. One to many email requires active consent. The intent of the variations is identical - it's just a matter of viewing the problem from the perspective of technical disciplines on the one hand, and the legal discipline on the other. -- Troy Rollo Chairman, CAUBE.AU asrg@troy.rollo.name Executive Director, iCAUCE _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 02:56:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA27427 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 02:56:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2687de11306 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 03:07:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2687cO11298 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 03:07:38 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA27396 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 02:56:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26853O10665; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 03:05:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2684dO10644 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 03:04:39 -0500 Received: from yossarian.aniota.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA27355 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 02:53:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (abuse@localhost) by yossarian.aniota.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA24647 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:55:16 -0800 From: abuse To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Deprecating plain POP accounts In-Reply-To: <20030305223136.7fe36926.moore@cs.utk.edu> Message-ID: References: <20030305191518.1807af4c.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305223136.7fe36926.moore@cs.utk.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:55:16 -0800 (PST) ... somehow, the idea of 'eliminating' "POP" accounts falls short of a reasoned solution. if i'm mistaken, and this a viable alternative, why not eliminate SMTP altogether ... _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 04:02:27 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA28950 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 04:02:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h269DM016188 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 04:13:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h269DMO16185 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 04:13:22 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA28932 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 04:01:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h269AKO16018; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 04:10:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2699TO15917 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 04:09:29 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA28769 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 03:58:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h26905DT024272; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:00:05 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h268vAeO002475 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:57:10 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h268vAXb002473; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:57:10 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Roland Cc: ASRG Subject: Re: privacy is a feature (Re: [Asrg] desirable characteristics of source tracking) Message-ID: <20030306085710.GA2340@danisch.de> References: <20030305113323.GA4939@danisch.de> <20030305070437.60bdfd34.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305122021.GA6748@danisch.de> <20030305073217.46f79dcb.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305125322.GA7179@danisch.de> <20030305080032.59d50373.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305203057.B4412039@exeter.ac.uk> <20030305163225.088b989c.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305222200.GH15047@danisch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:57:10 +0100 On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 11:47:56PM +0000, Roland wrote: > > Anybody should be able to manually send a couple of mails > without any authentication or registration, and a few > occasional spams or 419 sent that way dont justify any > totalitary approach. > Agreed. The failure is that this sender's right currently needs to cut any recipient's right. The current view of this thing is to keep the sender's rights as strong as possible, and to not care, to not give even a cent for the recipient's rights. Don't get me wrong. I do not want to cut anyone's rights. I want to strengthen the recipient's rights, who is after all a citizen as well and also can demand protection. From my point of view, the currently exhibited objections are based on ignorance and violation of the recipients rights. Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 04:11:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA29139 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 04:11:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h269MCt16613 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 04:22:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h269MCO16610 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 04:22:12 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA29123 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 04:10:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h269K2O16558; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 04:20:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h269JjO16519 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 04:19:45 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA29100 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 04:08:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h269A6Fu024423; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:10:06 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h2695eeO002613 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:05:40 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h2695ej3002611; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:05:40 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Adam Back Cc: Keith Moore , raymie@cs.ucsc.edu, Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: privacy is a feature (Re: [Asrg] desirable characteristics of source tracking) Message-ID: <20030306090540.GB2340@danisch.de> References: <20030305125322.GA7179@danisch.de> <20030305080032.59d50373.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305203057.B4412039@exeter.ac.uk> <20030305163225.088b989c.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305222200.GH15047@danisch.de> <20030305173026.2cc1f628.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305224734.GD16824@danisch.de> <20030305180647.232f86b8.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305231539.GC17368@danisch.de> <20030306002417.A4477766@exeter.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030306002417.A4477766@exeter.ac.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:05:40 +0100 On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 12:24:17AM +0000, Adam Back wrote: > > I think figuring out who you want to listen to is the receivers > problem, so in short practically you can't. I see. Did I get this correctly? The senders is protected by the constitution, and is free to send whatever rubbish he wants to send, with any name he wants to use, maybe anonymously, maybe with any forged name, to any victim he wants to molest on the victim's expense? And it's just the victims own business how to deal with it? Is it possibly that your point of view and your constitution suffer from a little asymmetry? After all, if I follow you, the consequence it to protect spam, not to fight against it... Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 04:37:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA29617 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 04:37:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h269mUQ18626 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 04:48:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h269mUO18623 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 04:48:30 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA29595 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 04:37:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h269eLO18263; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 04:40:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h269dbO18179 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 04:39:37 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA29430 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 04:28:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h269UBjO024843; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:30:11 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h269TWeO002932 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:29:32 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h269TWqS002930; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:29:32 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: abuse Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Deprecating plain POP accounts Message-ID: <20030306092932.GD2340@danisch.de> References: <20030305191518.1807af4c.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305223136.7fe36926.moore@cs.utk.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:29:32 +0100 On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 11:55:16PM -0800, abuse wrote: > > ... somehow, the idea of 'eliminating' "POP" accounts falls short of a > reasoned solution. if i'm mistaken, and this a viable alternative, why > not eliminate SMTP altogether ... Maybe you'd understand it a little bit better if you'd read more than just the subject line. POP accounts are not to be "eliminated", they are to be bundled with SMTP relay services. The solution already is implemented in most modern MUAs for at least year now. Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 04:40:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA29687 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 04:40:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h269pZo18799 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 04:51:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h269pZO18796 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 04:51:35 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA29676 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 04:40:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h269e4O18231; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 04:40:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h269dXO18172 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 04:39:33 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA29426 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 04:28:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h269U5nq024835; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:30:05 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h269Q2eO002897 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:26:02 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h269Q1Oe002895; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:26:01 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Vernon Schryver Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: privacy is a feature (Re: [Asrg] desirable characteristics of source tracking) Message-ID: <20030306092601.GC2340@danisch.de> References: <20030305163225.088b989c.moore@cs.utk.edu> <200303060433.h264XFqj015225@calcite.rhyolite.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200303060433.h264XFqj015225@calcite.rhyolite.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:26:01 +0100 On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 09:33:15PM -0700, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > Contrary to recent claims, it is evidently easy to get throw-away, > practically anonymous online identities in Germany. Check your spam > archives and notice how much there is from the several free mail providers > in .de and from the mcdeutschland.de/gmx.co.uk/gmx.net/inminds.co.uk/- > kundenserver.de/schlund.de/schlund.net spam haus. > Gotcha. You've trapped yourself. I indeed received a few (only very few compared to @hotmail and @yahoo) spam messages with senders from @gmx and I complained at gmx. In all cases gmx replied that the given account/e-mail address never has existed. It was just random forgery. And suddenly we're back to the main problem, the authenticity. Do you see your own contradiction in terms? You're talking about "evidently easy to get identities". You're talking about "evidence" in context of randomly forged sender addresses. You're blaming providers for accounts that never existed, because you simply trust the forged sender address given in spam without any verification, and call this "evidence"??? Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 04:42:22 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA29798 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 04:42:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h269rIt18936 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 04:53:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h269rIO18933 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 04:53:18 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA29766 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 04:41:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h269j1O18480; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 04:45:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h269iKO18446 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 04:44:20 -0500 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA29500 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 04:32:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 18qrmC-0001RY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Mar 2003 09:34:56 +0000 In-Reply-To: <007701c2e381$9d71c340$4d9cf140@rtr.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Back to the charter To: From: "Jon Kyme" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.4.6] Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 09:34:56 +0000 > > The charter begins by arguing that spam is not well-defined, > and therefore moves to generalize the problem with consent- > based communications. Let me first observe that based > on the discussion here, the definition of consent and consent- > based communication isn't clear enough. > > In engineering, when a problem seems intractable, it's certainly > a legitimate strategy to consider a different problem, as is > being done here. But then, unless the original problems falls > out (as is frequently but not always the case), we must compare > the original problem to the problem being solved. > I'm not sure that "consent-based communication" is a different problem. I believe it will be a very powerful generalisation and should allow us to discuss the key issues without getting bogged down in arguments about content classification, free-speech, politics etc. The charter directs us to consider "architecture" and "framework". I don't believe that that we're seeking anti-spam systems per se, rather that we're working towards a system that enables their development. The generalisation should lead us to consider: The entities which grant and seek consent (are they recipients/senders or "autonomous systems"? Both? The charter refers to "recipients" - is a recipient an email address? a personal email address? the person behind a set of email addresses? a robot? an network / mail system ? ) The nature of the communication (content? traffic characteristics? other stuff?) I like the generalisation, let's work with it. -- Regards, Jon Kyme -------------------------------------------------------------------- Get your free email address at http://www.merseymail.com/ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 05:57:21 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA01537 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 05:57:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26B8Jb24574 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 06:08:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26B8JO24571 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 06:08:19 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA01527 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 05:56:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26B5DO23702; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 06:05:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26B4WO23653 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 06:04:32 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA01456 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 05:53:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h26At68U026301 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:55:06 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h26ArFeO004624 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:53:15 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h26ArF16004622 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:53:15 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <20030306105315.GA4411@danisch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Subject: [Asrg] Declaration to the world Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:53:15 +0100 Peoples of the world, listen: I, the legal owner and emperor of the domain "danisch.de", hereby declare to the world, that all mail from this domain will be delivered from the IP address 213.133.101.23 only. I kindly ask you to not accept any mail with a sender address of this domain delivered from any other IP address, since it is considered to be forged. Thank you for your cooperation. In what way would such a statement infringe anyone else's constitutional or other rights? Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 06:30:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA03633 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 06:30:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26Bfem26780 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 06:41:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26BfeO26777 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 06:41:40 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA03607 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 06:30:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26BW3O25401; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 06:32:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26BW0O25383 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 06:32:00 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA02055 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 06:20:29 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h269THTD003768; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 01:29:17 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h269THKp003764; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 01:29:17 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: Keith Moore cc: Vernon Schryver , Subject: Re: privacy is a feature (Re: [Asrg] desirable characteristics of source tracking) In-Reply-To: <20030305235748.639aa7e8.moore@cs.utk.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 01:29:17 -0800 (PST) This can be done with certificates. User can either get his own certificate from some trusted entity or he can get it from the isp itself (possibly automaticly during the time, email is submitted through ISP mail server). The certificate itself is verified through special dns pointer (callback) and if its ok, added to the chain for the receiving mail server. Recepient when seeing the message, if its spam can report it to his ISP, which either modifies some good/bad value at its mail server as it is related to the certificate or alerts mail admin. Certificate would also contain some trace information about the sender (if auto-generated, this would be authorzation information used for submission, such as userid and ip of the mail origin). Problems still remain though as certificates by users engaged in email marketing would be often regenerated (with new domains) so some tracking to ip address would still be necessary. On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Keith Moore wrote: > On Wed, 5 Mar 2003 21:33:15 -0700 (MST) > Vernon Schryver wrote: > > > > From: Keith Moore > > > > > ... > > > me too. which is why I don't want an identity that is tracable to the > > > actual sender to the message; instead, I want an identity that can only > > > be associated with whether the sender has a history of sending abusive > > > > Because even in Germany it is evidently easy to get new Internet identities, > > I susepct you don't want a token or identity associate with *whether* > > there is a history of abuse but an identity that has a long history of > > no abuse, or for non-spam-friendly ISPs, just a long history. > > depends on the point-of-view. > > speaking as a sender of email, I'd like to be able to establish a good > reputation for not sending spam, and I'd like to be able to carry this > identity and reputation with me from one ISP to another, and perhaps even from > one email address to another. > > speaking as a recipient of email, I'd like to have the ability to find out > something about the originator of any message that I might receive, before I > receive it. if the originator has a long history, that's really useful. but > if not, it's useful if I can tell that the originator has a very short > history. > > e.g. oh, you just got your account today? and your ISP is notorious for > harboring spammers? sorry, I'm not going to accept any mail from you for 3 > days - after which time I'll see if your reputation has suddenly become > worse... > > alternatively: oh, you just got your account, but your ISP is a serious > anti-spam AUP with stiff fines for those who violate it? okay, I'll accept > mail from you then even though you are a newbie. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 06:57:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA06424 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 06:57:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26C8h129890 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 07:08:43 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26C8hO29887 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 07:08:43 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA06332 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 06:57:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26C69O28995; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 07:06:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26C5BO28947 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 07:05:11 -0500 Received: from mail.neosinteractive.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA06195 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 06:53:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from tthompson ([217.35.105.172] unverified) by mail.neosinteractive.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:00:44 +0000 From: "Tom Thomson" To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20030305085501.5172.12758.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Mar 2003 12:00:44.0570 (UTC) FILETIME=[0460F7A0:01C2E3D8] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] RE: Requirements for source tracking Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:55:03 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > From: "Raymie Stata" > Reply-To: "Raymie Stata" > Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 00:39:25 -0800 > Subject: [Asrg] Requirements for source tracking > > > Here are a few opinions: > > * Message vs. envelope sender. > > I think the focus should be on message sender and/or domain, not the > envelope sender/domain. At first glance, the envelope sender/domain > appears to have practical advantages over the message sender/domain, > but at closer inspection I think these disappear (anyone disagree?). > On the flip side, the message domain/sender is what the USER sees (and > is what most filtering software uses), so it seems like this is what > should be subjected to tracing. (This seems contrary to the schemes > I've seen posted so far, which seem to focus on the envelope sender > and/or domain.) I think you may run into problems as soon as you start looking at content; RFC821 (or sucessors) is not restricted to transferring content encoded using RFC822 (or successors). For example, a secure email system might choose to encrypt the whole of the content as provided by the originator (not Recived-From: headers, which could be prefixed unencrypted, as they are not provided by the originator) which means nothing other than the sending and receiving MUAs can see the From: header (if there is one), so the message with untrackable source can't be chopped off close to source and continues to waste bandwidth and to delay download of non-spam email at the receiving MUA (since it has to be downloaded and encrypted before the From: header is known to be fake). So tracing the Mail_From: domain may not be the best basis for attacking spam. The same applies to content-filter based solutions, of course. I don't think this is an insuperable objection to basing things on the From: header but you do need to look at all the consequences of doing so. Another problem is that authentication of From: headers requires change in the sending MUA (as does useful authentication of the envelope sender too); authenticating the trail of MTAs doesn't require change in the sending MUA. SInce it will take years for a protocol extension to spread around the internet, and we can be sure that spammers will not adopt the extension in their sending MUAs until the take-up is very high amongst users, might it not be better to go for trail authentication? > * Advocates of DNS-mapping approaches (appear to) claim that this > approach requires less change to existing infrastructure than do > cryptographic approaches. I question this claim. The DNS-mapping > schemes I've seen all involve adding new records to a domain's DNS > record-set. Of course, DNS can be used to distribute keys as well > as addresses, so it seems like a cryptographic scheme could be built > with exactly the same amount of change required by a DNS-mapping > scheme (viz., the addition of DNS records). This is obviously correct, and adding key records strikes me as more likely to be useful than the other suggested additions. I'm still inclined to distrust anything DNS-based though (although I can't think of a better way of distributing such a massive set of public keys). Having the keys available would be useful for envelope sendeer authentication as much as for message sender authentication; equally for trail authentication (each MTA signs the Received-From: header that ut inserts). I would prefer to see all three things authenticated together - this can sometimes help when a key has been compromised - to be as sure as possible of identifying the spammer. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 07:18:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA07964 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 07:18:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26CTdF30932 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 07:29:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26CTdO30929 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 07:29:39 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA07949; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 07:18:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25HQ1517418; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:26:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25HP7517362 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:25:07 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA14034 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:13:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h25HFMBD030575 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:15:22 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal In-Reply-To: <200303051647.h25GlLbl027468@calcite.rhyolite.com> Message-ID: References: <200303051647.h25GlLbl027468@calcite.rhyolite.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:15:22 -0500 (EST) On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Vernon Schryver wrote: > No, by your own numbers, that's empirically suggested for only 20% of spam. A cheap test that stops 20% of spam is good. If you're looking for a single approach that stops most spam, forget it. We are facing a tough battle that will take lots of tools and techniques, each of which stops a bit of spam. With luck, in concert, we'll be able to stop "most" spam, where "most" means enough that it's worth doing. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 07:35:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA09071 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 07:35:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26CkeE32388 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 07:46:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26CkeO32385 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 07:46:40 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA09056; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 07:35:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25Ho3A02320; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:50:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h25HnXA02269 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:49:33 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA15712 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:38:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 18189 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2003 17:38:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.2.100.178?) (10.2.100.178) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 4 Mar 2003 17:38:45 -0000 From: Matt Sergeant X-X-Sender: matt@localhost.localdomain To: "Eric S. Johansson" cc: Matt Sergeant , "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Sender pays vs the third world In-Reply-To: <3E662B70.40108@harvee.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:53:05 +0000 (GMT) On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Eric S. Johansson wrote: > Matt Sergeant wrote: > > I'm new on the list so forgive me if this has been mentioned already (the > > archives don't seem complete). > > > > It seems to me that sender pays means the third world gets excluded from > > email communication. Whether it's actual money or if it's just CPU cycles, > > that model simply doesn't work for a group of people trying to communicate > > effectively with "richer" nations. You might as well just use > > http://www.blackholes.us/ > > not true. If you design the sender pays system correctly, even weak machines > can participate. In the camram model, only the first couple of messages have > "high-cost" Stamps. Every other message to a known recipient or from a known > recipient comes at a much lower cost. The latter part does not make my statement false. There are lots of systems where the majority of email recipients are first-timers. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 07:51:55 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA10087 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 07:51:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26D2uc00835 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 08:02:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26D2uO00832 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 08:02:56 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA10066 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 07:51:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26D04O00646; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 08:00:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26CxmO00601 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 07:59:48 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA09987 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 07:48:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc02.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h26CoJ3Z010883 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 04:50:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 04:50:18 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Keith, Hadmut both right RE: [Asrg] Deprecating plain POP account s MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 04:50:18 -0800 Keith and Hadmut both have valid points. It is futile to expect Keith to change his POP configuration. However Hadmunt is correct in stating that a DNS name owner should have the right to be able to control the manner in which email is sent from their zone. I have a particular sympathy for Keith's issue since it is actually one that affects many VeriSign (Network Solutions) customers. These customers buy a hosted mail service with their domain name. In many cases they take their incomming mail via the NetSol service but relay their outgoing mail through the mail servers of their ISP. In many cases they have no choice about this as the ISP blocks outgoing port 25. Let us assunme for a moment that the Internet community will accept such a disruptive change that provides no value until widely deployed. How long would such a change take to deploy? In an earlier message someone said changing the infrastructure would 'take years without Microsoft and Qualcom'. I have news for folk who believe that, it will take years WITH Microsoft, Lotus, AOL, Qualcomm and the rest. Without it will take decades. Transition strategies are key. The key to any authentication based approach in an environment where there are many parties with no authentication capability at all is to have a mechanism to exzpress and distribute the authentication policy of a particular party. The limitation to the RMX approach and the various lightweight authentication mechanisms is that they only support one means of authentication at one level of the protocol stack. It should be possible for a zone to choose any authentication mechanism that suits their configuration. Hedmund directs all his mail through one central server and so can use a transport or packet layer authentication mechanism. Keith does not send his mail through a particular mail server and so any authentication mechanism he chose to use would have to be message based. He could use PGP or S/MIME. This same problem is biting us when we try to deploy IPSEC on an Internet wide basis. Most nodes are insecure. So how do you know whether an apprently insecure site is actually a secure site that has been the victim of a downgrade attack. I am currently writing a draft that proposes a generic security policy expression mechanism for Internet protocols. This is a logical counterpart of work that VeriSign, IBM and Microsoft have recently published that defines security (and other) policies for Web Services. Clearly the most appropriate mechanism for distribution of such a mechanism is likely to be DNS. However I believe that any proposal should be generic enough to be compatible with other bindings. A DNS binding is likely to benefit from DNSSEC, although not if DNSSEC can't be deployed in dotCOM and dotNET. I do not agree that securing the DNS is a precondition for being able to make use of DNS based security policies to secure email transport for the purposes of spam control. The widespread DNS spoofing scenarios proposed are theoretical not practical. And if they did prove to be practical it would merely create the currently missing imperative for DNSSEC deployment - not a bad thing in itself. I intend to circulate a preliminary draft before the SF IETF, I know I have missed the cut off but I will post to the list. I believe that such a work item could be persued as a focused WG in the IETF without waiting for this research group to terminate since it would only be part of the solution to spam and would address a problem more general than spam. I intend to propose a BOF for the Vienna meeting. Phill > -----Original Message----- > From: abuse [mailto:abuse@aniota.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 2:55 AM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Deprecating plain POP accounts > > > > ... somehow, the idea of 'eliminating' "POP" accounts falls short of a > reasoned solution. if i'm mistaken, and this a viable > alternative, why > not eliminate SMTP altogether ... > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 08:51:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA14569 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 08:51:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26E2fJ05674 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:02:41 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26E2fO05670 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:02:41 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA14532 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 08:51:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26E0JO05545; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:00:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26DxFO05404 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 08:59:15 -0500 Received: from hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA14238 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 08:47:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.133.182] helo=envy.indecency.org) by hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18qvkc-0000oN-00; Thu, 06 Mar 2003 05:49:34 -0800 From: Keith Moore To: Hadmut Danisch Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, adam@cypherspace.org, raymie@cs.ucsc.edu, Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: privacy is a feature (Re: [Asrg] desirable characteristics of source tracking) Message-Id: <20030306084606.2a1e2702.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <20030306090540.GB2340@danisch.de> References: <20030305125322.GA7179@danisch.de> <20030305080032.59d50373.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305203057.B4412039@exeter.ac.uk> <20030305163225.088b989c.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305222200.GH15047@danisch.de> <20030305173026.2cc1f628.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305224734.GD16824@danisch.de> <20030305180647.232f86b8.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305231539.GC17368@danisch.de> <20030306002417.A4477766@exeter.ac.uk> <20030306090540.GB2340@danisch.de> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 08:46:06 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:05:40 +0100 Hadmut Danisch wrote: > On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 12:24:17AM +0000, Adam Back wrote: > > > > I think figuring out who you want to listen to is the receivers > > problem, so in short practically you can't. > > I see. > > Did I get this correctly? The senders is protected by the > constitution, and is free to send whatever rubbish he wants to send, > with any name he wants to use, maybe anonymously, maybe with any > forged name, to any victim he wants to molest on the victim's expense? As to legal theories: In US law (and let's do keep in mind that US law isn't axiomatically a valid template for what should happen) there's a difference between what a speaker is legally allowed to say without penalty, and what a speaker can be prevented from saying (prior restraint). So for instance you can be tried for publishing obscene material but (in theory) you cannot be prevented from publishing it. It's considered more in the interests of society to permit the speech and let courts decide whether it violates the law, than it is to allow the government to shut down the presses. So this is the model that some of us are accustomed to, and find useful. As for the intent of the standards, and technical measures: - Email is one of the oldest network applications, and authentication was not availble (and probably not feasible) when the protocols were designed. Nor was it necessary at the time - the network was small enough (both in number of users and number of machines) that it was relatively easy to track down miscreants. It's not clear that we know how to make authentication work for the scale of the Internet even now - we have algorithms and protocols for authentication that will work but the trust models do not appear to scale. This should not deter us from making recommendations, but we need to understand that it's not easy to actually deploy. - By explicit design, and for good and valid reasons, domain names have nothing to do with IP addresses. IP addresses are tied to network locations. so using IP address to determine domain name is not appropriate - or at least, not generally applicable. - By explicit design, and for good and valid reasons, mail originators are allowed to assert that they are sending a message "From" someone else. (so for instance a message can be "From" multiple people, or can be "From" the boss even though it was originated by the secretary.) The Sender field was supposed to contain the identity of the originator in this case (e.g. an indication of the account from which it was sent, which is not expected to be a valid reply address). This field has been misused so widely that it is now useless, but another (and better defined) field could be created to replace it. At any rate, the intent was not that the originator of mail could escape accountability for his/her actions by changing the From field from its default. However the mechanisms for enforcing Sender at the time RFC 822 was written, if they ever worked, are not available today. Today there is no clear line between "administrator" and "user", between the user for whom it is legitimate to decide who can use an email address and the user who merely has addresses assigned to him. > And it's just the victims own business how to deal with it? Some of the burden inevitiably resides with the recipient. Spam is in the eye of the beholder, it is different things to different people. It is dangerous for others to presume, in the absence of some instruction from the recipient, that the recipient doesn't want to see a particular message. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 09:07:09 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA15153 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:07:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26EIAa07084 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:18:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26EIAO07081 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:18:10 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA15140 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:06:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26EG5O06938; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:16:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26EBBO06725 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:11:11 -0500 Received: from turkey.mail.pas.earthlink.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA14807 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 08:59:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.133.182] helo=envy.indecency.org) by turkey.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18qvwI-0002o2-00; Thu, 06 Mar 2003 06:01:38 -0800 From: Keith Moore To: Troy Rollo Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] definition of spam (was Re: consent expression) Message-Id: <20030306085810.0e816395.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20030306181200.02632e10@mail> References: <20030305134413.2988c5b7.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030304205916.56614a9f.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305040008.GB14655@main.templetons.com> <20030304234928.5485710d.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305051840.GI14655@main.templetons.com> <20030305051936.55246a31.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305062722.3d36f607.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305085043.700fb87a.moore@cs.utk.edu> <3E6635FC.9060003@americasm01.nt.com> <20030305134413.2988c5b7.moore@cs.utk.edu> <4.3.1.2.20030306181200.02632e10@mail> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 08:58:10 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > So Keith's concerns about the impact of Chris's definition of consent > aren't particularly justified if we look at consent as the law defines it, well, it's not clear to me what the charter means, and I don't have any reason to believe that they had this particular context in mind when they wrote it. also, it's not that I inherently object to defining consent in one way or another, but I do think that a system that effectively required prior consent to send mail, and enforced it, would be unfortunate if whatver solution we came up with did not provide more flexibility than that. I also don't believe in treating one-to-many email differently than one-to-one email, because it's the content of the email that the recipient cares about rather than the number of recipients. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 09:07:15 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA15166 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:07:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26EIHA07108 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:18:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26EIGO07105 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:18:16 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA15145 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:06:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26EH0O07009; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:17:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26EEAO06824 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:14:10 -0500 Received: from albatross.mail.pas.earthlink.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA15019 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:02:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.133.182] helo=envy.indecency.org) by albatross.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18qvyn-0000Md-00; Thu, 06 Mar 2003 06:04:14 -0800 From: Keith Moore To: Hadmut Danisch Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, list-asrg@openrbl.org, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: privacy is a feature (Re: [Asrg] desirable characteristics of source tracking) Message-Id: <20030306090045.7f429133.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <20030306085710.GA2340@danisch.de> References: <20030305113323.GA4939@danisch.de> <20030305070437.60bdfd34.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305122021.GA6748@danisch.de> <20030305073217.46f79dcb.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305125322.GA7179@danisch.de> <20030305080032.59d50373.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305203057.B4412039@exeter.ac.uk> <20030305163225.088b989c.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305222200.GH15047@danisch.de> <20030306085710.GA2340@danisch.de> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:00:45 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > The current view of this thing is to keep the sender's > rights as strong as possible, and to not care, to not > give even a cent for the recipient's rights. nope. the recipient has the right to filter whatever mail he wants. what we lack are mechanisms to give the recipient useful means by which to filter incoming mail, and means by which the recipient can allow such filtering to be performed closer to the sender - thus not burdening the network with the delivery of mail that will be discarded anyway. it's not rights that the recipient lacks, it's mechansisms. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 09:13:18 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA15520 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:13:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26EOKJ07466 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:24:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26EOJO07463 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:24:19 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA15512 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:12:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26EM1O07361; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:22:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26ELbO07332 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:21:37 -0500 Received: from avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA15383 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:10:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.133.182] helo=envy.indecency.org) by avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18qw6N-0001ql-00; Thu, 06 Mar 2003 06:12:03 -0800 From: Keith Moore To: Hadmut Danisch Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world Message-Id: <20030306090835.60e94bdc.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <20030306105315.GA4411@danisch.de> References: <20030306105315.GA4411@danisch.de> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:08:35 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I, the legal owner and emperor of the domain "danisch.de", hereby > declare to the world, that all mail from this domain will be > delivered from the IP address 213.133.101.23 only. I kindly ask > you to not accept any mail with a sender address of this domain > delivered from any other IP address, since it is considered to be > forged. Thank you for your cooperation. > > > In what way would such a statement infringe anyone else's > constitutional or other rights? it doesn't. it's just not a generally-applicable mechanism. subject to relataively few constraints, you own 'danisch.de' for as long as you renew it. most users do not own their IP addresses. in order for routing to scale (at least with current routing protocols), it is necessary that networks be renumbered from time to time. so we do not want to encourage tight binding of IP addresses to domain names even for those cases where it might work, for now. also, source addresses can sometimes be forged, so we don't want to rely on them as authentiation tokens. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 09:16:03 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA15612 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:16:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26ER5007593 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:27:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26ER5O07590 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:27:05 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA15599 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:15:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26EP1O07507; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:25:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26EOfO07482 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:24:41 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA15518 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:13:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h26EF5Kh029142; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:15:05 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h26EEgeO009309 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:14:42 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h26EEgxF009307; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:14:42 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Keith Moore Cc: adam@cypherspace.org, raymie@cs.ucsc.edu, Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: privacy is a feature (Re: [Asrg] desirable characteristics of source tracking) Message-ID: <20030306141442.GA8957@danisch.de> References: <20030305203057.B4412039@exeter.ac.uk> <20030305163225.088b989c.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305222200.GH15047@danisch.de> <20030305173026.2cc1f628.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305224734.GD16824@danisch.de> <20030305180647.232f86b8.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305231539.GC17368@danisch.de> <20030306002417.A4477766@exeter.ac.uk> <20030306090540.GB2340@danisch.de> <20030306084606.2a1e2702.moore@cs.utk.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030306084606.2a1e2702.moore@cs.utk.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:14:42 +0100 On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 08:46:06AM -0500, Keith Moore wrote: > > In US law (and let's do keep in mind that US law isn't axiomatically a valid > template for what should happen) there's a difference between what a speaker > is legally allowed to say without penalty, and what a speaker can be prevented > from saying (prior restraint). > Basically the same as over here. > - Email is one of the oldest network applications, and authentication was not > availble (and probably not feasible) when the protocols were designed. Nor > was it necessary at the time - the network was small enough (both in number of > users and number of machines) that it was relatively easy to track down > miscreants. No. When e-mail was introduced in the early days, it was based on UUCP. Every incoming mail had an automatically generated return path (comparable to today's Received: header lines), but each single node had to authenticate against each next node in the path. But walking back that recorded path, you had a full authentication path back to the origin of the message (except for flaws of password authentication and the weakness of the nodes themselfes). When e-mail was moved from UUCP to TCP/SMTP, that kind of authentication got lost. That's what we suffer from. All those folks who talk about design goals, common usage of e-mail, e-mail must be open for everyone, anomous mailing completely ignore the fact, that e-mail wasn't as open as today in the early days. That's just a tale. Maybe people should inform a little bit before claiming design goals. There was a degeneration in authenticity, and today's people believe this to be the normal case. > - By explicit design, and for good and valid reasons, domain names have > nothing to do with IP addresses. IP addresses are tied to network locations. You missed the point. We are not talking about domain names, we are talking about e-mail addresses, e-mail delivery, SMTP. And this has very much to do with both domain names and IP addresses. So in context of e-mail delivery, it seems reasonable to introduce a link. > - By explicit design, and for good and valid reasons, mail originators are > allowed to assert that they are sending a message "From" someone > else. No. There haven't been "good and valid reasons". It's simply that they haven't been aware of the security problem around 1980, and that they couldn't do and need any better at that time. They never had any good reason to drop the authenticity the had with UUCP. There has never been an intention to allow arbitrary sender address spoofing. > Some of the burden inevitiably resides with the recipient. Spam is in the eye > of the beholder, it is different things to different people. It is dangerous > for others to presume, in the absence of some instruction from the recipient, > that the recipient doesn't want to see a particular message. Sure. Bank robbery is also in the eye of the beholder. We shouldn't generally allow methods against bank robbery. Who knows whether the bank might like it or not? Just let it be the banks business how to deal with it... Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 09:23:09 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA16122 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:23:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26EYBm08067 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:34:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26EYBO08064 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:34:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA16090 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:22:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26EW4O07854; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:32:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26EVaO07827 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:31:36 -0500 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA15875 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:20:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 18qwG6-0001BY-00; Thu, 06 Mar 2003 14:22:06 +0000 In-Reply-To: <20030306105315.GA4411@danisch.de> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world To: asrg@ietf.org From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "Hadmut Danisch" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.4.6] Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 14:22:06 +0000 > Peoples of the world, listen: > > > > I, the legal owner and emperor of the domain "danisch.de", hereby > declare to the world, that all mail from this domain will be > delivered from the IP address 213.133.101.23 only. I kindly ask > you to not accept any mail with a sender address of this domain > delivered from any other IP address, since it is considered to be > forged. Thank you for your cooperation. > > > In what way would such a statement infringe anyone else's > constitutional or other rights? Because you don't 'own' this IP ? You 'lease' it from Hetzner Online AG who are assigned it by RIPE? -- Regards, Jon Kyme -------------------------------------------------------------------- Get your free email address at http://www.merseymail.com/ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 09:24:54 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA16255 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:24:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26EZuX08162 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:35:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26EZuO08159 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:35:56 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA16205 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:24:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26EY2O08051; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:34:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26EXaO08012 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:33:36 -0500 Received: from hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA16056 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:22:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.133.182] helo=envy.indecency.org) by hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18qwHz-0002pv-00; Thu, 06 Mar 2003 06:24:03 -0800 From: Keith Moore To: Hadmut Danisch Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, adam@cypherspace.org, raymie@cs.ucsc.edu, Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: privacy is a feature (Re: [Asrg] desirable characteristics of source tracking) Message-Id: <20030306092035.41a74910.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <20030306141442.GA8957@danisch.de> References: <20030305203057.B4412039@exeter.ac.uk> <20030305163225.088b989c.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305222200.GH15047@danisch.de> <20030305173026.2cc1f628.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305224734.GD16824@danisch.de> <20030305180647.232f86b8.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305231539.GC17368@danisch.de> <20030306002417.A4477766@exeter.ac.uk> <20030306090540.GB2340@danisch.de> <20030306084606.2a1e2702.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030306141442.GA8957@danisch.de> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:20:35 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > - Email is one of the oldest network applications, and authentication was > > not availble (and probably not feasible) when the protocols were designed. > > Nor was it necessary at the time - the network was small enough (both in > > number of users and number of machines) that it was relatively easy to > > track down miscreants. > > No. When e-mail was introduced in the early days, it was based on > UUCP. There were lots of early email systems, and I don't want to argue about which one predates another. I was speaking of the ARPAnet/Internet context that eventually created rfc822 and SMTP. This community did not start out using UUCP; very few of them were even using UNIX. > > - By explicit design, and for good and valid reasons, domain names have > > nothing to do with IP addresses. IP addresses are tied to network > > locations. > > > You missed the point. We are not talking about domain names, we are > talking about e-mail addresses, e-mail delivery, SMTP. And this has > very much to do with both domain names and IP addresses. you're simply wrong about this. > > - By explicit design, and for good and valid reasons, mail originators are > > allowed to assert that they are sending a message "From" someone > > else. > No. There haven't been "good and valid reasons". you are simply wrong about this also. and it's not acceptable to cripple the mail system or the network to suit your naive ideas about how things are supposed to work. > Sure. Bank robbery is also in the eye of the beholder. We shouldn't > generally allow methods against bank robbery. Who knows whether the > bank might like it or not? Just let it be the banks business how to > deal with it... your credibility just went to zero. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 09:34:24 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA16965 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:34:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26EjRS09500 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:45:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26EjQO09497 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:45:26 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA16904 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:33:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26Ei2O09350; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:44:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26EdZO09152 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:39:35 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA16601 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:28:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h26EU5jq029439; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:30:05 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h26ESdeO009558 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:28:39 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h26ESdlH009556; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:28:39 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Jon Kyme Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world Message-ID: <20030306142839.GA9513@danisch.de> References: <20030306105315.GA4411@danisch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:28:39 +0100 On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 02:22:06PM +0000, Jon Kyme wrote: > > Because you don't 'own' this IP ? > You 'lease' it from Hetzner Online AG > who are assigned it by RIPE? > I don't understand what you want to say... Why should this be a problem or infringe anyone's rights? Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 09:40:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA17247 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:40:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26EpX309904 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:51:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26EpWO09900 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:51:32 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA17218 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:39:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26Eo3O09822; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:50:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26EnZO09791 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:49:35 -0500 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA17156 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:38:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 18qwXV-00043r-00; Thu, 06 Mar 2003 14:40:05 +0000 In-Reply-To: <20030306142839.GA9513@danisch.de> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world To: asrg@ietf.org From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "Hadmut Danisch" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.4.6] Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 14:40:05 +0000 > On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 02:22:06PM +0000, Jon Kyme wrote: > > > > Because you don't 'own' this IP ? > > You 'lease' it from Hetzner Online AG > > who are assigned it by RIPE? > > > > > > I don't understand what you want to say... > > Why should this be a problem or infringe anyone's rights? > Sorry, Keith Moore answered this better much than I did. But, for instance how does the next 'owner' of danisch.de invalidate your declaration? How do *you* invalidate it when your ISP (or RIPE) change your IP out from under you? -- Regards, Jon Kyme -------------------------------------------------------------------- Get your free email address at http://www.merseymail.com/ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 09:41:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA17291 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:41:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26EqVq10020 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:52:31 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26EqVO10017 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:52:31 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA17269 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:40:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26EoPO09854; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:50:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26EngO09795 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:49:42 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA17162 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:38:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h26Ee7ZA029617; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:40:07 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h26EaIeO009745 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:36:18 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h26EaIQ1009743; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:36:18 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Keith Moore Cc: adam@cypherspace.org, raymie@cs.ucsc.edu, Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: privacy is a feature (Re: [Asrg] desirable characteristics of source tracking) Message-ID: <20030306143618.GA9709@danisch.de> References: <20030305222200.GH15047@danisch.de> <20030305173026.2cc1f628.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305224734.GD16824@danisch.de> <20030305180647.232f86b8.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305231539.GC17368@danisch.de> <20030306002417.A4477766@exeter.ac.uk> <20030306090540.GB2340@danisch.de> <20030306084606.2a1e2702.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030306141442.GA8957@danisch.de> <20030306092035.41a74910.moore@cs.utk.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030306092035.41a74910.moore@cs.utk.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:36:18 +0100 On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 09:20:35AM -0500, Keith Moore wrote: > your credibility just went to zero. Ah, it seems to be raising. :-) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 09:57:07 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA17811 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:57:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26F89v11659 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:08:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26F89O11656 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:08:09 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA17784 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:56:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26F5AO10683; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:05:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26F4eO10643 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:04:40 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA17636 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:53:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h26Et7c8029892; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:55:07 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h26EsTeO010130 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:54:29 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h26EsTnu010128; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:54:29 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Jon Kyme Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world Message-ID: <20030306145428.GA9971@danisch.de> References: <20030306142839.GA9513@danisch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:54:29 +0100 On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 02:40:05PM +0000, Jon Kyme wrote: > > But, for instance how does the next 'owner' of danisch.de > invalidate your declaration? > How do *you* invalidate it when your ISP (or RIPE) change your IP > out from under you? > In the very same simple way I have changed the MX record for danisch.de and the A record for www.danisch.de when a new IP address was assigned about half a year ago: I took a very simple text editor, changed the zone file, and that's it. The statement of the world is not an eternal and irrevocable statement. As any other policy, certificate, DNS entry or whatever, it needs to be updated from time to time. Sorry, but I'm a little bit shocked that this is so difficult to understand. I thought this was abvious. Don't get me wrong, but I am under the impression that some people intentionally misunderstand everything in order to put through their political opinion. And I am under the impression that this research group was intentionally poisoned by spamming advocates. Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 10:06:19 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA18518 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:06:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26FHMq12299 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:17:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26FHMO12296 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:17:22 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA18406 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:05:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26FF2O12125; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:15:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26FEQO12056 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:14:26 -0500 Received: from mail.neosinteractive.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA18070 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:02:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from tthompson ([217.35.105.172] unverified) by mail.neosinteractive.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:09:54 +0000 From: "Tom Thomson" To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20030305182811.4655.27309.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Mar 2003 15:09:54.0801 (UTC) FILETIME=[71A4C610:01C2E3F2] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] RE: Asrg digest, Vol 1 #32 - 9 msgs Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:04:13 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:24:06 -0500 > To: Hadmut Danisch > From: Kee Hinckley > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Deprecating plain POP accounts > Cc: asrg@ietf.org > > At 11:43 AM +0100 3/5/03, Hadmut Danisch wrote: >>Surprise: That already exists. Many POP providers also offer the >>service of delivering the mail. Authentication is possible through >>either a so called "SMTP after POP" or a simple Password >>authentication in the SMTP protocol, typically the same password as for >>the POP account. > > If this were a solution, then ISP's wouldn't be blocking outbound > SMTP connections. Sure they would. That would be an essential part of this solution - only the ISP's own servers are allowed to make outgoing SMTP connections. > > Since there is no way to tell the difference between an outbound SMTP > session from a client, and one from a server, your solution provides > a mechanism for authorized delivery, but does not require it. > Therefore the user sets up mail broadcaster at some safe location (or > uses open relays) and sits happily at home using his ISP to send out > email. From the ISP's standpoint this looks just like legitimate > use. But he's spamming like crazy, and it's the ISP that gets the > complaints. > -- > Kee Hinckley > http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering No way to tell the difference? As a general rule I can tell the difeence between one of my servers and some client somewhere in my net - it's pretty trivial. Use the IP address for example (the server addresses are fixed; the client addresses may be fixed or may come out of a pool - but they are visibly different). If the ISP's server keeps track of who sent what (no need for it to validate the "From:" header or anything like that, so there's no difficulty in sending using a source domain different from the domain I'm using right now) for long enough to match up any spamming complaints to the originator, the ISP can take action against the originator. Or the ISP can be supoenad ("ripped" maybe in the UK? ) to provide the information for a prosecution if the spam is illegal in his juridiction. Not a lot of data to keep (a msg id and originator) and it doesn't need to be kept for very long (a couple of days) - certainly it's data that is kept to maintain the ISP service by assisting in enforcement of conditions of use, so even European privacy laws (conforming to ECHR) won't be offended by retaining the data for long enough to achieve that - and no data identifying the originator has been added to the message by the ISP, so full sender anonymity can be preserved if required in cases where the mail is not spam. Doing that we can end up with a clear view of which ISPs will deal with spam complaints effectively and which won't. Probably the next stage is blacklists - if an ISP is unwilling to deal with spam it's prohably because he sees it as to his commercial advantage to allow it, and blacklisting will make him useless to all his customers (whether spammers or not) so he'll pretty quickly change his ways. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 10:08:08 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA18760 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:08:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26FJAQ12485 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:19:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26FJAO12482 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:19:10 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA18697 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:07:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26FH3O12231; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:17:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26FGOO12172 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:16:24 -0500 Received: from avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA18279 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:04:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.133.182] helo=envy.indecency.org) by avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18qwxN-00008C-00; Thu, 06 Mar 2003 07:06:49 -0800 From: Keith Moore To: Hadmut Danisch Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, jrk@merseymail.com, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world Message-Id: <20030306100320.5b612539.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <20030306145428.GA9971@danisch.de> References: <20030306142839.GA9513@danisch.de> <20030306145428.GA9971@danisch.de> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:03:20 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > How do *you* invalidate it when your ISP (or RIPE) change your IP > > out from under you? > > In the very same simple way I have changed the MX record for > danisch.de and the A record for www.danisch.de when a new > IP address was assigned about half a year ago: I took a very > simple text editor, changed the zone file, and that's it. > > The statement of the world is not an eternal and irrevocable > statement. As any other policy, certificate, DNS entry or > whatever, it needs to be updated from time to time. > > Sorry, but I'm a little bit shocked that this is so difficult > to understand. I thought this was abvious. there are things I thought were obvious too - such as that it's cumbersome to maintain such records, that such records are likely to get out of sync with reality, and that they're not generally applicable. of course when you accuse people who raise technical objections of doing so because they are pushing political views, or that they are spamming advocates, it doesn't exactly promote understanding of either the technical or political issues. but all of this is probably irrelevant for now. what we should be doing now is listing mechansisms and fitting them in to a taxonomy. we don't need to evaluate each mechanism as it comes up. so we should add your suggestion to the list and leave off evaluation until later. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 10:09:14 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA18925 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:09:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26FKH312575 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:20:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26FKHO12572 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:20:17 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA18838 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:08:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26FJ7O12476; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:19:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26FIjO12431 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:18:45 -0500 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA18635 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:07:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 18qwzi-0007vJ-00; Thu, 06 Mar 2003 15:09:14 +0000 In-Reply-To: <20030306145428.GA9971@danisch.de> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world To: asrg@ietf.org From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "Hadmut Danisch" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.4.6] Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 15:09:14 +0000 > On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 02:40:05PM +0000, Jon Kyme wrote: > > > > > > But, for instance how does the next 'owner' of danisch.de > > invalidate your declaration? > > How do *you* invalidate it when your ISP (or RIPE) change your IP > > out from under you? > > > > > In the very same simple way I have changed the MX record for > danisch.de and the A record for www.danisch.de when a new > IP address was assigned about half a year ago: I took a very > simple text editor, changed the zone file, and that's it. > So your declaration is implicit in and limited to the DNS data for the domain? Doesn't this require this to be true for every domain if it is to work for yours? (This would be difficult for some systems I'd imagine.) Or, if you have a separate mechanism for making this kind of declaration, how is it to be publicised, invalidated etc. > The statement of the world is not an eternal and irrevocable > statement. As any other policy, certificate, DNS entry or > whatever, it needs to be updated from time to time. > > Sorry, but I'm a little bit shocked that this is so difficult > to understand. I thought this was abvious. > It *seems* obvious. > Don't get me wrong, but I am under the impression that some > people intentionally misunderstand everything in order to > put through their political opinion. I hope I understand you, I'm genuinely interested in what kind of mechanism this might require. > > And I am under the impression that this research group was > intentionally poisoned by spamming advocates. > I hope that's not true. Of course the RG may itself be a time-wasting ruse set up by spammers to waste anti-spammers time. :-) I'm an administrator on a webmail system with around 100k accounts. I hate spam. I hate my users complaining. I need a way to stop it hurting -- Regards, Jon Kyme -------------------------------------------------------------------- Get your free email address at http://www.merseymail.com/ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 10:09:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA18983 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:09:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26FKeh12603 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:20:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26FKeO12600 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:20:40 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA18906 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:09:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26FJ1O12460; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:19:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26FIJO12406 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:18:19 -0500 Received: from imbaspam-ny03.ssmb.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA18577 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:06:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from imbarc-ny02.ny.ssmb.com (imbarc-ny02-1 [162.124.186.139]) by imbaspam-ny03.ssmb.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/SSMB_EXT/evision: 1.18 $) with ESMTP id h26F8mVr025962; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:08:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailhub-dc2.eur.nsroot.net (mailhub-dc2.eur.nsroot.net [169.186.205.199]) by imbarc-ny02.ny.ssmb.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/SSMB_QQQ_IN/1.1) with ESMTP id h26F8jwB007770; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:08:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchuk13.eu.ssmb.com (imceu.eu.ssmb.com [169.186.152.113]) by mailhub-dc2.eur.nsroot.net (8.9.3-GEMSp1/8.9.3/SSMB-HUB) with ESMTP id PAA11100; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:08:43 GMT Received: by imceu.eu.ssmb.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55) id ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:08:43 -0000 Message-ID: <80AD1C20BCECD6118FD800508BCF7EDA72D7A0@exchuk19.eu.ssmb.com> From: "Clayton, Nik [IT]" To: "'David F. Skoll'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.31 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:08:38 -0000 > Nah. If you're receiving that kind of mail volume, you have big > machines with under-utilized CPUs anyway. Content-scanning just uses > up CPU cycles that would be wasted. Nik Clayton says he filters > 2 million messages/day with SpamAssassin; I'd be amazed if fewer > than 100K of those are spam. It's about 280,000 a day at the moment. Which is roughly 25% of our inbound mail volume. That's a combination of locally maintained blacklists and SpamAssassin -- no network tests (RBL, etc) are in use. Because of our current mail architecture, that figure of 280,000 doesn't include messages that will eventually bounce due to being misaddressed. N -- 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 -- The 75 column-ometer Global Messaging, A: Top posting 120 Cheapside, x83331 Q: What's the most annoying e-mail habit? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 10:24:01 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA20112 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:24:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26FZ4P13558 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:35:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26FZ4O13555 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:35:04 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA20071 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:23:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26FX3O13454; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:33:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26FWJO13370 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:32:19 -0500 Received: from issaspam-ny01.ssmb.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA19851 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:20:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from imbarc-ny01.ny.ssmb.com (imbarc-ny01-1 [162.124.186.138]) by issaspam-ny01.ssmb.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/SSMB_EXT/evision: 1.18 $) with ESMTP id h26FMlWJ009336 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:22:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailhub-dc2.eur.nsroot.net (mailhub-dc2.eur.nsroot.net [169.186.205.199]) by imbarc-ny01.ny.ssmb.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/SSMB_QQQ_IN/1.1) with ESMTP id h26FMjLU002920 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:22:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchuk13.eu.ssmb.com (imceu.eu.ssmb.com [169.186.152.113]) by mailhub-dc2.eur.nsroot.net (8.9.3-GEMSp1/8.9.3/SSMB-HUB) with ESMTP id PAA15589 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:22:43 GMT Received: by imceu.eu.ssmb.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55) id ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:22:43 -0000 Message-ID: <80AD1C20BCECD6118FD800508BCF7EDA72D7A1@exchuk19.eu.ssmb.com> From: "Clayton, Nik [IT]" To: "'asrg@ietf.org'" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.31 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang) Subject: [Asrg] Do we need to do anything? Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:22:38 -0000 Reading some of the discussion here over the past few days, I'm wondering whether we actually need to do anything. Many of the suggestions and proposals are acknowledged as taking years before they're widely deployed. Talk of new protocols, e-mail 'postage' charges and the like -- all these things need to displace an incredibly well entrenched existing protocol. At the same time, MUAs are getting smarter. In particular, the presence of language classifiers (Bayes, et al) in desktop-user (as opposed to technical-user) MUAs is likely to become much more prevalent over the next few years. As soon as these become widely deployed, and the majority of recipients have filters that are so customised that it's nigh-on-impossible for a spammer to guarantee that their e-mail will get through, doesn't spamming then become so uneconomical as to die out? I realise that this could be seen as being slightly optimistic, ... N -- 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 -- The 75 column-ometer Global Messaging, A: Top posting 120 Cheapside, x83331 Q: What's the most annoying e-mail habit? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 10:35:10 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA20738 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:35:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26FkEE15140 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:46:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26FkEO15137 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:46:14 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA20701 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:34:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26Fi3O15017; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:44:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26FhfO14984 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:43:41 -0500 Received: from gate.cs.rochester.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA20583 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:32:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from lung.cs.rochester.edu (nano.cs.rochester.edu [192.5.53.95]) by gate.cs.rochester.edu (8.11.6+Sun/001) with ESMTP id h26FY8j07552; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:34:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (bukys@localhost) by lung.cs.rochester.edu (8.11.6+Sun/Q++) with SMTP id h26FY8300551; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:34:08 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200303061534.h26FY8300551@lung.cs.rochester.edu> From: Liudvikas Bukys To: asrg@ietf.org cc: bukys@cs, rochester.edu@cs.rochester.edu In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 06 Mar 2003 15:54:29 +0100." <20030306145428.GA9971@danisch.de> Subject: [Asrg] RMX breaks mailing lists Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 10:34:08 -0500 I looked back over the archives at the whole RMX discussion, and looked at the Designated Senders draft as well, and it appears that nobody has mentioned the problem that it EITHER: - breaks legitimate forwarding such as mailing lists OR - can be trivially worked around by forging Received headers (After all, I didn't receive Hadmut Danisch's note from his server, I received it from my internal relay, which received it from an ietf.org server.) So at most it is a possibly-useful Received header heuristic. A more useful heuristic, for now, would be IP-based DNS records indicating whether my host is authorized to initiate any SMTP at all, as a way of cutting down on open relay/proxy/forgery. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 10:35:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA20754 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:35:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26FkL815158 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:46:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26FkLO15155 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:46:21 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA20709 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:34:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26Fj1O15099; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:45:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26FipO15066 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:44:51 -0500 Received: from backbone.midwestcs.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA20633 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:33:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from footbone.midwestcs.com ([206.222.212.237] helo=midwestcs.com) by backbone.midwestcs.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18qxOs-0002uf-00 for ; Thu, 06 Mar 2003 09:35:14 -0600 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world References: <20030306142839.GA9513@danisch.de> <20030306145428.GA9971@danisch.de> <20030306100320.5b612539.moore@cs.utk.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: wayne In-Reply-To: <20030306100320.5b612539.moore@cs.utk.edu> Message-ID: Lines: 14 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanner: exiscan *18qxOs-0002uf-00*2.C4GwprJRQ* () Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 06 Mar 2003 09:35:10 -0600 In <20030306100320.5b612539.moore@cs.utk.edu> Keith Moore writes: > > In the very same simple way I have changed the MX record for > > danisch.de and the A record for www.danisch.de when a new > > there are things I thought were obvious too - such as that it's cumbersome to > maintain such records, that such records are likely to get out of sync with > reality, and that they're not generally applicable. Why are reverse MX records or domain specific DNSBLs any harder to maintain that regular MX records? -wayne _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 10:56:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA22205 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:56:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26G7Xs17290 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:07:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26G7WO17287 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:07:32 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA22143 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:55:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26G6CO16416; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:06:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26FwSO16025 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:58:28 -0500 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA21619 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:46:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 18qxc5-0005EV-00; Thu, 06 Mar 2003 15:48:53 +0000 In-Reply-To: <80AD1C20BCECD6118FD800508BCF7EDA72D7A1@exchuk19.eu.ssmb.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Do we need to do anything? To: From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "Clayton, Nik [IT]" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.4.6] Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 15:48:53 +0000 > At the same time, MUAs are getting smarter. In particular, the presence [...] > > As soon as these become widely deployed, and the majority of recipients > have filters that are so customised that it's nigh-on-impossible for a > spammer to guarantee that their e-mail will get through, doesn't spamming > then become so uneconomical as to die out? > Or, if it doesn't, we can go back to writing letters. And then it will. -- Regards, Jon Kyme -------------------------------------------------------------------- Get your free email address at http://www.merseymail.com/ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 10:57:02 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA22269 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:57:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26G86W17524 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:08:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26G86O17519 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:08:06 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA22222 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:56:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26G6nO16536; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:06:49 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26G2sO16256 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:02:54 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA21935 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:51:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h26FrMBD006127 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:53:22 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Limitations of filters (was Re: [Asrg] Do we need to do anything?) In-Reply-To: <80AD1C20BCECD6118FD800508BCF7EDA72D7A1@exchuk19.eu.ssmb.com> Message-ID: References: <80AD1C20BCECD6118FD800508BCF7EDA72D7A1@exchuk19.eu.ssmb.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:53:22 -0500 (EST) On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Clayton, Nik [IT] wrote: > Many of the suggestions and proposals are acknowledged as taking years > before they're widely deployed. Right. It's a research group, so the view is long-term. However, I am pessimistic that the necessary infrastructure changes will take place within two decades, or indeed ever. IPv6 has been around for five years. It hasn't penetrated to any extent. IPSec has been around for eight years, and is not widely used. PGP has been around for ages, and hardly anyone signs or encrypts e-mail. > At the same time, MUAs are getting smarter. In particular, the presence > of language classifiers (Bayes, et al) in desktop-user (as opposed to > technical-user) MUAs is likely to become much more prevalent over the next > few years. By the time spam hits the MUA, you've paid a significant cost of the spam burden. > As soon as these become widely deployed, and the majority of recipients > have filters that are so customised that it's nigh-on-impossible for a > spammer to guarantee that their e-mail will get through, doesn't spamming > then become so uneconomical as to die out? Paper-mail advertisers pay money for their campaigns, and are happy with a very low response rate. As long as spamming costs the spammer next to nothing, even a minuscule response rate makes it worthwhile. And it's pretty easy to defeat filters if you're determined enough, even Bayesian ones. Coming up with ways to do this is left as an exercise for the reader. Let me rephrase that: Cominge upp withe wayse too du thiss iz leftt az an xrcize four thuh reeder. Creative mis-spelling will either pass undetected through Bayesian filters (the first time) or can be used to grow the Bayesian databases to unmanageable sizes. Even smart filters that prune out mis-spelled words can be attacked by sending random stuff out of /usr/dict/words. (Not to say that filters are useless; on the contrary, they're very valuable. They catch the majority of spam that is unsophisticated.) -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 10:57:21 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA22299 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:57:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26G8PA17576 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:08:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26G8PO17573 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:08:25 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA22236 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:56:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26G6aO16468; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:06:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26FxdO16067 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:59:39 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA21711 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:48:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h26Fo7V5030949; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:50:07 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h26FmWeO011126 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:48:32 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h26FmWll011124; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:48:32 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Jon Kyme Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world Message-ID: <20030306154832.GD10535@danisch.de> References: <20030306145428.GA9971@danisch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:48:32 +0100 On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 03:09:14PM +0000, Jon Kyme wrote: > > So your declaration is implicit in and limited to the DNS data > for the domain? Not necessarily DNS, that's just one possible implementation. It could also be put in an LDAP tree (if LDAP servers were widely available), put on a web page at a default address,... There's a wide range of possibilities to distribute such a statement. Since SMTP requires DNS anyway, this advises to put such a statement on a DNS server. That's actual my RMX proposal, just paraphrased. > Doesn't this require this to be true for every domain if it is > to work for yours? (This would be difficult for some systems I'd > imagine.) I'm not sure whether I understand what you want to say again, but I'll try it. No, it doesn't really "require". Therefore, it allows smooth transition and is backwards compatible. Of course, if other people receive millions of spam from "@danisch.de", as it happened about a year ago, then it is their benefit to ask whether my domain publishes such a statement, and if so have a very simple and effective way to block all forged spam. > Or, if you have a separate mechanism for making this kind of declaration, > how is it to be publicised, invalidated etc. There are plenty of known methods to do so, e.g. the methods used to distribute X.509 certificates etc. That's not a main problem. > I hope I understand you, I'm genuinely interested in what kind of > mechanism this might require. e.g. see http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-danisch-dns-rr-smtp-00.txt regards Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 10:57:23 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA22312 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:57:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26G8Rv17601 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:08:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26G8RO17598 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:08:27 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA22242 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:56:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26G6tO16556; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:06:55 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26G3cO16281 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:03:38 -0500 Received: from pfortin.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA21950 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:52:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from gypsy.pfortin.com (gypsy [192.168.1.14]) by pfortin.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 5BA5E13B8B for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:55:43 -0500 (EST) From: Pierre Fortin To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Back to the charter Message-Id: <20030306105355.2787bd45.pf@pfortin.com> In-Reply-To: References: <007701c2e381$9d71c340$4d9cf140@rtr.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10claws81 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:53:55 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 17:00:33 -0500 "Alan DeKok" wrote: Alan, your msg helped me understand better that "path verifiability" may be a big part to this problem... just as postal services add origin stamps, phone companies provided CallerID, the 'net has similar verifiabilty already spec'ed... the recipients could take a large amount of control back very simply: enforce path verifiability. Once the path is verifiable, much spam will crawl back into its hole, IMO. > "Gary Feldman" wrote: > > 1. On the use of "Consent-Based Communication" > > > > The charter begins by arguing that spam is not well-defined, > > and therefore moves to generalize the problem with consent- > > based communications. Let me first observe that based > > on the discussion here, the definition of consent and consent- > > based communication isn't clear enough. > > Everyone talks about "consent" in relation to the end user who > receives email. The other parties in the process are ignored. > > When someone installs a broken piece of software which can be abused > to send spam, did they consent to such abuse? Explicitly, no. Implicitly, arguable. Knowingly continuing after discovery/notification, yes. > When someone receives email with forged 'from' lines, did the other > domain consent to that forgery? Hmmm... ignoring the legal realities, would "Wire Fraud" be applicable? However, this is a content/payload issue; just like someone using forged letterhead -- it's not part of the "path". > When someone receives email from another site, do they consent to > accepting any kind of lies or deception embodied in that email? I block at connection/envelope stage, so if my path filters fail, implicit yes IMO. Successful delivery just means someone sent me "data" (aka content)... truth vs lies vs misinformation at this stage is a rocky road... > The answer to all of these questions, I believe, is "No." Partially disagree for above reasons. > Achieving > consent-based email for these parties will *not* involve content > filtering, and will get rid of probably 90% of the spam. [Not sure I fully grok this as written...] While there are those that argue for anonymous communication, my attitude in denying anonymous person-to-person (or *-to-person) mail is that an anonymous sender simply wants to shove something down my throat without allowing or informing me how to respond... the only places I accept anonymous senders are on mailing lists and news sites... there, it's my choice to participate... if a sender doesn't allow me the option of a 2-way communication**, I don't see why I should extend any open-arms courtesy to him/her/it. ** since everything can be forged, my rules are that everything I *can* confirm (IP, DNS, rDNS, not open-relay, dest_userid_exists, etc) *will* be a requirement. Access to my mailbox is freely available (my courtesy); though, as in a contract, in return for this priviledge, I only ask for the ability to confirm that the communications path is somewhat trustworthy -- if a sender insists on hiding or lying about the path, then the message must by association be highly suspect. Such sender will have to convince me via a more trustworthy path to allow the untrustworthy path... good luck. > The left over spam will come from people who publicly admit that > they consent to sending spam. Everyone else can individually agree > that they do *not* consent to receiving email from such people. (But > that's a political decision, not a technical one.) Do it how you like, I chose the technical one for now since it works for me. > A goal of this group should be updating the technology to allow > people to have informed consent, and to make informed decisions as to > which email satisifes their political or ecomonical objectives. The > current lies and deception which are permitted in SMTP do not allow > these sort of informed decisions to be made. If you've already received the spa^H^H^H^message, then as Dr. Race stated: No proposal will gather public acceptance which is based on the "make the victims pay" model. The burden is rightly on the owners of the open relays, not on their victims. I don't limit the burden to open-relays... everyone, to the best of my ability, owns the burden of using properly identifiable communications paths. IMO, it eliminates the "90% of spam" I would have gotten, the rest are using proper paths; but if they lie in the content, they are added to my personal blacklist... could it be easier to do this, sure... but again, this is not part of the "path verifiability" which everyone has access to... I wish everyone just enforced that part of the problem space... > Instead, we have ad-hoc filters, which try to insinuate someone > else's intent, or consent, by doing content-based filtering. That > doesn't scale. Agreed; and the reason I don't use/like content-filtering (other than the most obvious headers). > > We still need a way to identify policies - and > > that means coming up with some sort of meaningful definitions > > for spam. The trick is doing so, without forcing a single > > definition of spam down everyone's throat. > > Sure. Multiple definitions would help. A start could be: > > "Spam is AT LEAST any email which is not intended to be sent from a > network." > > e.g. Unknowing open relays in schools in Korea, abused by people in > the U.S. If it was legitimate email from Korea, then the 'from' line > would be from the school. If it was legitimate email from someone in > the U.S., then they could send the mail directly themselves. > > > So let me propose a framework: Spam, as indicated in the > > charter, is loosely defined as unwanted email. > > Unwanted by who? Odds are often that the administrator of the IP > sending the spam doesn't want it, either. > > > At this point in time, arguing about the appropriateness of > > any particular category (whether intuitive or formal) is > > inappropriate. Rather, the point is to establish the structure > > in which those categories can be documented and analyzed. > > I agree. Proposed solutions to a vague and ill-defined problem > aren't helpful. I get the impression it's ill-defined to those who are still getting tons of spam... those of us who are enforcing the simple rule: "you must use a verifiable path before I accept your mail"** are still open to spam; but I assure you, it's already >90% less than we would be getting otherwise... ** I live in the US, so for me, the USPS is the only verifiable path to my P.O.Box... the spam that arrives there has a valid return path (at least to the originating P.O.; even uncancelled mail *could* be traced) for the simple reason it's "sender pay". If you want to send to me directly and the path is not verifiable, *we* can address this with our providers.... keep trying to get your mail through to me, and I will send the bounces to the provider as best I can.... over time, my experience shows the legit ones *do* relent and make the path verifiable... However, if you are a spammer, your provider will feel my pain, no more... this too has worked for me... > > In particular, it is a legitimate question to ask whether the > > technology can and should play a role in aided the encorceability of > > legal sanctions, e.g. can and should the technology make it easier > > to find someone who violates an anti-spam law. > > I would say that the technology should make it possible to make > informed legal decisions. Tracking down a spammer is just one part of > that process. Simply enforcing verifiablity of the communications path goes a long way IMO. > > The charter say very little about the premises or constraints > > of what falls within its scope. The current set of discussions > > indicates that many people are working under the premise that > > existing (low-level) functionality must not be changed, or other > > assumptions about approaches that would be out of bounds. > > I know I would appreciate it if people made their assumptions > explicit. My assumption is that the path verifiability is already spec'ed and implemented, just not fully, reliably and enforcibly deployed... enforcing this verifiability will not prevent From: abuse; but that's a *payload* issue; just as the USPS doesn't get involved in the content of the mail they transport. > > Furthermore, individual subsolutions should be evaluated in the > > context of a complete solution strategy. > > ... within a well-defined problem space. I'm not even sure we have > that. IMO, we are trying to encompass solutions to parts of the problem space that already have a solution: path verifiability is the big one, the way I see it. > But I think you've made a good start on narrowing the discussion. I'm new to this list, so I'm reserving judgement... :^) Pierre > Alan DeKok. > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 10:57:50 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA22348 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:57:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26G8sN17662 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:08:54 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26G8sO17659 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:08:54 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA22295 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:57:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26G7DO16828; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:07:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26G59O16335 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:05:09 -0500 Received: from zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA22001 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:53:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (zcard307.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h26Fta301038 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:55:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDFBFS4L; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:55:36 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id FSK7Y510; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:55:36 -0500 Message-ID: <3E67703D.6040208@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: privacy is a feature (Re: [Asrg] desirable characteristics of source tracking) References: <20030305203057.B4412039@exeter.ac.uk> <20030305163225.088b989c.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305222200.GH15047@danisch.de> <20030305173026.2cc1f628.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305224734.GD16824@danisch.de> <20030305180647.232f86b8.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305231539.GC17368@danisch.de> <20030306002417.A4477766@exeter.ac.uk> <20030306090540.GB2340@danisch.de> <20030306084606.2a1e2702.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030306141442.GA8957@danisch.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 10:58:53 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hadmut Danisch wrote: > No. When e-mail was introduced in the early days, it was based on > UUCP. E-mail predates UUCP. Tho, UUCP was the first time at which e-mail was broadly available outside of ARPAnet. > Every incoming mail had an automatically generated return path > (comparable to today's Received: header lines), but each single node > had to authenticate against each next node in the path. But walking > back that recorded path, you had a full authentication path back to > the origin of the message (except for flaws of password authentication > and the weakness of the nodes themselfes). And there's the rub. Anyone anywhere along the path could have forged everything previous to them. Not much different than the issues with SMTP. UUCP has _somewhat_ more node-to-node security than SMTP, but in the end it doesn't really mean much, because if you could get to the rmail executable, you could do just about anything - at least to the point of not being detectable by naive recipients. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 11:00:26 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA22493 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:00:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26GBUo17885 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:11:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26GBUO17882 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:11:30 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA22471 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:59:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26G71O16614; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:07:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26G4DO16297 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:04:13 -0500 Received: from backbone.midwestcs.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA21978 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:52:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from footbone.midwestcs.com ([206.222.212.237] helo=midwestcs.com) by backbone.midwestcs.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18qxhb-00030v-00 for ; Thu, 06 Mar 2003 09:54:35 -0600 to: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: privacy is a feature (Re: [Asrg] desirable characteristics of source tracking) References: <20030305203057.B4412039@exeter.ac.uk> <20030305163225.088b989c.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305222200.GH15047@danisch.de> <20030305173026.2cc1f628.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305224734.GD16824@danisch.de> <20030305180647.232f86b8.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305231539.GC17368@danisch.de> <20030306002417.A4477766@exeter.ac.uk> <20030306090540.GB2340@danisch.de> <20030306084606.2a1e2702.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030306141442.GA8957@danisch.de> <20030306092035.41a74910.moore@cs.utk.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: wayne In-Reply-To: <20030306092035.41a74910.moore@cs.utk.edu> Message-ID: Lines: 20 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanner: exiscan *18qxhb-00030v-00*Gt5BPlwl72s* () Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 06 Mar 2003 09:54:33 -0600 In <20030306092035.41a74910.moore@cs.utk.edu> Keith Moore writes: > > No. When e-mail was introduced in the early days, it was based on > > UUCP. > > There were lots of early email systems, and I don't want to argue about which > one predates another. I was speaking of the ARPAnet/Internet context that > eventually created rfc822 and SMTP. This community did not start out using > UUCP; very few of them were even using UNIX. There were pretty strict requirements before you could connect to the early DARPA/ARPA/DARPA inter-network network. I agree that UUCP wasn't the predecessor to the current internet STMP system, but Hadmut's point that there was much tighter authentication in the past seems to be valid. -wayne _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 11:02:01 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA22593 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:02:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26GD5t18026 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:13:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26GD5O18023 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:13:05 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA22562 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:01:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26GB1O17860; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:11:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26GACO17815 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:10:12 -0500 Received: from zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA22397 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:58:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h26G0UD17825; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:00:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF4TXQ8; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:00:31 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id FSK7Y5FJ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:00:31 -0500 Message-ID: <3E677163.5060904@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brad Templeton CC: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Whoops -- list volume is way too high, some principles References: <200303050840.ABJ06911@m1.imap-partners.net> <20030305061230.1cf246a7.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305113323.GA4939@danisch.de> <20030305070437.60bdfd34.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305122021.GA6748@danisch.de> <20030305073217.46f79dcb.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305125322.GA7179@danisch.de> <20030305080032.59d50373.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305203057.B4412039@exeter.ac.uk> <20030305210037.GB14655@main.templetons.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 11:03:47 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Brad Templeton wrote: > So I will have to beg off. That will probably help since I've been > as bad as anybody in contributing to the volume. It's entirely natural that a list like this would get flooded so quickly - internationally announced - hot topic - having to relive some of the discussions already battered to death elsewhere. At least it wasn't a mailing list for fans of some rock star... ;-) Please keep tabs on this. It should settle down. It's a lot for me to read too... > Perhaps I will rejoin when I have some more time for a list of this > volume. Or I will gate it to a local newsgroup to make it easier > to handle the volume -- newsreaders still outdo any mailer on that > issue. I read a lot of mailing lists via local news server gateways. _Much_ easier to follow. Hope to see you back when some work's been done... _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 11:06:50 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA23090 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:06:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26GHt418338 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:17:55 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26GHsO18335 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:17:54 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA22826 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:06:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26GF4O18252; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:15:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26GEqO18183 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:14:52 -0500 Received: from narn.megacity.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA22715 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:03:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from megacity.org (hvc-204-210-140-244.hvc.rr.com [204.210.140.244]) (authenticated bits=0) by narn.megacity.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h26G4dm1004135 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:04:40 -0500 Subject: Re: [Asrg] RMX breaks mailing lists Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) From: "Derek J. Balling" To: asrg@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <200303061534.h26FY8300551@lung.cs.rochester.edu> Message-Id: <6DCBBFCC-4FED-11D7-8D9B-000A27AF5202@megacity.org> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:05:19 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thursday, March 6, 2003, at 10:34 AM, Liudvikas Bukys wrote: > I looked back over the archives at the whole RMX discussion, > and looked at the Designated Senders draft as well, and it > appears that nobody has mentioned the problem that it > EITHER: > - breaks legitimate forwarding such as mailing lists > OR > - can be trivially worked around by forging Received headers > > (After all, I didn't receive Hadmut Danisch's note from his server, > I received it from my internal relay, which received it from > an ietf.org server.) So in the DS model, you would configure your internal relay to do the DS test, which had a sender of , and ask IETF "is 132.151.1.19 authorized to send mail for ietf.org?", get an assurance of trust, and move on. You could then set up your final-MX to say "trust all mail from my internal relay, because it's already done those checks itself". The received headers never come into play. It's strictly concerned sender-domain (from the envelope) and connecting IP. D _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 11:08:49 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA23403 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:08:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26GJq318533 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:19:52 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26GJqO18529 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:19:52 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA23299 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:08:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26GH2O18308; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:17:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26GGLO18290 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:16:21 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA22757 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:04:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2085061; Thu, 06 Mar 2003 11:06:49 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: "Tom Thomson" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: [Asrg] RE: Asrg digest, Vol 1 #32 - 9 msgs Cc: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:04:00 -0500 At 3:04 PM +0000 3/6/03, Tom Thomson wrote: >Doing that we can end up with a clear view of which ISPs will deal with spam >complaints effectively and which won't. Probably the next stage is >blacklists - if an ISP is unwilling to deal with spam it's prohably because >he sees it as to his commercial advantage to allow it, and blacklisting will >make him useless to all his customers (whether spammers or not) so he'll >pretty quickly change his ways. What you are describing is exactly the situation now. The message headers indicate the originator of the email by IP address. When you report the email, the ISP terminates the account if they are responsible and doesn't if they are not. The ISP doesn't need to log message-ids, the received headers contain all the necessary information for them to map back to the sender. At one point WorldCom reportedly had over 100 people doing nothing but dealing with spam complaints. And on the other side of the fence, I haven't noticed the ISP 163.net in China going out of business just because they are a major source of spam. PS. Could someone tell me why there are these Chinese ISPs that use numbers like 163 an 263 as their names? Is there some significance to the numbers? -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 11:09:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA23459 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:09:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26GKhU18836 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:20:43 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26GKhO18824 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:20:43 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA23443 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:09:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26GJ1O18490; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:19:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26GJ0O18460 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:19:00 -0500 Received: from aismtp3g.bls.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA23205 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:07:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from 01al10015010061.ad.bls.com ([90.152.5.165] [90.152.5.165]) by aismtp3g.bls.com with ESMTP; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:11:29 -0500 Received: by 01al10015010061.ad.bls.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:09:12 -0600 Message-Id: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D54F@bremocag> From: "Sauer, Damon" To: "'Jon Kyme'" , asrg@ietf.org Cc: Hadmut Danisch Subject: RE: [Asrg] Declaration to the world MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:09:03 -0600 -----Original Message----- From: Jon Kyme [mailto:jrk@merseymail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 10:09 AM To: asrg@ietf.org Cc: Hadmut Danisch Subject: Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world > On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 02:40:05PM +0000, Jon Kyme wrote: > > > > > > But, for instance how does the next 'owner' of danisch.de > > invalidate your declaration? > > How do *you* invalidate it when your ISP (or RIPE) change your IP > > out from under you? > > > > > In the very same simple way I have changed the MX record for > danisch.de and the A record for www.danisch.de when a new > IP address was assigned about half a year ago: I took a very > simple text editor, changed the zone file, and that's it. > So your declaration is implicit in and limited to the DNS data for the domain? Doesn't this require this to be true for every domain if it is to work for yours? (This would be difficult for some systems I'd imagine.) Or, if you have a separate mechanism for making this kind of declaration, how is it to be publicised, invalidated etc. ------- I am also an advocate for a DNS based system. I believe that most people are missing the point. Looking for a "Zero-Tolerance" system is unnecessary. Spam is ONLY prevalent because it is cheap, easy, and there is no consequences to spammer that someone received the spam that did not want it. K., obviously very intelligent, has yet to impress me with an original idea. Someone who criticizes without value is a flamer and it doesn't help. I believed that when I participated in the discussion, it was full of people that genuinely wanted to make a difference. Flaming is NOT helping. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, just make sure that it is based on a technical grounds or merit and not "feelings". > The statement of the world is not an eternal and irrevocable > statement. As any other policy, certificate, DNS entry or > whatever, it needs to be updated from time to time. > > Sorry, but I'm a little bit shocked that this is so difficult > to understand. I thought this was abvious. > It *seems* obvious. ----- I thought is was obvious. > Don't get me wrong, but I am under the impression that some > people intentionally misunderstand everything in order to > put through their political opinion. I hope I understand you, I'm genuinely interested in what kind of mechanism this might require. > > And I am under the impression that this research group was > intentionally poisoned by spamming advocates. > I hope that's not true. Of course the RG may itself be a time-wasting ruse set up by spammers to waste anti-spammers time. :-) ------ I will continue to participate, hopefully, intelligent people will see who the flamers are and who is actually interested in making a difference. Flamers will not participate in the refining of ideas and will contribute nothing original or constructive. I am sure that we can see a few of those by now. I for one am VERY serious about this issue. I will agree with you on merit and disagree with reason. I apologize for the disclaimer on my emails- My employer requires it. Regards, Damon I'm an administrator on a webmail system with around 100k accounts. I hate spam. I hate my users complaining. I need a way to stop it hurting Only 100k? ;-) -- Regards, Jon Kyme -------------------------------------------------------------------- Get your free email address at http://www.merseymail.com/ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg ***** "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers." _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 11:09:54 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA23484 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:09:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26GKx218892 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:20:59 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26GKwO18889 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:20:58 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA23454 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:09:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26GI3O18417; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:18:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26GHxO18352 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:17:59 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA22832 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:06:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h26G8PX08412 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:08:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF4TXX7; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:08:26 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id FSK7Y5FY; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:08:26 -0500 Message-ID: <3E67733E.6070200@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: privacy is a feature (Re: [Asrg] desirable characteristics of source tracking) References: <200303050840.ABJ06911@m1.imap-partners.net> <20030305061230.1cf246a7.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305113323.GA4939@danisch.de> <20030305070437.60bdfd34.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305122021.GA6748@danisch.de> <20030305073217.46f79dcb.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305125322.GA7179@danisch.de> <20030305080032.59d50373.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305203057.B4412039@exeter.ac.uk> <20030305211443.GA15047@danisch.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 11:11:42 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hadmut Danisch wrote: > On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 08:30:57PM +0000, Adam Back wrote: >>I'd sooner keep identity out of email receipt as far as anti-spam is >>concerned as it erodes these current freedoms to be anonymous and >>pseudonymous to varying degrees. > Sending anonymous mail is not a right or freedom of the sender. > That view is as common as wrong. Anonymous mail is a violation > of the freedom of the recipient. Please, let's not talk past each other like this. You have the right to speak anonymously. Or not anonymously. I also have the right to listen, or not, and choose any way I feel like how to decide not to listen. Sending anonymous email is a right. Choosing not to receive email is also a right. Brad is simply recommending that any "IETF/standards/governmental recommended anti-spam" mechanism not rely on forcing people to be non-anonymous, and/or requiring "anti-spam" procedures to block anonymous email a-priori. I think that's perfectly reasonable, and doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with the principle reason for _this_ group - spam. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 11:15:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24223 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:15:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26GQip19249 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:26:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26GQiO19246 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:26:44 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24162 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:15:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26GOoO19056; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:24:50 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26GJxO18556 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:19:59 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA23329 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:08:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h26GA6rx031287; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:10:07 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h26G7beO011443 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:07:37 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h26G7bcV011441; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:07:37 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: "Clayton, Nik [IT]" Cc: "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Do we need to do anything? Message-ID: <20030306160736.GA11382@danisch.de> References: <80AD1C20BCECD6118FD800508BCF7EDA72D7A1@exchuk19.eu.ssmb.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <80AD1C20BCECD6118FD800508BCF7EDA72D7A1@exchuk19.eu.ssmb.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:07:36 +0100 On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 03:22:38PM -0000, Clayton, Nik [IT] wrote: > > As soon as these become widely deployed, and the majority of recipients > have filters that are so customised that it's nigh-on-impossible for a > spammer to guarantee that their e-mail will get through, doesn't spamming > then become so uneconomical as to die out? > I don't think so. Reality shows the opposite, at least in my mailbox, there's more and more spam. And I doubt it will becom uneconomical. Maybe you can lower the earnings (what I also doubt, but just let's assume you could), it doesn't become uneconomical, because spammer's costs are sinking dramatically. Compare today's costs of having a plain PC connected to a flat rate leased line with the costs 3 years ago and the estimated costs in 3 years. Do you believe it will be possible to lower the earnings faster than the costs? Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 11:18:11 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24567 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:18:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26GTGV19433 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:29:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26GTGO19430 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:29:16 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24508 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:17:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26GR2O19305; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:27:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26GQ6O19222 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:26:06 -0500 Received: from zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24080 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:14:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h26GGUD20785; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:16:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF4TYBB; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:16:31 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id FSK7Y5F0; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:16:30 -0500 Message-ID: <3E677522.4060707@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Judge CC: "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] ASRG next steps References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 11:19:46 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Paul Judge wrote: > I am seeking comments on the charter. > -does the consent-based communication viewpoint sufficiently generalizes the > problem? > -do the three components cover the requirements? Paul, Do you think it would be worth while to consider generating BCPs and such for various aspects of existing and potential "solutions"? For example, it would help do some level setting if we had some common documents on: - BCP/general principles for spam filtering - Enumerations of existing anti-spam technologies. I have a brief document that could be a nucleus for a spam filtering BCP, and could whip up something quickly that documents classes of filters. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 11:21:23 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24738 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:21:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26GWSP19631 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:32:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26GWSO19628 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:32:28 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24709 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:20:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26GV1O19558; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:31:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26GUYO19504 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:30:34 -0500 Received: from backbone.midwestcs.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24641 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:18:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from footbone.midwestcs.com ([206.222.212.237] helo=midwestcs.com) by backbone.midwestcs.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18qy75-0003FM-00 for ; Thu, 06 Mar 2003 10:20:55 -0600 To: asrg@ietf.org (ietf anti-spam research group) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: wayne Message-ID: Lines: 19 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanner: exiscan *18qy75-0003FM-00*5wgO2TYAQGI* () Subject: [Asrg] The Traveling Salesman SMTP problem Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 06 Mar 2003 10:20:54 -0600 I'm not as frequent a traveler as many people, so I'm not sure if I entirely understand the Traveling Salesman SMTP problem. I do travel on occasion, and when I first encountered problems sending email from random places, I simply set my home MTA up to allow forwarding for only me. Pardon my ignorance, but can't people use an MTA located on a port other than 25 that allows relaying if and only if the sender is authorized via SMTP AUTH or TLS? IF an ISP restricts which IP addresses are authorized to send email claiming they are from them, AND those ISPs don't set up an MTA on a non-port 25 server that allows relaying, THEN you have a valid complaint about how the ISP is running things. -wayne _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 11:40:27 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25930 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:40:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26GpW021725 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:51:32 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26GpWO21722 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:51:32 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25856 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:39:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26Gn5O21505; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:49:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26GgpO21059 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:42:51 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA25215 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:31:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 4588 invoked from network); 5 Mar 2003 16:31:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO startechgroup.co.uk) (10.2.100.157) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 5 Mar 2003 16:31:32 -0000 Subject: Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: asrg@ietf.org To: wayne From: Matt Sergeant In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <568AC922-4FF1-11D7-9DB3-0003939CB5D8@startechgroup.co.uk> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:33:18 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thursday, Mar 6, 2003, at 15:35 Europe/London, wayne wrote: > Why are reverse MX records or domain specific DNSBLs any harder to > maintain that regular MX records? Because they mean people who like the way they do things right now have to change that, or RMX won't work for those people. Unfortunately those people aren't mom and pop, they are techies. Matt. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 11:40:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25981 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:40:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26GplJ21744 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:51:47 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26GplO21741 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:51:47 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25898 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:40:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26GnSO21569; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:49:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26GiIO21137 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:44:18 -0500 Received: from zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25242 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:32:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h26GYiD23378 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:34:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF4TY4C; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:34:45 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id FSK7Y5G9; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:34:44 -0500 Message-ID: <3E677969.4050504@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 11:38:01 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit David F. Skoll wrote: >>A domain I administer gets about as >>much spam as a company with 50k employees! > Yes, but why? That's extremely unusual. Did someone have it in for you > and sign you up to hundreds of lists? As a FYI: As best as we can determine, striker is the victim of a broken dictionary scanner that thought it got a "yes" to all of its probes, and the resulting mailing lists got used for spam runs. There's some quirks in the patterns that suggest it may be a _very_ small number of spammers responsible. Possibly only one or two. But it's far too long standing to be revenge runs. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 11:41:20 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA26052 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:41:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26GqP021836 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:52:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26GqPO21833 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:52:25 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA26000 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:40:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26GnYO21599; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:49:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26GiaO21156 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:44:36 -0500 Received: from backbone.midwestcs.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25250 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:33:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from footbone.midwestcs.com ([206.222.212.237] helo=midwestcs.com) by backbone.midwestcs.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18qyKh-0003PC-00 for ; Thu, 06 Mar 2003 10:34:59 -0600 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: Limitations of filters (was Re: [Asrg] Do we need to do anything?) References: <80AD1C20BCECD6118FD800508BCF7EDA72D7A1@exchuk19.eu.ssmb.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: wayne In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lines: 16 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanner: exiscan *18qyKh-0003PC-00*5GJw2wR40XM* () Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 06 Mar 2003 10:34:58 -0600 In "David F. Skoll" writes: > > By the time spam hits the MUA, you've paid a significant cost of the > spam burden. I strongly disagree with this. By far the most expensive part of spam is the time spent by the end user. Even if the end user only has to spend a few seconds to get rid of the spam (just hit delete) and they value their time at only minimum wage, that is still far more than the all other combined costs used by that spam. -wayne _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 11:55:03 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA22314 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:57:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26G8Rr17617 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:08:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26G8RO17614 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:08:27 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA22241 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:56:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26G77O16699; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:07:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26G4XO16306 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:04:33 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA21985 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:52:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h26Ft1BD006140 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:55:01 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] RMX breaks mailing lists (not necessarily) In-Reply-To: <200303061534.h26FY8300551@lung.cs.rochester.edu> Message-ID: References: <200303061534.h26FY8300551@lung.cs.rochester.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:55:01 -0500 (EST) On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Liudvikas Bukys wrote: > (After all, I didn't receive Hadmut Danisch's note from his server, > I received it from my internal relay, which received it from > an ietf.org server.) The envelope sender was asrg-admin@ietf.org. So if you trust the mailing list to validate Hadmut's note, and the mailing list has its own RMX records, it still works. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 11:55:03 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA22270 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:57:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26G86817539 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:08:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26G86O17521 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:08:06 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA22221 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:56:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26G6gO16510; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:06:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26G1cO16191 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:01:38 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA21876 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:50:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2085039; Thu, 06 Mar 2003 10:52:07 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20030306085810.0e816395.moore@cs.utk.edu> References: <20030305134413.2988c5b7.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030304205916.56614a9f.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305040008.GB14655@main.templetons.com> <20030304234928.5485710d.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305051840.GI14655@main.templetons.com> <20030305051936.55246a31.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305062722.3d36f607.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305085043.700fb87a.moore@cs.utk.edu> <3E6635FC.9060003@americasm01.nt.com> <20030305134413.2988c5b7.moore@cs.utk.edu> <4.3.1.2.20030306181200.02632e10@mail> <20030306085810.0e816395.moore@cs.utk.edu> To: Keith Moore From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] definition of spam (was Re: consent expression) Cc: Troy Rollo , moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:46:38 -0500 At 8:58 AM -0500 3/6/03, Keith Moore wrote: >I also don't believe in treating one-to-many email differently than one-to-one >email, because it's the content of the email that the recipient cares about >rather than the number of recipients. I disagree, and I have several examples. I received a very nice letter (complete with a .sig of a sleeping cat) from someone wishing to subscribe to "your mailing list". I run several mailing lists. I came very close to replying, but the sender had pushed the limits just a little too much. She included a very nice (and perfectly innocent) photo in her mail--that's not a normal .sig. Investigation showed that the URL in her .sig was for a soft-porn site. Other than the picture (and some people *do* send email with their picture in the .sig, believe it or not), the only thing that distinguished this email from email that I normally get was the fact that it was sent to lots of people, not just me. A fact that could not be determined by any information provided in the message. I received an abuse report. It was a complaint that someone was spamming using my domain, and advertising a particular site. Also something that I get not infrequently. The content was perfectly normal. The key was that I received the same report at two completely unrelated email addresses. It was in fact spam for the site listed in the abuse report. Finally, one that came up at the MIT Spam Conference, and I'm sure many of us have seen. You receive a request to participate in a private conference. Sounds like a great opportunity to meet with peers working on similar things. But if you realized that the same invitation was sent to 100,000 other people, your opinion of the idea very quickly changes. I believe there are three components to identifying spam. 1. Routing information* 2. Content analysis 3. Bulk identification Neither 1 nor 2 are completely sufficient without 3. The fact that a message was sent to many people can significantly change its interpretation. My personal belief is that #2 is a bad idea. Content filtering is good when your goal is to filter content. However it's a lousy way to identify spam, because you basically spend all your time trying to figure out what the spammers are selling, and trying to distinguish how they sell it, from how legit mailers sell it. Right now this isn't as hard as it might be, because the two groups tend to sell different things. But as the two converge, and as spammers continue to actively evade countermeasures, it will get harder and harder. I prefer routing information because it's based on the assumption that spammers either a) have a safe-haven and can be blocked, or b) are trying to hide where they are coming from. Detect the lies, and you know it's spam. When you are looking for lies in the routing information you spend most of your time dealing with poorly configured legitimate mail servers. It's much easier to deal with problems caused by mistakes than trying to deal with people who are actively trying to fool you. * I don't mean a simplistic examination of the Received: headers here. But this isn't the place to go into the details. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 11:59:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA28281 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:59:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26HAfO23700 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:10:41 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26HAfO23697 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:10:41 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA28225 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:59:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26H7JO23168; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:07:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26GoqO21698 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:50:52 -0500 Received: from zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25844 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:39:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h26GfHD24223 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:41:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF4TYZA; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:41:18 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id FSK7Y5HG; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:41:17 -0500 Message-ID: <3E677AF2.2030605@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 11:44:34 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kee Hinckley wrote: > I have to say that your stats certainly are up there. Have you looked > at the incoming email at all? We have. As a rough description, the vast majority of it is spam of various types coming from approximately 6000 unique IPs (a day's worth of metrics) going to thousands of different email addresses, highly variable numbers of spam per IP. There are some indications that it's only a few people behind it all, but not definitive. [There is some spam blowback (spam sent to others with a forged From: in Alan's domain).] The only significant difference between Alan's spam load and ours is that for the same number of spams, we see approximately twice as many unique source IPs as it does. This is not a single wild bot. It's spam load _is_ pretty representative of the crap being sent. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 12:03:06 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA28709 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:03:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26HEBO24204 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:14:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26HEBO24201 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:14:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA28689 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:02:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26HB3O23743; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:11:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26GrNO21886 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:53:23 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc02.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA26170 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:41:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from james.mcininch.lan (battlegreen.ne.client2.attbi.com[24.147.22.192]) by sccrmhc02.attbi.com (sccrmhc02) with SMTP id <200303061643490020081o57e>; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:43:49 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: James McIninch To: "Clayton, Nik [IT]" , "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Do we need to do anything? User-Agent: KMail/1.4.3 References: <80AD1C20BCECD6118FD800508BCF7EDA72D7A1@exchuk19.eu.ssmb.com> In-Reply-To: <80AD1C20BCECD6118FD800508BCF7EDA72D7A1@exchuk19.eu.ssmb.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <200303061128.59077.james.mcininch@attbi.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h26GrNO21887 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:28:59 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Thursday 06 March 2003 10:22 am, Clayton, Nik [IT] wrote: > Reading some of the discussion here over the past few days, I'm wondering > whether we actually need to do anything. > > Many of the suggestions and proposals are acknowledged as taking years > before they're widely deployed. Talk of new protocols, e-mail 'postage' > charges and the like -- all these things need to displace an incredibly > well entrenched existing protocol. > > At the same time, MUAs are getting smarter. In particular, the presence > of language classifiers (Bayes, et al) in desktop-user (as opposed to > technical-user) MUAs is likely to become much more prevalent over the next > few years. Bayesian Classifiers work fairly well if you have good training sets, but the results will get muddy if the person has wild variation in the non-SPAM they receive. There is another issue too, however, is that for them to work you need to actually download the SPAM in the first place. I do believe that the reverse MX and such are overkill. It would seem to me that a simpler method would be to follow the lead of credit-card companies. If you want to buy something online, you go to the creditor and get a temporary credit card number and use it. The number lasts for a single transaction and acts as an alias to your account. In the world of e-mail, we could leave SMTP and the MTAs entirely untouched and provide a simple service that handles account aliasing (mail forwarding). It would work like this -- I'm going to give an e-mail address out, perhaps to someone I don't trust. My MUA asks a forwarding service for a randomly generated address to be mapped to my true e-mail address for either 1.) a specific time period, or 2.) until I ask for it to be revoked. I then give the temporary forwarding address to the untrusted party. Once the forwarding address ages out or is revoked, the forwarder simply rejects emails to that id. Using this scheme, the filtering is simply done on the randomly generated token that's used as an abstraction for your e-mail address. Implementation ought to be simple, the protocol very easily speced and efficient. You could have the Post Office provide the service for $2/month publicly and let companies provide it to their employees, if they choose - or the ISPs to their customers. It would take little work to implement, could be rapidly coded up to be used by MUAs or MTAs themselves, etc. What use would spamming be if you had to guess whether the 6-25 character alphanumeric string represents a valid e-mail address or not? And, if so, how long. Just set up the forwarding hosts to pause 1 sec on a connection that attempts to send to an invalid ID. If 1 out of 1000 addresses in your list is valid, the cost of the spam increases by 999 seconds for each one that got through. This would work nicely too in that it would apply to other cases of trust, and could even support the notion of temporary vanity e-mail names (i.e., your service could let the client a sting to be contained in the address)... Just a thought. I'm going to look into putting together a proof of concept and integrating it with kmail... > > As soon as these become widely deployed, and the majority of recipients > have filters that are so customised that it's nigh-on-impossible for a > spammer to guarantee that their e-mail will get through, doesn't spamming > then become so uneconomical as to die out? > > I realise that this could be seen as being slightly optimistic, ... > > N _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 12:04:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA28817 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:04:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26HFfa24337 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:15:41 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26HFfO24334 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:15:41 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA28761 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:04:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26HCsO24086; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:12:54 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26GuaO22111 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:56:36 -0500 Received: from mail.neosinteractive.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA26702 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:44:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from tthompson ([217.35.105.172] unverified) by mail.neosinteractive.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:52:04 +0000 From: "Tom Thomson" To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20030305231501.467.62240.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Mar 2003 16:52:04.0184 (UTC) FILETIME=[B70A6580:01C2E400] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] RE: Asrg digest, Vol 1 #42 - 13 msgs Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:46:23 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > From: Hadmut Danisch > Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:33:26 +0100 > To: Keith Moore > Cc: adam@cypherspace.org, raymie@cs.ucsc.edu, Asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: privacy is a feature (Re: [Asrg] desirable characteristics of source tracking) > > On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 05:14:25PM -0500, Keith Moore wrote: > > > > it doesn't tell you a thing. you can use a pseydonym to get a domain > > name. > > No, you can't. Domain providers/resellers are required to put the > real name of the owner in the whois database. And imprints must > not contain pseudonyms. At least in Germany > and as far as I know in Europe. > > This might be difficult to understand for you, but it is a > consequence of all other people's rights and freedom. Certainly not true in the rest of Europe. In the UK I can use any name I like, as many names as I like, for any purpose I like unless that purpose is in itself illegal. Never had any problems in France with having different names on my passport and my driving license. Never noticed that even German films stars and fashion models didn't have the habit of using a working name different from their birth name, so I don't even believe you when you say it applies in Germany either. Anyway, it's irrelevant. What you generally want to identify is the sending account, so that the ISP can kill it off when he gets complaints. OK, that doesn't work while there are free accounts offered on the cover of every issue of every magazine, and shipped on CDs to every household tin the land twice a week, because killing off the account does nothing useful. But if ISPs start tracking account owners in some way (for example by asking up front for the credit card number that will be used to pay for the account if it is kept after the free period, and remembering which of those numbers have been associated with abusing accounts) or anyway when the market reaches a level of saturation where the free accounts are no longer a viable marketing mechanism (which it will in time) it will start to work. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 12:14:11 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA29569 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:14:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26HPHT25564 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:25:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26HPHO25561 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:25:17 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA29495 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:13:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26HNFO25180; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:23:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26H8WO23590 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:08:32 -0500 Received: from s123.dhcp212-198-250.noos.fr (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA28159 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:56:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 18891 invoked from network); 6 Mar 2003 16:58:57 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO s123.dhcp212-198-250.noos.fr) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 6 Mar 2003 16:58:57 -0000 Message-ID: <3E677E4F.3070402@paralline.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org CC: Hadmut Danisch Subject: Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world References: <20030306105315.GA4411@danisch.de> In-Reply-To: <20030306105315.GA4411@danisch.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Pierre BRUA Organization: Paralline Sarl protected by TMDA Reply-To: Pierre BRUA Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 17:58:55 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi, For your information, this is already used at the monkeys.com domain, and they say it works pretty well to jugulate spam. See http://www.monkeys.com/anti-spam/filtering/additions.html Pierre Hadmut Danisch a écrit: > Peoples of the world, listen: > > > I, the legal owner and emperor of the domain "danisch.de", hereby > declare to the world, that all mail from this domain will be > delivered from the IP address 213.133.101.23 only. I kindly ask > you to not accept any mail with a sender address of this domain > delivered from any other IP address, since it is considered to be > forged. Thank you for your cooperation. > > > In what way would such a statement infringe anyone else's > constitutional or other rights? > > Hadmut > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg -- PARALLINE /// Parallelism & GNU/Linux /// 71,av des Vosges Phone:+33 388 141 740 F-67000 STRASBOURG Fax:+33 388 141 741 http://www.paralline.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 12:14:59 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA29693 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:14:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26HQ5x25933 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:26:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26HQ5O25930 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:26:05 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA29601 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:14:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26HOMO25420; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:24:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26HEHO24217 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:14:17 -0500 Received: from mail.asianet.co.th (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA28693 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:02:40 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200303061702.MAA28693@ietf.org> Received: from virscan1.asianet.co.th (HELO mx.asianet.co.th) ([203.144.222.198]) (envelope-sender ) by mail2.asianet.co.th (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 7 Mar 2003 00:04:41 +0700 Received: from ppp-203.144.179.115.revip.asianet.co.th (HELO localhost) ([203.144.179.115]) (envelope-sender ) by mx2.asianet.co.th (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 6 Mar 2003 23:55:20 +0700 From: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" To: "ietf anti-spam research group" Reply-To: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" Priority: Normal X-Mailer: PMMail 1.96a For OS/2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] The Traveling Salesman SMTP problem Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 00:04:30 +0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 06 Mar 2003 10:20:54 -0600, wayne wrote: >claiming they are from them, AND those ISPs don't set up an MTA on a >non-port 25 server that allows relaying, THEN you have a valid >complaint about how the ISP is running things. Yes, you have a valid complaint, and when you transmit it they say "piss off" (please excuse the coarse language but it makes the point). Jeffrey Race _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 12:15:08 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA29731 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:15:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26HQEl25988 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:26:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26HQEO25981 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:26:14 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA29621 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:14:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26HNjO25255; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:23:45 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26HCTO24019 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:12:29 -0500 Received: from s123.dhcp212-198-250.noos.fr (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA28489 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:00:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 18688 invoked from network); 6 Mar 2003 17:02:54 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO s123.dhcp212-198-250.noos.fr) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 6 Mar 2003 17:02:54 -0000 Message-ID: <3E677F3D.9020407@paralline.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Spam Laws (was Re: [Asrg] Whoops -- list volume is way too high, some principles) References: <200303050840.ABJ06911@m1.imap-partners.net> <20030305061230.1cf246a7.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305113323.GA4939@danisch.de> <20030305070437.60bdfd34.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305122021.GA6748@danisch.de> <20030305073217.46f79dcb.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305125322.GA7179@danisch.de> <20030305080032.59d50373.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305203057.B4412039@exeter.ac.uk> <20030305210037.GB14655@main.templetons.com> <20030305214037.GC15047@danisch.de> In-Reply-To: <20030305214037.GC15047@danisch.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Pierre BRUA Organization: Paralline Sarl protected by TMDA Reply-To: Pierre BRUA Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 18:02:53 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi, This is also the case in France. The French Law states that the sender must ask authorization from the recipient prior to commercial sollicitations and provide ways to remove data from the company database in case the customer wants his data to be removed (See http://www.cnil.fr for more informations). It also states that automated sending robots for any type of sollicitation (email/phone/fax) is forbidden. Not to say that we don't get lots of email spam or even fax or phone spams in France, on the contrary... The facts have proven that the laws (be it american, german, french or whatever) were unable to protect mailboxes against spammers. The money spammer earn being vastly superior to what a Legal Judgment may cost them. I suggest we avoid discussing legal aspects of the spam laws since it will be a waste of time anyway. For people interested in this subject, http://www.spamlaws.com/ would be a good start. By the way, is there already a FAQ or Howto for this list already ? I have seen nothing in the subscribing mail. Pierre BRUA -- PARALLINE /// Parallelism & GNU/Linux /// 71,av des Vosges Phone:+33 388 141 740 F-67000 STRASBOURG Fax:+33 388 141 741 http://www.paralline.com Hadmut Danisch a écrit: > On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 01:00:37PM -0800, Brad Templeton wrote: > >>b) Don't forget privacy rights and the (in the USA, constitutionally >>protected) right of anonymous communication in designing any systems >>of authentication. >> > > > Interesting. Could anyone give me a hint which part of the > US constitution is stating this? > > > There might be a conflict between constitutions. > > The german constitution says it is the recipients right to > not be bothered with unsolicited communication which includes > anonymous communication. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 12:15:24 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA29786 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:15:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26HQUs26180 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:26:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26HQUO26177 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:26:30 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA29674 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:14:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26HOTO25456; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:24:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26HFhO24363 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:15:43 -0500 Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA28765 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:04:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h26H67A13147; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:06:08 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Moore To: wayne Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world Message-Id: <20030306120607.6562af5d.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: References: <20030306142839.GA9513@danisch.de> <20030306145428.GA9971@danisch.de> <20030306100320.5b612539.moore@cs.utk.edu> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:06:07 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Why are reverse MX records or domain specific DNSBLs any harder to > maintain that regular MX records? it depends on how often the data changes. most MX records are fairly static. DNSBLs are centrally managed, which is different. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 12:15:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA29844 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:15:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26HQaj26245 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:26:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26HQaO26242 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:26:36 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA29692 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:14:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26HOYO25473; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:24:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26HFmO24388 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:15:48 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA28773 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:04:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h26H6EBD006665 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:06:14 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: Limitations of filters (was Re: [Asrg] Do we need to do anything?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <80AD1C20BCECD6118FD800508BCF7EDA72D7A1@exchuk19.eu.ssmb.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:06:14 -0500 (EST) On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, wayne wrote: David Skoll: > > By the time spam hits the MUA, you've paid a significant cost of the > > spam burden. > I strongly disagree with this. You don't run a busy mail server. > By far the most expensive part of spam is the time spent by the end > user. In many cases: Yes. In many other cases: No. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 12:15:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA29892 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:15:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26HQiU26280 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:26:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26HQiO26277 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:26:44 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA29730 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:15:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26HO9O25343; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:24:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26H9fO23645 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:09:41 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA28205 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:58:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h26H066w032208; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 18:00:06 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h26Gw6eO012537 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:58:06 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h26Gw6ls012535; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:58:06 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Chris Lewis Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: privacy is a feature (Re: [Asrg] desirable characteristics of source tracking) Message-ID: <20030306165805.GA12473@danisch.de> References: <20030305222200.GH15047@danisch.de> <20030305173026.2cc1f628.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305224734.GD16824@danisch.de> <20030305180647.232f86b8.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305231539.GC17368@danisch.de> <20030306002417.A4477766@exeter.ac.uk> <20030306090540.GB2340@danisch.de> <20030306084606.2a1e2702.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030306141442.GA8957@danisch.de> <3E67703D.6040208@americasm01.nt.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E67703D.6040208@americasm01.nt.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:58:05 +0100 On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 10:58:53AM -0500, Chris Lewis wrote: > And there's the rub. Anyone anywhere along the path could have forged > everything previous to them. Not much different than the issues with > SMTP. No. Since every node personally knew it's neighbours, you could backtrack the path until you found the node which forged. Today, you also can backtrack, but it's useless, since SMTP nodes don't know their neighbours. How does it help you if you have a Received: header that reliably says that the e-mail came from some dynamically assigned IP address in some country in far east, no chance to figure out who used it? In contrast, every UUCP node knew who it was sharing passwords with. Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 12:16:01 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA29981 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:16:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26HR7f26423 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:27:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26HR7O26415 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:27:07 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA29811 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:15:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26HOGO25379; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:24:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26HDcO24175 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:13:38 -0500 Received: from oregon.uoregon.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA28652 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:02:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from OREGON.UOREGON.EDU by OREGON.UOREGON.EDU (PMDF V6.1-1 #40185) id <01KT75RGBN408WX7QG@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU> for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Mar 2003 09:04:04 -0800 (PST) From: Joe St Sauver Subject: Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) To: clewis@nortelnetworks.com Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <01KT75RGBN428WX7QG@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU> X-VMS-To: IN%"clewis@nortelnetworks.com" X-VMS-Cc: IN%"asrg@ietf.org" MIME-version: 1.0 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 09:04:04 -0800 (PST) #We have. As a rough description, the vast majority of it is spam of #various types coming from approximately 6000 unique IPs (a day's worth #of metrics) going to thousands of different email addresses, highly #variable numbers of spam per IP. There are some indications that it's #only a few people behind it all, but not definitive. We study our email sources as well; unlike the old days, we saw a clear pattern: -- spam from dedicated spam houses (easily blocked) -- spam from open proxies (not open relays, open http proxies or open socks proxies) We track the dotted quads against a variety of blacklists; to date we've seen and logged well over 25,000 unique proxies which have been exploited (see http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~joe/open-proxies-used-to-send-spam.html ) If you want to control spam, you really need a mechanism for dealing with abusable open proxies. Regards, Joe _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 12:16:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA00023 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:16:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26HRNH26617 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:27:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26HRNO26610 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:27:23 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA29908 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:15:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26HPQO25623; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:25:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26HJ4O24667 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:19:04 -0500 Received: from borderware.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA28997 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:07:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.borderware.com ([10.10.1.88]) by mail2.borderware.com with ESMTP id <58380>; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:06:44 -0500 Message-ID: <3E6780F8.50409@borderware.com> From: Rod Gilchrist User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020830 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: Patents (was Re: [Asrg] Time for the ISPs to fight back!) References: <001401c2e350$d168f280$fd1e4e51@CPQ28140326195> <20030305120349.C15588@lava.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 12:10:16 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit David F. Skoll wrote: >On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Clifton Royston wrote: > > > >> People might want to look at the recently-implemented Postfix >>sender verification feature in current snapshot releases. >> >> > >This technique is patented and assigned to ESCOM Corporation, in US >Patent #6,321,267 (see the section "Active User Testing") > >The patent was filed 23 November 1999; if you think you have prior >art, I encourage you to publish it. > > I don't think this patent is particularly relevent. I've attached claim 1 below. In patents claim 1 is the most general of all the claims. In order to violate this patent you must have all three of the described filters (and I suspect, given the phrasing, exactly these three and no more). More normal language would refer to 'a plurality of filters including but not limited to the following'. So if you just leave out the dial up reverse connection detection (which probably isn't relevent any more in any case) you aren't violating this patent IMO. - Rod 1. A system for detecting and selectively preventing reception of an electronic message to a local message transfer agent (MTA), the electronic message having an address identifying a sender and transferred over a connection from a remote host, the system comprising: a dialup filter determining whether the connection is a dialup connection and, if the connection is a dialup connection, terminating the connection; a relay filter determining whether the remote host is an open relay and, if the remote host is an open relay, terminating the connection; and, a user filter verifying whether the sender of the electronic message is authorized and, if the sender of the electronic message is not authorized, terminating the connection; wherein, said system establishes communication over the connection between said remote host and the local MTA if said system determines that the connection is not a dialup connection, said relay filter determines that the remote host is not an open relay and said user filter verifies the sender as authorized. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 12:17:21 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA00156 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:17:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26HSRu26765 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:28:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26HSRO26762 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:28:27 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA00119 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:16:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26HQSO26171; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:26:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26H9qO23649 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:09:52 -0500 Received: from relay05.indigo.ie (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA28208 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:58:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 9138 messnum 1203025 invoked from network[194.125.172.193/ts12-193.dublin.indigo.ie]); 6 Mar 2003 17:00:10 -0000 Received: from ts12-193.dublin.indigo.ie (HELO jmason.org) (194.125.172.193) by relay05.indigo.ie (qp 9138) with SMTP; 6 Mar 2003 17:00:10 -0000 Received: by jmason.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id F261416F16; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:00:04 +0000 (GMT) Received: from jmason.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEFAEF7BB for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:00:04 +0000 (GMT) To: asrg@ietf.org From: Justin Mason Message-Id: <20030306170004.F261416F16@jmason.org> Subject: [Asrg] Massive bounce rates on spammer lists Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 16:59:59 +0000 Folks -- this is relevant to David Skoll's proposal yesterday -- the bounce-counting network. It's a quick quote from Steve Linford, who runs (or at least is the public face of) spamhaus.org, so he has some knowledge of the situation. It's pretty clear if we could correlate the ratio of bouncing/non-bouncing recipient addresses by source, it could make a good system... > [...] Spammers are so used to everything not working properly that > they wouldn't notice or care much about it. The same goes for > WPoison, most spammers are bulking 50 million spams per day now of > which only a fraction is deliverable. They don't care what percentage > is deliverable or how much is stopped by DNSBLs or spam filters, > since with 50 million going out they'll always get enough through to > make the sales anyway. > > Ralsky says that the more he's hindered by anti-spam devices the > higher the volumes he bulks out to compensate for it. > > As an example of how much they care, spammers no longer bother > washing their lists of abuse desks or sysop addresses or TLDs such as > .gov or .mil (as a consequence the U.S.Navy now uses the SBL, saying > the amount of spam flooding their ships was getting ridiculous). > > Spammer Kelly Joe Ellis specializes in address lists which are > completely Excel generated. He advertises his lists as "100 Million > PC-Generated addresses with 60-85% Connectivity Ratio!". With the > amount of undeliverables these guys are used to, they certainly > wouldn't notice a tarpit or any other anti-spam 'spoiler'. The only > pain they feel is caused by ISPs terminating their leased lines or > hosting accounts. --j. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 12:17:59 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA00210 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:17:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26HT5E26831 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:29:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26HT5O26828 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:29:05 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA00182 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:17:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26HR9O26457; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:27:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26HOfO25505 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:24:42 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA29419 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:13:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h26HF7VW032553; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 18:15:07 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h26HAjeO012765 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 6 Mar 2003 18:10:45 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h26HAj9M012763; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 18:10:45 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: wayne Cc: ietf anti-spam research group Subject: Re: [Asrg] The Traveling Salesman SMTP problem Message-ID: <20030306171045.GB12473@danisch.de> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 18:10:45 +0100 On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 10:20:54AM -0600, wayne wrote: > > Pardon my ignorance, but can't people use an MTA located on a port > other than 25 that allows relaying if and only if the sender is > authorized via SMTP AUTH or TLS? > Pretty good question, simple answer: Yes, without any problem. That's a common technique. You could even put it on port 443 to make it appear as being a https connection and run through a HTTP proxy. Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 12:18:04 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA00231 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:18:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26HTAZ26847 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:29:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26HTAO26844 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:29:10 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA00189 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:17:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26HRFO26474; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:27:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26HOmO25525 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:24:48 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA29439 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:13:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h26HFEfX032560; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 18:15:14 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h26HCLeO012785 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 6 Mar 2003 18:12:21 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h26HCLDF012783; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 18:12:21 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Matt Sergeant Cc: wayne , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world Message-ID: <20030306171221.GC12473@danisch.de> References: <568AC922-4FF1-11D7-9DB3-0003939CB5D8@startechgroup.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <568AC922-4FF1-11D7-9DB3-0003939CB5D8@startechgroup.co.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 18:12:21 +0100 On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 04:33:18PM +0000, Matt Sergeant wrote: > > Because they mean people who like the way they do things right now have > to change that, or RMX won't work for those people. Unfortunately those > people aren't mom and pop, they are techies. > As a consequence, we never could change anything, because you alway find a couple of people who like the way it is. What are we here for? regards Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 12:18:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA00264 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:18:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26HTZw26880 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:29:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26HTYO26877 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:29:34 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA00205 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:17:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26HQYO26235; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:26:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26HASO23683 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:10:28 -0500 Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA28221 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:58:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h26H0oA13136; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:00:50 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Moore To: Kee Hinckley Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@troy.rollo.name, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] definition of spam (was Re: consent expression) Message-Id: <20030306120050.0893a1ef.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: References: <20030305134413.2988c5b7.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030304205916.56614a9f.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305040008.GB14655@main.templetons.com> <20030304234928.5485710d.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305051840.GI14655@main.templetons.com> <20030305051936.55246a31.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305062722.3d36f607.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305085043.700fb87a.moore@cs.utk.edu> <3E6635FC.9060003@americasm01.nt.com> <20030305134413.2988c5b7.moore@cs.utk.edu> <4.3.1.2.20030306181200.02632e10@mail> <20030306085810.0e816395.moore@cs.utk.edu> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:00:50 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:46:38 -0500 Kee Hinckley wrote: > At 8:58 AM -0500 3/6/03, Keith Moore wrote: > >I also don't believe in treating one-to-many email differently than > >one-to-one email, because it's the content of the email that the > >recipient cares about rather than the number of recipients. > > I disagree, and I have several examples. your first two examples support my assertion - they are both based on content (perhaps on subtlties of content) rather than volume. as for your third example (and I've received messages like this also) - yes, the meaning of the message changes if I can determine whether the message was sent to lots of people. but I generally figure if I have never heard of a conference, and I don't know any of the people who are supposed to be hosting the conference, then they're probably not being very selective in inviting me. > I believe there are three components to identifying spam. > > 1. Routing information* > 2. Content analysis > 3. Bulk identification > > Neither 1 nor 2 are completely sufficient without 3. I disagree. I don't want to receive ads for nigerian money transfer scams. I don't care if I'm the only one receiving those ads. > The fact that a message was sent to many people can significantly > change its interpretation. yes, sometimes. but does the recipient have a right to know how many people a message was sent to? let's say I get a message from my boss (or someone higher in the food chain) telling me that I got a raise (or a pay cut). should I be able to determine whether that same message was sent to lots of other people - i.e. do I have a right to know whether I'm being singled out? > I prefer routing information because it's based on the assumption > that spammers either a) have a safe-haven and can be blocked, or b) > are trying to hide where they are coming from. I think the lies are short-term. Keeping spammers from lying about who they are won't stop spam, it will only mean that different people are spamming. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 12:18:59 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA00297 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:18:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26HU5q26966 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:30:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26HU5O26963 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:30:05 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA00263 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:18:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26HR3O26400; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:27:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26HOfO25503 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:24:41 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA29417 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:13:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h26HF7BD006725 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:15:07 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Disposable ISP accounts (was Re: [Asrg] RE: Asrg digest, Vol 1 #42 - 13 msgs) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:15:07 -0500 (EST) On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Tom Thomson wrote: > Anyway, it's irrelevant. What you generally want to identify is the sending > account, so that the ISP can kill it off when he gets complaints. An even simpler solution is for ISP's to prevent free accounts from sending e-mail at all. You can browse the Web all you want, but until you pay up and give a credit card number -- no e-mail. Or slightly less draconian, force free accounts to send e-mail through the ISP's server and limit it to 10 emails/day. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 12:44:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA02471 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:44:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26HtaD29397 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:55:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26HtaO29394 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:55:36 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA02395 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:43:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26HqSO29144; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:52:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26HpvO29107 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:51:57 -0500 Received: from backbone.midwestcs.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA02159 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:40:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from footbone.midwestcs.com ([206.222.212.237] helo=midwestcs.com) by backbone.midwestcs.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18qzNq-0003pL-00 for ; Thu, 06 Mar 2003 11:42:18 -0600 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world References: <20030306142839.GA9513@danisch.de> <20030306145428.GA9971@danisch.de> <20030306100320.5b612539.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030306120607.6562af5d.moore@cs.utk.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: wayne In-Reply-To: <20030306120607.6562af5d.moore@cs.utk.edu> Message-ID: Lines: 25 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanner: exiscan *18qzNq-0003pL-00*q/fEQJoujP6* () Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 06 Mar 2003 11:42:14 -0600 In <20030306120607.6562af5d.moore@cs.utk.edu> Keith Moore writes: > > Why are reverse MX records or domain specific DNSBLs any harder to > > maintain that regular MX records? > > it depends on how often the data changes. most MX records are fairly > static. DNSBLs are centrally managed, which is different. Domain specific DNSBLs are maintained in the same zone file as the MX records for a domain. When you add an incoming mail server, you have to add the MX record. When you add an outgoing mail server, you have to add either an RMX record or a CNAME. Considering the volume on this list, I can hardly blame anyone for missing this message, especially because it was only the third message posted, but the domain specific DNSBL was mentioned here: https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg00002.html This mostly just contains a reference to: http://groups.google.com/groups?q=vixie+mx+records+spam&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=3E18B0B3.43939A35%40Andrzej.Adam.Filip&rnum=10 -wayne _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 12:48:02 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA02773 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:48:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26Hx9929741 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:59:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26Hx9O29738 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:59:09 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA02724 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:47:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26Hu3O29469; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:56:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26HtLO29361 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:55:21 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA02385 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:43:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h26HjlBD006951; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:45:47 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: Justin Mason cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Massive bounce rates on spammer lists In-Reply-To: <20030306170004.F261416F16@jmason.org> Message-ID: References: <20030306170004.F261416F16@jmason.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:45:47 -0500 (EST) On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Justin Mason wrote: > Folks -- this is relevant to David Skoll's proposal yesterday -- the > bounce-counting network. Thanks for that. I have a refinement to the proposal that makes it unlikely to hurt valid mailing lists: You only report the offending IP if your DSN itself bounces (alternatively, you punish a bounced DSN with a very high weight.) Of course, you need a way to correlate the DSN to the original IP, but that seems pretty easy---you control the DSN contents, so you put a special (encrypted, maybe) header in it indicating the original source of the e-mail. Therefore, legitimate (but stale) mailing lists will not be penalized as much as spammers with fake sender addresses. You also penalize mail from "<>" to an invalid address, because that is a fairly clear indication of spamming. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 12:55:59 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA03165 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:55:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26I76f30509 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:07:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26I76O30504 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:07:06 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA03143 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:55:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26I4TO30059; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:04:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26I3aO30027 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:03:36 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA02918 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:51:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h26HrxX17980 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:53:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF4T5RZ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:54:00 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id FSK7Y5J8; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:54:00 -0500 Message-ID: <3E678BFC.8080601@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world References: <20030306105315.GA4411@danisch.de> <3E677E4F.3070402@paralline.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 12:57:16 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Pierre BRUA wrote: > For your information, this is already used at the monkeys.com domain, > and they say it works pretty well to jugulate spam. > See > http://www.monkeys.com/anti-spam/filtering/additions.html Read a little further. It only works reliabily enough to be worthwhile for a very limited number of very large domains. Even if this was RFC'd into some sort of DNS convention or extension, it's trivially bypassed by the spammer choosing envelope senders that don't participate in the convention. Given that, for example, huge chunks of the internet don't have [r]DNS at all, it's pretty clear it'd never become widespread enough to be long-term useful. In other words, anything that relies on a significant fraction of the non-spammers to do something is doomed to failure. Yes, the technique can be useful sometimes in specific situations. But not well enough to enshrine into long-term standards, and useless the day after publication. There's a similar heuristic, which is probably more effective in blocking spam - that is, for selected domains, _insist_ that the argument to HELO matches the peer's rDNS domain name in some fashion. But again, while it's currently useful for some specific sites (eg: AOL, Hotmail/MSN, Yahoo), it's too easily bypassable and compliance will never be wide spread enough to enshrine into public standards. It's rather a lot like discussing filtering based upon the phrase "Diplomas from prestigious non-*ccredited Universities". _Still_ works well (which is why I munged it slightly). But not for long after publishing it. Oops ;-) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 13:03:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA03449 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:03:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26IEat31555 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:14:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26IEZO31552 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:14:35 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA03441 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:02:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26IBGO31326; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:11:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26IAJO31294 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:10:19 -0500 Received: from mail.neosinteractive.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA03246 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:58:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from tthompson ([217.35.105.172] unverified) by mail.neosinteractive.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Thu, 6 Mar 2003 18:05:45 +0000 From: "Tom Thomson" To: "Kee Hinckley" Cc: Subject: RE: [Asrg] RE: Asrg digest, Vol 1 #32 - 9 msgs Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Mar 2003 18:05:45.0652 (UTC) FILETIME=[0270DF40:01C2E40B] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 18:00:04 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > From: Kee Hinckley [mailto:nazgul@somewhere.com] > Sent: 06 March 2003 16:04 > To: Tom Thomson > Cc: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: [Asrg] RE: Asrg digest, Vol 1 #32 - 9 msgs > > At 3:04 PM +0000 3/6/03, Tom Thomson wrote: > >Doing that we can end up with a clear view of which ISPs will deal with spam > >complaints effectively and which won't. Probably the next stage is > >blacklists - if an ISP is unwilling to deal with spam it's prohably because > >he sees it as to his commercial advantage to allow it, and blacklisting will > >make him useless to all his customers (whether spammers or not) so he'll > >pretty quickly change his ways. > > What you are describing is exactly the situation now. The message > headers indicate the originator of the email by IP address. When you > report the email, the ISP terminates the account if they are > responsible and doesn't if they are not. The ISP doesn't need to log > message-ids, the received headers contain all the necessary > information for them to map back to the sender. > > At one point WorldCom reportedly had over 100 people doing nothing > but dealing with spam complaints. And on the other side of the > fence, I haven't noticed the ISP 163.net in China going out of > business just because they are a major source of spam. > > PS. Could someone tell me why there are these Chinese ISPs that use > numbers like 163 an 263 as their names? Is there some significance > to the numbers? > -- > Kee Hinckley No, it isn't the situation we have now. It's closer to the situation we had a while back, but the spammers have got a lot cleverer since. Injecting a few "Received-From:" headers at source, complete with IP addresses and domain name that corresponded to that IP at the time the message was delivered to that MTA, means that when the message is delivered there is no authenticated point of origin. Having MTA's sign the "Received-From:" lines they insert would distinguish the fake ones from the real ones, and give us a real point of origin - then we could complain to the right place (allowing for the possibility that the point of origin signs a Received-From: header properly, so the point of origin may be either the last signer or the machine pointed at by the last signer). Similarly a signed "From:" header would work, but of course we can't expect the spammer's MUA to provide that for us and it takes longer to get MUSa updated than MTAs. Now the anti-spammers have moved on too, and we have some MTAs which will add a "probably forged" comment into the string of "Received-From" lines, which is an improvement, but that unfortunately isn't bullet-proof and we can expect the spammers to get ahead of that one next (why shouldn't the point of origin inject such a comment some way down the chain to point a misleading finger, and avoid using talking to MTAs known to provide this comment when appropriate?). I agree that some ISPs are going out of business depite appearing to be major spam sources; but do we know they actually are major spam sources though, without any authentication of the point of origin or of the Received-From trail? That's what makes me favour blacklists once we have reliable authentication of point of origin, but only when we have that reliable authentication (and have a pile of complaints not dealt with). And I haven't a clue why Chinese ISPs use these numeric names. Tom Thomson _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 13:04:46 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA03561 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:04:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26IFrf31637 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:15:53 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26IFrO31633 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:15:53 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA03513 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:04:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26ID8O31430; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:13:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26ICDO31380 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:12:13 -0500 Received: from backbone.midwestcs.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA03353 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:00:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from footbone.midwestcs.com ([206.222.212.237] helo=midwestcs.com) by backbone.midwestcs.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18qzhQ-00040A-00 for ; Thu, 06 Mar 2003 12:02:32 -0600 To: "ietf anti-spam research group" Subject: Re: [Asrg] The Traveling Salesman SMTP problem References: <200303061702.MAA28693@ietf.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: wayne In-Reply-To: <200303061702.MAA28693@ietf.org> Message-ID: Lines: 20 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanner: exiscan *18qzhQ-00040A-00*zMCfbT8zqK.* () Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 06 Mar 2003 12:02:32 -0600 In <200303061702.MAA28693@ietf.org> "Dr. Jeffrey Race" writes: > On 06 Mar 2003 10:20:54 -0600, wayne wrote: > > >claiming they are from them, AND those ISPs don't set up an MTA on a > >non-port 25 server that allows relaying, THEN you have a valid > >complaint about how the ISP is running things. > > Yes, you have a valid complaint, and when you transmit it they > say "piss off" So, find a different email provider and don't use your ISPs SMTP. Yes, it may cost a few bucks, and yes, you may have to communicate with that email provider over a different port than port 25, but I don't see what the big deal is. -wayne _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 13:04:50 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA03574 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:04:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26IFv431653 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:15:57 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26IFvO31650 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:15:57 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA03522 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:04:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26IE7O31522; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:14:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26ID2O31414 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:13:02 -0500 Received: from co1.dslextreme.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA03383 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:01:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from kit ([208.187.129.202]) by co1.dslextreme.com (8.12.8/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h26I1OD1028752 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:01:25 -0800 Message-ID: <00a101c2e40b$54e40cc0$ca81bbd0@kit> From: "Jed Margolin" To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.3000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Let's try something different Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:08:02 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have heard that you are interested in reducing spam. Here is my Proposal: The way email currently works is: 1. Sender's email is stored on Recipient's server. 2. Sender can broadcast email. 3. Sender can forge headers, making it impossible to complain to Sender's ISP. I propose: 1. Sender's email is stored on Sender's server. Recipient is sent a message with a unique link to the message and a maximum Subject line of 80 alphanumeric characters. 2. Sender can be anonymous, but not to Sender's ISP. There will be a feature (a button) so Recipient can tell Sender's ISP, "Don't send me any further email from this Sender." 3. Broadcasting is prohibited. If Sender wishes to send 1 million identical messages, then Sender's server will contain 1 million copies of the message. 4. Sender's ISP will be notified if (and when) the email has been read so it can be deleted from Sender's server. Alternatively, email can be deleted from Sender's server at the end of the day (or week) that it is read. It would also be nice if the Mailreader could be configured to automatically show messages in text format first and then let the user decide whether or not to view it in html. Jed Margolin _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 13:05:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA03602 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:05:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26IGDx31697 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:16:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26IGCO31694 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:16:13 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA03545 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:04:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26IE1O31504; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:14:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26IDwO31486 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:13:58 -0500 Received: from zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA03430 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:02:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (zcard307.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h26I4M302141 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:04:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDFBGDG5; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:04:22 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id FSK7Y5K3; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:04:22 -0500 Message-ID: <3E678E6A.3020001@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Massive bounce rates on spammer lists References: <20030306170004.F261416F16@jmason.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 13:07:38 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit David F. Skoll wrote: > You also penalize mail from "<>" to an invalid address, because that > is a fairly clear indication of spamming. As a FYI, this isn't our experience. Mail from "<>" to an "invalid" address is perhaps even more often a postmaster bounce to a spam forged in our domain. Of the 225048 connects to our spamtrap so far today, 1747 (~ 1%) of them are bounces of spam forged in our spamtrap's domain (detected by checking for both a null return address and "postmaster" or "daemon" (from mailer-daemon in the body From)). It varies a lot day-by day. For two days in a row this week it was in excess of 20%. The idea has some merit, but it'll need more tuning than meets the eye first glance. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 13:07:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA03890 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:07:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26IIcO31900 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:18:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26IIcO31897 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:18:38 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA03827 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:06:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26IG5O31676; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:16:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26IFDO31592 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:15:13 -0500 Received: from zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA03473 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:03:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h26I5bD16103 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:05:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF4T55G; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:05:37 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id FSK7Y5KQ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:05:37 -0500 Message-ID: <3E678EB5.5080608@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: Disposable ISP accounts (was Re: [Asrg] RE: Asrg digest, Vol 1 #42 - 13 msgs) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 13:08:53 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit David F. Skoll wrote: > On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Tom Thomson wrote: >>Anyway, it's irrelevant. What you generally want to identify is the sending >>account, so that the ISP can kill it off when he gets complaints. > An even simpler solution is for ISP's to prevent free accounts from > sending e-mail at all. You can browse the Web all you want, but until > you pay up and give a credit card number -- no e-mail. Or slightly > less draconian, force free accounts to send e-mail through the ISP's > server and limit it to 10 emails/day. Some ISPs are already doing this to reasonably good effect. Cleanup fees are even better. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 13:11:53 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA04151 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:11:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26IN0V32223 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:23:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26IN0O32220 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:23:00 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA04110 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:11:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26IK2O32055; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:20:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26IJvO31998 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:19:57 -0500 Received: from relay07.indigo.ie (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA03952 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:08:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 11452 messnum 1018075 invoked from network[194.125.172.213/ts12-213.dublin.indigo.ie]); 6 Mar 2003 18:10:21 -0000 Received: from ts12-213.dublin.indigo.ie (HELO jmason.org) (194.125.172.213) by relay07.indigo.ie (qp 11452) with SMTP; 6 Mar 2003 18:10:21 -0000 Received: by jmason.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 3632416F16; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 18:10:20 +0000 (GMT) Received: from jmason.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33211F7BB; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 18:10:20 +0000 (GMT) To: "David F. Skoll" Cc: Justin Mason , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Massive bounce rates on spammer lists In-Reply-To: Message from "David F. Skoll" of "Thu, 06 Mar 2003 12:45:47 EST." From: jm@jmason.org (Justin Mason) X-GPG-Key-Fingerprint: 0A48 2D8B 0B52 A87D 0E8A 6ADD 4137 1B50 6E58 EF0A X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to . Message-Id: <20030306181020.3632416F16@jmason.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 18:10:15 +0000 David F. Skoll said: > Thanks for that. I have a refinement to the proposal that makes it > unlikely to hurt valid mailing lists: You only report the offending IP > if your DSN itself bounces (alternatively, you punish a bounced DSN > with a very high weight.) Of course, you need a way to correlate the > DSN to the original IP, but that seems pretty easy---you control the DSN > contents, so you put a special (encrypted, maybe) header in it indicating > the original source of the e-mail. Actually, I'm not sure that's a good idea; it'll provide an impetus for spammers to joe-job, impersonating known-valid From addrs (typically by picking one at random from the same list of addresses). --j. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 13:12:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA04214 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:12:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26INo332323 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:23:50 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26INoO32320 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:23:50 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA04184 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:12:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26IL1O32115; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:21:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26IKAO32071 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:20:10 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA03963 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:08:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h26IAZBD007149 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:10:35 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Massive bounce rates on spammer lists In-Reply-To: <3E678E6A.3020001@americasm01.nt.com> Message-ID: References: <20030306170004.F261416F16@jmason.org> <3E678E6A.3020001@americasm01.nt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:10:35 -0500 (EST) On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Chris Lewis wrote: > As a FYI, this isn't our experience. Mail from "<>" to an "invalid" > address is perhaps even more often a postmaster bounce to a spam forged > in our domain. Hmm. OK. Scratch that one. :-( Although you might be able to tell by the message contents if you delay the rejection. A DSN (what happens in the forged-sender case) typically looks quite different from an actual spam pretending to be from <> And disguising spam as a DSN isn't too attractive, because most end-users are highly-confused by DSN's. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 13:23:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA04705 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:23:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26IYhN00568 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:34:43 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26IYhO00565 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:34:43 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA04692 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:23:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26IWMO00468; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:32:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26IUrO00349 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:30:53 -0500 Received: from zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA04547 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:19:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (zcard307.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h26ILG302980 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:21:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDFBG15N; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:21:16 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id FSK7Y5LB; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:21:16 -0500 Message-ID: <3E679260.9000002@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: Limitations of filters (was Re: [Asrg] Do we need to do anything?) References: <80AD1C20BCECD6118FD800508BCF7EDA72D7A1@exchuk19.eu.ssmb.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 13:24:32 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit David F. Skoll wrote: > On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, wayne wrote: > David Skoll: >>>By the time spam hits the MUA, you've paid a significant cost of the >>>spam burden. >>I strongly disagree with this. > You don't run a busy mail server. I do. In the vast majority of cases[*], spam volumes are within the "breathing room" you should engineer into your mail system. Yes, it forces you to upgrade earlier, but in the scheme of things it's swamped by the end-user issues. For budgeting of anti-spam, we completely disregard the cost savings in the infrastructure due to reduced volume, because of this factor, and instead come up with a productivity loss cost. As a benchmark, we use an average of one minute per spam that hits the end-user. That seems absurdly high[+], but once you factor in the unusual events (Corporate Security investigations, management chain uproars, people unable to cope with being bombarded with _extremely_ offensive spam and being unable to focus on work for a day or two, popups, mailer freezeups, and even the occasional reconstruction of a box), it's stood the test of time. That works out to (after fudging and rounding of numbers, without revealing our LLR) a buck each in rough numbers. $50,000 worth of productivity saved per day buys a lot more hardware and bandwidth than is needed to carry the spam. [*] Of course there are exceptions. Striker for example. Or, if we were still trying to conduct business with our spamtrap domains. Your bandwidth would be 80% or higher (99.9999% in the case of striker) for spam alone. This may also be true of places like AOL (one billion spams in a day. Yow!) [+] Some anti-spam vendors are using a figure of 10-15 seconds each. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 13:26:48 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA04869 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:26:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26Ibu901604 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:37:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26IbuO01599 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:37:56 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA04842 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:26:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26Ia3O00702; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:36:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26IYvO00584 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:34:57 -0500 Received: from backbone.midwestcs.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA04697 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:23:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from footbone.midwestcs.com ([206.222.212.237] helo=midwestcs.com) by backbone.midwestcs.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18r03R-00049f-00 for ; Thu, 06 Mar 2003 12:25:17 -0600 To: asrg@ietf.org (ietf anti-spam research group) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Let's try something different References: <00a101c2e40b$54e40cc0$ca81bbd0@kit> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: wayne In-Reply-To: <00a101c2e40b$54e40cc0$ca81bbd0@kit> Message-ID: Lines: 20 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanner: exiscan *18r03R-00049f-00*.mJsALaJLg.* () Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 06 Mar 2003 12:25:16 -0600 In <00a101c2e40b$54e40cc0$ca81bbd0@kit> "Jed Margolin" writes: > I propose: > > [storing messages on the sender's server until they are delivered] Obviously, this will require a different protocol than SMTP. What you have described is available on several different web BBS systems right now. So, the new protocol is just HTTP and the new MUA is just your browser. This idea isn't taking off that quickly, but the fact that some people are going back to having several different ways of sending and receiving "email" tells you how bad the spam problem is. *sigh* -wayne _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 13:37:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA05331 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:37:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26ImnC02265 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:48:49 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26ImnO02262 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:48:49 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA05284 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:37:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26IjGO01953; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:45:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26IcrO01666 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:38:53 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA04885 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:27:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 11703 invoked from network); 5 Mar 2003 18:27:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO startechgroup.co.uk) (10.2.100.157) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 5 Mar 2003 18:27:31 -0000 Subject: Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: wayne , asrg@ietf.org To: Hadmut Danisch From: Matt Sergeant In-Reply-To: <20030306171221.GC12473@danisch.de> Message-Id: <8AAB17CF-5001-11D7-9DB3-0003939CB5D8@startechgroup.co.uk> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 18:29:18 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thursday, Mar 6, 2003, at 17:12 Europe/London, Hadmut Danisch wrote: > On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 04:33:18PM +0000, Matt Sergeant wrote: >> >> Because they mean people who like the way they do things right now >> have >> to change that, or RMX won't work for those people. Unfortunately >> those >> people aren't mom and pop, they are techies. > > As a consequence, we never could change anything, because you > alway find a couple of people who like the way it is. What are > we here for? I don't agree with the status quo. Someone asked for a reason and I gave it. Matt. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 13:39:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA05451 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:39:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26Iomp02491 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:50:48 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26IomO02488 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:50:48 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA05436 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:39:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26Im4O02210; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:48:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26IhIO01807 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:43:18 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA05009 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:31:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 11970 invoked from network); 5 Mar 2003 18:31:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO startechgroup.co.uk) (10.2.100.157) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 5 Mar 2003 18:31:55 -0000 Subject: Re: [Asrg] Do we need to do anything? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: "Clayton, Nik [IT]" , "'asrg@ietf.org'" To: James McIninch From: Matt Sergeant In-Reply-To: <200303061128.59077.james.mcininch@attbi.com> Message-Id: <28579C07-5002-11D7-9DB3-0003939CB5D8@startechgroup.co.uk> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 18:33:42 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thursday, Mar 6, 2003, at 16:28 Europe/London, James McIninch wrote: > It would work like this -- I'm going to give an e-mail address out, > perhaps > to someone I don't trust. My MUA asks a forwarding service for a > randomly > generated address to be mapped to my true e-mail address for either > 1.) a > specific time period, or 2.) until I ask for it to be revoked. I then > give > the temporary forwarding address to the untrusted party. Once the > forwarding > address ages out or is revoked, the forwarder simply rejects emails to > that > id. Tagged addresses, temporary addresses, etc. All work well for a bit. Until your real email address gets out there. And then you're history. Look at it this way - you give your mum your real email address, because you know she's not a spammer. She forwards you a joke, and CC's a whole bunch of co-workers. One of those co-workers forwards that email to somewhere that gets archived on the web. And her MUA includes all those people's email addresses. BAM. Matt. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 13:53:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06255 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:53:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26J4jj03447 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:04:45 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26J4jO03444 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:04:45 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06201 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:53:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26J14O03204; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:01:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26J0jO03145 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:00:45 -0500 Received: from gate.cs.rochester.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA05969 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:49:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from lung.cs.rochester.edu (nano.cs.rochester.edu [192.5.53.95]) by gate.cs.rochester.edu (8.11.6+Sun/001) with ESMTP id h26IpAj11526 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:51:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (bukys@localhost) by lung.cs.rochester.edu (8.11.6+Sun/Q++) with SMTP id h26IpAt00778; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:51:10 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200303061851.h26IpAt00778@lung.cs.rochester.edu> From: Liudvikas Bukys To: asrg@ietf.org cc: bukys@cs.rochester.edu Subject: Re: [Asrg] RMX breaks mailing lists In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 06 Mar 2003 11:05:19 EST." <6DCBBFCC-4FED-11D7-8D9B-000A27AF5202@megacity.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 13:51:10 -0500 >From: "Derek J. Balling" >Message-Id: <6DCBBFCC-4FED-11D7-8D9B-000A27AF5202@megacity.org> >Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:05:19 -0500 > >So in the DS model, you would configure your internal relay to do the >DS test, which had a sender of , and ask IETF "is >132.151.1.19 authorized to send mail for ietf.org?", get an assurance >of trust, and move on. > >You could then set up your final-MX to say "trust all mail from my >internal relay, because it's already done those checks itself". > >The received headers never come into play. It's strictly concerned >sender-domain (from the envelope) and connecting IP. BUT there is no envelope sender re-writing for (in sendmail parlance): - aliases without list owners - .forward forwarding Should there be? It would be a different world. While that doesn't rule out adoption of RMX, it does make even its adoption have pretty big impact on everyday normal practices. P.S. I have now twice succumbed to the temptation to add to the high-volume small-topic flood. Now it's out of my system, and I see the wisdom in Paul Judge's trying to move the discussion toward longer and systematic drafts rather than point-by-point reaction. So I'll be quiet for a while. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 13:57:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06405 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:57:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26J8pD04509 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:08:51 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26J8pO04506 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:08:51 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06373 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:57:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26J64O03572; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:06:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26J5bO03545 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:05:37 -0500 Received: from backbone.midwestcs.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06274 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:53:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from footbone.midwestcs.com ([206.222.212.237] helo=midwestcs.com) by backbone.midwestcs.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18r0X5-0004NM-00 for ; Thu, 06 Mar 2003 12:55:55 -0600 To: asrg@ietf.org (ietf anti-spam research group) Subject: Re: Limitations of filters (was Re: [Asrg] Do we need to do anyth ing?) References: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D558@bremocag> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: wayne In-Reply-To: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D558@bremocag> Message-ID: Lines: 60 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanner: exiscan *18r0X5-0004NM-00*/fsXJxHwzGU* () Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 06 Mar 2003 12:55:54 -0600 In <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D558@bremocag> Postmaster writes: >> From: wayne [mailto:wayne@midwestcs.com] >> >> In "David F. >> Skoll" writes: >> >> > >> > By the time spam hits the MUA, you've paid a significant cost of the >> > spam burden. >> >> I strongly disagree with this. >> >> By far the most expensive part of spam is the time spent by the end >> user. > > --- What?! Wayne... care to pay for the 4 brand new servers I just had to > put online to handle the sheer volume of the spam? No, I would not want to pay for your new servers, nor would I want to pay for your user's lost time. How much did those servers cost? How much time would your users have spent dealing with spam if you didn't filter? How much is your users' time worth? All I'm saying is that I, for most situations, the hardware and bandwidth costs of spam is less than what the users' time is worth. If this isn't the case, they you don't have a good justification for spending money to reduce spam. This means that if you can reduce the amount of spam that the end user has to deal with by accepting the spam and analyzing it, this is what you should do. It also means that spam filtering by the MUA is ok, since the MUA often can know a lot more about what the user considers to be spam than a MTA or mail server. False positives can also be very expensive. Reduction in bandwidth and hardware costs by aggressive and early filtering may be penny wise and pound foolish. IF the MUA has a good spam filtering system, it may be most cost effective to let a lot of questionable email through to it. We all wish that spam would "just go away". We resent the money we have to spend upgrading servers and buying more bandwidth. We resent the time spent dealing with it, both as sysadmins and end users. We resent having to hide our email addresses. We shouldn't, however, let our resentment get in the way of doing good cost/benefit analysis. -wayne _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 14:03:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06657 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:03:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26JEEj04864 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:14:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26JEEO04861 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:14:14 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06617 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:02:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26JA6O04639; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:10:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26J9LO04573 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:09:21 -0500 Received: from new.agentzero.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06404 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:57:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.123.194] (h0050e4251179.ne.client2.attbi.com [66.30.24.79]) by new.agentzero.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h26J0Qmf003963; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:00:27 -0500 Message-Id: <200303061900.h26J0Qmf003963@new.agentzero.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <28579C07-5002-11D7-9DB3-0003939CB5D8@startechgroup.co.uk> References: <28579C07-5002-11D7-9DB3-0003939CB5D8@startechgroup.co.uk> To: Matt Sergeant From: Jim Youll Subject: Re: [Asrg] Do we need to do anything? Cc: "'asrg@ietf.org'" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:59:44 -0500 At 18:33 +0000 3/6/03, Matt Sergeant wrote: >Tagged addresses, temporary addresses, etc. All work well for a bit. >Until your real email address gets out there. > >And then you're history. > >Look at it this way - you give your mum your real email address, >because you know she's not a spammer. She forwards you a joke, and >CC's a whole bunch of co-workers. One of those co-workers forwards >that email to somewhere that gets archived on the web. And her MUA >includes all those people's email addresses. BAM. But if you had a proper client that hid all the work, you could "give" a different e-mail address to every correspondent, and if it leaked out, you need only cancel that one and give that particular correspondent a freshly-generated address, no? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 14:07:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06926 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:07:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26JIjh05125 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:18:45 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26JIjO05122 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:18:45 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06906 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:07:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26JFDO04985; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:15:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26JEMO04897 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:14:22 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06625 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:02:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h26J4kBD007494 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:04:46 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Do we need to do anything? In-Reply-To: <28579C07-5002-11D7-9DB3-0003939CB5D8@startechgroup.co.uk> Message-ID: References: <28579C07-5002-11D7-9DB3-0003939CB5D8@startechgroup.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:04:46 -0500 (EST) On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Matt Sergeant wrote: > Tagged addresses, temporary addresses, etc. All work well for a bit. > Until your real email address gets out there. Not necessarily. People on this forum complain about spammers not using real e-mail addresses because it's so easy to use fake ones. Well, maybe *nobody* should have a "real" e-mail address. We only ever give out ephemeral addresses, that could be locked to a particular sender, time-limited, etc. Only your server knows your "real" address. And it bounces mail sent to that address; it only accepts mail for ephemeral addresses. Web pages for contact info generate ephemeral addresses when they're rendered. When you print business cards, the printer uses a different ephemeral address on each card. (OK, this last is a hassle, but not insurmountable.) There are a lot of silly implementation and book-keeping details, but no fundamental reasons why this wouldn't work. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 14:13:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07116 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:13:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26JOEb05362 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:24:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26JOEO05359 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:24:14 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07093 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:12:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26JK2O05228; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:20:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26JGYO05029 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:16:34 -0500 Received: from mr07.lodo.exactis.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06832 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:04:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from denex03.corp.exactis.com (denex03.corp.exactis.com [10.249.0.69]) by mr07.lodo.exactis.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA05346 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:06:58 -0700 Received: by denex03.corp.exactis.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:06:58 -0700 Message-ID: <6956D00165F4CB4583BB9CC33D77364F1E3093@denca00.corp.exactis.com> From: "Barclay, Robert" To: "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] definition of spam (was Re: consent expression) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C2E413.8CBA5B10" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:06:53 -0700 This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2E413.8CBA5B10 Content-Type: text/plain These discussions keep leading me back to the idea that the first step of any attempt to implement this groups charter, at leats in its first iteration, needs to be a decision nuetral system that conveys sufficient information for end users to determine whether this email meets their definition of "consent". Basically a sine qua non for any solution to spam seems to be at least the possibility that you can accurately determine who sent you the email, and a means for a user or system to define what types of email they will accept from trusted and untrusted sources. Whether or not bulk email is treated differently than one to one communication (and I think at least in transport it should not be) the end goal should be for end users to have control over what email gets into their In boxes right? -----Original Message----- From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore@cs.utk.edu] Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 6:58 AM To: Troy Rollo Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu; asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] definition of spam (was Re: consent expression) > So Keith's concerns about the impact of Chris's definition of consent > aren't particularly justified if we look at consent as the law defines it, well, it's not clear to me what the charter means, and I don't have any reason to believe that they had this particular context in mind when they wrote it. also, it's not that I inherently object to defining consent in one way or another, but I do think that a system that effectively required prior consent to send mail, and enforced it, would be unfortunate if whatver solution we came up with did not provide more flexibility than that. I also don't believe in treating one-to-many email differently than one-to-one email, because it's the content of the email that the recipient cares about rather than the number of recipients. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2E413.8CBA5B10 Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: [Asrg] definition of spam (was Re: consent = expression)

These discussions keep leading me back to the idea = that the first step of any attempt to implement this groups charter, at = leats in its first iteration, needs to be a decision nuetral system = that conveys sufficient information for end users to determine whether = this email meets their definition of "consent". Basically a = sine qua non for any solution to spam seems to be at least the = possibility that you can accurately determine who sent you the email, = and a means for a user or system to define what types of email they = will accept from trusted and untrusted sources.

Whether or not bulk email is treated differently than = one to one communication (and I think at least in transport it should = not be) the end goal should be for end users to have control over what = email gets into their In boxes right?

-----Original Message-----
From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore@cs.utk.edu]
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 6:58 AM
To: Troy Rollo
Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu; asrg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Asrg] definition of spam (was Re: = consent expression)



> So Keith's concerns about the impact of Chris's = definition of consent
> aren't particularly justified if we look at = consent as the law defines it,

well, it's not clear to me what the charter means, = and I don't have any
reason to believe that they had this particular = context in mind when they
wrote it.

also, it's not that I inherently object to defining = consent in one way or
another, but I do think that a system that = effectively required prior consent
to send mail, and enforced it, would be unfortunate = if whatver solution we
came up with did not provide more flexibility than = that.

I also don't believe in treating one-to-many email = differently than one-to-one
email, because it's the content of the email that = the recipient cares about
rather than the number of recipients.

Keith

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg=

------_=_NextPart_001_01C2E413.8CBA5B10-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 14:18:04 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07367 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:18:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26JTDE05629 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:29:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26JTDO05626 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:29:13 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07333 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:17:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26JQ4O05506; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:26:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26JKsO05250 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:20:54 -0500 Received: from mercury.ex.ac.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07001 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:09:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from [144.173.6.20] (helo=cronus.ex.ac.uk) by mercury.ex.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18r0ly-00DCi7-00; Thu, 06 Mar 2003 19:11:18 +0000 From: Adam Back To: Hadmut Danisch Cc: Roland , ASRG , Adam Back Subject: Re: privacy is a feature (Re: [Asrg] desirable characteristics of source tracking) Message-ID: <20030306191117.A4198310@exeter.ac.uk> References: <20030305070437.60bdfd34.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305122021.GA6748@danisch.de> <20030305073217.46f79dcb.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305125322.GA7179@danisch.de> <20030305080032.59d50373.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305203057.B4412039@exeter.ac.uk> <20030305163225.088b989c.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305222200.GH15047@danisch.de> <20030306085710.GA2340@danisch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.2i In-Reply-To: <20030306085710.GA2340@danisch.de>; from hadmut@danisch.de on Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 09:57:10AM +0100 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:11:17 +0000 Hadmut wrote: > The failure is that this sender's right currently needs > to cut any recipient's right. I think your views and objections are based on a fixed view of technologies that could be used to combat spam, and by fixation on implementing to the letter some ill-thought out German laws. In fact your conclusions are wrong. One just needs to use technology which does not do that. Requiring senders to classify their mail doesn't meet the principles we've discussed, but this just means that is a bad solution. For example hashcash and token based white lists as a way to avoid false positives provides: - reduces spam for recipient - no erosion of senders rights (privacy, reliability, functionality) - no loss of reliability - backwards compatibility - improves reliability for users > From my point of view, the currently exhibited objections > are based on ignorance and violation of the recipients rights. No, the objections were carefully reasoned, and are in fact defacto and demonstrably user valued existing functionalities of email. What uucp mail may or may not have provided is somewhat irrelevant to the current email users who for the last say 10 years have been relying on particular privacy, functionality and reliability features. The only conflict is your inflexible adherence to what you claim is a German principle of law that the recipient should have the right to not receive anonymous email, which is a nonsensical claim in a communications medium without authentication, and a strong history and user desire for user choice in authentication (none, web of trust, non-transferable signatures, and PKI signatures based on the circumstance). You claim to care about privacy, and yet it would seem you want to punish users who want privacy in the name of narrow minded, to the letter, interpretations of ill-thought out local laws. This list is about reducing the volume of spam received by recipients, not about enforcing a claimed local law saying that users must have a right to not receive anonymous mail. These are different things. Adam _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 14:23:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07571 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:23:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26JYn905906 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:34:49 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26JYnO05903 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:34:49 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07555 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:23:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26JUTO05740; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:30:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26JOpO05420 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:24:51 -0500 Received: from mail.neosinteractive.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07132 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:13:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from tthompson ([217.35.105.172] unverified) by mail.neosinteractive.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:20:15 +0000 From: "Tom Thomson" To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20030306161701.18298.8977.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Mar 2003 19:20:15.0529 (UTC) FILETIME=[6AB1F990:01C2E415] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] old mail protocols and authentication of sender Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:14:34 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > No. When e-mail was introduced in the early days, it was based on > > > UUCP. > > > > There were lots of early email systems, and I don't want to argue about which > > one predates another. I was speaking of the ARPAnet/Internet context that > > eventually created rfc822 and SMTP. This community did not start out using > > UUCP; very few of them were even using UNIX. > > There were pretty strict requirements before you could connect to the > early DARPA/ARPA/DARPA inter-network network. I agree that UUCP > wasn't the predecessor to the current internet STMP system, but > Hadmut's point that there was much tighter authentication in the past > seems to be valid. I seem to remember that the internet started out using RFC733 (not RFC822, which was a fair bit later) and that there was a requirement for mail compatibility between "old" ARPANET using NCP and the "new" INTERNET using TCP (with UUCP not getting a mention at the time - twentythree years ago - so far as I can remember). Anyway, RFC822 isn't even remotely relevant to UUCP versus NCP versus TCP discussions or to envelope sender authentication, since it does not address that level of protocol at all (RFC822 is not RFC821, and I'm not sure even RFC821 specifies that TCP is the carrier, it's a very long time since I read it but there's no reason why it should). I don't believe any of the systems in use in the early days of the internet provided any form of authentication of the sender at all. Also it's worth remembering that it was nowhere near universal for MUAs to be RFC733 conformant, let alone RFC822 conformant, and that RFC821 was certainly not a universally used mail protocol, until the 1990s (plenty of addresses with explicit routing in them, whether n@a@b@c format or n%a%b@c format or c!b!a!n format or a mixture of all three around until about 10 years ago). The European contemporaries, EARN and JANET, did no better on email sender authentication than INTERNET did (in other words they did exactly nothing on it - I remember knocking up a send only MUA on an ICL mainframe in Manchester for occassions when I couldn't reach my usual MTA and happily using it to send grey-book mail to JANET, EARN, and INTERNET addresses "from" my usual mail address on a Unix machine in Oxford - without the mail ever going within a couple of hundred miles of that machine). Tom Thomson _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 14:29:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07912 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:29:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26Jeit07121 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:40:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26JeiO07118 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:40:44 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07890 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:29:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26JaIO06121; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:36:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26JQsO05542 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:26:54 -0500 Received: from mercury.ex.ac.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07223 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:15:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from [144.173.6.20] (helo=cronus.ex.ac.uk) by mercury.ex.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18r0rm-00DArh-00; Thu, 06 Mar 2003 19:17:18 +0000 From: Adam Back To: Hadmut Danisch Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: pros and cons of RMX (Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world) Message-ID: <20030306191718.B4198310@exeter.ac.uk> References: <20030306105315.GA4411@danisch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.2i In-Reply-To: <20030306105315.GA4411@danisch.de>; from hadmut@danisch.de on Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 11:53:15AM +0100 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:17:18 +0000 Guess you weren't listening. This was _all_ said before. A) RMX is broken, due to reliance on DNS B) (presuming you fix that in some way) if everyone did this then an existing functionality -- the ability to send mail from different accounts using existing defacto functionality, software and infrastructure -- is lost. While there may be ways to _change_ massive amounts of infrastructure to still be able to send from different accounts, it _has_ to be acknowledged that this is a cost of this solution, to the millions of people currently using that existing functionality. As there appear to be other technologies which don't have this massive problem, and in addition due to problem A) (that RMX is broken), it doesn't appear to be an attractive candidate solution. Adam On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 11:53:15AM +0100, Hadmut Danisch wrote: > Peoples of the world, listen: > > > I, the legal owner and emperor of the domain "danisch.de", hereby > declare to the world, that all mail from this domain will be > delivered from the IP address 213.133.101.23 only. I kindly ask > you to not accept any mail with a sender address of this domain > delivered from any other IP address, since it is considered to be > forged. Thank you for your cooperation. > > > In what way would such a statement infringe anyone else's > constitutional or other rights? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 14:32:59 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08054 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:32:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26Ji9c07349 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:44:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26Ji9O07346 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:44:09 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08045 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:32:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26JexO07168; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:40:59 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26JWbO05838 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:32:37 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07483 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:20:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h26JN1BD007609 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:23:01 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D558@bremocag> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Asrg] Where to filter? (was Re: Limitations of filters) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:23:01 -0500 (EST) On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, wayne wrote: > False positives can also be very expensive. Reduction in bandwidth > and hardware costs by aggressive and early filtering may be penny wise > and pound foolish. IF the MUA has a good spam filtering system, it > may be most cost effective to let a lot of questionable email through > to it. Actually, the better solution is to implement per-user filtering on the mail server. It's a heck of a lot cheaper to upgrade software on one or a few servers than supply lots of users with new MUA's. And if a user is dialing up long-distance to pick up e-mail, he/she will appreciate systems that trap suspect mail on the server for review rather than forcing it all to be downloaded first. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 14:38:19 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08287 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:38:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26JnTk07618 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:49:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26JnTO07615 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:49:29 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08264 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:37:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26JjLO07410; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:45:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26JYFO05887 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:34:15 -0500 Received: from smtp.mcn.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07539 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:22:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from [204.189.3.167] (larkam2-39.mcn.org [204.189.3.167]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.mcn.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h26JOXwb021827; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:24:33 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: larkam24@mail.mcn.org Message-Id: To: asrg@ietf.org From: matthew richards Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Subject: [Asrg] email classes! (and i dont mean email 101) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:24:32 -0800 email classes! (and i dont mean email 101) --- here is a possible solution: i think a lot of people are overlooking something really important and that is that the majority of email users have free online email accounts like hotmail. in order for any new protocols, security/accountability measures to be put into place, companies like microsoft are going to have to buy into the technology, otherwise there will be massive fracturing within email systems that probably not be in anyones best interest. that is unless someone has a really great idea and it catches on to the point of becoming an instant mime. my idea is this; create a set of classes that act as a bottleneck between the user and the acquisition of an email account. in essence set restrictions for each class type, ie: personal: 24 i/o messages/day quota. (basic sign up, just like hotmail) business: 48 free i/o messages/day quota. (comprehensive sign up requiring credit card info, policy would charge an additional $1.50 for additional >48 sent emails) i cant imagine an individual sending more than 24 emails in a day, and if they did they would be forced to pay for them, legally. alternately only a single account could be registered per CC# this would eliminate multiple personality disorder ;) the number one problem i see with email is that unlimited sending power is available to anyone. i have no idea how a person could enforce my idea seeing how email is available all over the world without any real centralized control. people should still be able to sign up for free and easy accounts, but there should be a reasonable limitation on how much email traffic can be happening through those accounts. i see no reason for commercial email at all, there is no legitimacy to random advertising, and there is only questionable legitimacy to targeted advertising. that it may or may not be effective is beside the point. it seems that people are having trouble distinguishing between what is spam and what is not, well here let me make it easy for you: if the general message is repetitive and you dont subscribe to it of your own free will then it's spam. no one seems to remember long ago when there was no spam; occasionally an email would come out of the blue, maybe it was commercial, maybe not, either way it was not spam because there was not system behind it, it was just a coincidence, maybe even an accident. spam can be characterized as a sytematic approach by a company or individual to evict a response from other persons without their permission. the intention of the sender is key. for the implementation of the system i have proposed, this is how i would imagine it to take effect: first design and foolproof the system architecture. second integrate the design into the existing base SMTP, releasing it as a new version backwards compatible with the current SMTP with the exception of the traffic limitation feature and email classes. third set up mail sign up portals stressing the potential to eliminate unwanted solicitations. eventually if enough people signed up spam would cease to be viable as anyone attempting to spam would experience a drastic downshift; with the old SMTP targeted mailboxes would fill up after 24 messages, the rest would bounce. with the enhanced SMTP spammers would be limited to 48 messages a day per CC, even if they had 50 credit cards, that would still only be only 2400 emails total, with any bounces further diminishing the quota. basically spammers would simply have no business. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 14:43:20 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08429 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:43:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26JsU607873 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:54:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26JsUO07870 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:54:30 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08415 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:42:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26Jo3O07685; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:50:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26JaUO06133 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:36:30 -0500 Received: from splat.viawest.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07670 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:24:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from splat.viawest.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by splat.viawest.net (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h26JQpfc003672; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:26:51 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from cfedde@splat.viawest.net) Message-Id: <200303061926.h26JQpfc003672@splat.viawest.net> To: "David F. Skoll" cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: Disposable ISP accounts (was Re: [Asrg] RE: Asrg digest, Vol 1 #42 - 13 msgs) In-Reply-To: From: Chris Fedde Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 12:26:51 -0700 On Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:15:07 -0500 (EST) "David F. Skoll" wrote: +------------------ | On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Tom Thomson wrote: | | An even simpler solution is for ISP's to prevent free accounts from | sending e-mail at all. You can browse the Web all you want, but until | you pay up and give a credit card number -- no e-mail. Or slightly | less draconian, force free accounts to send e-mail through the ISP's | server and limit it to 10 emails/day. | +------------------ Systems like the DUL go a long way to help inforce this. Few retail isp accounts have good reason to bypass the providors MTA. That having been said many smaller isps view allowing open access to the internet as a freedom that they see as having value to their customers. Maybe that makes them a haven but I'm not sure what -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 14:49:01 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08710 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:49:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26K0BW08313 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:00:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26K0BO08310 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:00:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08702 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:48:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26Jv9O08136; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:57:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26JjTO07419 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:45:29 -0500 Received: from backbone.midwestcs.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08071 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:33:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from footbone.midwestcs.com ([206.222.212.237] helo=midwestcs.com) by backbone.midwestcs.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18r19f-0004dU-00 for ; Thu, 06 Mar 2003 13:35:47 -0600 to: asrg@ietf.org (ietf anti-spam research group) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Do we need to do anything? References: <80AD1C20BCECD6118FD800508BCF7EDA72D7A1@exchuk19.eu.ssmb.com> <200303061128.59077.james.mcininch@attbi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: wayne In-Reply-To: <200303061128.59077.james.mcininch@attbi.com> Message-ID: Lines: 23 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanner: exiscan *18r19f-0004dU-00*PjcbN8rWFc6* () Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 06 Mar 2003 13:35:46 -0600 In <200303061128.59077.james.mcininch@attbi.com> James McIninch writes: > In the world of e-mail, we could leave SMTP and the MTAs entirely untouched > and provide a simple service that handles account aliasing (mail forwarding). > It would work like this -- I'm going to give an e-mail address out, perhaps > to someone I don't trust. My MUA asks a forwarding service for a randomly > generated address to be mapped to my true e-mail address for either 1.) a > specific time period, or 2.) until I ask for it to be revoked. This sounds a heck of a lot like http://sneakemail.com/ There are other similar systems out there. People use them and they seem to work. However, I don't think this kind of thing is a good solution. Enough spammers continue to spam long after an account has been deactivated that systems like sneakemail will experiences an ever increasing ratio of spam to valid email. People will also still have to deal with switching email addresses. -wayne _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 14:53:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08858 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:53:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26K4oW08527 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:04:50 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26K4oO08524 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:04:50 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08832 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:53:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26K1XO08409; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:01:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26JdpO07038 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:39:51 -0500 Received: from mail.speakeasy.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07827 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:28:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 12661 invoked from network); 6 Mar 2003 19:30:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO spiral.whatever.net) ([64.81.21.85]) (envelope-sender ) by mail15.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 6 Mar 2003 19:30:19 -0000 Received: from spiral.whatever.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by spiral.whatever.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h26JYaRC012802 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:34:36 -0800 Received: from localhost (nathan@localhost) by spiral.whatever.net (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) with ESMTP id h26JYaNk012799 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:34:36 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: spiral.whatever.net: nathan owned process doing -bs From: Nate W X-Sender: nathan@spiral To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Economic model is borken. (sic.) Let's fix it In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:34:35 -0800 (PST) On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > I don't think that the response loop idea is acceptable as a general > solution. In my view it should only be used as a last resort if > a mailer has exhausted every other means of authenticating the > sender. That means SSL, S/MIME and PGP. Nobody should be using > intrusive means of authentication when there are non-intrusive > options available. How intrusive is it for a person to expect all correspondents to use S/MIME or PGP authentication? Most of the people I correspond with don't even know what those are, let alone know how to use them. My inbox is presently guarded by an autoresponder that sends and receives return-address confirmation requests via SMTP. One might say that, in effect, I consent to receive email from people who use (and monitor) the "From" address that they use. While not technically elegant, this method is widely implemented and pretty well understood. I'd love to replace it with something less intrusive, but I don't think it's really my decision. Rather, the decision lies in the hands of all the people with whom I correspond. So then the problem is getting everyone to use SMIME or PGP or whatever. They don't have to know they're using it (just like they don't "know" what SMTP stands for), it just needs to be pervasively implemented. > I think it is acceptable to send a callback loop request if all > other means of authentication have been exhausted first and the > message in question has been identified as having a high > probability of being spam. Otherwise this type of behaviour is > simply anti-social. I disagree with that assertion - autoresponder-based whitelists are a net gain for the community. Since instituting my autoresponder and whitelist about a year ago, I've received about two pieces of spam. The number of unseeing spam messages is probably around 1500. I've probably sent a couple dozen (admittedly annoying) confirmation requests to actual human beings. In the big picture, the number of annoying messages put before live humans has dropped from 1500 to 25. If everyone took up whitelisting and automated confirmation, the number of unwanted messages everyone received would drop by a comparable ratio. I don't think this that's an anti-social vision at all. To the extent that it is, the blame lies on the penis-extension people and their ilk, not those who have instituted a system that results in a reduction of the total number unwanted messages arriving in inboxes. It's not a perfect solution, and I hope we can come up with something better, but it works. I note that this very mailing list uses a similar method to screen subscription requests. I don't consider that anti-social, in fact I consider it a very wise practice. The bandwidth cost of every piece of spam goes up by a factor of two to three, though - there's the confirmation request, and then the bounce report created by said request. That's the drawback I have the hardest time rationalizing. But it works *very* well, and that's rationalization enough for me. -- Nate Waddoups Redmond WA USA http://www.natew.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 15:02:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09234 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:02:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26KE6W09820 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:14:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26KE6O09816 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:14:06 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09221 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:02:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26K9gO09620; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:09:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26K3dO08502 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:03:39 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08815 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:51:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc02.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h26Jrw3Z018375; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:53:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:53:57 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Adam Back'" , Hadmut Danisch Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: pros and cons of RMX (Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:53:51 -0800 > Guess you weren't listening. This was _all_ said before. This is the second time you have assumed that someone who disagrees with you does so from ignorance. I am the Principal Scientist of VeriSign, a company that manages DNS and PKI infrastructure on a very large scale. Hadmut has made a number of well thought out contributions to the debate. If DNS is broken we can fix it for this application. I suggest that you treat other participants in the group with some respect if you wish your own ideas to be listened to. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 15:07:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09793 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:07:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26KIGP09953 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:18:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26KIGO09950 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:18:16 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09632 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:06:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26KE8O09835; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:14:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26Je3O07076 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:40:03 -0500 Received: from mercury.ex.ac.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07841 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:28:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from [144.173.6.20] (helo=cronus.ex.ac.uk) by mercury.ex.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18r14V-00DCrq-00; Thu, 06 Mar 2003 19:30:27 +0000 From: Adam Back To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: asrg@ietf.org, Adam Back Message-ID: <20030306193027.C4198310@exeter.ac.uk> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.2i In-Reply-To: ; from pbaker@verisign.com on Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 04:50:18AM -0800 Subject: [Asrg] DNSSEC has it's own deployment problems (Re: Keith, Hadmut both right) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:30:27 +0000 On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 04:50:18AM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > The widespread DNS spoofing scenarios proposed are theoretical not > practical. Probably you missed the earlier post with a pointer to a paper on DNS attacks: https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg00113.html and a description of the way that RMX proposal interacts badly to make DNS even more vulnerable in the context of RMX. > And if they did prove to be practical it would merely create the > currently missing imperative for DNSSEC deployment - not a bad thing > in itself. However there is no upgrade path to installing DNSSEC as a way to fixing the problem, because DNSSEC has a version rollback attack. An attacker can trick a DNSSEC client into thinking the DNSSEC server is just a DNS server. Even worse it's the same pattern of attack that makes RMX vulnerable to DNS attacks. To fix it you'd have to fully deploy DNSSEC and _disable_ DNS. This is likely a problem as hard as fixing spam, as it's of similar order to replacing SMTP as a protocol with a cut-off date. On top of that DNSSEC presumes a PKI, which as we've seen over the last 5 years is a hard thing to deploy in and of itself. Adam _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 15:10:59 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA10559 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:10:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26KMAA10425 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:22:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26KMAO10422 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:22:10 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA10494 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:10:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26KIiO10249; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:18:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26JmnO07568 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:48:49 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08220 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:37:07 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h26HkGTD012114 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:46:16 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h26HkG2Q012110 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:46:16 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world In-Reply-To: <20030306090835.60e94bdc.moore@cs.utk.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:46:16 -0800 (PST) DNS is specially designed to be tied to IP addresses and so are ip addresses to DNS (reverse dns which is in fact used by some mailers to establish identity). It seems to me we can not rely on just ip address or just domain but both can be used with possibly additional means of authentication when one or the other changes. Big problem is how to provide distributed authentication if it must be independent of either ip addresses or domain names. On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Keith Moore wrote: > subject to relataively few constraints, you own 'danisch.de' for as long as > you renew it. most users do not own their IP addresses. in order for routing > to scale (at least with current routing protocols), it is necessary that > networks be renumbered from time to time. so we do not want to encourage > tight binding of IP addresses to domain names even for those cases where it might > work, for now. also, source addresses can sometimes be forged, so we don't > want to rely on them as authentiation tokens. > > Keith > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 15:18:07 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA10981 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:18:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26KTIK10755 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:29:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26KTHO10752 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:29:17 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA10974 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:17:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26KP0O10603; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:25:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26KCFO09722 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:12:15 -0500 Received: from INET-IMC-05.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09155 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:00:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from inet-vrs-05.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.6.157]) by INET-IMC-05.redmond.corp.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6624); Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:02:35 -0800 Received: from 157.54.8.23 by inet-vrs-05.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Thu, 06 Mar 2003 12:02:35 -0800 Received: from RED-MSG-06.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.12.198]) by INET-HUB-01.redmond.corp.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:02:34 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.6851.8 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: <7695E2F6903F7A41961F8CF888D87EA809F0164F@red-msg-06.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> Thread-Topic: Problems that make the RMX proposal infeasible thread-index: AcLkG1MaziS4i+44RmG+zi4nN8Zn6g== From: "Jonathan Wilkins" To: Cc: "Adam Back" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Mar 2003 20:02:34.0685 (UTC) FILETIME=[54266ED0:01C2E41B] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h26KCFO09723 Subject: [Asrg] Problems that make the RMX proposal infeasible Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:02:34 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I've been tracking this discussion for a little while and thought that I'd finally de-lurk and give some comments. I'm going to summarize some points that Adam Back has made and add a little because it seems that some people have still not understood the problems. Firstly, the DNS protocol is subject to spoofing. This is a fundamental problem with the protocol and cannot be fixed without totally changing the protocol. This is due to the fact that the first answer with a matching request ID is accepted. Since the request ID is a 16 bit field, it is trivial for an attacker to send 65536 100 byte packets and provide this answer. This is bad in general, but somewhat mitigated by the fact that it is hard to determine when a given server will make a request and the fact that most important things are backed up with SSL. An attacker may know that you bank with Wells Fargo, but will find it difficult to predict exactly when you're going to try and log into their servers. Even if they manage that, you'll still be presented with a browser warning (or if they direct you to https://www.weelsfargo.com you stand a chance of noticing the unexpected URL) In the context of the RMX proposal, neither of these are true. The attacker knows roughly when you'll do the lookup. (Either when the MAIL FROM line is sent or when the message has been received.) Furthermore, since the attacker gets to choose the TTL, the value of this attack is greatly increased. Since the TTL is specified as an unsigned integer and given in seconds this means that they only have to succeed with this attack once per server. Furthermore, since they don't care whether you're reading spam from spammer@foo.com or spammer@bar.com, if they somehow fail the first attempt, they can retry over and over again with varying domains. As soon as they win once, they can spam for however long your DNS server actually caches the record. DNS IS NOT A VALID METHOD OF AUTHENTICATION!!!!!!!! Note: While it is possible to make this attack harder by varying the source port too (which DJBDNS does and BIND doesn't) the total search space is still too small to withstand a concerted attack. This is made worse by the birthday attack mentioned in the DNS Cache Poisoning - TNG paper) Papers to read: DNS Cache Poisoning - The Next Generation The old problem of DNS cache poisoning has again reared its ugly head. While some would argue that the domain name system protocol is inherently vulnerable to this style of attack due to the weakness of 16-bit transaction IDs, we cannot ignore the immediate threat while waiting for something better to come along. There are new attacks, which make DNS cache poisoning trivial to execute against a large number of nameservers running today. The purpose of this article is to shed light on these new attacks and recommend ways to defend against them. http://www.securityfocus.com/guest/17905 -------- Mike Schiffman (aka route, past editor of phrack) has done an analysis of the current state of the world's DNS infrastructure. Synopsis: DNS servers across the Internet running BIND are not up to date with security patches and software updates. As a result, a significant fraction of the Internet's DNS servers is vulnerable to compromise, subversion, denial of service, and general misuse. Considering that DNS is the lynchpin of the corporate enterprise, the impact of these vulnerabilities is significant and a successful attack could bring down any online business. http://www.packetfactory.net/DNS/ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 15:23:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11235 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:23:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26KYoA11228 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:34:50 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26KYoO11225 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:34:50 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11219 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:23:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26KUZO11052; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:30:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26JnEO07604 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:49:14 -0500 Received: from mercury.ex.ac.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08260 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:37:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from [144.173.6.20] (helo=cronus.ex.ac.uk) by mercury.ex.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18r1DO-00D26I-00; Thu, 06 Mar 2003 19:39:38 +0000 From: Adam Back To: Hadmut Danisch Cc: Chris Lewis , Asrg@ietf.org, Adam Back Message-ID: <20030306193937.D4198310@exeter.ac.uk> References: <20030305173026.2cc1f628.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305224734.GD16824@danisch.de> <20030305180647.232f86b8.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305231539.GC17368@danisch.de> <20030306002417.A4477766@exeter.ac.uk> <20030306090540.GB2340@danisch.de> <20030306084606.2a1e2702.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030306141442.GA8957@danisch.de> <3E67703D.6040208@americasm01.nt.com> <20030306165805.GA12473@danisch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.2i In-Reply-To: <20030306165805.GA12473@danisch.de>; from hadmut@danisch.de on Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 05:58:05PM +0100 Subject: [Asrg] RMX provides auth for one-hop only (Re: privacy is a feature) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:39:37 +0000 Nodes in the received path can lie with RMX or UUCP, I think this is the point. Ergo RMX only provides authentication when there is one hop. Adam On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 05:58:05PM +0100, Hadmut Danisch wrote: > On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 10:58:53AM -0500, Chris Lewis wrote: > > > And there's the rub. Anyone anywhere along the path could have forged > > everything previous to them. Not much different than the issues with > > SMTP. > > > No. Since every node personally knew it's neighbours, you could > backtrack the path until you found the node which forged. > > Today, you also can backtrack, but it's useless, since SMTP nodes > don't know their neighbours. How does it help you if you have > a Received: header that reliably says that the e-mail came from some > dynamically assigned IP address in some country in far east, > no chance to figure out who used it? > > In contrast, every UUCP node knew who it was sharing passwords with. > > Hadmut > > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 15:28:18 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11347 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:28:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26KdRS12224 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:39:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26KdRO12221 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:39:27 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11334 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:27:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26KYwO11275; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:34:58 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26JqjO07802 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:52:45 -0500 Received: from relay05.indigo.ie (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id OAA08366 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:41:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 63326 messnum 1214673 invoked from network[194.125.173.51/ts13-051.dublin.indigo.ie]); 6 Mar 2003 19:43:08 -0000 Received: from ts13-051.dublin.indigo.ie (HELO jmason.org) (194.125.173.51) by relay05.indigo.ie (qp 63326) with SMTP; 6 Mar 2003 19:43:08 -0000 Received: by jmason.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 4787B16F16; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:43:02 +0000 (GMT) Received: from jmason.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ADC5F7BB; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:43:02 +0000 (GMT) To: Jim Youll Cc: Matt Sergeant , "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Do we need to do anything? In-Reply-To: Message from Jim Youll of "Thu, 06 Mar 2003 13:59:44 EST." <200303061900.h26J0Qmf003963@new.agentzero.com> From: jm@jmason.org (Justin Mason) X-GPG-Key-Fingerprint: 0A48 2D8B 0B52 A87D 0E8A 6ADD 4137 1B50 6E58 EF0A X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to . Message-Id: <20030306194302.4787B16F16@jmason.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 19:42:57 +0000 Jim Youll said: > At 18:33 +0000 3/6/03, Matt Sergeant wrote: > >Tagged addresses, temporary addresses, etc. All work well for a bit. > >Until your real email address gets out there. > >And then you're history. ... > > But if you had a proper client that hid all the work, you could > "give" a different e-mail address to every correspondent, and if it > leaked out, you need only cancel that one and give that particular > correspondent a freshly-generated address, no? The issue I've had with tagged addresses (which I use BTW in some cases) is a usability one -- if I subscribe to a list with jm-list@jmason.org, I have to maintain a mapping between "posting to the foo list" means "use jm-list@jmason.org for the From address" (since most sensible lists impose From-addr filtering to avoid spam). Giving a different e-mail addr to each correspondent breaks down in this case, since I may be replying to Jim Youll, ccing Matt Sergeant, and the ARSG list. Which from addr do I use in this case? If only the Asrg list had so far had a tagged address mapping, that would be doable. But if all 3 had, it's more difficult; I'd have to tell my software that Asrg takes priority, use its address, etc. --j. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 15:34:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11519 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:34:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26KjEJ12486 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:45:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26KjEO12483 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:45:14 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11506 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:33:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26KfJO12343; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:41:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26KPdO10633 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:25:39 -0500 Received: from zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA10818 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:13:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h26KG0D18673 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:16:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF4T9NQ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:16:00 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id FSK7Y530; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:15:59 -0500 Message-ID: <3E67AD44.7090508@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Asrg@ietf.org References: <20030305173026.2cc1f628.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305224734.GD16824@danisch.de> <20030305180647.232f86b8.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305231539.GC17368@danisch.de> <20030306002417.A4477766@exeter.ac.uk> <20030306090540.GB2340@danisch.de> <20030306084606.2a1e2702.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030306141442.GA8957@danisch.de> <3E67703D.6040208@americasm01.nt.com> <20030306165805.GA12473@danisch.de> <20030306193937.D4198310@exeter.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Re: RMX provides auth for one-hop only (Re: privacy is a feature) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 15:19:16 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Adam Back wrote: > Nodes in the received path can lie with RMX or UUCP, I think this is > the point. Ergo RMX only provides authentication when there is one > hop. Exactly. The point-to-point authentication in UUCP provides NO more level of authenticity than the peer IP address in a Received line - in the one hop you (should be able to) trust - the one into your own machine. Tracing back a UUCP message to the true origin is exactly the same thing as tracing Recieved lines backwards. Before you can trust the next hop, you have to _ask_ the sysadmin to check their logs. You can frequently skip intermediate hops and go to the last one and ask their admin for a corresponding record. But that's the same in UUCP and SMTP. The only difference is that back in UUCP days, machines tended to be multi-user, many orders of magnitude fewer of them, and many orders of magnitude less email. If we were using UUCP technology today (with the necessary scaling modifications, such as much higher point-to-point levels, which is impractical anyway), we'd have exactly the same problems we're having with SMTP in establishing authenticity. Authenticity has to be end-to-end (eg: signatures) before you can do better than SMTP/UUCP can do on their own unless you plan on scaling back the Internet by at least 5 orders of magnitude... I have fond recollections of those days (UUCP and Usenet admin since 1982), but we don't want to go back there, do we? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 15:39:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11679 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:39:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26KolH12767 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:50:47 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26KolO12764 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:50:47 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11660 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:39:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26KjqO12562; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:45:52 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26KUOO10878 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:30:24 -0500 Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11011 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:18:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h26KKhA13443; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:20:43 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Moore To: william@elan.net Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world Message-Id: <20030306152043.346929f4.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: References: <20030306090835.60e94bdc.moore@cs.utk.edu> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:20:43 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:46:16 -0800 (PST) william@elan.net wrote: > DNS is specially designed to be tied to IP addresses uh, no. yes reverse DNS can be used to lookup domain names but DNS names are not "tied" to IP address - the mapping from a DNS name to an IP address is arbitrary, and so is the reverse mapping, the two don't have to match or even exists. and anybody with an IP address block can claim that those addresses are associated with any domain he likes. IP-to-domain lookup is often meaningless anyway, in many cases returning what is essentially a text representation of the IP address with some provider's name appended. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 15:45:08 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11780 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:45:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26KuHv12978 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:56:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26KuHO12975 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:56:17 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11773 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:44:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26Kq8O12851; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:52:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26KVQO11142 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:31:26 -0500 Received: from mercury.ex.ac.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11136 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:19:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from [144.173.6.20] (helo=cronus.ex.ac.uk) by mercury.ex.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18r1sD-00DBlV-00; Thu, 06 Mar 2003 20:21:49 +0000 From: Adam Back To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: asrg@ietf.org, Adam Back Message-ID: <20030306202149.A4283701@exeter.ac.uk> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.2i In-Reply-To: ; from pbaker@verisign.com on Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 11:43:17AM -0800 Subject: [Asrg] Re: DNSSEC has it's own deployment problems (Re: Keith, Hadmut bo th right) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 20:21:49 +0000 Phill, > DNS Cache poisoning etc attacks are actually quite hard to do if you > do not know the address of the resolver asking the question. And this address is protected how? It is easy to discover, commonly advertised (think ISPs), and at best weak security by obscurity. > If however the attack does turn out to be a problem we fix the > broken-ness of DNS. A flooding attack is easily deleted with a > unique request ID cookie, we do not need to even go as far as > deploying DNSSEC. The request ID within DNS is 16 bits. If you propose adding such a larger cookie to both sender and recipient then you have to deploy that which is again another problem to solve which adds over all complexity to problem of deploying a fixed to the SMTP protocol. > >>b) the sender can choose the TTL on his forged DNS response, making it > >>last for weeks; > > Sounds like a pretty recognizable signature. Incorrect. There will be a wide variety of TTLs used in the field, they can legitimately change over time; all the attacker has to do is choose a plausible looking and long TTL. > It is in any case a simple matter to limit the TTL that the cache > recognizes. Which tends to impacts performance. > > On top of that DNSSEC presumes a PKI, which as we've seen over the > > last 5 years is a hard thing to deploy in and of itself. > > Also untrue. This is a political debate for another list. Hardly "untrue", at the very least it's a debatable point, stock prices and recent histories of PKI bankruptcies could be read to indicate PKI has it's own technical and economic infrastructure deployment problems. Anyway my point is more to the overall complexity of a scheme. An anti-spam scheme that starts with "step 1 deploy global PKI", I think is undisputably more complex than a system like hashcash which has no infrastructure requirements. Adam _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 15:50:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11990 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:50:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26L25X13310 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:02:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26L25O13307 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:02:05 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11982 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:50:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26KvZO13070; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:57:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26KqZO12873 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:52:35 -0500 Received: from backbone.midwestcs.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11712 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:40:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from footbone.midwestcs.com ([206.222.212.237] helo=midwestcs.com) by backbone.midwestcs.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18r2CX-0005AK-00 for ; Thu, 06 Mar 2003 14:42:49 -0600 to: asrg@ietf.org (ietf anti-spam research group) Subject: Re: pros and cons of RMX (Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world) References: <20030306105315.GA4411@danisch.de> <20030306191718.B4198310@exeter.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: wayne In-Reply-To: <20030306191718.B4198310@exeter.ac.uk> Message-ID: Lines: 41 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanner: exiscan *18r2CX-0005AK-00*MGJudibPr5w* () Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 06 Mar 2003 14:42:48 -0600 In <20030306191718.B4198310@exeter.ac.uk> Adam Back writes: > Guess you weren't listening. This was _all_ said before. I don't know about Hadmut, but I was listening. I even reread the web page about the DNS security problem. While I'm not convinced that RMX records or domain specific DNSBLs will dramatically cut down on the spam problem, I am certainly not convinced that the idea is bogus. > A) RMX is broken, due to reliance on DNS Even with the birthday paradox attack, the spammer will have to send out hundreds of forged DNS packets in order to have a good chance of getting a bogus entry the target's DNS cache. This is both very detectable and it also greatly increases the amount of work that a spammer has to do. This is a much more serious problem when a bogus DNS lookup can expose someone's bank account or other things that could get a huge payoff from just a single forged DNS entry. The payoff for the spammer is almost nothing. Somehow I don't think that spammers are going to be the ones that will motivate this DNS security problem to be closed. > B) (presuming you fix that in some way) if everyone did this then an > existing functionality -- the ability to send mail from different > accounts using existing defacto functionality, software and > infrastructure -- is lost. Everyone would do this only if everyone didn't want to have their domain names used indiscriminantly. Only domain name owners who want to limit who can send email claiming to be from them would create RMX records or create a domain specific DNSBL. Only MTAs that want to respect domain name owner's wishes would enforce it. Are you saying that domain name owners should not say who can use their name and others should not be able to respect that request? -wayne _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 15:53:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12058 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:53:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26L4pk13419 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:04:51 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26L4pO13416 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:04:51 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12055 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:53:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26L0nO13260; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:00:49 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26KtwO12960 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:55:58 -0500 Received: from mercury.ex.ac.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11763 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:44:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from [144.173.6.20] (helo=cronus.ex.ac.uk) by mercury.ex.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18r2Fv-00DCmH-00; Thu, 06 Mar 2003 20:46:19 +0000 From: Adam Back To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: Hadmut Danisch , asrg@ietf.org, Adam Back Subject: Re: pros and cons of RMX (Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world) Message-ID: <20030306204620.A4522791@exeter.ac.uk> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.2i In-Reply-To: ; from pbaker@verisign.com on Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 11:53:51AM -0800 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 20:46:20 +0000 Phil wrote: > [...] If DNS is broken we can fix it for this application. That was my request: - RMX proposers should demonstrate fixes to it's security problems - the deployment of any fixes to DNS should be considered part of the deployment picture for RMX (Deployment being probably the biggest challenge with any anti-spam solution.) Adam _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 15:56:16 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12179 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:56:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26L7QT14190 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:07:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26L7PO14185 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:07:25 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12157 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:55:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26L2qO13355; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:02:52 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26Ku5O12969 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:56:06 -0500 Received: from mail005.syd.optusnet.com.au (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11766 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:44:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from co3001591-a.troy.rollo.name (c18374.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [210.49.142.222]) by mail005.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26KkQu30342; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 07:46:26 +1100 Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20030307074303.024ecce0@mail> X-Sender: (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 To: asrg@ietf.org, Keith Moore From: Troy Rollo Subject: Re: [Asrg] definition of spam (was Re: consent expression) In-Reply-To: <20030306085810.0e816395.moore@cs.utk.edu> References: <4.3.1.2.20030306181200.02632e10@mail> <20030305134413.2988c5b7.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030304205916.56614a9f.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305040008.GB14655@main.templetons.com> <20030304234928.5485710d.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305051840.GI14655@main.templetons.com> <20030305051936.55246a31.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305062722.3d36f607.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305085043.700fb87a.moore@cs.utk.edu> <3E6635FC.9060003@americasm01.nt.com> <20030305134413.2988c5b7.moore@cs.utk.edu> <4.3.1.2.20030306181200.02632e10@mail> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 07:46:26 +1100 At 08:58 6/03/03 -0500, Keith Moore wrote: >I also don't believe in treating one-to-many email differently than one-to-one >email, because it's the content of the email that the recipient cares about >rather than the number of recipients. There are some people that prima facie care about the content, but the problem, and what most people care about when you really get down to querying them about whether they would find particular spams acceptable, is the bulk. Content is just used as a differentiator for reasons of political expediency. -- Troy Rollo Chairman, CAUBE.AU asrg@troy.rollo.name Executive Director, iCAUCE _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 15:58:03 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12213 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:58:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26L9Db14406 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:09:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26L9DO14403 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:09:13 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12202 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:57:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26L4sO13458; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:04:54 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26KXEO11201 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:33:14 -0500 Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11198 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:21:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h26KNSA13447; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:23:28 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Moore To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, adam@cypherspace.org, hadmut@danisch.de, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: pros and cons of RMX (Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world) Message-Id: <20030306152327.609494a8.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:23:27 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:53:51 -0800 "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" wrote: > If DNS is broken we can fix it for this application. please note - VeriSign does not control DNS, despite their delusions of authority. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 16:02:00 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12366 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:02:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26LDAS14622 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:13:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26LDAO14619 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:13:10 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12358 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:01:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26L9EO14421; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:09:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26KbnO12146 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:37:49 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11280 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:26:08 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h26IZFTD012896; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:35:15 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h26IZEM7012891; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:35:14 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: Keith Moore cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world In-Reply-To: <20030306152043.346929f4.moore@cs.utk.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:35:14 -0800 (PST) You're taking my words too literally. I did not say its one-one relationship, in fact, its many-many and for dns->ip we can have multiple ips associated with the same dns and multiple dns pointing to the same ip, similarly ip->dns can have multiple reverse name (rare, but allowed) and multiple ips giving the same name. But what I meant is that either infrastrcture can be used to provide some means of authentication (not saying its done now or what is done can be trusted) but neither one can be relied by itself. On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Keith Moore wrote: > On Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:46:16 -0800 (PST) > william@elan.net wrote: > > > DNS is specially designed to be tied to IP addresses > > uh, no. > > yes reverse DNS can be used to lookup domain names but DNS names are not > "tied" to IP address - the mapping from a DNS name to an IP address is > arbitrary, and so is the reverse mapping, the two don't have to match > or even exists. and anybody with an IP address block can claim that > those addresses are associated with any domain he likes. > > IP-to-domain lookup is often meaningless anyway, in many cases returning > what is essentially a text representation of the IP address with some > provider's name appended. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 16:04:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12426 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:04:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26LFkW14756 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:15:46 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26LFjO14753 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:15:45 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12414 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:04:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26LBGO14538; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:11:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26KcDO12164 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:38:13 -0500 Received: from new.agentzero.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11285 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:26:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.123.194] (h0050e4251179.ne.client2.attbi.com [66.30.24.79]) by new.agentzero.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h26KTFmf006913; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:29:16 -0500 Message-Id: <200303062029.h26KTFmf006913@new.agentzero.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20030306194302.4787B16F16@jmason.org> References: <20030306194302.4787B16F16@jmason.org> To: asrg@ietf.org From: Jim Youll Subject: Re: [Asrg] Do we need to do anything? Cc: jm@jmason.org (Justin Mason), wayne Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:28:33 -0500 At 19:42 +0000 3/6/03, Justin Mason wrote: >The issue I've had with tagged addresses (which I use BTW in some cases) >is a usability one -- if I subscribe to a list with jm-list@jmason.org, >I have to maintain a mapping between "posting to the foo list" means >"use jm-list@jmason.org for the From address" (since most sensible lists >impose From-addr filtering to avoid spam). > >Giving a different e-mail addr to each correspondent breaks down in this >case, since I may be replying to Jim Youll, ccing Matt Sergeant, and the >ARSG list. Which from addr do I use in this case? If only the Asrg >list had so far had a tagged address mapping, that would be doable. But >if all 3 had, it's more difficult; I'd have to tell my software that >Asrg takes priority, use its address, etc. Right. So the obvious "correct" answer in this case, where one address (asrg) contains the others (jim,matt) the most all-inclusive address is the one to use. Your software doesn't know that. However, if the list were putting a Reply-To on the message (I think it should) then your software would. Absent that, since joining a confirmed mailing list is a "big" event compared to most e-mail activity, an enlightened e-mail client/server that could generate and maintain these many addresses would also presumably have the smarts to figure out what's up. At 13:35 -0600 3/6/03, wayne wrote: >However, I don't think this kind of thing is a good solution. >Enough spammers continue to spam long after an account has been >deactivated that systems like sneakemail will experiences an ever >increasing ratio of spam to valid email. People will also still have >to deal with switching email addresses. Sure, that's a concern. However with spammers now trying to cruise the entire name-space of domains, it doesn't even matter so much.... from the logs this week, of a domain (name elided) that I host... Mar 2 16:10:47 new sendmail[15206]: h22LAlW15206: ... No such user here Mar 2 16:10:47 new sendmail[15206]: h22LAlW15206: ... No such user here Mar 2 16:10:47 new sendmail[15206]: h22LAlW15206: ... No such user here Mar 2 16:10:47 new sendmail[15206]: h22LAlW15206: ... No such user here Mar 2 16:10:47 new sendmail[15206]: h22LAlW15206: ... No such user here Mar 2 16:10:47 new sendmail[15206]: h22LAlW15206: ... No such user here Mar 2 16:10:47 new sendmail[15206]: h22LAlW15206: ... No such user here Mar 2 16:10:47 new sendmail[15206]: h22LAlW15206: ... No such user here Mar 2 16:10:47 new sendmail[15206]: h22LAlW15206: ... No such user here This is not a perfect nor all-encompassing solution. I see it as a potentially useful tool for these reasons: 1. Self-help. It does not require a wholesale change to anything outside the user's local environment. It can be handled in a client with a little help on the server side. 2. Load-reduction... when a user learns that an address has been compromised and cancels the old address, the incoming server can kick messages at rather than handling all of it. The very thought of dealing with unsubs and resubs and updates... not pleasant at all, but it's the user's choice, really, and it doesn't demand cooperation of anything beyond the local circle of the user and his mail server. IBM did some work on this several years ago, and covered the entire subject pretty thoroughly. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 16:06:14 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12516 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:06:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26LHOX14894 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:17:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26LHOO14891 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:17:24 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12479 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:05:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26LE6O14686; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:14:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26KwWO13116 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:58:32 -0500 Received: from aismtp4g.bellsouth.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11875 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:46:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from 01al10015010057.ad.bls.com ([90.152.5.141] [90.152.5.141]) by aismtp4g.bellsouth.com with ESMTP; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:50:44 -0500 Received: by 01al10015010057.ad.bls.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:48:54 -0500 Message-Id: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D566@bremocag> From: "Sauer, Damon" To: "'william@elan.net'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Declaration to the world MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:48:48 -0500 -----Original Message----- From: william@elan.net [mailto:william@elan.net] Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 12:46 PM To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world ---- I don't see it as a huge problem. If your DNS is broken... fix it. Our implementation works somewhat this way now. If their DNS is broken or there is something wrong with the record, we queue the mail and do not deliver it. We will check for about 24hrs to see if it is eventually fixed, but after that, an error message is sent and the email is deleted. If there is a complaint, my response is "Fix your DNS". Designing around an issue is not the way to go. Design it to the RFC's and make it work accordingly. This would increase the pressure to fix the issues. Not only that, we are talking about a minority, not the majority. If everyone starts driving at 10mph, fatalities on the freeway will become almost non-existent and if we cover the earth in feather pillows, nobody will die in plane crashes. Is that the way that we want to go about designing this solution? If it doesn't work, fix it- Don't design around it. Here is a quote from another thread: "I am the Principal Scientist of VeriSign, a company that manages DNS and PKI infrastructure on a very large scale. Hadmut has made a number of well thought out contributions to the debate. -If DNS is broken we can fix it for this application." - Phillip Hallam-Baker Can we drop the broken DNS debate? Regards, Damon DNS is specially designed to be tied to IP addresses and so are ip addresses to DNS (reverse dns which is in fact used by some mailers to establish identity). It seems to me we can not rely on just ip address or just domain but both can be used with possibly additional means of authentication when one or the other changes. Big problem is how to provide distributed authentication if it must be independent of either ip addresses or domain names. On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Keith Moore wrote: > subject to relataively few constraints, you own 'danisch.de' for as long as > you renew it. most users do not own their IP addresses. in order for routing > to scale (at least with current routing protocols), it is necessary that > networks be renumbered from time to time. so we do not want to encourage > tight binding of IP addresses to domain names even for those cases where it might > work, for now. also, source addresses can sometimes be forged, so we don't > want to rely on them as authentiation tokens. > > Keith > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg ***** "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers." _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 16:08:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12587 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:08:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26LJpX15060 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:19:51 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26LJpO15057 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:19:51 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12581 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:08:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26LGaO14854; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:16:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26L2PO13326 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:02:25 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (peacock.verisign.com [65.205.251.73]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11987 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:50:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc02.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h26Kqi3Z028037; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:52:44 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:52:44 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Keith Moore'" , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: adam@cypherspace.org, hadmut@danisch.de, asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: pros and cons of RMX (Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:52:44 -0800 Keith, I do not find language such as 'delusions of authority' to be very helpful in a technical discussion. Please note the recent posting to the DNS list on this type of behavior from the IETF chair and attempt to engage in this debate in a civilized manner. I was refering to the Working Group. As you know, individual submissions and all that. I had actually just sent off a note to Paul Vixie to ask about the behavior of BIND. The issue is not in any case one that can be addressed through the delegation only DNS zones. The spam application assumes that action is taken by both the sending and recieving party wrt DNS. So if part of the deployment requirement for a DNS based authentication scheme is an upgrade of BIND that is not a problem. The problem can be fixed without the need for DNSSEC. It just requires a simple nonce reflection scheme to be added to the DNS protocol. This would be quite easy to add. You add in a dummy record type which is always responded to and always contains the exact same data as was present in the original query. Phill > -----Original Message----- > From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore@cs.utk.edu] > Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 3:23 PM > To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip > Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu; adam@cypherspace.org; hadmut@danisch.de; > asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: pros and cons of RMX (Re: [Asrg] Declaration to > the world) > > > On Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:53:51 -0800 > "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" wrote: > > > If DNS is broken we can fix it for this application. > > please note - VeriSign does not control DNS, despite their > delusions of > authority. > > Keith > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 16:11:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12669 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:11:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26LMnI15271 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:22:49 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26LMnO15268 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:22:49 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12661 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:11:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26LIeO15002; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:18:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26L6RO13485 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:06:27 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12105 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:54:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h26KumX04167 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:56:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF4T0P2; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:56:48 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id FSK7Y5QG; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:56:48 -0500 Message-ID: <3E67B6D4.2000601@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: DNSSEC has it's own deployment problems (Re: Keith, Hadmut bo th right) References: <20030306202149.A4283701@exeter.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 16:00:04 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Adam Back wrote: >>>On top of that DNSSEC presumes a PKI, which as we've seen over the >>>last 5 years is a hard thing to deploy in and of itself. >>Also untrue. > This is a political debate for another list. Hardly "untrue", at the > very least it's a debatable point, stock prices and recent histories > of PKI bankruptcies could be read to indicate PKI has it's own > technical and economic infrastructure deployment problems. Heh. PKI (at least how it's embodied in current tools etc) is tremendously complicated, somewhat non-interoperable amongst vendors (though that's finally improving), and it's very difficult to deploy/use client PKI in the large-scale even with relatively uniform installed-base software on the user-end. We have the bloody fingers to prove it. PKI is coming, but it's not mature enough yet. Security Dynamics, Versign's parent (or grandparent or something, I've lost track), has advertising videos where some of their other customers are saying the same thing. Dow Chemical IT said in 1999 or 2000 "We'll start getting serious about client PKI in 2004". I think they were a trifle too optimistic. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 16:15:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12793 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:15:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26LQfq15411 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:26:41 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26LQfO15408 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:26:41 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12763 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:15:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26LM9O15232; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:22:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26LBYO14554 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:11:34 -0500 Received: from backbone.midwestcs.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12276 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:59:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from footbone.midwestcs.com ([206.222.212.237] helo=midwestcs.com) by backbone.midwestcs.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18r2Uw-0005Kz-00 for ; Thu, 06 Mar 2003 15:01:50 -0600 to: Asrg@ietf.org (ietf anti-spam research group) Subject: Re: [Asrg] RMX provides auth for one-hop only (Re: privacy is a feature) References: <20030305173026.2cc1f628.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305224734.GD16824@danisch.de> <20030305180647.232f86b8.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305231539.GC17368@danisch.de> <20030306002417.A4477766@exeter.ac.uk> <20030306090540.GB2340@danisch.de> <20030306084606.2a1e2702.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030306141442.GA8957@danisch.de> <3E67703D.6040208@americasm01.nt.com> <20030306165805.GA12473@danisch.de> <20030306193937.D4198310@exeter.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: wayne In-Reply-To: <20030306193937.D4198310@exeter.ac.uk> Message-ID: Lines: 26 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanner: exiscan *18r2Uw-0005Kz-00*6GJ39PDYCpI* () Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 06 Mar 2003 15:01:47 -0600 In <20030306193937.D4198310@exeter.ac.uk> Adam Back writes: > Nodes in the received path can lie with RMX or UUCP, I think this is > the point. Ergo RMX only provides authentication when there is one > hop. Good point. But, as long as you can verify the one "important" hop, the RMX thing can still do it's job. Barring hacked machines, all hops on the senders internal network can be trusted, and all hops on the receivers internal network (and secondary MXs and such) can be trusted. The important hop is from the sender's control to the receiver's control. If there are any other hops between the sender and the receiver, then there is a problem. Either the sender is sending it to someplace that it should have authorized to forward its mail, or the receiver is receiving email that from a server they trust and the RMX check should have been done sooner. Or, am I missing something? -wayne _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 16:17:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12893 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:17:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26LSdu15522 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:28:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26LScO15517 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:28:38 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12847 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:16:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26LOMO15344; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:24:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26LBhO14559 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:11:43 -0500 Received: from nycsmtp1out.rdc-nyc.rr.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12294 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:00:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from BOBDEV (66-108-193-77.nyc.rr.com [66.108.193.77]) by nycsmtp1out.rdc-nyc.rr.com (8.12.1/Road Runner SMTP Server 1.0) with ESMTP id h26L25k5014757; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:02:05 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: "'Rod Gilchrist'" , Subject: RE: Patents (was Re: [Asrg] Time for the ISPs to fight back!) Message-ID: <003e01c2e423$ab51faa0$6401a8c0@BOBDEV> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3E6780F8.50409@borderware.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h26LBlO14560 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:02:16 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Rod Gilchrist wrote: > In patents claim 1 is the most general of > all the claims. Although it is often the case that the first claim is the most general, this is not a requirement. Claims come in two types: Dependent and Independent. The dependent claims rely on earlier claims, the Independent claims do not. The specific patent being discussed, USPatent #6321267, has more than one independent claim. They are: 1, 29, 33,46, 52, 55, 60, and 64. There is no requirement that claim 1 be more general than any of the others. Even is such a requirement existed, it would be largely meaningless since "generality" is something that can't be measured in an absolute sense. The "generality" of a claim can only become apparent once the patent is actually applied. It should also be noted that even if an independent claim is found to be improperly granted, a dependent claim based on the invalidated claim can still be held to be valid. Proving that the independent claims are invalid is usually very useful, however, it isn't sufficient to eliminate the entire patent. Things are not that simple... bob wyman -----Original Message----- From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Rod Gilchrist Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 12:10 PM To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: Patents (was Re: [Asrg] Time for the ISPs to fight back!) David F. Skoll wrote: >On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Clifton Royston wrote: > > > >> People might want to look at the recently-implemented Postfix sender >>verification feature in current snapshot releases. >> >> > >This technique is patented and assigned to ESCOM Corporation, in US >Patent #6,321,267 (see the section "Active User Testing") > >The patent was filed 23 November 1999; if you think you have prior art, >I encourage you to publish it. > > I don't think this patent is particularly relevent. I've attached claim 1 below. In patents claim 1 is the most general of all the claims. In order to violate this patent you must have all three of the described filters (and I suspect, given the phrasing, exactly these three and no more). More normal language would refer to 'a plurality of filters including but not limited to the following'. So if you just leave out the dial up reverse connection detection (which probably isn't relevent any more in any case) you aren't violating this patent IMO. - Rod 1. A system for detecting and selectively preventing reception of an electronic message to a local message transfer agent (MTA), the electronic message having an address identifying a sender and transferred over a connection from a remote host, the system comprising: a dialup filter determining whether the connection is a dialup connection and, if the connection is a dialup connection, terminating the connection; a relay filter determining whether the remote host is an open relay and, if the remote host is an open relay, terminating the connection; and, a user filter verifying whether the sender of the electronic message is authorized and, if the sender of the electronic message is not authorized, terminating the connection; wherein, said system establishes communication over the connection between said remote host and the local MTA if said system determines that the connection is not a dialup connection, said relay filter determines that the remote host is not an open relay and said user filter verifies the sender as authorized. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 16:18:20 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12950 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:18:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26LTVC15578 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:29:31 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26LTUO15575 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:29:30 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12937 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:17:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26LQOO15399; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:26:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26LCGO14575 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:12:16 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12316 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:00:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h26L2aX04721 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:02:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF4T04N; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:02:36 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id FSK7Y5Q4; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:02:36 -0500 Message-ID: <3E67B830.9070005@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf anti-spam research group Subject: Re: pros and cons of RMX (Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world) References: <20030306105315.GA4411@danisch.de> <20030306191718.B4198310@exeter.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 16:05:52 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit wayne wrote: >>A) RMX is broken, due to reliance on DNS > Even with the birthday paradox attack, the spammer will have to send > out hundreds of forged DNS packets in order to have a good chance of > getting a bogus entry the target's DNS cache. This is both very > detectable and it also greatly increases the amount of work that a > spammer has to do. I've not been following this in great detail, but I'd like to comment on this point. It's worse than that. It has to trick every recipient. It's rather like true IP spoofing. In some circumstances, it is indeed possible to spoof IPs. But since it requires flooding the MTA for each connection with thousands of packets, it becomes totally impractical if you're trying to spam more than a handful of recipients (even if you're on the same network interface as AOL's MTAs). So, I don't think attacks on the DNS protocol are compelling. Subverting a DNS server is an entirely different thing. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 16:22:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13086 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:22:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26LXRa15788 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:33:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26LXRO15785 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:33:27 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13068 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:21:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26LU2O15635; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:30:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26LEWO14700 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:14:32 -0500 Received: from mail.speakeasy.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12385 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:02:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 32175 invoked from network); 6 Mar 2003 21:05:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO spiral.whatever.net) ([64.81.21.85]) (envelope-sender ) by mail12.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 6 Mar 2003 21:05:00 -0000 Received: from spiral.whatever.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by spiral.whatever.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h26L9GRC013539 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:09:16 -0800 Received: from localhost (nathan@localhost) by spiral.whatever.net (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) with ESMTP id h26L9GdV013536 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:09:16 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: spiral.whatever.net: nathan owned process doing -bs From: Nate W X-Sender: nathan@spiral To: "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Do we need to do anything? In-Reply-To: <80AD1C20BCECD6118FD800508BCF7EDA72D7A1@exchuk19.eu.ssmb.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:09:15 -0800 (PST) On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Clayton, Nik [IT] wrote: > As soon as these [Bayes, et al] become widely deployed, and the > majority of recipients have filters that are so customised that it's > nigh-on-impossible for a spammer to guarantee that their e-mail will > get through, doesn't spamming then become so uneconomical as to die > out? > > I realise that this could be seen as being slightly optimistic, ... Long-term, you may be right... I just don't want to wait that long. I suspect that spam is already uneconomical, unless you're a professional spamming services provider (SSP). The SSP's revenue does not depend on the ability of spam to get through, it depends on the SSP's ability to make greedy scam artists *think* that spam gets through. As long as spam makes up, say, 1% of the messages that people see, the SSPs will tell their clients that they can get *their* messages through. The latter are eager to believe that they can get rich quick, so they probably won't be difficult to convince. I think it will be a very long time before the filtering arms race alone results in spam levels low enough to make con artists believe that their messages won't get through. -- Nate Waddoups Redmond WA USA http://www.natew.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 16:25:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13241 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:25:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26LafU16026 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:36:41 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26LafO16023 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:36:41 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13214 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:24:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26LW4O15758; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:32:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26LGdO14862 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:16:39 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12446 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:04:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.57] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h26L6w3Z000818; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:06:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:06:58 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Adam Back'" , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: Hadmut Danisch , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: pros and cons of RMX (Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----_=_NextPart_000_01C2E424.51E7DA60" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:06:56 -0800 This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_000_01C2E424.51E7DA60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Adam, Paul kindly forwarded me a copy of his paper he sent out last year which addresses the issue you raise. The security hole can be eliminated with a simple nonce scheme, see my earlier post. Phill > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Back [mailto:adam@cypherspace.org] > Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 3:46 PM > To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip > Cc: Hadmut Danisch; asrg@ietf.org; Adam Back > Subject: Re: pros and cons of RMX (Re: [Asrg] Declaration to > the world) > > > Phil wrote: > > [...] If DNS is broken we can fix it for this application. > > That was my request: > > - RMX proposers should demonstrate fixes to it's security problems > > - the deployment of any fixes to DNS should be considered part of the > deployment picture for RMX > > (Deployment being probably the biggest challenge with any anti-spam > solution.) > > Adam > ------_=_NextPart_000_01C2E424.51E7DA60 Content-Type: text/plain; name="mailfrom.txt" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="mailfrom.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Independent Paul Vixie = (Ed.) Request for Comments: XXXX Category: Experimental June 6, 2002 Repudiating MAIL FROM Status of this Memo This memo describes an experimental procedure for handling = received e-mail. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved. Abstract At the time of this writing, more than half of all e-mail = received by the author has a forged return address, due to the total absence = of address authentication in SMTP (see [RFC2821]). We present a = simple and backward compatible method whereby cooperating e-mail senders = and receivers can detect forged source/return addresses in e-mail. 1 - Introduction and Overview 1.1. Internet e-mail return addresses are nonrepudiable by design of = the relevant transport protocols (see [RFC2821]). Simply put, there is = no cause for ANY confidence in the proposition "this e-mail came from = where it says it came from." 1.2. Irresponsible actors who wish to transmit unwanted bulk e-mail routinely use this designed-in lack of source/return authenticity to hide their point of origin, which usually involves forging a valid return address belonging to some highly visible and popular ISP (for example, HOTMAIL.COM). 1.3. Recipients who wish to reject unwanted bulk e-mail containing forged source/return addresses are prevented from doing so since the addresses, as presented, are nonrepudiable by design. Simply put, = there would be too many false positives, and too much valid e-mail = rejected, if one were to program an e-mail relay to "reject all e-mail = claiming to be from HOTMAIL.COM" since, statistically, most e-mail claiming to = be from HOTMAIL.COM is actually from somewhere else. HOTMAIL.COM, in = this example, is a victim of forgery. Vixie Experimental = [Page 1] =0C RFC XXXX Repudiating MAIL FROM May 26, = 2002 1.4. What's needed is a way to guaranty that each received e-mail message did in fact come from some mail server or relay which can rightfully originate or relay messages from the purported = source/return address. 1.5. Approaches of the form "use PGP" and "use SSL" are not scalable = in the short term since they depend on end-to-end action and there are = just too many endpoints. An effective solution has to be applicable to = mail relay, not just final delivery. 1.6. Valid ("wanted") e-mail must not be rejected by side effect or partial adoption of this proposal. Source/return authenticity must = be a confidence effector, as in "we can be sure that this did not come = from where it claims" and simple uncertainty must remain in effect = otherwise. 2 - Behaviour 2.1. Domain owners who wish their mail source/return information to = be repudiable will enter stylized MX RR's into their DNS data, whose = owner name is "MAIL-FROM", whose priority is zero, and whose servername registers an outbound (border) relay for the domain. For example, = to tell the rest of the Internet who they should believe when they = receive mail claiming to be from VIXIE@ISC.ORG, the following DNS MX RR's = should be entered: $ORIGIN isc.org. MAIL-FROM MX 0 rc MX 0 rc1 In this example, hosts RC.ISC.ORG, and RC1.ISC.ORG are given as appropriate places to originate mail from @ISC.ORG. Note that this differs from the normal inbound MX RRset for this example domain: $ORIGIN isc.org. @ MX 0 rc MX 0 isrv4 So, the inbound mail server set partially overlaps with, but differs from, the example outbound mail server set. This is quite common in = the Internet, and is the reason why the normal inbound mail server set described by a domain's apex MX RRset cannot be used for repudiation purposes. Vixie Experimental = [Page 2] =0C RFC XXXX Repudiating MAIL FROM May 26, = 2002 2.2. Second-stage relays such as ISP mail servers are often used and = can be described by adding as many relays as necessary to the MAIL-FROM = MX RRset. In our example, if ISC sometimes used UUNET for outbound = mail services, the DNS data describing this relationship might be as = follows: $ORIGIN isc.org. MAIL-FROM MX 0 rc MX 0 rc1 MX 0 uunet.uu.net. Let it be noted that a domain owner's power to repudiate forged = e-mail is only as strong as the security policy of its registered inbound = and outbound mail relays, and that if such a relay is (for example) open = to third party relay, then no value will be added by registering a = domain MAIL-FROM MX containing that relay, and no inbound MAIL-FROM = checking will be possible on final delivery relays for a domain @ MX = containing that relay. Multistage relays (both inbound and outbound) are a breeding ground for anonymity unless they are very carefully = configured. 2.3. SMTP receivers wishing to attempt repudiation on inbound e-mail would check the SMTP (see [RFC2821]) MAIL FROM payload at the time = of receipt. The precise method to be used is as follows: Vixie Experimental = [Page 3] =0C RFC XXXX Repudiating MAIL FROM May 26, = 2002 on (MAIL FROM mailfrom) { switch (repudiated(mailfrom, ipsource)) case tempfail: smtpreply(450, "temporary dns failure, try again = later") break case repudiated: smtpreply(550, "surely you're joking") dsn("5.7.1", "delivery not authorized") invalidate() // reject all but QUIT and RSET break } } repudiated(mailfrom, ipsource) =3D { (lhs, rhs) =3D parse_addr(mailfrom); // handle "MAIL FROM:<>" somehow mxset =3D get_mx("MAIL-FROM" "." rhs); if (mxset =3D=3D NULL) return nonrepudiated; mxset +=3D configured(perimeter_relays); foreach mx (mxset) { aset =3D get_a(mx.server); if (ipsource IN aset) return nonrepudiated; } return repudiated; } (EDITOR'S NOTE: need to establish a value for 5xx.) The method amounts to "if there's a MAIL-FROM for the purported = domain and if the IP source isn't on the resulting list, then reject the = mail". Multistage inbound relays are allowed for, by implicitly appending = one's own outer perimeter relay names to every extant MAIL-FROM. 3 - Impact 3.1. This specification is optional, and will only affect = cooperating parties. Any domain owner who does not enter a MAIL-FROM will be unaffected, and any SMTP receiver who does not look for a MAIL-FROM = at time of receipt will be unaffected. However, both parties working together CAN work to repudiate forged e-mail return/source = information. 3.2. Transport-level e-mail forwarding must be more explicit under = this specification. For example if VIXIE@NETBSD.ORG's account has a Vixie Experimental = [Page 4] =0C RFC XXXX Repudiating MAIL FROM May 26, = 2002 ".forward" file pointing at VIXIE@ISC.ORG, then e-mail sent to the former will be received by the latter, but with no change in the = payload of SMTP MAIL FROM. Thus, ISC's inbound relays would have to be configured to implicitly add NETBSD's outbound mail relays as "multistage inbound relays." This could scale poorly and may add pressure toward transport remailing (with a new envelope) rather = than transport forwarding (reusing the old envelope.) 3.3. Roaming hosts such as laptop computers will probably not be = able to be listed in the MAIL-FROM MX RR for their return address domain = name, and may be forced to use an intermediary for outbound e-mail. = STARTTLS or an SSL/SSH tunnel back "home" may become a necessary first hop = for mobile e-mail. 3.4. The likely endgame for this behaviour is to force senders of unwanted bulk e-mail to stop lying about who they are, which is = illegal in meatspace anyway -- but such laws are unenforceable due to the = nature of the Internet's mail system. Under this proposal, any domain = owner who is the victim of forgery can respond by adding MAIL-FROM data to their DNS zone, and any relay owner who is the victim of forged = unwanted e-mail can respond by checking for MAIL-FROM data upon receipt of = all incoming e-mail. 3.5. The DNS TTL for MAIL-FROM MX RRsets ought to be shorter than = for the corresponding domain's apex MX RR, since the cost of widely = cached wrong information is much higher for outbound repudiation data than = for inbound delivery data. Consider that an incomplete apex MX RR can = cause mail to be delivered by a suboptimal path, whereas an incomplete = MAIL- FROM MX RR can cause valid mail to be rejected by relays who attempt repudiation. 4 - Security Considerations In the continuing absence of widely deployed security for DNS, this proposal effectively places an access control list for forged source/return information in a place where it can be attacked. = However, it must be noted that the current senders of forged unwanted bulk = e-mail are typically not technologically capable of attacking the DNS to = insert forged MAIL-FROM data. 5 - Acknowledgements This idea originated with Jim Miller in 1998. Vixie Experimental = [Page 5] =0C RFC XXXX Repudiating MAIL FROM May 26, = 2002 5 - Author's Address Paul Vixie 950 Charter Street Redwood City, CA 94063 +1 650 779 7000 paul@vix.com Vixie Experimental = [Page 6] =0C ------_=_NextPart_000_01C2E424.51E7DA60-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 16:28:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13408 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:28:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26LdFi17036 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:39:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26LdFO17033 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:39:15 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13354 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:27:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26LYqO15948; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:34:52 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26LHQO14912 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:17:26 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id QAA12488 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:05:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 21338 invoked from network); 5 Mar 2003 21:06:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.2.100.178?) (10.2.100.178) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 5 Mar 2003 21:06:00 -0000 From: Matt Sergeant X-X-Sender: matt@localhost.localdomain To: "David F. Skoll" cc: "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Do we need to do anything? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 21:20:42 +0000 (GMT) On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, David F. Skoll wrote: > Web pages for contact info generate ephemeral addresses when they're > rendered. > > When you print business cards, the printer uses a different ephemeral > address on each card. (OK, this last is a hassle, but not insurmountable.) > > There are a lot of silly implementation and book-keeping details, but > no fundamental reasons why this wouldn't work. What about address books? And people who give other people your address? I see *lots* of fundamental reasons why this wouldn't work. Part of the puzzle, yes. "The" solution, no. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 16:29:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13466 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:29:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26LeeB17167 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:40:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26LeeO17164 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:40:40 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13458 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:28:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26LbMO16647; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:37:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26LIHO14948 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:18:17 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12546 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:06:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h26L8a5r005158; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 22:08:36 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h26L6KeO017342 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 6 Mar 2003 22:06:20 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h26L6KH5017340; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 22:06:20 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Adam Back Cc: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: pros and cons of RMX (Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world) Message-ID: <20030306210620.GA17005@danisch.de> References: <20030306204620.A4522791@exeter.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030306204620.A4522791@exeter.ac.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 22:06:20 +0100 On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 08:46:20PM +0000, Adam Back wrote: > Phil wrote: > > [...] If DNS is broken we can fix it for this application. > > That was my request: > > - RMX proposers should demonstrate fixes to it's security problems > > - the deployment of any fixes to DNS should be considered part of the > deployment picture for RMX You've overseen a little detail: This is a four days old research group. The intention of that group is to find the possible principles, not to have a finished apparatus ready for deployment. We're at the beginning of development, not at the end. What you're doing has nothing to do with "research". You're acting up as if you were the final judge. You're flaming, not contributing. Everything I heard from you was contraproductive and jealous. The conclusion is that you're not here to bring that group forward, but to block any progress. This raises the question which interests you have. Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 16:31:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13554 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:31:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26Lgdh17321 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:42:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26LgdO17318 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:42:39 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13541 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:30:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26LdPO17082; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:39:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26JqvO07806 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:52:57 -0500 Received: from mercury.ex.ac.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08371 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:41:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from [144.173.6.20] (helo=cronus.ex.ac.uk) by mercury.ex.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18r1Gz-00DCkk-00; Thu, 06 Mar 2003 19:43:21 +0000 From: Adam Back To: Hadmut Danisch Cc: Matt Sergeant , wayne , asrg@ietf.org, Adam Back Subject: Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world Message-ID: <20030306194320.E4198310@exeter.ac.uk> References: <568AC922-4FF1-11D7-9DB3-0003939CB5D8@startechgroup.co.uk> <20030306171221.GC12473@danisch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.2i In-Reply-To: <20030306171221.GC12473@danisch.de>; from hadmut@danisch.de on Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 06:12:21PM +0100 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:43:20 +0000 We are here to find ways to reduce spam _preferably_ without breaking big swathes of functionality, privacy and reliability. There is plenty of room within these criteria. That your schemes fair badly does not mean we should take your "let's break everything to fix spam" approach, it means that your schemes are bad candidates. Learn, adapt your solutions. Adam On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 06:12:21PM +0100, Hadmut Danisch wrote: > On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 04:33:18PM +0000, Matt Sergeant wrote: > > Because they mean people who like the way they do things right now have > > to change that, or RMX won't work for those people. Unfortunately those > > people aren't mom and pop, they are techies. > > As a consequence, we never could change anything, because you > alway find a couple of people who like the way it is. What are > we here for? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 16:33:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13640 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:33:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26Lijl17497 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:44:45 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26LijO17494 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:44:45 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13627 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:33:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26LfRO17220; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:41:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26Jr4O07815 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:53:04 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08377 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:41:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.57] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h26JhJ3Z016787; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:43:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:43:19 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Adam Back'" , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: asrg@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [Asrg] RE: DNSSEC has it's own deployment problems (Re: Keith, Hadmut bo th right) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:43:17 -0800 > On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 04:50:18AM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > > The widespread DNS spoofing scenarios proposed are theoretical not > > practical. > > Probably you missed the earlier post with a pointer to a paper on DNS > attacks: No I saw the post. I believe it is plain wrong. DNS Cache poisoning etc attacks are actually quite hard to do if you do not know the address of the resolver asking the question. To take your assertions by case: >>a) the sender knows when the SMTP server will make the DNS request (he >>just injected the mail) so he can send a flurry of DNS UDP response >>packets to arrive before the real response; This attack does not work if the SMTP server pushes the DNS request onto a caching resolver on a separate IP address. If however the attack does turn out to be a problem we fix the broken-ness of DNS. A flooding attack is easily deleted with a unique request ID cookie, we do not need to even go as far as deploying DNSSEC. >>b) the sender can choose the TTL on his forged DNS response, making it >>last for weeks; Sounds like a pretty recognizable signature. It is in any case a simple matter to limit the TTL that the cache recognizes. >>c) during this time he can spam at full volume. The three cases you specify are actually the same case repeated. > and a description of the way that RMX proposal interacts badly to make > DNS even more vulnerable in the context of RMX. RMX is a weak authentcation proposal. I believe in public key based approaches. > However there is no upgrade path to installing DNSSEC as a way to > fixing the problem, because DNSSEC has a version rollback attack. An > attacker can trick a DNSSEC client into thinking the DNSSEC server is > just a DNS server. Even worse it's the same pattern of attack that > makes RMX vulnerable to DNS attacks. No it does not. The NXT record is there to prevent rollback attacks. The problem with DNS is that there are people who don't want the protocol to be deployable in the large zones and have done everything they can to stop this from happening. > To fix it you'd have to fully deploy DNSSEC and _disable_ DNS. This > is likely a problem as hard as fixing spam, as it's of similar order > to replacing SMTP as a protocol with a cut-off date. Untrue > On top of that DNSSEC presumes a PKI, which as we've seen over the > last 5 years is a hard thing to deploy in and of itself. Also untrue. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 16:34:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13720 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:34:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26Ljt817594 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:45:55 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26LjtO17591 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:45:55 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13697 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:34:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26LhSO17394; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:43:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26JtDO07955 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:55:13 -0500 Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08460 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:43:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h26JjZA13349; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:45:36 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Moore To: matthew richards Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] email classes! (and i dont mean email 101) Message-Id: <20030306144535.48d33c9f.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:45:35 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > i cant imagine an individual sending more than 24 emails in a day, you must not have followed many IETF mailing lists :) Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 16:35:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13799 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:35:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26Lkc317821 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:46:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26LkcO17818 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:46:38 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13757 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:34:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26LiRO17449; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:44:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26JtuO07984 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:55:56 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08522 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:44:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (zcard307.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h26JkIX27996 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:46:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDFBGNVL; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:46:18 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id FSK7Y53C; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:46:17 -0500 Message-ID: <3E67A64E.3080603@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] definition of spam (was Re: consent expression) References: <6956D00165F4CB4583BB9CC33D77364F1E3093@denca00.corp.exactis.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 14:49:34 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Barclay, Robert wrote: > Whether or not bulk email is treated differently than one to one > communication (and I think at least in transport it should not be) the > end goal should be for end users to have control over what email gets > into their In boxes right? Right. But, you're (a) conflating where the technology is placed (MTA versus MUA) with it being a user choice, and (b) ignoring fundamental differences between classes of "provider". In (a), consider user choice implemented in the MTA, not the MUA. Yes, the technology already exists to do that. It's highly beneficial - reduction of user bandwidth (think user on dialup line). Necessitating not only that scoring/marking/whatever goes on in the MTA, the refusal itself is done in the MTA. In (b), consider us. We're a corporation, not an ISP. Corporate policy not only prohibits certain materials, but the law also forces us to block certain kinds of materials (specifically, workplace sexual harrassment legislation). While the latter isn't spam per-se, it still is done using anti-spam techniques at the MTA level to prevent innocent end users getting bombarded by stuff they didn't ask for (which is what spam is). [If non-spammed porn gets through to the end user, then it's an HR issue...] _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 16:35:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13827 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:35:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26LklT17837 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:46:47 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26LklO17834 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:46:47 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13777 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:35:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26LiGO17431; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:44:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26JtcO07970 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:55:38 -0500 Received: from mail.speakeasy.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08508 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:43:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 1529 invoked from network); 6 Mar 2003 19:46:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO spiral.whatever.net) ([64.81.21.85]) (envelope-sender ) by mail13.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 6 Mar 2003 19:46:07 -0000 Received: from spiral.whatever.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by spiral.whatever.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h26JoORC012904 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:50:24 -0800 Received: from localhost (nathan@localhost) by spiral.whatever.net (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) with ESMTP id h26JoOOm012901 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:50:24 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: spiral.whatever.net: nathan owned process doing -bs From: Nate W X-Sender: nathan@spiral To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Back to the charter In-Reply-To: <20030306031733.28757.qmail@prefix.emu.st> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:50:23 -0800 (PST) On 6 Mar 2003, Mark Delany wrote: > In short, we need to give Inbox control back to the recipient. In that > light I guess that "consent" means something like "I consent to your > mail showing up in my Inbox and if I choose otherwise, you cannot > override my lack of consent". Or crudely, "My Inbox, my rules". > > That to me is the high level goal. Return control to the user. The simplest way to do that is with a whitelist. Of course, that by itself really reduces the usefulness of an email account. The ideal system (IMO) will also provide a way to delegate the granting of consent. The user should not have to manually grant or reject requests for consent, or we're right back to square one, with spam in the form of requests for permission. Whether it's delegating to software (s/delegation/automation/) or delegating to trusted friends (a la the PGP web of trust), I think there's got to be a way to remove from the recipient the burden of personally reviewing requests for consent. -- Nate Waddoups Redmond WA USA http://www.natew.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 16:38:13 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13948 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:38:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26LnOJ18060 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:49:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26LnOO18057 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:49:24 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13916 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:37:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26Lm2O17929; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:48:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26LldO17899 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:47:39 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13846 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:35:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2086080; Thu, 06 Mar 2003 16:38:01 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: "Tom Thomson" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: RE: [Asrg] RE: Asrg digest, Vol 1 #32 - 9 msgs Cc: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:30:51 -0500 At 6:00 PM +0000 3/6/03, Tom Thomson wrote: >No, it isn't the situation we have now. It's closer to the situation we had >a while back, but the spammers have got a lot cleverer since. Injecting a >few "Received-From:" headers at source, complete with IP addresses and >domain name that corresponded to that IP at the time the message was >delivered to that MTA, means that when the message is delivered there is no I agree that signed Received headers would make life easier, but I think there are other signed things we could better focus on. However I have yet to see a set of injected Received: headers that could not be programmatically determined to be fake. If you have any such messages (seriously), I'd like to see them. >Received-From trail? That's what makes me favour blacklists once we have >reliable authentication of point of origin, but only when we have that >reliable authentication (and have a pile of complaints not dealt with). As I think has been said on this list, and certainly elsewhere. Blacklists are worth what you pay for them. And those that charge, get sued. I also seriously worry about what would happen if some country decides not to uphold the standards we are proposing and gets blacklisted. Does it become a diplomatic affair? -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 16:38:22 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13977 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:38:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26LnXt18089 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:49:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26LnXO18086 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:49:33 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13929 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:37:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26Lm4O17945; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:48:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26LliO17908 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:47:44 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13855 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:36:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2086085; Thu, 06 Mar 2003 16:38:07 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <20030306170004.F261416F16@jmason.org> <3E678E6A.3020001@americasm01.nt.com> To: "David F. Skoll" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Massive bounce rates on spammer lists Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:36:35 -0500 At 1:10 PM -0500 3/6/03, David F. Skoll wrote: >Hmm. OK. Scratch that one. :-( Although you might be able to tell by >the message contents if you delay the rejection. A DSN (what happens Not necessarily. I've seen spam (and viruses) forged to look like a bounce. On the bright side, it's my experience that many non-technical useres delete bounces thinking they are spam anyway. :-( -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 16:39:03 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA14026 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:39:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26LoEn18185 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:50:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26LoEO18182 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:50:14 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA14002 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:38:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26Lm5O17962; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:48:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26LlmO17913 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:47:48 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13858 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:36:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2086087; Thu, 06 Mar 2003 16:38:11 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200303061900.h26J0Qmf003963@new.agentzero.com> References: <28579C07-5002-11D7-9DB3-0003939CB5D8@startechgroup.co.uk> <200303061900.h26J0Qmf003963@new.agentzero.com> To: Jim Youll From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Do we need to do anything? Cc: Matt Sergeant , "'asrg@ietf.org'" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:50:21 -0500 At 1:59 PM -0500 3/6/03, Jim Youll wrote: >But if you had a proper client that hid all the work, you could >"give" a different e-mail address to every correspondent, and if it >leaked out, you need only cancel that one and give that particular >correspondent a freshly-generated address, no? Read the thread on striker's spam problem. Hundreds of thousands of messages a day, all bouncing due to a dictionary attack gone wrong. Now consider what happens if everyone has hundreds of temporary addresses that can get into spammers hands. Sure, you cancel it, but that doesn't mean the spammer stops sending. You've made your life more complicated, and you've made your ISPs life hell. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 16:49:20 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA14650 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:49:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26M0Vk19217 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:00:31 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26M0VO19208 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:00:31 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA14588 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:48:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26Lx4O18731; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:59:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26LwOO18649 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:58:24 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA14369 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:46:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h26LmMX08002 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:48:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF44AT8; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:48:07 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id FSK7Y5SX; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:48:07 -0500 Message-ID: <3E67C2DA.8060609@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Do we need to do anything? References: <28579C07-5002-11D7-9DB3-0003939CB5D8@startechgroup.co.uk> <200303061900.h26J0Qmf003963@new.agentzero.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 16:51:22 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kee Hinckley wrote: > At 1:59 PM -0500 3/6/03, Jim Youll wrote: >> But if you had a proper client that hid all the work, you could "give" >> a different e-mail address to every correspondent, and if it leaked >> out, you need only cancel that one and give that particular >> correspondent a freshly-generated address, no? > Read the thread on striker's spam problem. Hundreds of thousands of > messages a day, all bouncing due to a dictionary attack gone wrong. We think. > Now consider what happens if everyone has hundreds of temporary > addresses that can get into spammers hands. Sure, you cancel it, but > that doesn't mean the spammer stops sending. You've made your life more > complicated, and you've made your ISPs life hell. Yeah - to reiterate a comment that may have been lost: even tho Allan is on "high speed", he can no longer afford to even just reject connections at the TCP/IP layer. IIRC, he quoted something like 330Mb of NACKs per _day_. Yow. We can afford to handle a spamtrap like that because we're on a mondo humunguous pipe. But if the cron job deleting the email stalls for more than an hour, the 9Gb disk fills up and the machine falls over... I can't even imagine AOL's 3 orders of magnitude larger spam catch must be like... ~5Tb of data per hour. That's more than the total US backbone flow of only a few years ago. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 16:59:19 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA15034 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:59:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26MAVl20772 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:10:31 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26MAVO20769 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:10:31 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA15021 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:58:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26M92O20704; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:09:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26M8TO20681 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:08:29 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA14856 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:56:46 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h26K5uTD014541 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:05:56 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h26K5uZw014537 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:05:56 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Do we need to do anything? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:05:56 -0800 (PST) From the point of ISP, email addresses that are just wrong and where you can tell the MTA to be off immediatly almost after the start of SMTP tranmission, are not a big deal. Yes, it does consume some processing time on the server, but its marginally very small compared to actually receiving entire message, storing it on the serer, sending it through filters, delivering it to mailbox, etc (logs do grow, unfortunetly, but hard drive space is now inexpensive and cdburners and blank cds too). Now the above is generally applicable to small ISP, large ISPs with many 100,000 of email accounts may not see it this way... But from "make spammer suffer" view - if spammer has to do 100 failed attempts to get 1 successfull one and even there he does not know if email will ever reach a recepient or if it may just go through alarm making it harder for him to send even more messages, then its all working in our favor. On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Kee Hinckley wrote: > At 1:59 PM -0500 3/6/03, Jim Youll wrote: > >But if you had a proper client that hid all the work, you could > >"give" a different e-mail address to every correspondent, and if it > >leaked out, you need only cancel that one and give that particular > >correspondent a freshly-generated address, no? > > Read the thread on striker's spam problem. Hundreds of thousands of > messages a day, all bouncing due to a dictionary attack gone wrong. > > Now consider what happens if everyone has hundreds of temporary > addresses that can get into spammers hands. Sure, you cancel it, but > that doesn't mean the spammer stops sending. You've made your life > more complicated, and you've made your ISPs life hell. > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 17:02:07 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15135 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:02:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26MDJK20916 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:13:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26MDJO20913 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:13:19 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15121 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:01:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26MB3O20835; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:11:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26MAZO20794 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:10:35 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA15025 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:58:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc02.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h26M0r3Z010356; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:00:53 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:00:53 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'bob@wyman.us'" , "'Rod Gilchrist'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: Patents (was Re: [Asrg] Time for the ISPs to fight back!) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:00:49 -0800 How about asking the patent holder what their intentions are? I have had enough patents filed by others on my stuff that the existence of the patent does not indicate intent to enforce. So if you want to use my patent on the number zero ask my employer, you may be plesantly surprised*. Phill [*] The number 46 on the other hand might well cost you. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 17:07:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15292 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:07:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26MIfX21180 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:18:41 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26MIfO21177 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:18:41 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15257 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:06:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26MG3O21035; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:16:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26MFOO21010 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:15:24 -0500 Received: from backbone.midwestcs.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15199 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:03:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from footbone.midwestcs.com ([206.222.212.237] helo=midwestcs.com) by backbone.midwestcs.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18r3Uh-0005rz-00 for ; Thu, 06 Mar 2003 16:05:39 -0600 to: asrg@ietf.org (ietf anti-spam research group) Subject: Re: pros and cons of RMX (Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world) References: <20030306105315.GA4411@danisch.de> <20030306191718.B4198310@exeter.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: wayne In-Reply-To: <20030306191718.B4198310@exeter.ac.uk> Message-ID: Lines: 16 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanner: exiscan *18r3Uh-0005rz-00*RdItWuIefwo* () Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 06 Mar 2003 16:05:38 -0600 In <20030306191718.B4198310@exeter.ac.uk> Adam Back writes: > B) if everyone did this then an > existing functionality -- the ability to send mail from different > accounts using existing defacto functionality, software and > infrastructure -- is lost. Oh, one other thing about RMX or domain specific blacklists. While it is really out of the charter of this group, such a system would also help reduce email worms that forge email addresses. -wayne _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 17:07:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15310 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:07:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26MIlB21199 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:18:47 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26MIlO21195 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:18:47 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15274 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:07:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26MG5O21051; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:16:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26MFgO21016 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:15:42 -0500 Received: from scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15217 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:03:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.133.182] helo=envy.indecency.org) by scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18r3Q0-00023V-00; Thu, 06 Mar 2003 14:00:48 -0800 From: Keith Moore To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, pbaker@verisign.com, adam@cypherspace.org, hadmut@danisch.de, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: pros and cons of RMX (Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world) Message-Id: <20030306165718.52af27b9.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:57:18 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I do not find language such as 'delusions of authority' to be very helpful > in a technical discussion. hey, you're the one who said "I work for VeriSign" and then "we can fix DNS". sorry if I misunderstood you. but it wouldn't be the first time VeriSign pretended as if it owned DNS. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 17:21:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15724 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:21:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26MWlh21932 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:32:47 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26MWlO21929 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:32:47 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15701 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:21:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26MUDO21795; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:30:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26MTDO21717 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:29:13 -0500 Received: from new.agentzero.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15598 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:17:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.123.194] (h0050e4251179.ne.client2.attbi.com [66.30.24.79]) by new.agentzero.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h26MKDmf010603; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:20:14 -0500 Message-Id: <200303062220.h26MKDmf010603@new.agentzero.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <28579C07-5002-11D7-9DB3-0003939CB5D8@startechgroup.co.uk> <200303061900.h26J0Qmf003963@new.agentzero.com> To: Kee Hinckley From: Jim Youll Subject: Re: [Asrg] Do we need to do anything? Cc: Matt Sergeant , "'asrg@ietf.org'" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:18:48 -0500 At 15:50 -0500 3/6/03, Kee Hinckley wrote: >At 1:59 PM -0500 3/6/03, Jim Youll wrote: >>But if you had a proper client that hid all the work, you could >>"give" a different e-mail address to every correspondent, and if it >>leaked out, you need only cancel that one and give that particular >>correspondent a freshly-generated address, no? > >Read the thread on striker's spam problem. Hundreds of thousands of >messages a day, all bouncing due to a dictionary attack gone wrong. > >Now consider what happens if everyone has hundreds of temporary >addresses that can get into spammers hands. Sure, you cancel it, >but that doesn't mean the spammer stops sending. You've made your >life more complicated, and you've made your ISPs life hell. >- Did you happen to see the rest of my note with the snip from our log? Spammers are basically doing dictionary attacks on domains now, desperation, yes, but nonetheless... As a server operator for several domains, I don't know that life would be made "hell" by it. Spammers can send a finite number of messages, there IS a point of economic breakdown. As things stand now it seems to matter little whether the addresses exist or not. Finally, if the same care is taken with these addresses as with the addresses we use now (I think I must be reachable by at least 15-30 addresses right now), then the rate of turnover need not be excruciatingly high... further, a 1:1 mapping that allows tracking of a leaked address to its source introduces the possibility of enforcement of all manner of penalties against the transgressor... so I don't think this approach would lead to an explosion of inbound spam, not at all. I also did not say that it should be the only, or preferred, or even utilized-by-everyone approach, simply that the matter of self-help in the face of unhelpful global protocols and practices, should be given its due... and I attempted to answer a couple of points that discussed problems with the approach that seem from this perspective not to be problems. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 17:27:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15874 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:27:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26McnD22914 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:38:49 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26McnO22909 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:38:49 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15868 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:27:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26Ma4O22070; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:36:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26MZiO22051 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:35:44 -0500 Received: from coyote.tatanka.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15808 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:24:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from biscuit.tatanka.com (biscuit.tatanka.com [66.224.69.113]) by coyote.tatanka.com (8.12.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26MQ2AK028829; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:26:02 -0700 (MST) From: Michael Marking To: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" cc: "Asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] filtering at connect time In-Reply-To: <200303060403.XAA11987@ietf.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:29:29 -0800 (PST) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > The burden is rightly on the owners of the open relays, not on > their victims. No. The owners of the open relays are also victims. The guilty parties are the spammers. If I leave my house unlocked, and someone walks in and takes something of mine, that person is guilty of theft. (However, because it was unlocked, my insurance company -- by private contractual agreement -- may not be willing to pay.) It should not be necessary for me to spend money or time to protect my possessions. The trend in computer-related law is also in this direction: being charged with theft-of-service does not require that a perpetrator breach some barrier, only that he or she have used computer resources without permission. There is a shovel in my yard, not locked up. If a person takes my shovel without my permission, and uses it to kill another person, am I guilty? I think not. Perhaps the open relays operators are negligent (or lazy or whatever), but the theft is being committed by the spammers. The problem occurs because the current system is inadequate to make the spammers liable in any practical sense for their actions. Although there may be exceptions, it is usually infeasible to pursue them either by civil or by criminal action. Part of the problem is technical -- which we are considering -- and part is legal, which is beyond our charter. If we can facilitate the prosecution of spammers for their crimes, then perhaps it will not be necessary to make it a civil or criminal offense to leave our electronic doors unlocked. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+Z8tV3fFKt0vOYhYRAieTAJwMCk9u9KwMq7ElPcIKFgX+Nsu58QCeJrSU Ud3YDgtD2LDSG1WZrJsUtj4= =Vzwu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 17:32:15 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15997 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:32:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26MhSN23147 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:43:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26MhRO23144 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:43:28 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15990 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:31:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26Mg3O23083; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:42:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26MfeO23066 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:41:40 -0500 Received: from INET-IMC-03.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15926 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:29:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from INET-VRS-03.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.5.27]) by INET-IMC-03.redmond.corp.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6624); Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:32:00 -0800 Received: from 157.54.6.197 by INET-VRS-03.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Thu, 06 Mar 2003 14:31:59 -0800 Received: from RED-MSG-06.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.12.198]) by INET-HUB-06.redmond.corp.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:31:58 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.6851.8 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Problems that make the RMX proposal infeasible Message-ID: <7695E2F6903F7A41961F8CF888D87EA809F018D1@red-msg-06.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> Thread-Topic: [Asrg] Problems that make the RMX proposal infeasible thread-index: AcLkJOrnvzkAnGSASkWRuJM/a3PjeAACZhZw From: "Jonathan Wilkins" To: "Postmaster" Cc: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Mar 2003 22:31:58.0757 (UTC) FILETIME=[33274550:01C2E430] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h26MfeO23067 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:31:59 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit -----Original Message----- >From: Postmaster [mailto:Postmaster@bellsouth.com] >Subject: [Asrg] Problems that make the RMX proposal infeasible > >--- Why can't the record just contain the IP range "owned" by the domains >authorized mail servers? >I realize the a spammer can use a valid domain with a valid RMX and this >would not cause a rejection, but at this point I can either put pressure on >the ISP of that domain and/or block the IP altogether. The point is that you _CAN'T_ put the pressure on anyone, since the RMX authenticator is spoofed. You can blacklist the IP, but that is no better than the status quo. > In either case, I now don't have to worry about someone claiming to be from >Yahoo and actually from a Chinese relay server. > I am not adverse to a "solve-all" solution, but I truly don't think it >exists and if it does, it would be just too radical to implement all at >once. Provided that you've done a recent lookup on yahoo.com and it is still in your cache. BTW, yahoo.com has a TTL of 600 seconds. What is it that you think RMX is buying you? > I think that RMX and pure ISP administrative changes like credit card >flags, closing port 25, and billing commercial mailers would put a huge dent >in the amount of spam received. > What would be required to make it work? >In a perfect world where everything worked as it is supposed to... How would >this be implemented? If we could eliminate all people who do bad things, then any protocol will work just fine. Since this is not possible today, so we have to use protocols that are resistant to attack. Why waste effort implementing a system that is fundamentally flawed? Jonathan _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 17:45:50 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA16240 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:45:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26Mv3i23693 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:57:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26Mv3O23690 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:57:03 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA16233 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:45:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26Mt4O23643; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:55:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26MsLO23593 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:54:21 -0500 Received: from mail.speakeasy.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA16210 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:42:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 29277 invoked from network); 6 Mar 2003 22:44:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO spiral.whatever.net) ([64.81.21.85]) (envelope-sender ) by mail15.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 6 Mar 2003 22:44:49 -0000 Received: from spiral.whatever.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by spiral.whatever.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h26Mn4RC014585 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:49:05 -0800 Received: from localhost (nathan@localhost) by spiral.whatever.net (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) with ESMTP id h26Mn4Ln014582 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:49:04 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: spiral.whatever.net: nathan owned process doing -bs From: Nate W X-Sender: nathan@spiral To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Let's try something different In-Reply-To: <00a101c2e40b$54e40cc0$ca81bbd0@kit> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:49:04 -0800 (PST) On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Jed Margolin wrote: > I propose: > > 1. Sender's email is stored on Sender's server. Recipient is sent a message > with a unique link to the message and a maximum Subject line of 80 > alphanumeric characters. We already see spam of this form. It seems to me that what you propose essentially to force spammers to put more of their content on a web server. Since they do that already, I don't think it is a step forward. Sure, their web sites get shut down, but that doesn't seem to deter them. > 2. Sender can be anonymous, but not to Sender's ISP. There will be a feature > (a button) so Recipient can tell Sender's ISP, "Don't send me any further > email from this Sender." Blacklisting senders does not work. Spammers already use a new identity (read: becomes a different Sender) for every spamming. If there was a reliable way to associate sender identities with sending individuals, we could do all kinds of useful things even using the existing SMTP infrastructure. > 3. Broadcasting is prohibited. If Sender wishes to send 1 million identical > messages, then Sender's server will contain 1 million copies of the message. It seems that this limitation would necessarily be enforced at the server. When the spammer controls the server, the limitation won't be there. -- Forcing the sender to bear the storage costs is not a bad idea, but it is not, by itself, a solution. It leaves much bigger problems unsolved: First and foremost, how can we filter out the messages themselves? The message with the "unique link to the message" that you describe, is still spam and must still be filtered. Also, how can a recipient reliably identify a sender with information contained in (or sent with) the message? How can we prevent spammer-operated messaging servers from misbehaving? I tend to assume that the answer to the last question is "we can't," which makes the first two questions all the more critical. -- Nate Waddoups Redmond WA USA http://www.natew.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 17:50:00 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA16382 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:50:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26N1Cw23964 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 18:01:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26N1CO23961 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 18:01:12 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA16375 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:49:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26Mx1O23774; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:59:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26MwmO23749 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:58:48 -0500 Received: from splat.viawest.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA16268 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:47:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from splat.viawest.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by splat.viawest.net (8.12.7/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h26Mn87N002375; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:49:08 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from cfedde@splat.viawest.net) Message-Id: <200303062249.h26Mn87N002375@splat.viawest.net> To: Matt Sergeant cc: "David F. Skoll" , "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Do we need to do anything? In-Reply-To: From: Chris Fedde Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 15:49:08 -0700 On Thu, 6 Mar 2003 21:20:42 +0000 (GMT) Matt Sergeant wrote: +------------------ | What about address books? And people who give other people your address? | | I see *lots* of fundamental reasons why this wouldn't work. | | Part of the puzzle, yes. "The" solution, no. +------------------ A modification to this technique is to just use a new ephemeral address for each message you send. If you keep an outgoing folder then you have all the data needed to derive a provenience for the spam. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 17:53:01 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA16489 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:53:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26N4Eq24153 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 18:04:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26N4EO24150 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 18:04:14 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA16480 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:52:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26N13O23939; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 18:01:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26N04O23861 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 18:00:04 -0500 Received: from mercury.ex.ac.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA16351 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:48:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from [144.173.6.20] (helo=cronus.ex.ac.uk) by mercury.ex.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18r4Bz-00DBWB-00; Thu, 06 Mar 2003 22:50:23 +0000 From: Adam Back To: Chris Lewis Cc: ietf anti-spam research group , Adam Back Subject: Re: pros and cons of RMX (Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world) Message-ID: <20030306225023.A4519492@exeter.ac.uk> References: <20030306105315.GA4411@danisch.de> <20030306191718.B4198310@exeter.ac.uk> <3E67B830.9070005@americasm01.nt.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.2i In-Reply-To: <3E67B830.9070005@americasm01.nt.com>; from clewis@nortelnetworks.com on Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 04:05:52PM -0500 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 22:50:23 +0000 On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 04:05:52PM -0500, Chris Lewis wrote: > > Even with the birthday paradox attack, the spammer will have to send > > out hundreds of forged DNS packets in order to have a good chance of > > getting a bogus entry the target's DNS cache. This is both very > > detectable and it also greatly increases the amount of work that a > > spammer has to do. > > I've not been following this in great detail, but I'd like to comment on > this point. It's worse than that. It has to trick every recipient. That depends on how RMX would be deployed. I read the proposal to suggest it would be deployed at mail hubs to defend against receiving mail from IPs other than those the domain owner has delegated as being allowed to. In this case all the attacker has to spoof is the mail hub. I think you're presuming it is implemented in the mail-client, and say checked on download or on first read or something. In this latter case it would be pretty hard to reliably use DNS spoofing to spam. But I don't think that was the intent. Adam _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 17:54:01 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA16528 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:54:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26N5E924211 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 18:05:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26N5DO24208 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 18:05:13 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA16507 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:53:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26N32O24098; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 18:03:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26N2OO24047 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 18:02:24 -0500 Received: from mail2.microsoft.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA16413 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:50:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from INET-VRS-02.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.8.110]) by mail2.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6624); Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:51:15 -0800 Received: from 157.54.6.197 by INET-VRS-02.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Thu, 06 Mar 2003 14:42:13 -0800 Received: from RED-MSG-06.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.12.198]) by INET-HUB-06.redmond.corp.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:42:11 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.6851.8 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: pros and cons of RMX (Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world) Message-ID: <7695E2F6903F7A41961F8CF888D87EA809F01904@red-msg-06.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> Thread-Topic: pros and cons of RMX (Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world) thread-index: AcLkKKAtBkd50osbS4qBJZtglsdvHQACFzzA From: "Jonathan Wilkins" To: "Chris Lewis" , "ietf anti-spam research group" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Mar 2003 22:42:11.0992 (UTC) FILETIME=[A0AB8180:01C2E431] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h26N2OO24048 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:42:09 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit -----Original Message----- >From: Chris Lewis [mailto:clewis@nortelnetworks.com] >Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 1:06 PM >To: ietf anti-spam research group >wayne wrote: >>>A) RMX is broken, due to reliance on DNS >> Even with the birthday paradox attack, the spammer will have to send >> out hundreds of forged DNS packets in order to have a good chance of >> getting a bogus entry the target's DNS cache. This is both very >> detectable and it also greatly increases the amount of work that a >> spammer has to do. >I've not been following this in great detail, but I'd like to comment on >this point. It's worse than that. It has to trick every recipient. Yes, it does have to trick every recipient, once. Then it's cached and all future sends are free. Also, since the timing is predictable this attack is easy to carry out. >It's rather like true IP spoofing. In some circumstances, it is indeed >possible to spoof IPs. But since it requires flooding the MTA for each >connection with thousands of packets, it becomes totally impractical >if you're trying to spam more than a handful of recipients (even if >you're on the same network interface as AOL's MTAs). Why is 65536 100 byte packets a lot? That's only 655k. Why would preceeding any spamming attempt with that many bytes trouble an attacker? That's a fraction of the bandwidth they're using anyway for the message content (since they're probably delivering to multiple mailboxes on most large networks) >So, I don't think attacks on the DNS protocol are compelling. >Subverting a DNS server is an entirely different thing. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 18:42:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA19548 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 18:42:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26NrVK28794 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 18:53:31 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26NrVO28791 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 18:53:31 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA19525 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 18:41:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26NpFO28708; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 18:51:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26NoRO28665 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 18:50:27 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA19414 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 18:38:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc02.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h26Nei3Z026895; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:40:44 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:40:43 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Clayton, Nik [IT]'" , "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Do we need to do anything? MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:40:37 -0800 > At the same time, MUAs are getting smarter. In particular, > the presence > of language classifiers (Bayes, et al) in desktop-user (as opposed to > technical-user) MUAs is likely to become much more prevalent > over the next > few years. The more filters are deployed the greater the need will be for mechanisms that make sure that false positives are not being lost. The spam problem has grown so large that the second order problems are becomming significant in their own right. Authentication approaches and filtering approaches go together. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 18:43:57 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA19621 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 18:43:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26NtB228938 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 18:55:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26NtBO28935 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 18:55:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA19599 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 18:43:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26Nr2O28779; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 18:53:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26NqeO28760 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 18:52:40 -0500 Received: from mr06.lodo.exactis.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA19491 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 18:40:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from denex02.corp.exactis.com (denex02.corp.exactis.com [10.249.0.67]) by mr06.lodo.exactis.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA02581; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:42:37 -0700 Received: by denex02.corp.exactis.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:42:37 -0700 Message-ID: <6956D00165F4CB4583BB9CC33D77364F1E3096@denca00.corp.exactis.com> From: "Barclay, Robert" To: "'Chris Lewis'" , "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] definition of spam (was Re: consent expression) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C2E43A.10BAD130" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:42:35 -0700 This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2E43A.10BAD130 Content-Type: text/plain Sorry, I think that both of the issues you point out below were more a lack of clarity of expression on my part than a disagreement with your points. I don't disagree with either of them. But from my point of view whether the filtering happens in the MTA or the MUA is a secondary concern. My main point was just that the email transaction system itself (whether SMTP is extended, or a new protocol replaces it, or a new layer is placed on top of it, or we just all start hiring singing messengers) should not itself dictate whether any specific piece of mail should be accepted, but should allow for the reliable transmission of sufficient information to allow filtering decisions to be made at the end point of the transmission. The need to filter/monitor specific types of content for specific environments seems out of scope of this process, except to say that it should still be possible to do so. It seems unlikely that any globally adopted set of rules for email would make it either much easier or much harder to keep up with things like changing Securities and Exchange Commission rules for financial services companies, or the myriad of HR problems that can result from misuse of office email. -----Original Message----- From: Chris Lewis [mailto:clewis@nortelnetworks.com] Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 12:50 PM To: 'asrg@ietf.org' Subject: Re: [Asrg] definition of spam (was Re: consent expression) Barclay, Robert wrote: > Whether or not bulk email is treated differently than one to one > communication (and I think at least in transport it should not be) the > end goal should be for end users to have control over what email gets > into their In boxes right? Right. But, you're (a) conflating where the technology is placed (MTA versus MUA) with it being a user choice, and (b) ignoring fundamental differences between classes of "provider". In (a), consider user choice implemented in the MTA, not the MUA. Yes, the technology already exists to do that. It's highly beneficial - reduction of user bandwidth (think user on dialup line). Necessitating not only that scoring/marking/whatever goes on in the MTA, the refusal itself is done in the MTA. In (b), consider us. We're a corporation, not an ISP. Corporate policy not only prohibits certain materials, but the law also forces us to block certain kinds of materials (specifically, workplace sexual harrassment legislation). While the latter isn't spam per-se, it still is done using anti-spam techniques at the MTA level to prevent innocent end users getting bombarded by stuff they didn't ask for (which is what spam is). [If non-spammed porn gets through to the end user, then it's an HR issue...] _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2E43A.10BAD130 Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: [Asrg] definition of spam (was Re: consent = expression)

Sorry,
I think that both of the issues you point out below = were more a lack of clarity of expression on my part than a = disagreement with your points. I don't disagree with either of them. = But from my point of view whether the filtering happens in the MTA or = the MUA is a secondary concern. My main point was just that the email = transaction system itself (whether SMTP is extended, or a new protocol = replaces it, or a new layer is placed on top of it, or we just all = start hiring singing messengers) should not itself dictate whether any = specific piece of mail should be accepted, but should allow for the = reliable transmission of sufficient information to allow filtering = decisions to be made at the end point of the transmission.

The need to filter/monitor specific types of content = for specific environments seems out of scope of this process, except to = say that it should still be possible to do so. It seems unlikely that = any globally adopted set of rules for email would make it either much = easier or much harder to keep up with things like changing Securities = and Exchange Commission rules for financial services companies, or the = myriad of HR problems that can result from misuse of office = email.



-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Lewis [mailto:clewis@nortelnetworks.c= om]
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 12:50 PM
To: 'asrg@ietf.org'
Subject: Re: [Asrg] definition of spam (was Re: = consent expression)


Barclay, Robert wrote:

> Whether or not bulk email is treated differently = than one to one
> communication (and I think at least in = transport it should not be) the
> end goal should be for end users to have = control over what email gets
> into their In boxes right?

Right.  But, you're (a) conflating where the = technology is placed (MTA
versus MUA) with it being a user choice, and (b) = ignoring fundamental
differences between classes of = "provider".

In (a), consider user choice implemented in the MTA, = not the MUA.  Yes,
the technology already exists to do that. It's = highly beneficial -
reduction of user bandwidth (think user on dialup = line). Necessitating
not only that scoring/marking/whatever goes on in = the MTA, the refusal
itself is done in the MTA.

In (b), consider us.  We're a corporation, not = an ISP.  Corporate policy
not only prohibits certain materials, but the law = also forces us to
block certain kinds of materials (specifically, = workplace sexual
harrassment legislation).  While the latter = isn't spam per-se, it still
is done using anti-spam techniques at the MTA level = to prevent innocent
end users getting bombarded by stuff they didn't ask = for (which is what
spam is).  [If non-spammed porn gets through to = the end user, then it's
an HR issue...]



_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg=

------_=_NextPart_001_01C2E43A.10BAD130-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 18:47:15 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA19713 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 18:47:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26NwTI29158 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 18:58:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26NwTO29155 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 18:58:29 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA19690 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 18:46:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26Nv2O29056; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 18:57:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26NupO29030 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 18:56:51 -0500 Received: from mail.speakeasy.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA19663 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 18:45:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 11088 invoked from network); 6 Mar 2003 23:47:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO spiral.whatever.net) ([64.81.21.85]) (envelope-sender ) by mail16.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 6 Mar 2003 23:47:19 -0000 Received: from spiral.whatever.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by spiral.whatever.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h26NpWRC014943 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:51:32 -0800 Received: from localhost (nathan@localhost) by spiral.whatever.net (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) with ESMTP id h26NpWKV014940 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:51:32 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: spiral.whatever.net: nathan owned process doing -bs From: Nate W X-Sender: nathan@spiral To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Economic model is borken. (sic.) Let's fix it In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:51:32 -0800 (PST) On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Kee Hinckley wrote: > The other problem with challenge/response systems is that there's a > missing link in the interface. > > I go to a web site and purchase something. They send me an email > receipt. How exactly are they going to automatically get through my > challenge response? Sometimes I whitelist the domain beforehand, most times I just check the 'holding pen' folder for a message from the merchant some time later. -- Nate Waddoups Redmond WA USA http://www.natew.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 18:48:08 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA19794 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 18:48:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h26NxNv29212 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 18:59:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26NxNO29209 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 18:59:23 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA19753 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 18:47:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26Nw8O29126; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 18:58:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h26NvhO29088 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 18:57:43 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA19681 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 18:45:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.57] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h26Nm13Z027967; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:48:01 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:48:01 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Jonathan Wilkins'" , Chris Lewis , ietf anti-spam research group Subject: RE: pros and cons of RMX (Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:48:00 -0800 > Why is 65536 100 byte packets a lot? That's only 655k. Because it would stick out like a giant day-glo beacon shouting HEY YOOO-HOOO I AM GOING TO SPAAAAAM YOU NOW... If not we just make it a requirement to use a fixed version of DNS. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 19:01:15 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA20121 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:01:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h270CTJ30505 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:12:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h270CTO30502 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:12:29 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA20106 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:00:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h270A3O30447; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:10:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2709vO30422 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:09:57 -0500 Received: from mail.asianet.co.th (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA20047 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 18:58:10 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200303062358.SAA20047@ietf.org> Received: from virscan1.asianet.co.th (HELO mx.asianet.co.th) ([203.144.222.198]) (envelope-sender ) by mail3.asianet.co.th (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 7 Mar 2003 07:00:48 +0700 Received: from ppp-203.144.179.115.revip.asianet.co.th (HELO localhost) ([203.144.179.115]) (envelope-sender ) by mx2.asianet.co.th (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 7 Mar 2003 06:50:51 +0700 From: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" To: "asrg@ietf.org" Reply-To: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" Priority: Normal X-Mailer: PMMail 1.96a For OS/2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Disposable ISP accounts (was Re: [Asrg] RE: Asrg digest, Vol 1 #42 - 13 msgs) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 07:00:01 +0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:15:07 -0500 (EST), David F. Skoll wrote: >An even simpler solution is for ISP's to prevent free accounts from >sending e-mail at all. You can browse the Web all you want, but until >you pay up and give a credit card number -- no e-mail. Or slightly >less draconian, force free accounts to send e-mail through the ISP's >server and limit it to 10 emails/day. Many well-run free services now use such methods. The goal should be to force all to do so Jeffrey Race _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 19:05:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA20265 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:05:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h270HBt30732 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:17:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h270HBO30729 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:17:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA20243 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:05:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h270F2O30638; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:15:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h270EtO30597 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:14:55 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA20170 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:03:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18r0Z7-0000Ac-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Mar 2003 13:58:01 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 05 Mar 2003 17:22:28 EST." Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 13:58:01 -0500 "David F. Skoll" wrote: > > So what are my alternatives? Give up on email? Pay $2k/year to > > upgrade my equipment? > > Change your domain and start fresh. That solution doesn't scale. > > All of the proposed solutions which talk about filtering mail are a > > waste of time. > > Maybe for you and 0.01% of the population. For the other 99.99% of > us, filters are a good technology. Then why are you on this list? I'm here to talk about a *real* spam problem, where even a filter of "firewall all IP's not on a whitelist" is too expensive to be practical. Or are you saying that you're willing to solve your spam problem, but not mine? > > Does it really make sense to allow terabytes of garbage to fill the > > network? > > No, but how can you stop it? That's what I thought we were here to discuss. > > Why wouldn't we just solve the problem by minimizing the garbage > > traffic, instead of upgrading the network? > > How? Who says what is or isn't garbage? You do. You're filtering & discarding spam already. Why was it acceptable to have that traffic pass over the Internet, only to be thrown away by you? > I agree, but the need for filters will never go away. Oh, that's true. But many people claim "filters work". That's like saying "I don't need surgery, I've got a band-aid!" Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 19:12:07 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA20420 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:12:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h270NMQ31117 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:23:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h270NMO31114 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:23:22 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA20400 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:11:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h270LlO31017; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:21:47 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h270KuO30934 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:20:56 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id TAA20334 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:09:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 6358 invoked from network); 6 Mar 2003 00:09:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.2.100.178?) (10.2.100.178) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 6 Mar 2003 00:09:17 -0000 From: Matt Sergeant X-X-Sender: matt@localhost.localdomain To: Jed Margolin cc: "Asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Let's try something different In-Reply-To: <00a101c2e40b$54e40cc0$ca81bbd0@kit> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:24:03 +0000 (GMT) On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Jed Margolin wrote: > I propose: > > 1. Sender's email is stored on Sender's server. [snip] http://cr.yp.to/im2000.html _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 19:14:57 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA20531 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:14:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h270QCC31210 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:26:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h270QCO31207 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:26:12 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA20521 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:14:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h270P1O31173; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:25:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h270OHO31149 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:24:17 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA20437 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:12:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from aland by mail.nitros9.org with local (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18r0iB-0000Ci-00; Thu, 06 Mar 2003 14:07:23 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Message-Id: Subject: [Asrg] The Consent 4-Tuple Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 14:07:23 -0500 I'd like bring the discussion more on-charter, and to use quantitative terms to describe the problem. Most of the discussion here has been about user-based consent. The charter (unclear as I find it) doesn't discuss in detail what is meant by "consent". So having a background in Physics, I thought I'd come up with some math-style new vocabulary to describe *whose* consent we're talking about. I don't have time to write a draft, but I was able to type up a few short thoughts, in between other work. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Consent 4-tuple ------------------- The general model for email traffic is that there is an email originator (end-user), a local SMTP gateway, a remote SMTP gateway, and a final recipient of the email. To use unique terms: #-------- email originator -> SMTP sender -> SMTP receiver -> final addressee/user #-------- In order to better discuss the issues involved, I will define a "consent 4-tuple". This allows us to make quantitatively descriptions of consent in SMTP conversations. The consent 4-tuple is composed of 4 values: (O,S,R,A) Originator, sender, receiver, and final email addressee We use tokens to describe consent of each party: - made a statement to NOT consent to the traffic 0 made no statement + make a statement to consent to the traffic. * all of the above. - The majority of email today is (+,0,0,0) Originator consents to send it, sender/receiver make no statement, and the addressee makes no statement. - Dictionary attacks on email addresses are: (+,*,*,-), or (+,*,-,) Originator consents, addressee doesn't consent, or addressee doesn't exist, and therefore can't consent. Note that unsolicited email from honest people may also be (+,*,*,-). - User spam filtering is (*,*,*,-) Late in the traffic... bad idea. - ISP spam filtering is generally (*,*,-,*) Do you really trust your ISP to filter your spam? - Originating ISP blocking port 25 outbound is (*,-,*,*) Early in the traffic, good idea. - RBL's are (*,*,-,*) Receiver administers consent. - DUL's are (*,-,-,*) Sender declares non-consent, receiver agrees to not consent. - Open relays are (+,0,*,*) Why should we care about the spammers consent? - Open relays (or misconfigured proxies) behind a packet filter on port 25 are (+,-,*,*) This isn't a problem... - RMX (reverse MX) is: (*,+,*,*) Sender consents to source SMTP, recepient may (or may not) agree. - The naive "roaming user" is (+,,-,0) The sender doesn't exist, because the roaming user is the sender The receiver does NOT consent, because he's being lied to about where the mail is coming from. (Lack of informed consent==no consent) - The smart roaming user is (+,+,0,0) His sender consents to forward the email. This is also SMTP authentication of the originator. - SSL certificates (client-server) are (*,+,+,*) Both S/R consent, because they've been authenticated. - Spam from well-known domains is (+,+,0,-), or (+,+,+,-) (e.g. throw-away accounts at otherwise-respectable ISP's) Everyone consents to handle the data, but the addressee decides that it's spam. - Spam with forged "from" lines is: (+,0,-,*), or (+,*,0,-) The receiver did NOT consent to being lied to. - Spam with forged "from" lines coming from spam hosts is (+,+,-,*) - Spam filters like spamcop.net are (*,*,-,*), or (*,*,+,*) They consent to throw away bad traffic, or to pass only known good traffic. - A happy world is (+,+,+,+) The problem is that (+,+,+,+) is a MUCH smaller space than !(+,+,+,+). This means any implementation based on declared non-consent will be hugely more expensive than one based on declared consent. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 19:18:57 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA20709 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:18:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h270UCY31399 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:30:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h270UCO31396 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:30:12 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA20609 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:18:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h270S4O31289; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:28:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h270RSO31252 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:27:28 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id TAA20564 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:15:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 6770 invoked from network); 6 Mar 2003 00:15:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.2.100.178?) (10.2.100.178) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 6 Mar 2003 00:15:58 -0000 From: Matt Sergeant X-X-Sender: matt@localhost.localdomain To: Jim Youll cc: "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Do we need to do anything? In-Reply-To: <200303061900.h26J0Qmf003963@new.agentzero.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:30:43 +0000 (GMT) On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Jim Youll wrote: > At 18:33 +0000 3/6/03, Matt Sergeant wrote: > >Tagged addresses, temporary addresses, etc. All work well for a bit. > >Until your real email address gets out there. > > > >And then you're history. > > > >Look at it this way - you give your mum your real email address, > >because you know she's not a spammer. She forwards you a joke, and > >CC's a whole bunch of co-workers. One of those co-workers forwards > >that email to somewhere that gets archived on the web. And her MUA > >includes all those people's email addresses. BAM. > > But if you had a proper client that hid all the work, you could > "give" a different e-mail address to every correspondent, and if it > leaked out, you need only cancel that one and give that particular > correspondent a freshly-generated address, no? I just don't see how that can work in the business world where you have corporate directories. Is the directory also supposed to dish out fresh addresses each time? Your proposal then requires changes to all MUAs, some MTAs, and now all LDAP and directory services and address book software. Major headache. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 19:24:57 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA21254 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:24:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h270aCx31708 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:36:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h270aCO31705 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:36:12 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA21209 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:24:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h270Y2O31650; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:34:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h270X7O31598 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:33:07 -0500 Received: from INET-IMC-03.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA20963 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:21:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail6.microsoft.com ([157.54.6.196]) by INET-IMC-03.redmond.corp.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6624); Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:23:24 -0800 Received: from inet-vrs-06.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.6.181]) by mail6.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:23:24 -0800 Received: from 157.54.8.109 by inet-vrs-06.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Thu, 06 Mar 2003 16:23:24 -0800 Received: from RED-MSG-06.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.12.198]) by INET-HUB-02.redmond.corp.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3765.0); Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:23:24 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.6851.8 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: pros and cons of RMX (Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world) Message-ID: <7695E2F6903F7A41961F8CF888D87EA809F01A9B@red-msg-06.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> Thread-Topic: pros and cons of RMX (Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world) thread-index: AcLkOtoPqraHSML/RoSS/RdtLoZivwABDTaw From: "Jonathan Wilkins" To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , "Chris Lewis" , "ietf anti-spam research group" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Mar 2003 00:23:24.0409 (UTC) FILETIME=[C41CCE90:01C2E43F] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h270X7O31599 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:23:22 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sure.. But only if you add a new capability to the DNS server to signal the SMTP server that this is occuring. Or install a NIDS system that does the same. More infrastructure to fix a broken system. Patches upon patches upon patches. Never mind that you then have to improve NIDS to take care of certain issues if you've got a determined attacker (See http://www.robertgraham.com/mirror/Ptacek-Newsham-Evasion-98.html and http://monkey.org/~dugsong/fragroute/ ) And you would have some pretty determined attackers if you've got a large enough site (and therefore enough spam recipients to make it worth the attackers energy) -----Original Message----- From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip [mailto:pbaker@verisign.com] Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 3:48 PM To: Jonathan Wilkins; Chris Lewis; ietf anti-spam research group > Why is 65536 100 byte packets a lot? That's only 655k. Because it would stick out like a giant day-glo beacon shouting HEY YOOO-HOOO I AM GOING TO SPAAAAAM YOU NOW... If not we just make it a requirement to use a fixed version of DNS. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 19:29:57 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA21522 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:29:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h270fCZ32697 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:41:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h270fCO32694 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:41:12 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA21486 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:29:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h270e2O32650; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:40:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h270dUO32612 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:39:30 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA21453 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:27:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc01.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53] (may be forged)) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h270RZnR011920; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:27:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:29:48 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Jonathan Wilkins'" , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , Chris Lewis , ietf anti-spam research group Subject: RE: pros and cons of RMX (Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:29:47 -0800 > Sure.. But only if you add a new capability to the DNS server > to signal the SMTP server that this is occuring. Or install > a NIDS system that does the same. More infrastructure to > fix a broken system. Patches upon patches upon patches. That is rhetoric, not an argument. DNS has some problems, they have not been serious enough to fix till now but the security community always understood how to fix them. This is an IRTF working group. The expected outcome is either proposals to change protocols or a statement why the problem is impossible, not worthwhile or otherwise not to be addressed. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 19:36:26 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA21773 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:36:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h270lgV00565 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:47:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h270lgO00562 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:47:42 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA21768 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:35:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h270i3O00403; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:44:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h270h4O00360 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:43:04 -0500 Received: from new.agentzero.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA21612 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:31:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.123.194] (h0050e4251179.ne.client2.attbi.com [66.30.24.79]) by new.agentzero.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h270Y1mf014835; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:34:01 -0500 Message-Id: <200303070034.h270Y1mf014835@new.agentzero.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: Matt Sergeant From: Jim Youll Subject: Re: [Asrg] Do we need to do anything? Cc: "'asrg@ietf.org'" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:33:17 -0500 At 0:30 +0000 3/7/03, Matt Sergeant wrote: >On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Jim Youll wrote: > >> At 18:33 +0000 3/6/03, Matt Sergeant wrote: >> >Tagged addresses, temporary addresses, etc. All work well for a bit. >> >Until your real email address gets out there. >> > >> >And then you're history. >> > >> >Look at it this way - you give your mum your real email address, >> >because you know she's not a spammer. She forwards you a joke, and >> >CC's a whole bunch of co-workers. One of those co-workers forwards >> >that email to somewhere that gets archived on the web. And her MUA >> >includes all those people's email addresses. BAM. >> >> But if you had a proper client that hid all the work, you could >> "give" a different e-mail address to every correspondent, and if it >> leaked out, you need only cancel that one and give that particular >> correspondent a freshly-generated address, no? > >I just don't see how that can work in the business world where you have >corporate directories. Is the directory also supposed to dish out fresh >addresses each time? Your proposal then requires changes to all MUAs, some >MTAs, and now all LDAP and directory services and address book software. > >Major headache. I see this as one of many techniques that can be used separately to help with the problem. If I were to switch to this technique only for addresses that are deliberately shown to the public (web pages, chats, fundamentally), I believe the bulk of my spam problems could be kept under control. Of course this does not work for every situation! For my grandmother and niece and nephew, it would work quite well in many circumstances, especially if the details were taken care of behind the scenes. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 19:42:51 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA21877 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:42:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h270s7J00794 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:54:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h270s7O00790 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:54:07 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA21867 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:42:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h270jPO00451; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:45:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h270h7O00371 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:43:07 -0500 Received: from mail.speakeasy.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA21618 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:31:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 27020 invoked from network); 7 Mar 2003 00:33:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO spiral.whatever.net) ([64.81.21.85]) (envelope-sender ) by mail11.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 7 Mar 2003 00:33:35 -0000 Received: from spiral.whatever.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by spiral.whatever.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h270bmRC015282 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:37:48 -0800 Received: from localhost (nathan@localhost) by spiral.whatever.net (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) with ESMTP id h270blUa015279 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:37:47 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: spiral.whatever.net: nathan owned process doing -bs From: Nate W X-Sender: nathan@spiral To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Let's try something different In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:37:47 -0800 (PST) On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Matt Sergeant wrote: > On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Jed Margolin wrote: > > > I propose: > > > > 1. Sender's email is stored on Sender's server. > > http://cr.yp.to/im2000.html I have tons of respect for DJB, but I'm not so sure about this idea. With a 'pull' mail system, recipients either need to poll senders, or senders need to send notifications when new messages are available. Notification messages are themselves subject to many of the same problems as 'push' mail (including spam) becuase they are, basically, pushed to the recipiients. The overhead associated with polling all of the potential senders is probably bigger than the overhead associated with bounce messages. It might be a cool alternative to current mailing lists though. -- Nate Waddoups Redmond WA USA http://www.natew.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 19:42:55 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA21890 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:42:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h270sBW00814 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:54:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h270sBO00811 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:54:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA21873 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:42:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h270jQO00486; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:45:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h270i0O00389 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:44:00 -0500 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA21659 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:32:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com [171.71.163.14]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h270YFrX021171; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:34:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from CSCOAMERA19540.cisco.com (stealth-10-32-253-238.cisco.com [10.32.253.238]) by mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.1-GA) with SMTP id AET40079; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:29:03 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030306155015.02176c18@mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com> X-Sender: fred@mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Roland From: Fred Baker Subject: Re: [Asrg] definition of spam (was Re: consent expression) Cc: ASRG In-Reply-To: References: <20030305062722.3d36f607.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030304205916.56614a9f.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305040008.GB14655@main.templetons.com> <20030304234928.5485710d.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305051840.GI14655@main.templetons.com> <20030305051936.55246a31.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305062722.3d36f607.moore@cs.utk.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 16:17:59 -0800 At 01:32 PM 3/5/2003 +0000, Roland wrote: > >> Any consent has to be given from the receipient to the sender, > >> and should be non-transferable and revokable at any time. > >The only one which can give consent for bulk-mail is the receipient, Look through the header lines on this email, and tell me who is the sender and who is the recipient? My system (my PC) very likely never spoke with your PC. Rather, it traversed a number of SMTP sessions, going from relay to relay, such as (copied out of an email I sent earlier in the week and received back on this list): My PC -> mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com -> sj-core-2.cisco.com -> ietf.org -> www1.ietf.org -> proxy1.cisco.com -> sj-msg-av-3.cisco.com -> sj-core-2.cisco.com -> mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com and finally a POP session to my PC. So to whom do I assert that I am only willing to receive , or that I am not willing to receive ? And which system is "me"? I think the relay servers at the IETF are the place where the spammer will send; one would like them to reject traffic based on the traffic being inappropriate for the list. That is essentially what we do when we moderate traffic. My company also has servers that inspect the language in an email and classify some subset of it as commercial messages, presumably unsolicited, with a fairly low false positive rate. The rate is low enough that I have elected to tell my Mirapoint server to discard anything that SpamAssassin or whatever said process uses has decided is probably spam; I'd rather accept the false positives than deal with the trash. My PC, of course, has a list of filters that won't quit, partly for spam and partly for sorting messages into appropriate mail files. Even spam that is directed to my personal email address goes through several steps. I got an email earlier today (from an airline that apparently has very compatible flight attendants) that was sent to laptop -> proxy1.cisco.com -> sj-msg-av-3.cisco.com -> sj-core-2.cisco.com -> mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com and finally a POP session to my PC. So I don't think either end user talks with the other, and their direct agents (laptops) don't. We need to sort out what kinds of policies might be applied in different places, and how much user control there is. It would be very nice to somehow automate the concept of a "moderator", and apply straightforward filters - no matter how compatible the flight attendants, I actually might have lived without that advertisement... _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 19:50:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA22093 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:50:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2711rJ01165 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 20:01:53 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2711rO01162 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 20:01:53 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA22081 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:50:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h270xIO01037; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:59:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h270wfO00985 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:58:41 -0500 Received: from mail1.microsoft.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA21968 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:46:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from inet-vrs-01.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.8.27]) by mail1.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6659); Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:48:58 -0800 Received: from 157.54.6.197 by inet-vrs-01.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Thu, 06 Mar 2003 16:48:58 -0800 Received: from RED-MSG-06.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.12.198]) by INET-HUB-06.redmond.corp.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:48:59 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.6851.8 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: pros and cons of RMX (Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world) Message-ID: <7695E2F6903F7A41961F8CF888D87EA809F01B1C@red-msg-06.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> Thread-Topic: pros and cons of RMX (Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world) thread-index: AcLkQK5fMMd08vstSBqf4uMIVcMTvgAAWsNA From: "Jonathan Wilkins" To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , "Chris Lewis" , "ietf anti-spam research group" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Mar 2003 00:48:59.0032 (UTC) FILETIME=[56D1B180:01C2E443] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h270wfO00986 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:48:57 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit No it's not rhetoric. It's a statement of fact. DNS alone doesn't solve this problem. If you want RMX to work, you need to do one of the following: 1. patch the DNS protocol 2. patch DNS servers to keep track of multiple bogus responses and inform the SMTP server (what you're going to do when this happens is unclear. Since they're UDP and spoofable, surely you're not proposing that all data from that IP be dropped) See any IDS list for details on the hazards of automated filtering. 3. Add a NIDS that watches for lots of unasked for DNS replies and communicates with your SMTP server. If you're doing this much to compensate for a broken protocol, you ought to re-evaluate the cost-benefit equation. I agree with you that DNS hasn't been a major problem for the internet up until now, but that's because most uses don't make it easy for an attacker to spoof. Since an attacker doesn't know when you're going to go to your bank's site (and therefore do a DNS lookup), it's difficult for them to spoof a DNS reply. This is not the case for RMX. The spammer controls the timing of the lookup. -----Original Message----- From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip [mailto:pbaker@verisign.com] Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 4:30 PM To: Jonathan Wilkins; Hallam-Baker, Phillip; Chris Lewis; ietf anti-spam research group > Sure.. But only if you add a new capability to the DNS server > to signal the SMTP server that this is occuring. Or install > a NIDS system that does the same. More infrastructure to > fix a broken system. Patches upon patches upon patches. That is rhetoric, not an argument. DNS has some problems, they have not been serious enough to fix till now but the security community always understood how to fix them. This is an IRTF working group. The expected outcome is either proposals to change protocols or a statement why the problem is impossible, not worthwhile or otherwise not to be addressed. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 19:50:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA22106 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:50:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2711wp01181 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 20:01:58 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2711wO01178 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 20:01:58 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA22086 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:50:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h270xAO01005; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:59:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h270w5O00970 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:58:05 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA21950 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:46:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h270mNBD021162 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:48:23 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Do we need to do anything? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:48:23 -0500 (EST) On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Matt Sergeant wrote: > What about address books? And people who give other people your address? Well, you have one more-or-less permanent address that issues a challenge to the sender, and if the sender responds correctly, it creates a usable ephemeral address for that sender. > I see *lots* of fundamental reasons why this wouldn't work. No fundamental reasons. Just implementation details. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 19:53:04 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA22142 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:53:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2714JX01338 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 20:04:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2714JO01335 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 20:04:19 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA22134 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:52:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27132O01281; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 20:03:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2712kO01247 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 20:02:46 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA22124 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:50:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h270r4BD021193 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:53:04 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:53:04 -0500 (EST) On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Alan DeKok wrote: > > Change your domain and start fresh. > That solution doesn't scale. Well, you are highly unlikely to have the kind of spam you've been seeing. Really. Your stats are way off the chart. > > Maybe for you and 0.01% of the population. For the other 99.99% of > > us, filters are a good technology. > Then why are you on this list? To help reduce spam for most people. There will always be outlyers who are beyond help. > I'm here to talk about a *real* spam problem, where even a filter of > "firewall all IP's not on a whitelist" is too expensive to be > practical. That level of spam does not yet exist for most people. Your situation is very unusual. > Or are you saying that you're willing to solve your spam problem, > but not mine? That's right. Your problem is not representative of most people's problem. > Oh, that's true. But many people claim "filters work". > That's like saying "I don't need surgery, I've got a band-aid!" Filters work very well for a lot of people. There are always outlying data points; you have my sympathy. :-) -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 20:26:51 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA23121 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 20:26:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h271c7u04543 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 20:38:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h271c7O04540 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 20:38:07 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA23117 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 20:26:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h271a7O03655; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 20:36:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h271ZdO03615 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 20:35:39 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA23053 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 20:23:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc01.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53] (may be forged)) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h271NgnR017612; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:23:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:25:55 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Jonathan Wilkins'" , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , Chris Lewis , ietf anti-spam research group Subject: RE: pros and cons of RMX (Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:25:54 -0800 > No it's not rhetoric. It's a statement of fact. DNS alone > doesn't solve this problem. If you want RMX to work, you need > to do one of the following: > 1. patch the DNS protocol > 2. patch DNS servers to keep track of multiple bogus responses > and inform the SMTP server > (what you're going to do when this happens is unclear. Since > they're UDP and spoofable, surely you're not proposing that > all data from that IP be dropped) > See any IDS list for details on the hazards of automated > filtering. > 3. Add a NIDS that watches for lots of unasked for DNS replies > and communicates with your SMTP server. > > If you're doing this much to compensate for a broken protocol, > you ought to re-evaluate the cost-benefit equation. Perhaps we might get further if you just told us all your pet theory rather than making us all wait till you have attacked everything else. You might find that we don't consider your pet theory to be incompatible or in competition. You appear to have the same problem Bruce Schneier had with security before he wrote secrets and lies. The perfect is the enemy of the good. Security is risk control, not risk elimination. Spam is an infestation, we are not going to find a magic bullet. We are going to have to fight a long war on many fronts. We shall fight them with filters, we shall fight them with authenticated mail, we shall fight them in the legislatures and in the court room. We shall never surrender but if the Internet shall last a thousand years it shall be said of us that this was our finnest hour. Phill Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 20:34:49 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA23321 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 20:34:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h271k6004986 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 20:46:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h271k6O04983 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 20:46:06 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA23302 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 20:34:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h271i2O04838; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 20:44:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h271h7O04806 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 20:43:07 -0500 Received: from splat.viawest.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA23250 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 20:31:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from splat.viawest.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by splat.viawest.net (8.12.7/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h271XM7N006832; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 18:33:22 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from cfedde@splat.viawest.net) Message-Id: <200303070133.h271XM7N006832@splat.viawest.net> To: "Alan DeKok" cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] The Consent 4-Tuple In-Reply-To: From: Chris Fedde Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 18:33:22 -0700 On Thu, 06 Mar 2003 14:07:23 -0500 "Alan DeKok" wrote: +------------------ | The Consent 4-tuple | ------------------- | | The general model for email traffic is that there is an email | originator (end-user), a local SMTP gateway, a remote SMTP gateway, | and a final recipient of the email. To use unique terms: | | #-------- | email originator -> SMTP sender -> SMTP receiver -> final addressee/user | #-------- +------------------ I applaud your effort to make an algebra for spam. But I think that your notation misses the target. The common literature uses the terms Sender MUA, Sender MTA, Recipient MTA, and Recipient MUA. I'm not sure that there is much to be gained by changing the terminology. I think that there is room for definitions of true sender and true recipient too. Also I'm fuzzy on the difference between * and 0 in your notation. Each of these components is an agent for "real people", namely: the sender and the recipient. I might need a little hand waving here to cover bots, reflectors, list managers and the like but even they are setup on the behalf of real people. The goal of the Sender MUA/MTA pair is to implement the wishes of the sender and the Recipient MTA/MUA is to implement the wishes of the recipient. The sender always "consents" to send the mail (modulo accidents). So we would never see mail that it is unlikely that the Sender MUA would work in a way against the senders wishes. And it would be totalitarian indeed if it did. The Sender MTA may choose to throttle traffic from the Sender MUA on grounds of self preservation but it seems unlikely that it would implement any higher policy that prevents it from attempting to achieve the senders desires. So the job for the senders MUA/MTA are simple: Get the mail into the hands of the recipients MTA/MUA. The recipient MTA/MUA on the other hand works for the recipient. Its goals are more complex. It must attempt to meet two conflicting wishes on the part of the recipient. First of these wishes is to see mail that the recipient wishes to see. Second is to not see what they don't want to see. Because the recipient has not yet seen the mail this is a problem of prediction and thus has lots of interesting failure modes. Both the recipient MTA and the recipient MUA and the network surrounding them may provide some traffic shaping/blocking features to protect their availability. Then both the recipient MUA and MTA may run various categorization and markup features that allow the recipient to select/sort her email. An algebra to describe spam will involve the recipients view of email. Mostly it will require notations for functions on the feature space of the email message and the recipients wishes. -- Chris Fedde _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 20:56:51 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA23893 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 20:56:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27288306643 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 21:08:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27288O06638 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 21:08:08 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA23890 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 20:56:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2726DO05776; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 21:06:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2725uO05760 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 21:05:56 -0500 Received: from yossarian.aniota.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA23856 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 20:54:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (abuse@localhost) by yossarian.aniota.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA05792 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:56:09 -0800 From: abuse To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Deprecating plain POP accounts In-Reply-To: <20030306092932.GD2340@danisch.de> Message-ID: References: <20030305191518.1807af4c.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305223136.7fe36926.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030306092932.GD2340@danisch.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:56:09 -0800 (PST) on "3-6-2003" "Hadmut Danisch" writ: : On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 11:55:16PM -0800, abuse wrote: : > : > ... somehow, the idea of 'eliminating' "POP" accounts falls short of a : > reasoned solution. if i'm mistaken, and this a viable alternative, why : > not eliminate SMTP altogether ... : Maybe you'd understand it a little bit better if you'd read more : than just the subject line. ... i do not have 'quotable' text at my disposal, but as i recall, you'd suggested a mandated 'change' to the system as it now stands. if that in error, i certainly stand corrected. however, if i'm not, my opinion about that philosophy has not changed ... _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 21:08:15 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA24115 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 21:08:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h272JWW07120 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 21:19:32 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h272JWO07117 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 21:19:32 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA24101 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 21:07:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h272H3O06995; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 21:17:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h272GZO06950 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 21:16:35 -0500 Received: from INET-IMC-03.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA24035 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 21:04:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from INET-VRS-03.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.5.27]) by INET-IMC-03.redmond.corp.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6624); Thu, 6 Mar 2003 18:06:50 -0800 Received: from 157.54.8.23 by INET-VRS-03.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Thu, 06 Mar 2003 18:06:50 -0800 Received: from RED-MSG-06.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.12.198]) by INET-HUB-01.redmond.corp.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Thu, 6 Mar 2003 18:06:50 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.6851.8 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: pros and cons of RMX (Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world) Message-ID: <7695E2F6903F7A41961F8CF888D87EA809F01C37@red-msg-06.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> Thread-Topic: pros and cons of RMX (Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world) thread-index: AcLkSIFY2gO70HHgTl+XdpeljxXtqwAAds1Q From: "Jonathan Wilkins" To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , "Chris Lewis" , "ietf anti-spam research group" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Mar 2003 02:06:50.0013 (UTC) FILETIME=[36F0D4D0:01C2E44E] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h272GZO06951 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 18:06:45 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I don't have a favorite solution yet. I think it's too early for that. I personally agree with Brad Templeton and favor solutions that require as few changes as necessary to the rest of the internet infrastructure and SMTP semantics. The reason I've been so vocal about the RMX proposal is that I find it to be really objectionable since it requires a lot of effort from a lot of people for no particular gain. It's just another step in an arms race that has minimal long term benefits. I do agree wholeheartedly with you that there will not be one single solution. It will take a lot of effort from a lot of people. It will take a lot of code, much of which won't work, but which will bring us closer to understanding what _will_ work. I just think that it's worth discarding certain approaches which don't stand up to scrutiny rather than spending a huge amount of resources to prove empirically that they don't work. That's how security research works. People propose systems. Then everyone attacks them. Whatever's left standing wins. I hope that no one is taking my comments too personally, but I don't believe in sugar coating technical arguments. If something's weak, I believe that everyone should at least be aware of the weakness. Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip [mailto:pbaker@verisign.com] Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 5:26 PM To: Jonathan Wilkins; Hallam-Baker, Phillip; Chris Lewis; ietf anti-spam research group > No it's not rhetoric. It's a statement of fact. DNS alone > doesn't solve this problem. If you want RMX to work, you need > to do one of the following: > 1. patch the DNS protocol > 2. patch DNS servers to keep track of multiple bogus responses > and inform the SMTP server > (what you're going to do when this happens is unclear. Since > they're UDP and spoofable, surely you're not proposing that > all data from that IP be dropped) > See any IDS list for details on the hazards of automated > filtering. > 3. Add a NIDS that watches for lots of unasked for DNS replies > and communicates with your SMTP server. > > If you're doing this much to compensate for a broken protocol, > you ought to re-evaluate the cost-benefit equation. Perhaps we might get further if you just told us all your pet theory rather than making us all wait till you have attacked everything else. You might find that we don't consider your pet theory to be incompatible or in competition. You appear to have the same problem Bruce Schneier had with security before he wrote secrets and lies. The perfect is the enemy of the good. Security is risk control, not risk elimination. Spam is an infestation, we are not going to find a magic bullet. We are going to have to fight a long war on many fronts. We shall fight them with filters, we shall fight them with authenticated mail, we shall fight them in the legislatures and in the court room. We shall never surrender but if the Internet shall last a thousand years it shall be said of us that this was our finnest hour. Phill Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 21:11:53 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA24256 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 21:11:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h272NBT07425 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 21:23:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h272NBO07422 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 21:23:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA24244 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 21:11:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h272L2O07214; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 21:21:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h272L0O07199 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 21:21:00 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA24137 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 21:09:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h272BGBD021605 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 21:11:16 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Asrg] Locked addresses (was Do we need to do anything? Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 21:11:16 -0500 (EST) On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Matt Sergeant wrote: > What about address books? And people who give other people your address? Ah. This is solved by having different classes of addresses. Consider a Domain-locked address. The address "ephem-ajh4u34b@roaringpenguin.com" only accepts mail from the roaringpenguin.com domain. That's the address that gets published in the internal company directory. (For that matter, for the internal company directory, you might as well use "dfs@roaringpenguin.com"). Domain-locked addresses are also good if you're communicating with several people at another organization. Yes, if one of those people tries to email you from a Yahoo account, it will bounce. Well, too bad. Sender-locked addresses are more restricted. The address "ephem-dkn435nfu@roaringpenguin.com" only accepts mail from "rose@artandframingsolutions.com", period. She can keep that address in her address book, and it will work just fine. Time-locked addresses are what you post in newsgroups. They accept mail from anyone, but only for a very limited time. Challenge-locked addresses are what you use for your permanent point of contact for strangers. Challenge-locked addresses send a challenge back to senders; if the challenge is met successfully, the sender is given a sender-locked address to use. Later on, you might magnanimously hand out a domain-locked address, if you choose. Depending on your policy, you might have sender-locked addresses issue a challenge if the wrong sender tries to use them; this covers the innocent case of someone giving out your address to a friend. There's a terrific side-benefit from sender-locked addresses: If your correspondent is silly enough to use M$ LookOUT!, and gets hit by a virus, a nice thing happens: Most viruses nowadays pick two random addresses from the address book. They use one as the sender and the other as the recipient. Well, mail (supposedly) NOT from rose@... to ephem-dkn... will bounce. Furthermore, by looking at the destination address, you can phone up rose@ and say "I think you might have a virus; please check", whereas currently, you have few clues as to who the real infected party is. Locked-addresses require no MUA changes. All of the magic can be implemented on the server. To get back to the broader picture mandated by the charter: Rather than looking hard for ways to tie down an address to an identity, so that we can track persistent spammers, it might be much easier and just as productive to look for ways to dissociate e-mail addresses from any kind of permanent identity, ensuring that spammers' lists are rendered useless, and amplifying the effectiveness of the measure-bounce-percentage proposal I made earlier. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 21:18:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA24353 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 21:18:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h272U3407812 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 21:30:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h272U3O07808 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 21:30:03 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA24350 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 21:18:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h272S3O07700; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 21:28:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h272RmO07671 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 21:27:48 -0500 Received: from corvu.com.au (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA24332 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 21:15:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from milat.troy.rollo.name (milat.corvu.com.au [203.33.110.33]) by corvu.com.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA04222; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:17:22 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030307125729.01e05f30@pop3.corvu.com.au> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: Fred Baker , ASRG From: Troy Rollo Subject: Re: [Asrg] definition of spam (was Re: consent expression) In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030306155015.02176c18@mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com> References: <20030305062722.3d36f607.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030304205916.56614a9f.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305040008.GB14655@main.templetons.com> <20030304234928.5485710d.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305051840.GI14655@main.templetons.com> <20030305051936.55246a31.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030305062722.3d36f607.moore@cs.utk.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 13:17:20 +1100 At 04:17 PM 03/06/2003 -0800, Fred Baker wrote: Look through the header lines on this email, and tell me who is the sender and who is the recipient? My system (my PC) very likely never spoke with your PC. Rather, it traversed a number of SMTP sessions, going from relay to relay, such as (copied out of an email I sent earlier in the week and received back on this list): > My PC -> mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com > -> sj-core-2.cisco.com > -> ietf.org > -> www1.ietf.org > -> proxy1.cisco.com > -> sj-msg-av-3.cisco.com > -> sj-core-2.cisco.com > -> mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com > and finally a POP session to my PC. The Received lines tell you nothing directly about who the sender and who is the recipient. In the case of a mailing list, there are two transactions: 1. First transaction - a. The sender is the person submitting a message to the mailing list. b. The recipient is the mailing list system. 2. Second transaction - a. The sender is the mailing list system. b. Each person subscribed is a recipient. The first transaction requires the consent (express, inferred or implied) of the operator of the mailing list. The second transaction requires the consent of each subscriber - this consent was given by means of the subscription request. The fact that a number of systems were involved in the middle has no bearing on the matter. >So I don't think either end user talks with the other, and their direct >agents (laptops) don't. This is only a problem if you insist on using some enhancement to SMTP to express consent. Since consent is something communicated by the recipient to the sender, for the reasons including those you indicate, enhancing SMTP is probably not a good way of expressing consent, at least on an individual level. Hence the BMTP and BMPP protocols designed by people from CAUCE and CAUBE.AU(*). Those protocols were designed specifically to deal with consent. (*) To these you would add the SMTP banner specification if you were looking to review all of the protocol proposals made by CAUCE groups, but that specification only deals with expressing a refusal of consent at the domain level. -- Troy Rollo Chairmain, CAUBE.AU asrg@troy.rollo.name Executive Director, iCAUCE _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 22:36:59 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA26053 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 22:36:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h273mHH23941 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 22:48:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h273mHO23938 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 22:48:17 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA26015 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 22:36:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h273jBO23788; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 22:45:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h273iBO23529 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 22:44:11 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA25971 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 22:32:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18r3pX-0000Jx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Mar 2003 17:27:11 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 06 Mar 2003 11:44:34 EST." <3E677AF2.2030605@americasm01.nt.com> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 17:27:11 -0500 "Chris Lewis" wrote: > Kee Hinckley wrote: > > > I have to say that your stats certainly are up there. Have you looked > > at the incoming email at all? > > We have. I do owe Chris a big thanks for helping me analyze the spam traffic to my domain. I simply didn't have the resources to do it on my own. Chris gave a talk at a local Unix group 8+ years ago about spam. People had a hard time believing his numbers then. Three years ago, nearly everyone I talked to refused to believe me, when I told them about the volume of spam sent to my domain. I couldn't use filters, because most of them weren't written then. Now that the filters are written, they don't help me, because my spam load has increased by 2-3 orders of magnitude. This is the problem I'm worried about. Some ad-hoc and naive solutions may work, if you're not receiving appreciable amounts of spam. They may even work if you have money to throw at the problem. But they don't scale. They're not permanent solutions. And until we have a clear description/understanding of the problem, it's a waste of time to talk about specific solutions. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 22:38:11 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA26077 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 22:38:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h273nTp24249 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 22:49:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h273nSO24239 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 22:49:29 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA26072 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 22:37:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h273l1O23902; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 22:47:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h273kJO23850 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 22:46:19 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA26000 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 22:34:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc01.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53] (may be forged)) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h273YLnR004564 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:34:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:36:34 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: asrg@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [Asrg] DNS NONCE Record Proposal Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:36:32 -0800 The NONCE record allows a DNS client to prevent DNS spoofing attacks by effectively increasing the size of the request ID value. The NONCE record is a dummy DNS record. A query requesting a NONCE record results in the query parameters being returned to the requestor verbatim. Certain DNS extensions may specify that a server that returns the record types specified MUST support the NONCE record. A DNS server may use the NONCE record as an aide to preventing DNS spoofing and cache poisoning attacks as follows: The DNS client attaches the NONCE query to every DNS request. When employed in a legacy environment the client cannot immediately tell the difference between a DNS spoofing attack and a response from a legacy server that does not support NONCE. A DNS client supporting the NONCE record SHOULD maintain a record of all DNS responses that are unsolicited (did not result from a request made by the client). If the number of responses exceeds a certain threshold the DNS client changes state to UNDER-ATTACK In the UNDER-ATTACK state the DNS client will only accept a DNS response if and only if: 1) The response contains a valid NONCE value. 2) The first response to a question has a valid request ID. If the DNS client recieves a spoofed response to a query the query state is changed to SUSPICIOUS. The client MUST then reject all responses received to that query unless the response has an accompanying and correct NONCE record. A DNS client MAY route queries that are marked as SUSPICIOUS to another DNS server for resolution. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 22:44:18 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA26201 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 22:44:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h273tbm25472 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 22:55:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h273tbO25469 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 22:55:37 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA26191 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 22:43:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h273r1O25090; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 22:53:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h273qBO24816 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 22:52:11 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA26124 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 22:40:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18r3xK-0000KA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Mar 2003 17:35:14 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 06 Mar 2003 19:53:04 EST." Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 17:35:14 -0500 "David F. Skoll" wrote: > > Or are you saying that you're willing to solve your spam problem, > > but not mine? > > That's right. Your problem is not representative of most people's problem. Then wait 2 years. Honestly. I will suppress a desire to be extremely rude at this point. 3 years ago, I was complaining to anyone who'd listen about my spam problem. They told me then, as you are now, to "shut up and go away". They told me that they weren't worried, because they didn't see the problem. Today an IRTF group has been created to address the problem. Wonderful... now that your spam load is where mine was THREE YEARS ago, you agree it's a problem. But you're unwilling to come up with a larger solution. Instead, you want bandaids. If we don't look past the end of our noses, then we will *never* solve this problem. Alan Dekok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 23:07:25 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA26590 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 23:07:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h274IiH28115 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 23:18:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h274IiO28112 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 23:18:44 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA26587 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 23:06:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h274G4O27985; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 23:16:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h274FNO27957 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 23:15:23 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA26552 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 23:03:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18r4Jl-0000Kk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Mar 2003 17:58:25 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] The Consent 4-Tuple In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 06 Mar 2003 18:33:22 MST." <200303070133.h271XM7N006832@splat.viawest.net> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 17:58:25 -0500 Chris Fedde wrote: > The common literature uses the terms Sender MUA, Sender MTA, Recipient > MTA, and Recipient MUA. I'm not sure that there is much to be gained by > changing the terminology. I'm not proposing changing the terminology, I was just avoiding the work of recalling yet another series of acronyms. I'll fix the terminology... > I think that there is room for definitions of true sender and true > recipient too. Also I'm fuzzy on the difference between * and 0 in > your notation. The '*' is intended to mean "the rule fits ANY value of consent at this stage". It's less of a statement about the consent of the party involved, than a short-hand for simplifying rules/ e.g. The description of the senders rule says (+,*,*,*), when the recipient applies his rule (*,*,*,-), the result is (+,*,*,-). It's basically "set intersection". The end result is we have a shorthand description of the consent of the parties involved. We know the sender consented, we know the recipient did not. We don't know (and it may not matter) whether or not the other parties consented, made no statement, or claimed non-consent. > The Sender MTA may choose to throttle traffic from the Sender MUA on > grounds of self preservation but it seems unlikely that it would > implement any higher policy that prevents it from attempting to > achieve the senders desires. I disagree. Unintentional open relays/proxies are (*,0,*,*). The '0' in the sender MTA consent results in the sender MUA being allowed to send spam. The relays consent SHOULD be (*,-,*,*). The '-' in the sender MTA consent results in the sender MUA being prevented from sending spam. I tend to find this sort of quantitative analysis more productive, and more informative than statements like "relays are bad!" > An algebra to describe spam will involve the recipients view of > email. Mostly it will require notations for functions on the feature > space of the email message and the recipients wishes. Sure. But it should also be able to describe open relays, SMTP sourcing from dial-up accounts when the ISP failed to prevent that, etc. I've found most of the discussion here focussed on the recipients view of email. I would like to change that. My experience with spam has been that there are other major players in the conversation who's consent (or lack thereof) is being ignored in recipient-based models. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 23:13:09 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA26691 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 23:13:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h274OSF28596 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 23:24:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h274OSO28593 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 23:24:28 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA26682 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 23:12:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h274M2O28443; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 23:22:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h274LiO28425 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 23:21:44 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA26653 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 23:09:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18r4Pv-0000L1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Mar 2003 18:04:47 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: Limitations of filters (was Re: [Asrg] Do we need to do anything?) In-Reply-To: Your message of "06 Mar 2003 10:34:58 CST." Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 18:04:47 -0500 wayne wrote: > By far the most expensive part of spam is the time spent by the end > user. While that may be true, I've been telling people for years "If you do ANYTHING other than drop the TCP SYN from a spammer, you've lost". Actually *delivering* that mail results in huge additional cost. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 23:25:20 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA27067 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 23:25:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h274adi30103 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 23:36:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h274adO30100 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 23:36:39 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA27058 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 23:24:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h274Y4O29831; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 23:34:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h274XDO29682 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 23:33:14 -0500 Received: from mail.asianet.co.th (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA26954 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 23:21:22 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200303070421.XAA26954@ietf.org> Received: from virscan1.asianet.co.th (HELO mx.asianet.co.th) ([203.144.222.197]) (envelope-sender ) by mail2.asianet.co.th (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 7 Mar 2003 11:23:24 +0700 Received: from ppp-203.144.179.115.revip.asianet.co.th (HELO localhost) ([203.144.179.115]) (envelope-sender ) by mx2.asianet.co.th (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 7 Mar 2003 11:14:02 +0700 From: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" To: "Michael Marking" Cc: "Asrg@ietf.org" Reply-To: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" Priority: Normal X-Mailer: PMMail 1.96a For OS/2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] filtering at connect time Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 11:23:12 +0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:29:29 -0800 (PST), Michael Marking wrote: >There is a shovel in my yard, not locked up. If a person takes my shovel >without my permission, and uses it to kill another person, am I guilty? >I think not. > >Perhaps the open relays operators are negligent (or lazy or whatever), >but the theft is being committed by the spammers. The terms of art are 'contributory negligence' and 'attractive nuisance'. If you leave your swimming pool unlocked, and a neighborhood child invites his friends over for a swim (without your permission) and someone drowns, YOU would definitely go to prison in most jurisdictions I know of. I have just posted a Best Current Practice addressing this matter but it seems not to have gone through. I expect to repost for comment shortly. Jeffrey Race _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 6 23:26:08 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA27107 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 23:26:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h274bRO30853 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 23:37:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h274bRO30842 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 23:37:27 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA27084 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 23:25:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h274Z2O29993; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 23:35:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h274YbO29910 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 23:34:37 -0500 Received: from mail.speakeasy.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA27025 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 23:22:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 5423 invoked from network); 7 Mar 2003 04:25:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO spiral.whatever.net) ([64.81.21.85]) (envelope-sender ) by mail16.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 7 Mar 2003 04:25:05 -0000 Received: from spiral.whatever.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by spiral.whatever.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h274TFRC016649 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 20:29:15 -0800 Received: from localhost (nathan@localhost) by spiral.whatever.net (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) with ESMTP id h274TFbK016646 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 20:29:15 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: spiral.whatever.net: nathan owned process doing -bs From: Nate W X-Sender: nathan@spiral To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 20:29:14 -0800 (PST) On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Alan DeKok wrote: > Some ad-hoc and naive solutions may work, if you're not receiving > appreciable amounts of spam. They may even work if you have money to > throw at the problem. But they don't scale. They're not permanent > solutions. And until we have a clear description/understanding of the > problem, it's a waste of time to talk about specific solutions. Maybe it would help to look at separate problems and their separate solutions? For example, the problem of identifying senders as real-life individuals, the problem of bandwidth consumption, the problem of recipient's wasted time, the problem of expressing (or inferring) consent (or lack thereof), and so on. This might keep discussion a bit more focused, like "X solves the N problem, but should not be considered relevant to the M problem." At least people wouldn't be compelled to explain "X doesn't solve M" when it was never meant to. -- Nate Waddoups Redmond WA USA http://www.natew.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 00:24:03 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA28418 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:24:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h275ZOS03371 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:35:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h275ZNO03368 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:35:23 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA28368 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:23:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h275X2O03259; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:33:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h275WwO03231 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:32:58 -0500 Received: from zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA28306 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:21:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (zcard307.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h275N9417799 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:23:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDFBHQQ6; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:23:09 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (acart4yn.ca.nortel.com [47.129.10.124]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBF82Z; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:23:08 -0500 Message-ID: <3E682D7F.8050007@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: ietf anti-spam research group Subject: Re: pros and cons of RMX (Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world) References: <7695E2F6903F7A41961F8CF888D87EA809F01904@red-msg-06.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 00:26:23 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jonathan Wilkins wrote: > Why is 65536 100 byte packets a lot? That's only 655k. (a) it assumes you manage to guess the right packet before the real server gets its answer thru. Let's be generous, and say that they beat it 50% of the time. So, half of your spam run is toast. (b) it's 65536 100 byte packets for _each_ MTA you're trying to get around - _if_ you know where to flood. Worthwhile for attacking large ISPs. Not small MTAs. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 00:24:09 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA28502 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:24:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h275ZUZ03388 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:35:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h275ZUO03385 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:35:30 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA28373 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:23:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h275T8O02971; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:29:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h275SYO02937 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:28:34 -0500 Received: from zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA28216 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:16:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h275Iik20478 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:18:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF44DC2; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:18:44 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (acart4yn.ca.nortel.com [47.129.10.124]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBF82W; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:18:43 -0500 Message-ID: <3E682C78.6040306@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: ietf anti-spam research group Subject: Re: pros and cons of RMX (Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world) References: <20030306105315.GA4411@danisch.de> <20030306191718.B4198310@exeter.ac.uk> <3E67B830.9070005@americasm01.nt.com> <20030306225023.A4519492@exeter.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 00:22:00 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Adam Back wrote: > On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 04:05:52PM -0500, Chris Lewis wrote: > >>>Even with the birthday paradox attack, the spammer will have to send >>>out hundreds of forged DNS packets in order to have a good chance of >>>getting a bogus entry the target's DNS cache. This is both very >>>detectable and it also greatly increases the amount of work that a >>>spammer has to do. >>I've not been following this in great detail, but I'd like to comment on >>this point. It's worse than that. It has to trick every recipient. > That depends on how RMX would be deployed. I read the proposal to > suggest it would be deployed at mail hubs to defend against receiving > mail from IPs other than those the domain owner has delegated as being > allowed to. In this case all the attacker has to spoof is the mail hub. Sorry, I meant to say "trick every MTA", because it has to flood (something) for each MTA it tries to attack. Which'd mean that it'd only be economic to spam _very_ large MTA farms, and maybe not even then. So, yeah, you can spam a teensy bit, but the amount of overhead is too high to do it in sufficiently high volumes to be useful. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 00:31:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA00045 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:31:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h275gtT04555 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:42:55 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h275gsO04552 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:42:54 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA00037 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:31:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h275c2O04326; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:38:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h275bKO04034 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:37:20 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA29445 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:25:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h275RVj18692 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:27:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF44DHP; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:27:31 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (acart4yn.ca.nortel.com [47.129.10.124]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBF826; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:27:30 -0500 Message-ID: <3E682E86.3070508@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 00:30:46 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alan DeKok wrote: > "David F. Skoll" wrote: >>Maybe for you and 0.01% of the population. For the other 99.99% of >>us, filters are a good technology. > Then why are you on this list? > I'm here to talk about a *real* spam problem, where even a filter of > "firewall all IP's not on a whitelist" is too expensive to be > practical. To be completely fair, Alan, the problem you're having with Striker isn't a technical one, and it's nothing that a discussion list of this sort can do anything about. Your only way to reclaim that domain is to stop the spam at source - that's a social/legislative thing, highly off topic for an IETF research group. Striker and our spamtrap are _far_ outside of the bounds of technical solutions. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 00:44:12 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA00356 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:44:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h275tXf05606 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:55:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h275tXO05603 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:55:33 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA00352 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:43:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h275o4O05254; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:50:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h275n6O05023 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:49:06 -0500 Received: from zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA00221 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:37:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (zcard307.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h275dG418006 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:39:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDFBHRFW; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:39:17 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (acart4yn.ca.nortel.com [47.129.10.124]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBF829; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:39:15 -0500 Message-ID: <3E683148.10306@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 00:42:32 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit David F. Skoll wrote: > On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Kee Hinckley wrote: > > >>Companies may find it necessary to hire a human to filter >>borderline messages that an automatic filter is unsure of, but in the >>ISP context, false positives do not have a simple >>solution-- > Oh, clearly this is not an appropriate solution for an ISP. I was intending > it only for a corporate setting. Eeek! I don't want to read 50,000 spams per day! False positives have a very simple solution. Treat it as the first step in a "do something else to get this thru". Just like confirming a mailing list subscription with per-transaction keywords. Or, "click here" to get it through. In our case, we simply arrange to have the bounces say "if you think this was in error, forward this bounce to ". Where is a whitelisted address with people who'll forward/fix mistunings. It's relatively safe - spammers tend not to do that. And I'm a suspicious SOB ;-) If your filters are good, the FP rate is low. Our false positive handling address averages less than 5 per day. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 00:49:15 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA00437 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:49:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2760bU05875 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:00:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2760aO05872 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:00:37 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA00431 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:48:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h275u2O05646; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:56:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h275tBO05593 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:55:11 -0500 Received: from splat.viawest.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA00346 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:43:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from splat.viawest.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by splat.viawest.net (8.12.7/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h275jN7N013778; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 22:45:23 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from cfedde@splat.viawest.net) Message-Id: <200303070545.h275jN7N013778@splat.viawest.net> To: Nate W cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) In-Reply-To: From: Chris Fedde Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 22:45:23 -0700 On Thu, 6 Mar 2003 20:29:14 -0800 (PST) Nate W wrote: +------------------ | On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Alan DeKok wrote: | | > Some ad-hoc and naive solutions may work, if you're not receiving | > appreciable amounts of spam. They may even work if you have money to | > throw at the problem. But they don't scale. They're not permanent | > solutions. And until we have a clear description/understanding of the | > problem, it's a waste of time to talk about specific solutions. | | Maybe it would help to look at separate problems and their separate | solutions? +------------------ Email has several aspects. Two that I think are important to the spam discussion are the volume aspect and the content aspect. Users of email are more interested in the content aspect. While administrators are more interested in the volume aspect. Yes email users want to see a reduction in the volume of spam. But the main problem they see is that their mailbox fills with stuff that is of no relevance to them or is down right offensive. Email administrators on the other hand are most interested in keeping their infrastructure delivering service to their customers. And Spam has grown to the level where just the raw traffic from mail can bring down mail servers. That most of what is going through the server is just going to be deleted by the end users or forwarded to your "spam-concerns" address is just icing on the cake. Attacking the volume aspect involves traffic blocking and campaigns to close open relays and shut down temporary account spammers. Attacking the content aspect usually involves classification and sorting. It is obvious that there is feedback between systems designed to address volume and those designed to address content. And it should also be obvious that the data that enables volume systems is also useful as classification tags. And that higher level classification can be used to refine the volume systems. Maybe we can define some architectural models that can be used to help understand the dimensions of a solution. -- chris fedde _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 00:53:12 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA00506 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:53:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2764YS06159 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:04:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2764YO06156 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:04:34 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA00494 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:52:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27623O05969; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:02:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2761AO05931 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:01:10 -0500 Received: from backbone.midwestcs.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA00452 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:49:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from footbone.midwestcs.com ([206.222.212.237] helo=midwestcs.com) by backbone.midwestcs.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18rAlH-0008NV-00 for ; Thu, 06 Mar 2003 23:51:15 -0600 To: "ietf anti-spam research group" Subject: Re: pros and cons of RMX (Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world) References: <7695E2F6903F7A41961F8CF888D87EA809F01C37@red-msg-06.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: wayne In-Reply-To: <7695E2F6903F7A41961F8CF888D87EA809F01C37@red-msg-06.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> Message-ID: Lines: 92 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanner: exiscan *18rAlH-0008NV-00*gWHPAmWiuSA* () Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 06 Mar 2003 23:51:14 -0600 In <7695E2F6903F7A41961F8CF888D87EA809F01C37@red-msg-06.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> "Jonathan Wilkins" writes: > The reason I've been so vocal about the RMX proposal is that > I find it to be really objectionable since it requires a lot > of effort from a lot of people for no particular gain. It's > just another step in an arms race that has minimal long term > benefits. Well, I'm not certain what your definition of "a lot of effort" or "a lot of people", but domain specific DNSBLs can be implemented very easily. Just for kicks, I've implemented a domain specific DNSBL for my midwestcs.com domain. To find out if the IP address is, in my opinion, acceptable to send mail claiming to be from the midwestcs.com domain, you need to use the smtp-out.midwestcs.com DNSBL. That is, if the IP address is w.x.y.z, you would query z.y.x.w.smtp-out.midwestcs.com just like any other blacklist. If it returns 127.0.0.1, it should be rejected. If the A record is not found, it should be accepted. I created this domain specific DNSBL by adding the following lines to my zone file: ; default entry: reject *.smtp-out IN A 127.0.0.1 ; acceptable sending IP addresses 234.212.222.206.smtp-out IN CNAME OK 237.212.222.206.smtp-out IN CNAME OK ; just in case OK IN TXT OK The next step is to use this black list. Just because it was easy for me, I hacked on SpamAssassin to check for domain specific DNSBLs. I did this by adding the following fuction to EvalTests.pm: sub check_dsdnsbl { my ($self, $set) = @_; my $from = $self->get ('Reply-To:addr'); if (!defined $from || $from !~ /\@\S+/) { $from = $self->get ('From:addr'); } return 0 unless ($from =~ /\@(\S+)/); $from = $1; dbg ("checking domain specific DNSBL for $from", "rbl", -1); return check_rbl( $self, $set, "smtp-out.$from", 1 ); } I also had to add the following to my local.cf file: # check domain specific DNSBL header RCVD_IN_DSDNSBL rbleval:check_dsdnsbl('smtp-out') describe RCVD_IN_DSDNSBL Received via Domain Specific DNSBL of sender tflags RCVD_IN_DSDNSBL net score RCVD_IN_DSDNSBL 1.0 Ok, as of tonight, anyone in the world can find out if an IP address should be sending you email claiming they are from my domain, and any domain in the world will be checked by me for the same thing. This isn't much, but it is a start. I suspect it would be about as much work to add this check to a sendmail.cf file, but about 10 years ago I decided that hacking on sendmail.cf files was less fun than pounding my fingers with a hammer. Someone who enjoys this kind of thing would need to do that. It shouldn't be hard to add this kind of check to any MTA that already supports DNSBLs, such as exim. Oh! Before anyone adds the above code to their SpamAssassin, that my copy of SA has fixes for the DNSBL checks. SA's DNSBL checks are pretty bogus because the check from the originating end of the receive chain, which of course can be completely faked. To the best of my knowledge, this is still broken in the just released 2.50 version. Anyway, consider this a "proof of concept". I welcome any comments or suggestions about it. -wayne _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 00:54:12 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA00524 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:54:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2765XR06239 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:05:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2765XO06236 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:05:33 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA00521 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:53:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27633O06064; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:03:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2762iO06039 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:02:44 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA00468 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:50:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h275qsj19116 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:52:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF44DJ6; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:52:54 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (acart4yn.ca.nortel.com [47.129.10.124]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBF8JC; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:52:52 -0500 Message-ID: <3E683478.3020301@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 00:56:08 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alan DeKok wrote: > "Chris Lewis" wrote: >>Kee Hinckley wrote: >>>I have to say that your stats certainly are up there. Have you looked >>>at the incoming email at all? >>We have. > I do owe Chris a big thanks for helping me analyze the spam traffic > to my domain. I simply didn't have the resources to do it on my own. Y're welcome. > Now that the filters are > written, they don't help me, because my spam load has increased by 2-3 > orders of magnitude. Alan, you simply have to recognize that _nothing_ anyone can come up with of a technical nature can help your situation short of everyone abandoning SMTP. You're MANY standard deviations away from the mean. A pathological worst case. The value that your experience has lies in a different direction - the signpost for where we're all going if we cannot build solutions effective enough to severely discourage spammers before we all look like striker. An early warning for what the death of SMTP email will look like if we can't get a handle on it _now_. So, listen up people - striker is where we're all headed. Technical solutions that either discourage spammers enough to cause a general reduction in volumes, or bandaid solutions that help us survive until legislative/social solutions finally kick in are what we need. 20% solutions are nice. But short term. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 00:56:54 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA00607 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:56:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2768GM07178 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:08:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2768GO07175 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:08:16 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA00598 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:56:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27652O06211; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:05:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2764iO06180 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:04:44 -0500 Received: from coyote.tatanka.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA00500 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:52:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from biscuit.tatanka.com (biscuit.tatanka.com [66.224.69.113]) by coyote.tatanka.com (8.12.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h275sqxc023928; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 22:54:53 -0700 (MST) From: Michael Marking To: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" cc: "Asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] filtering at connect time In-Reply-To: <200303070421.XAA26954@ietf.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 21:58:19 -0800 (PST) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > >There is a shovel in my yard, not locked up. If a person takes my shovel > >without my permission, and uses it to kill another person, am I guilty? > >I think not. > > > >Perhaps the open relays operators are negligent (or lazy or whatever), > >but the theft is being committed by the spammers. > > The terms of art are 'contributory negligence' and 'attractive > nuisance'. If you leave your swimming pool unlocked, and a > neighborhood child invites his friends over for a swim (without > your permission) and someone drowns, YOU would definitely go to > prison in most jurisdictions I know of. Those are indeed terms of art, but they are misapplied here. "Contributory negligence" is a defense made against a plaintiff, alleging an act or omission amounting to want of ordinary care on the part of the plaintiff. The term would only apply in a complaint brought by the operator of the open relay against the spammer: the law might reasonably excuse the spammer because the open relay operator didn't take steps to close the relay. However, as a victim of spam, I can't make a claim of contributory negligence against an open relay operator, since contributory negligence is an act of the plaintiff (which would be me, if I were to make the complaint). "Attractive nuisance" applies to an inherently dangerous or hazardous object or condition of property that might be expected to attract children to play or investigate. Common examples are discarded appliances, construction sites, firearms, and swimming pools. Basically, the doctrine assumes that a higher level of care is required for an attractive nuisance. However, the doctrine doesn't apply here because (1) we aren't talking about children, (2) we aren't talking about injuries to trespassers (spammers), and (3) we aren't talking about a nuisance. "Nuisance" arises from unreasonable, unwarranted, or unlawful use by a person of his own (or public) property. It is not the open relay operators who use the relays in any unreasonable, unwarranted, or unlawful fashion -- it is the spammers. Nuisance may also arise if the property owner fails to perform some legal duty, but I'm not aware of any laws requiring that relay operators close their open relays. The law doesn't necessarily condemn those who simply act immorally or improperly. For example, there is no law against being generally rude and not telling the truth, except in special circumstances. There is also no law against operating an open relay. Therefore, it is counterproductive to characterize behaviours as "illegal" when they are not, because it might lead someone to believe complacently (and without justification) that appropriate rights and remedies already are in place. To the extent that such rights and remedies don't already exist, that helps to prevent us from creating them. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+aDSj3fFKt0vOYhYRAgLiAKDecqQXJBtC1SMExpE3KhtcsCND+QCeIZSA GVBW5JRreZiApmpHyDwZIWc= =NdC+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 01:02:11 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA00777 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:02:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h276DX107510 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:13:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h276DXO07507 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:13:33 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA00749 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:01:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h276B2O07375; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:11:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2768cO07205 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:08:38 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA00605 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:56:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (zcard307.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h275wmj19140 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:58:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDFBHRV9; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:58:48 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (acart4yn.ca.nortel.com [47.129.10.124]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBF8J1; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:58:47 -0500 Message-ID: <3E6835DB.1090707@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] MTP drafty References: <20030305034949.GA14655@main.templetons.com> <20030305052842.GJ14655@main.templetons.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 01:02:03 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kee Hinckley wrote: > But last summer I turned on a > domain that had been offline for two years and got 400 messages in 4 > hours. 20% from legitimate companies who had apparently been ignoring > bounces for two years. As a similar but more extreme example. 2 years ago we shut down several old domains. They were receiving 20,000 spams/day at the time, virtually zero legit email. A few months ago I turned them back on. 800,000 spams/day after 18+ months of 100% undeliverable. 40-fold increase. Ouch! [And of course several semi-legitimate bulk mailers who don't check bounces either.] _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 01:07:06 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA00972 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:07:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h276ISb08025 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:18:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h276IRO08022 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:18:28 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA00902 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:06:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h276G3O07680; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:16:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h276E9O07585 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:14:09 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA00796 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:02:16 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h274BZTD021117; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 20:11:35 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h274BZ61021113; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 20:11:35 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: wayne cc: ietf anti-spam research group Subject: Re: pros and cons of RMX (Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 20:11:34 -0800 (PST) How is this going to work for asrg@ietf.org email? Lets say I run this code to check your dnsbl. Now you send email to asrg, responding to this post, my MTA receives it and goes to your domain specific dnsbl, it sees that you support it and checks ip address of the ietf mail server and that ip is not in your dnsbl, so your email is rejected. (Damn, And I really wanted to read your reply! :) On 6 Mar 2003, wayne wrote: > In <7695E2F6903F7A41961F8CF888D87EA809F01C37@red-msg-06.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> "Jonathan Wilkins" writes: > > > The reason I've been so vocal about the RMX proposal is that > > I find it to be really objectionable since it requires a lot > > of effort from a lot of people for no particular gain. It's > > just another step in an arms race that has minimal long term > > benefits. > > Well, I'm not certain what your definition of "a lot of effort" or "a > lot of people", but domain specific DNSBLs can be implemented very > easily. > > > Just for kicks, I've implemented a domain specific DNSBL for my > midwestcs.com domain. To find out if the IP address is, in my > opinion, acceptable to send mail claiming to be from the midwestcs.com > domain, you need to use the smtp-out.midwestcs.com DNSBL. That is, if > the IP address is w.x.y.z, you would query > z.y.x.w.smtp-out.midwestcs.com just like any other blacklist. If it > returns 127.0.0.1, it should be rejected. If the A record is not > found, it should be accepted. > > I created this domain specific DNSBL by adding the following lines to > my zone file: > > ; default entry: reject > *.smtp-out IN A 127.0.0.1 > ; acceptable sending IP addresses > 234.212.222.206.smtp-out IN CNAME OK > 237.212.222.206.smtp-out IN CNAME OK > ; just in case > OK IN TXT OK > > > The next step is to use this black list. Just because it was easy for > me, I hacked on SpamAssassin to check for domain specific DNSBLs. I > did this by adding the following fuction to EvalTests.pm: > > sub check_dsdnsbl { > my ($self, $set) = @_; > > my $from = $self->get ('Reply-To:addr'); > if (!defined $from || $from !~ /\@\S+/) { > $from = $self->get ('From:addr'); > } > return 0 unless ($from =~ /\@(\S+)/); > $from = $1; > > > dbg ("checking domain specific DNSBL for $from", "rbl", -1); > > return check_rbl( $self, $set, "smtp-out.$from", 1 ); > } > > > I also had to add the following to my local.cf file: > > # check domain specific DNSBL > header RCVD_IN_DSDNSBL rbleval:check_dsdnsbl('smtp-out') > describe RCVD_IN_DSDNSBL Received via Domain Specific DNSBL of sender > tflags RCVD_IN_DSDNSBL net > score RCVD_IN_DSDNSBL 1.0 > > > > Ok, as of tonight, anyone in the world can find out if an IP address > should be sending you email claiming they are from my domain, and any > domain in the world will be checked by me for the same thing. This > isn't much, but it is a start. > > > I suspect it would be about as much work to add this check to a > sendmail.cf file, but about 10 years ago I decided that hacking on > sendmail.cf files was less fun than pounding my fingers with a > hammer. Someone who enjoys this kind of thing would need to do that. > > It shouldn't be hard to add this kind of check to any MTA that already > supports DNSBLs, such as exim. > > > Oh! Before anyone adds the above code to their SpamAssassin, that my > copy of SA has fixes for the DNSBL checks. SA's DNSBL checks are > pretty bogus because the check from the originating end of the receive > chain, which of course can be completely faked. To the best of my > knowledge, this is still broken in the just released 2.50 version. > > > Anyway, consider this a "proof of concept". I welcome any comments or > suggestions about it. > > > -wayne > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 01:08:20 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA01024 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:08:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h276JgS08118 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:19:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h276JgO08114 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:19:42 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA01004 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:07:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h276HEO07811; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:17:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h276GjO07721 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:16:45 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA00834 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:04:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2087300; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 01:06:58 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: Nate W From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Economic model is borken. (sic.) Let's fix it Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 23:04:10 -0500 At 3:51 PM -0800 3/6/03, Nate W wrote: > > The other problem with challenge/response systems is that there's a >> missing link in the interface. >> >> I go to a web site and purchase something. They send me an email >> receipt. How exactly are they going to automatically get through my >> challenge response? > >Sometimes I whitelist the domain beforehand, most times I just check the >'holding pen' folder for a message from the merchant some time later. The question is not how we do it. But how someone's grandmother is going to do it. There is no interface. It's an error-prone and manual process. It also completely fails when a company changes it's name, or when the primary domain is not the same as the particular store you shopped at. One can certainly imagine standards to deal with this problem. Browser plugins, special URLs.... But fundamentally whitelisting fails without authentication. In fact, I just got one such. A social engineering paypal theft scam. Mail from Canada, with a form that submits to Rusia, which then sends the email to Florida. Fortunately it fails a trivial header check. >Return-Path: <2et8t2n@linenoise.net> >Received: from 24.222.182.119 ([24.222.182.119] verified) > by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) > with SMTP id 2086244 for xxxx; Thu, 06 Mar 2003 17:08:43 -0500 >Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 18:19:51 -0600 >From: info@paypal.com >To: xxx >Subject: Your PayPal account is Limited. >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 >Message-ID: 3372C50E-CC148FC-1695607-1D543072-4C9F48EE@paypal.com -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 01:08:22 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA01048 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:08:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h276Jib08150 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:19:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h276JhO08146 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:19:43 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA01012 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:07:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h276HGO07851; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:17:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h276GsO07734 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:16:54 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA00843 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:05:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2087294; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 01:07:06 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: "David F. Skoll" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Locked addresses (was Do we need to do anything? Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:59:53 -0500 At 9:11 PM -0500 3/6/03, David F. Skoll wrote: >Ah. This is solved by having different classes of addresses. You then describe an incredibly complex scheme whereby I am unable to send anyone email unless I have with me a piece of software which knows where I am, how I am currently able to communicate with everyone, and which address is appropriate to use under the current circumstances. It requires that I upgrade every single MUA in the world that I might possibly use, whether it be my PDA, my computer at home, my computer at work, the kiosk in a shopping mall or the phone on the airplane. It makes it virtually impossible to even manage addresses on *paper*, let alone in my head. >tries to email you from a Yahoo account, it will bounce. Well, too bad. Explain that last sentence to the guy in customer support at your company who has to deal with the complaints. >"rose@artandframingsolutions.com", period. She can keep that address >in her address book, and it will work just fine. And when she's at my house sending email from the Audrey in my kitchen? >Time-locked addresses are what you post in newsgroups. They accept mail >from anyone, but only for a very limited time. Which negates one of the great things about newsgroups--they are archived. Last month I got email from someone asking about a piece of software I wrote ten years ago. >Locked-addresses require no MUA changes. All of the magic can be >implemented on the server. Let's see. They destroy my ability to filter incoming email based on the address (mail to webmaster@xxx goes here, mail to postmaster at xxx goes there). They destroy my ability to reply to email on a laptop from different locations. And (here's a fun one), when I move to a new company, I can no longer reply to any of the messages in my inbox! Please keep in mind, when making proposals, that the average user has absolutely no idea how the email system works. It's magic. They don't understand even something as simple as what a bounce means (let alone how to read it). If you work very hard you can try and make analogies with the post office and they will begin to get it. When you start talking about transient addresses and throw-away identities you might as well be talking in Martian. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 01:13:07 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA01185 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:13:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h276OTU08600 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:24:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h276OTO08597 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:24:29 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA01159 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:12:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h276M2O08453; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:22:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h276LmO08414 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:21:48 -0500 Received: from backbone.midwestcs.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA01085 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:09:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from footbone.midwestcs.com ([206.222.212.237] helo=midwestcs.com) by backbone.midwestcs.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18rB5G-0008WM-00 for ; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 00:11:54 -0600 To: "ietf anti-spam research group" Subject: Re: pros and cons of RMX (Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: wayne In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lines: 25 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanner: exiscan *18rB5G-0008WM-00*Cm6GT80j6bA* () Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 07 Mar 2003 00:11:53 -0600 In william@elan.net writes: > How is this going to work for asrg@ietf.org email? > > Lets say I run this code to check your dnsbl. Now you send email to asrg, > responding to this post, my MTA receives it and goes to your domain > specific dnsbl, it sees that you support it and checks ip address of the > ietf mail server and that ip is not in your dnsbl, so your email is rejected. Ah, the email that you are replying to didn't come from my domain, it came from ietf.org and and a From_ address of asrg@ietf.org. If you had implemented the check, you would have found that ietf.org doesn't have a domain specific blacklist, and therefore you should accept email from asrg@ietf.org. My message to the ASRG list was received by my machine just fine. > (Damn, And I really wanted to read your reply! :) Yeah, sure you did. ;-> -wayne _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 01:18:27 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA01289 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:18:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h276TnN08863 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:29:49 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h276TnO08860 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:29:49 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA01270 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:17:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h276O1O08577; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:24:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h276NHO08528 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:23:17 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA01141 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:11:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h276DRj19362 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:13:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF44DLR; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:13:27 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (acart4yn.ca.nortel.com [47.129.10.124]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBF8J2; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:13:26 -0500 Message-ID: <3E68394A.90204@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal References: <3E662207.5060604@americasm01.nt.com> <200303051653.h25GrXb9028079@calcite.rhyolite.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 01:16:42 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Vernon Schryver wrote: >>Most spammers don't care about rejects. They really don't. >>Really. Truly. > Certainly "many" spammers don't care about rejects, but "most" is > not supported by the evidence. It's possible that most spammer > don't care about rejects, but unless you have numbers, let's please > limit the over generalizations. Okay: Over a 18 month period of which a domain was completely de-MXed, and 100% failures, the amount of spam going to it went from 20,000/day to 800,000/day. A 40 fold increase. While that doesn't necessarily say whether it's "most" rather than "many", a 40-fold increase suggests that if it's not "most", it's a whole heck of a lot. "Millions CDs" tend not to remember NDRs too well. > As I keep saying, there are only a few serious spammers, but they > are quite varied. I agree with you on that point. In fact, considerably fewer "serious spammers" than you mentioned in another email. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 01:22:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA01359 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:22:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h276Y6L09162 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:34:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h276Y5O09159 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:34:05 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA01351 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:22:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h276VAO09015; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:31:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h276U6O08890 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:30:06 -0500 Received: from missouri.yamato.ibm.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA01285 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:18:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from kyoto.yamato.ibm.com (kyoto.yamato.ibm.com [9.68.13.55]) by missouri.yamato.ibm.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h276KEo55304 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:20:14 +0900 Received: from ymtshanen (shanen.dhcp.yamato.ibm.com [9.68.40.179]) by kyoto.yamato.ibm.com (8.11.6/3.7W) with SMTP id h276KDf39914 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:20:13 +0900 Message-ID: <023801c2e471$9d30be90$0100a8c0@ymtshanen> From: "Shannon Jacobs" To: Subject: Re: [Asrg] Economic model is borken. (sic.) Let's fix it MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:20:13 +0900 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit My general reaction to this discussion is great idea, right people, wrong medium. The volume of email in this discussion is simply overwhelming, and I am unable to participate. Even in digest form there would be far too much raw data to read within my available time. The anti-spam topic is simply TOO hot for an open mailing list. Trace the logical chain. MILLIONS of people hate email spam. If only a tiny percentage wind up participating here... Well, there are already hundreds of messages per day. Actually an obvious consequence of the harm the spammers do. In parting, I am going to emphasize the crucial point, and offer a few more reactions to the comments on this particular tiny part of the discussion. I'm not attempting to belittle any of the other parts of the discussion, but they are too wide ranging and voluminous for me to deal with them, and I still think the economic model is the fundamental problem and it MUST be addressed or the problem will NEVER be solved. Perhaps it can't be? Nevertheless, the critical point: There is NO free lunch. Email is NOT a free lunch and cannot be a free lunch. Any free lunch economic model is DOOMED. After posting this message, I'll be unsubscribing from this very interesting mailing list. I hope anyone responding to my comments will be kind enough to send me a courtesy copy via email (and I apologize for not finding and taking the time to do so with each of the replies to my earlier messages, but that would make the volume problem worse, and in addition our circumstances are reversed--I think y'all are continuing to read this mailing list, while I am not). I would also appreciate a pointer/URL to any final report or digestive Web site, though I rather despair of finding any consensus opinions or universal countermeasures--except that there is already a perfect consensus that we ALL hate spam email. Replies: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Keith Moore wrote: >> The last part is just plain wrong. Different messages do have >> different values, including different economic values. Legitimate >> businesses also want to advertise, and they want to spend their >> advertising money effectively. > > There is no such thing as a business that has a legitimate right to > spam. IBM has no more right to spam me than the guy selling ***** > enlargement devices, and I don't care how much either one is willing > to spend to do so. And any financial barrier that would be > sufficient to deter IBM from spamming me is going to be more than > enough to keep a friend of mine (perhaps one I don't know yet) from > sending me mail. And a barrier that keeps me from receiving such mail > is a lost opportunity for which money won't compensate. ( Taking IBM as an arbitrary example,) IBM is a legitimate company, and they do NOT spam now, even though there is currently NO economic barrier to doing so. Your comment is specious. Legitimate companies often use some email as one of the channels of communication with their customers, under the full control of the customers. They do not transmit any personal information to other companies, and they do not send any email to anyone who has said not to send it. The default case is that their email is limited to replying to YOUR email. [P.S. Obviously I do not speak in any way for IBM, though I do work for a subsidiary of a subsidiary.] > The real cost is in distraction. It's hard to have a useful > discussion if you keep getting interrupted, even if they pay you to > do so. And no, my attention is not for sale, at least not that way. > Life is too short. You mostly make my point. Unless you can outlaw ALL advertising, someone is going to seek your attention. Would it not be better to control at least the email part of it up front, and tell them exactly how much it will cost them to get a slice of your attention? Of course, you could just take their money and toss their email, but legitimate companies will (of course) respond by redirecting their advertising budgets into more effective channels. >> So what's wrong with that? These are LEGITIMATE businesses selling >> real products to real customers. > > NO. They're spammers. They deserve the same punishment as any other > spammers (perhaps worse - there's nothing so arrogant as someone who > thinks that money gives them the right to disturb you.) Repeating a specious point does not make it valid. Or do you wish to develop an argument somehow equating "arrogance" with "operating a legitimate business"? If so, the world seems to be VERY full of arrogance. ----------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Eric S. Johansson in his message covered many points that I agree with. He did raise a new point about combining white lists with prepaid email in the context of allowing mailing list email to be delivered for free. I think this is not a good combination for the following reasons: 1. The email is still not free. 2. Spammers will try to impersonate valid addresses. 3. Spammers will try to spam from inside of mailing lists. 4. Spammers will try endless new variations to try to exploit any "free" system. Numbers 2 and 3 were just the first to come to my mind, but let's just call it "spammer mentality disease" and stop trying to list all the limitless possibilities. I think the better solution would be to use a specific free email address for each mailing list you use. If that free email address is spamified, you would get a fresh one, abandon the spammed one, and rejoin the mailing list with the new email address. Alternately, some mailing lists might WANT to require postage as a barrier to excessive participation. -------------------------------------------------- Brad Templeton wrote: > On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 11:47:33AM -0500, Eric S. Johansson wrote: > So effectively it is a precondition that people are bouncing > (postage-due) your mail. And some people would be willing to do > that, but I'm not. > > The reason is, that if I sent you a mail where I thought I was doing > you a favour with the mail (and this is true in much of the mail I > send to strangers, and I got back a note that said: > > I will not read your mail until you: > a) Get some new software for your MUA or a whole new MUA > b) Mail me the magic token from that software > c) (with real money) pay money to get that token > > Well, my answer would be to say screw you. I try to send you > a message as a courtesy to you, or just to reply to a message you > posted to a mailing list, and I get back a demand like this? I am > going to leave it in the dust. Gee, your "courtesy" defense sounds exactly like what the spammers say in defense of their actions, and I actually (and desperately) WANT the spammers to say "screw you" and drop my email address. However, just because I want it desperately doesn't mean the spammers will cooperate. > Now, stamps -- if they could be deployed everywhere by fiat -- do in > fact have that attribute. That's why I was one of their earliest > advocates in the unix community. The problem remains in the > deployment. Actually, the charges are already deployed everywhere, no fiat required. The fundamental problem is that they are hidden. The deployment of postage paid email can be purely elective, and if you really have something important to say to me, then you'll be willing to risk your five cents to say it. If your message is worth nothing to you, why should you insist that it is worth something to me? Oh, I forgot. You think you are doing me a favor. But that's what ALL the spammers say. I actually think the postage should be done with several tiers, all controlled by the recipient of the email. One tier would be a minimum postage rate, but still not free. This tier would be bound to a white list, but it would still be unattractive to mindless mass spammers, even if the minimum postage rate was 5 cents. The presence of real money requiring a real identity would effectively prevent the spammers from using hit-and-run tactics. Another tier would be much higher, and intended for the use of legitimate advertisers, as mediated by the email service providers. Essentially, you would control how much of your information could be used in marketing email access to you. If you trust the email service provider enough, you could provide more personal information, and they would not need to reveal anything personal about you, though the value of the access could go WAY up. The user should have FULL control, for example to say "absolutely no insurance ads" or "maximize my email advertising revenue" or "$10 for any car advertisement but $5 for Toyota ads" or any combination. Of course, no ads at all would also be an option. As a concrete example, you might want to find a new apartment in a particular area, and in that case you might well be willing to allow realtors in that area to send you email at a fairly low rate--and they would probably be eager to do so, while your email service provider would be assuring them that you don't do this every week just to get the money. The initial transaction can be handled securely and confidentially on both sides--they don't need to know who you are unless you decide they have an apartment you want to see. >> f) I'm not sure I understand the virus problem. I'll take a look >> at your paper and see if it gives a better explanation. > > This applies only if real money is involved. Any system which allows > your computer to spend a small amount of money (like 50 cents) in > an irrepudiable way without getting your consent is a prime target > for a virus writer, who would get millions of such stamps mailed to > his throwaway account in the caymans. > > You can fix this if the stamps are repudiable, but you need to stop > the spammers from repudiating theirs. Ah, now I see what you are thinking of, but I disagree that this is a new problem or that it is difficult to solve. However, this is not a spam problem per se, but this is part of the general problem of real commerce on the Web. Therefore I'm going to word the response in terms of "scammer" and "scam" rather than "spammer" and "spam". That they are so often the same people is not directly relevant... If the encryption remains secure and a scammer cannot counterfeit new postage, there are two basic scenarios here, server-side and client-side postage. If the postage is held on the server until it is used, then this reduces to the current situation, for example with credit cards. The security of the server is the responsibility of the company running the server, and that includes preventing anyone from impersonating legitimate customers. As with credit cards, the customers are guaranteed against liability if that company allows a security attack to succeed. The other option is that the postage is transferred to the user. For example, the company issuing the postage could create encrypted postage as text lines that the sender can paste into the email using any existing email program. In that case, there is a theoretical risk, but I think the real probability is just too small to worry about. The scammer would have to hack into and gain control of a large number of computers, each of which only has a small amount of postage. To prepare for the timely execution of the scam would require leaving trojans on a large number of systems, which would surely lead to detection. Alternately, if the scammer copied the postage to his own system for the delayed attack, then he would still be detected because much of the postage would have become invalid, so his scam would trigger a very large number of alarms as he tried to send the messages. In both cases, there is a money laundering operation for the authorities to target for prosecution. Also clarifying the situation is the fact that there is no question but that this is all illegal. The police are mostly well prepared to deal with crime, even such white collar crime. However, on balance I think it would be best to use a server-side solution, so that when postage was actually required you would have to be logged into a secure session and approve the use of the postage. For convenience, it might be best to remain in the secure session all the time you are handling your email, though the free and open competition will determine the best systems. For example, another implementation might handle the postage in the background of a regular POP client, but send you a confirmation email when postage was required. Clicking on that link could then pop up a secure window for your postage password (as required for the still spooled message). -------------------------------------------------------- Kee Hinckley wrote: > At 5:29 PM -0800 3/5/03, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >> there. He wrote a challenge/response authentication callback >> loop back in 1992 for the COMLINK mailer that we used to >> publish the Clinton/Gore '92 (and the other candidates who made >> it available) campaign literature on the Internet. > > The other problem with challenge/response systems is that there's a > missing link in the interface. > > I go to a web site and purchase something. They send me an email > receipt. How exactly are they going to automatically get through my > challenge response? And don't say "you should have whitelisted > them." J. Random User is not going to do it unless it's as simple as > hitting a single button. Not to mention the question of "whitelist > what?" Their sales address? Their support address? Their domain? > And using what authentication system? I'm having a bit of trouble understanding this objection. Why shouldn't they pay the cost of delivering the receipt as part of their cost of doing business? Still much cheaper than a snail mail confirmation, but the smart companies will probably try to bundle the entire thing into some kind of deal to link their customers more closely to the company. For example, they'd give you a block of postage as a "benefit" of buying from them, and receive postage from that company on the other side of the coin. It would be subject to abuse except that all the other companies could (and probably will) do it, too. --------------------------------------- Nate W wrote: > On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > >> I don't think that the response loop idea is acceptable as a general >> solution. In my view it should only be used as a last resort if >> a mailer has exhausted every other means of authenticating the >> sender. That means SSL, S/MIME and PGP. Nobody should be using >> intrusive means of authentication when there are non-intrusive >> options available. > > How intrusive is it for a person to expect all correspondents to use > S/MIME or PGP authentication? Most of the people I correspond with > don't even know what those are, let alone know how to use them. > > My inbox is presently guarded by an autoresponder that sends and > receives return-address confirmation requests via SMTP. One might > say that, in effect, I consent to receive email from people who use > (and monitor) the "From" address that they use. While not > technically elegant, this method is widely implemented and pretty > well understood. > > I'd love to replace it with something less intrusive, but I don't > think it's really my decision. Rather, the decision lies in the > hands of all the people with whom I correspond. Though this system has the advantage of relative transparency, it is not very efficient, as you mentioned in the part I snipped for brevity. Even for legitimate messages, you require three email messages to deliver the first one. The efficiency isn't too bad if you then add that legitimate sender to a white list. (You focused on the tripling of the spam messages by the autoresponse and bounce.) Though I'm not using such a system now, maybe I should... However, it is still subject to address pairing abuses. In one form, the spammer manages to link your email address to another address that is on your white list, and then sends you email that claims to be from that address. A more insidious form would involve using a macro virus that sends his spam through one of your white-listed friends who just clicked on the wrong attachment. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 01:22:53 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA01380 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:22:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h276YFi09178 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:34:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h276YFO09175 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:34:15 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA01355 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:22:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h276W1O09062; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:32:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h276VLO09037 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:31:21 -0500 Received: from zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA01308; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:19:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (zcard307.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h276LK418743; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:21:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDFBHSS3; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:21:20 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (acart4yn.ca.nortel.com [47.129.10.124]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBF8JL; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:21:19 -0500 Message-ID: <3E683B23.404@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vernon Schryver CC: asrg@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] SHEESH! References: <3E6625E3.8050603@americasm01.nt.com> <200303051646.h25Gk9XL027458@calcite.rhyolite.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 01:24:35 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Vernon Schryver wrote: >>From: "Chris Lewis" > > > >>>I guess I shouldn't have used the V-word when talking about spam on >>>the IRTF's mailing list about spam. >> >>>sheesh!--talk about utterly lame and misguided spam filters. >> >>But in the case of the V word, it works. ... > I wonder if you'd say that if your employer were in the drug industry. Of course not. So? I'd simply not deploy such a filter. Until the IETF has WGs on pharmaceuticals, I don't think we need to worry about the IETF's filtering in this regard. >>IETF mailing lists are particularly prone to high volumes of spam. I for >>one am particularly glad that they're moving to filters. Takes a _huge_ >>load of end-user complaints off _my_ head, as well as those of my >>colleagues running IETF mailing lists of their own. > There are other things the IETF lists should do instead. To start, > they should rejectm mail with MIME content headers declaring mail is > not English, and specifically reject JP, KR, and GB character sets. The IETF has no foreign language special interest groups? Like on character sets and internationalization? It would be as dumb as a pharmaceutical company banning the V word. > They should probably also reject any MIME multipart mail, That would annoy the Mime, multimedia and other specialized WGs would it not? > I think they should also use the DCC to reject all bulk mail, but > that's probably only my bias speaking. That's a _much_ better idea than banning specific character sets or mime. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 01:35:15 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA01610 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:35:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h276kbN10540 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:46:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h276kbO10537 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:46:37 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA01602 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:34:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h276i6O10396; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:44:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h276h6O10318 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:43:06 -0500 Received: from zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA01508 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:31:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h276XFk23151 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:33:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF44DM5; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:33:16 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (acart4yn.ca.nortel.com [47.129.10.124]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBF8J3; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:33:14 -0500 Message-ID: <3E683DEE.8060409@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) References: <200303052025.h25KPbYn021492@calcite.rhyolite.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 01:36:30 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Vernon Schryver wrote: >> With the spam volume Chris Lewis is saying Nortel gets, I'd be >>surprised if their infrastructure costs were less than $100K. >>Large companies can afford that. Small ones can't. > No, filtering is cheap even if you use Perl schemes > such as SPamAssassin and it's almost invisible with others. If you have a large scale industrial strength email infrastructure with 7x24 support, failover, backups, redundancy et. al., the hardware and software costs tends to be lost in the noise - support is the predominant cost. Our filtering probably consumes about 3 full-time equivalents in FP handling/whitelisting/tuning/planning/networking support and operations alone. It's also on separate hardware to simplify things and permit us to firewall off the real MTAs. Relatively cheap hardware. Supplying it with 7x24 machine room/OS support costs a lot more than the hardware. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 01:35:46 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA01630 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:35:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h276l8b10590 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:47:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h276l8O10583 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:47:08 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA01609 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:35:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h276j2O10469; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:45:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h276iOO10417 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:44:24 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA01565 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:32:30 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h274fpTD021459; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 20:41:51 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h274fpsD021455; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 20:41:51 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: wayne cc: ietf anti-spam research group Subject: Re: pros and cons of RMX (Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 20:41:51 -0800 (PST) Ok, you're right - ietf are good with technology and set FROM in the mail transmission to mailing list (which actually causes some spam filters to think email is forged), but there are mail lists and forwarding systems that do not do this and set FROM to the original sender. On 7 Mar 2003, wayne wrote: > In william@elan.net writes: > > > How is this going to work for asrg@ietf.org email? > > > > Lets say I run this code to check your dnsbl. Now you send email to asrg, > > responding to this post, my MTA receives it and goes to your domain > > specific dnsbl, it sees that you support it and checks ip address of the > > ietf mail server and that ip is not in your dnsbl, so your email is rejected. > > Ah, the email that you are replying to didn't come from my domain, it > came from ietf.org and and a From_ address of asrg@ietf.org. If you > had implemented the check, you would have found that ietf.org doesn't > have a domain specific blacklist, and therefore you should accept > email from asrg@ietf.org. > > My message to the ASRG list was received by my machine just fine. > > > > (Damn, And I really wanted to read your reply! :) > > Yeah, sure you did. ;-> > > > -wayne > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 01:47:15 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA01784 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:47:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h276wck11086 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:58:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h276wcO11083 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:58:38 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA01779 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:46:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h276u5O10930; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:56:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h276tIO10899 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:55:18 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA01725 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:43:24 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h274qjTD021576; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 20:52:45 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h274qjE1021572; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 20:52:45 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: wayne cc: ietf anti-spam research group Subject: Re: pros and cons of RMX (Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world) (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 20:52:45 -0800 (PST) (Sorry last email got set before I finished...) Ok, you're right - ietf are good with technology and set FROM in the mail transmission to mailing list (which actually causes some spam filters to think email is forged), but there are mail lists and forwarding systems that do not do this and set FROM to the original sender. My point is that the spammer would just need to use different FROM address during email delivery and different "From" in the header and majority of those sending anti-spam reports would use "From" in the header for their report so they would still think somebody is forging email from your domain. So to deal with all that I end up having to setup filter to block email that has different transmission from and header from, which happens for all mailing lists setup to properly forward emails from you, and I have to whitelist these mailing lists anyway to accept email and those that do not incert mailing list into from and keep yours, I'd have whitelist as well. Well, this works fine for private system, but for ISP it becomes harder to keep up with all its users' mailing lists. On 7 Mar 2003, wayne wrote: > In william@elan.net writes: > > > How is this going to work for asrg@ietf.org email? > > > > Lets say I run this code to check your dnsbl. Now you send email to asrg, > > responding to this post, my MTA receives it and goes to your domain > > specific dnsbl, it sees that you support it and checks ip address of the > > ietf mail server and that ip is not in your dnsbl, so your email is rejected. > > Ah, the email that you are replying to didn't come from my domain, it > came from ietf.org and and a From_ address of asrg@ietf.org. If you > had implemented the check, you would have found that ietf.org doesn't > have a domain specific blacklist, and therefore you should accept > email from asrg@ietf.org. > > My message to the ASRG list was received by my machine just fine. > > > > (Damn, And I really wanted to read your reply! :) > > Yeah, sure you did. ;-> > > > -wayne > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 01:55:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA01025 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:08:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h276Jgf08133 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:19:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h276JgO08120 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:19:42 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA01006 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:07:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h276HFO07827; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:17:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h276GlO07725 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:16:47 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA00837 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:04:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2087301 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 01:07:01 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: "'asrg@ietf.org'" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Do we need to do anything? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:22:16 -0500 (multiple replies) At 12:05 PM -0800 3/6/03, william@elan.net wrote: >But from "make spammer suffer" view - if spammer has to do 100 failed >attempts to get 1 successfull one and even there he does not know if >email will ever reach a recepient or if it may just go through alarm >making it harder for him to send even more messages, then its all working >in our favor. I seriously doubt that spammers reach 1 in 100 even now. As you say, disk space and processing time are cheap. And since the spammer is leveraging thousands of machines, they are cheaper for him than the recipient. 1 in 100, 1 in 1000, 1 in 10,000. What does he care? If you win that war, it will only be because you destroyed the network. Our goal here is not to "make the spammer suffer". This isn't about retribution. It's about creating an environment in which we can sanely communicate. At 4:51 PM -0500 3/6/03, Chris Lewis wrote: >Yeah - to reiterate a comment that may have been lost: even tho >Allan is on "high speed", he can no longer afford to even just >reject connections at the TCP/IP layer. IIRC, he quoted something >like 330Mb of NACKs per _day_. Yow. Absolutely. At the current rate of spam increase I'll have to move my server off of DSL sometime next year just to deal with the bounces. At 5:18 PM -0500 3/6/03, Jim Youll wrote: >As a server operator for several domains, I don't know that life would be made I said ISP. Not domain operator. For some ISPs bounces are already such a big problem that they are interfering with normal email processing. >"hell" by it. Spammers can send a finite number of messages, there >IS a point of economic breakdown. As things stand now it seems to >matter little whether What is that point? I know the necessary numbers were presented at the MIT Spam Conference but I didn't note them. Anyone care to estimate at what point the return becomes so small that spammers lose money? Obviously it depends on what you're selling. The Nigerian schemes can afford to send messages for a very long time, given that their return is sometimes in the millions of dollars. >Finally, if the same care is taken with these addresses as with the >addresses we use now (I think I must be reachable by at least 15-30 >addresses right now), then the rate of turnover need not be >excruciatingly high... further, a You talk about turnover as though it were acceptable. Do you move your house every year? Do you change your name? What is the acceptable rate of turnover for the address "kee@hinckley.com"? How about "support@example.com"? Do you want every user to have to go the website of every company they do business with every time in order to find out what the current support address is? What about this mailing list? >1:1 mapping that allows tracking of a leaked address to its source >introduces the possibility of enforcement of all manner of penalties >against the transgressor... so I don't think this approach would >lead to an explosion of inbound spam, not at all. And how do you determine the transgressor for the address you posted to the web or put on your business card or that was forwarded from your mother's address book by a virus? We're back to authentication again. And if you have authentication, you don't need disposal email addresses. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 02:00:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA02652 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 02:00:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h277BxJ21435 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 02:11:59 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h277BxO21432 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 02:11:59 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA02100 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 02:00:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27793O16735; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 02:09:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2778JO16422 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 02:08:19 -0500 Received: from mail.asianet.co.th (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA01987 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 01:56:23 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200303070656.BAA01987@ietf.org> Received: from virscan1.asianet.co.th (HELO mx.asianet.co.th) ([203.144.222.198]) (envelope-sender ) by mail3.asianet.co.th (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 7 Mar 2003 13:59:01 +0700 Received: from ppp-203.144.179.115.revip.asianet.co.th (HELO localhost) ([203.144.179.115]) (envelope-sender ) by mx2.asianet.co.th (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 7 Mar 2003 13:49:01 +0700 From: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" To: "Michael Marking" Cc: "Asrg@ietf.org" Reply-To: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" Priority: Normal X-Mailer: PMMail 1.96a For OS/2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] filtering at connect time Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 13:58:12 +0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Well Mike I must respectfully disagree with you, and in due course the courts will settle the matter. However for the group I beg to elaborate a bit on your statements. Please see inline comments. On Thu, 6 Mar 2003 21:58:19 -0800 (PST), Michael Marking wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 [here Jeffrey Race wrote] >> >There is a shovel in my yard, not locked up. If a person takes my shovel >> >without my permission, and uses it to kill another person, am I guilty? >> >I think not. >> > >> >Perhaps the open relays operators are negligent (or lazy or whatever), >> >but the theft is being committed by the spammers. >> >> The terms of art are 'contributory negligence' and 'attractive >> nuisance'. If you leave your swimming pool unlocked, and a >> neighborhood child invites his friends over for a swim (without >> your permission) and someone drowns, YOU would definitely go to >> prison in most jurisdictions I know of. > >Those are indeed terms of art, but they are misapplied here. > >"Contributory negligence" is a defense made against a plaintiff, >alleging an act or omission amounting to want of ordinary care on >the part of the plaintiff. The term would only apply in a complaint >brought by the operator of the open relay against the spammer: the >law might reasonably excuse the spammer because the open relay >operator didn't take steps to close the relay. However, as a >victim of spam, I can't make a claim of contributory negligence >against an open relay operator, since contributory negligence is >an act of the plaintiff (which would be me, if I were to make >the complaint). I agree with everything you say but it is not the whole story. A court could use this doctrine in a case of operator vs spammer (and there are some like this now in litigation) to clarify that the operator was negligent in the operation of his property. I just want to make the point that a spammer can't (easily) use a mail server that is rightly configured, and a court would certainly look at this. > >"Attractive nuisance" applies to an inherently dangerous or >hazardous object or condition of property that might be expected >to attract children to play or investigate. But not just that, and not just children. It could apply to anything which could be used to injure others such as an unlocked car with key in the ignition, or a mail server not password-protected which was hijacked and used to steal medical records, or to crash a hospital's mission-critical computer system, causing death or injury. Common examples are >discarded appliances, construction sites, firearms, and swimming >pools. Basically, the doctrine assumes that a higher level of >care is required for an attractive nuisance. However, the doctrine >doesn't apply here because (1) we aren't talking about children, Doesn't have to be children >(2) we aren't talking about injuries to trespassers (spammers), I'm talking about injuries to mail servers or the attached processing units and databases >and (3) we aren't talking about a nuisance.> >"Nuisance" arises from unreasonable, unwarranted, or unlawful use >by a person of his own (or public) property. Unreasonable: the court would look to see whether leaving a mail server (or proxy) open is reasonable in the engineering context of the fact that securing it is trivial, just as locking your car door is trivial. The court would weigh the burden on the owner of the property to secure it against the damage its abuse caused in the case in dispute. If cost = zero damage = millions it is not a hard decision It is not the open >relay operators who use the relays in any unreasonable, Yes they do as above. unwarranted, >or unlawful fashion -- it is the spammers. Nuisance may also arise >if the property owner fails to perform some legal duty, but I'm >not aware of any laws requiring that relay operators close their >open relays. True, it is a common-law tort issue > >The law doesn't necessarily condemn those who simply act immorally >or improperly. For example, there is no law against being generally >rude and not telling the truth, except in special circumstances. >There is also no law against operating an open relay. Therefore, >it is counterproductive to characterize behaviours as "illegal" when >they are not, Nobody characterized an open relay or proxy as illegal, only as (when abused) tortious in the present facts, which is that the damage caused is extensive and the owner's preventive measure trivial and costless. because it might lead someone to believe complacently >(and without justification) that appropriate rights and remedies >already are in place. To the extent that such rights and remedies >don't already exist, that helps to prevent us from creating them. > > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) > >iD8DBQE+aDSj3fFKt0vOYhYRAgLiAKDecqQXJBtC1SMExpE3KhtcsCND+QCeIZSA >GVBW5JRreZiApmpHyDwZIWc= >=NdC+ >-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 02:08:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA11098 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 02:08:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h277K9422993 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 02:20:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h277K8O22990 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 02:20:08 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA10560 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 02:08:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h277I3O22795; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 02:18:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h277HnO22738 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 02:17:49 -0500 Received: from backbone.midwestcs.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA08186 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 02:05:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from footbone.midwestcs.com ([206.222.212.237] helo=midwestcs.com) by backbone.midwestcs.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18rBxR-0000Q7-00 for ; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 01:07:53 -0600 to: "ietf anti-spam research group" Subject: Re: pros and cons of RMX (Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world) (fwd) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: wayne In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lines: 23 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanner: exiscan *18rBxR-0000Q7-00*m.2UzEhSG0I* () Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 07 Mar 2003 01:07:51 -0600 In william@elan.net writes: > [ ...] You raise several good points about the problems that authenticating email claiming from being from a certain domain and coming from a certain IP address causes. I will have to think about them a little bit, but it is too late tonight to do it right now. I'm not really sure if this kind of thing is that useful. However, most of the reasons that have been given so far against RMX or domain specific DNSBLs seem bogus to me. (Such as the claims that it would be hard to do, or being DNS based means it can't be done, or that I should not be allowed to ask people to not accept email claiming to be from me that aren't from my machines.) This *IS* an idea that can be easily set up and tested and that seems to me to be something that a research group should be interested in. -wayne _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 02:10:18 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA12554 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 02:10:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h277Lf723539 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 02:21:41 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h277LfO23536 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 02:21:41 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA12110 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 02:09:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h277J1O22859; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 02:19:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h277IhO22829 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 02:18:43 -0500 Received: from mail.asianet.co.th (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA09081 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 02:06:47 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200303070706.CAA09081@ietf.org> Received: from virscan1.asianet.co.th (HELO mx.asianet.co.th) ([203.144.222.197]) (envelope-sender ) by mail1.asianet.co.th (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 7 Mar 2003 14:09:17 +0700 Received: from ppp-203.144.179.115.revip.asianet.co.th (HELO localhost) ([203.144.179.115]) (envelope-sender ) by mx2.asianet.co.th (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 7 Mar 2003 13:59:28 +0700 From: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" To: "asrg@ietf.org" Reply-To: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" Priority: Normal X-Mailer: PMMail 1.96a For OS/2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] ** RESEND ** Abstract of proposed Internet Draft for Best Current Practice (please comment) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 14:08:39 +0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Gremlins in the bitbucket? Some correspondents advise not receiving my first post via ASRG so I repost here. Apologies to anyone who sees it twice. Full text of proposed BCP at Jeffrey Race ==================BEGIN FORWARDED MESSAGE================== Interested parties are invited to provide comments to correct, elaborate or perfect my proposal, abstracted below, which I plan to offer as an Internet Draft momentarily. Thanks for all help. D_R_A_F_T BEST CURRENT PRACTICE FOR DUTY OF CARE OF INTERNET RESOURCES Pre-release version 1.33 Draft date: March 5, 2003 Drafted by Jeffrey Race Current draft version (4,000 words) available at ABSTRACT (long form, not per RFC2223) This document defines a Best Current Practice to minimize pollution of the Internet by various types of abuse, using the community's own measures in the absence of effective legal, regulatory and technical measures. The Internet's design and management were predicated on voluntary cooperation, self-imposed good behavior, and the non-profit motivational structure of participants extant at its inception. Current experience of constantly rising pollution invalidates these formative assumptions and demands prompt and effective curative measures. Present anti-pollution measures fall under four generic headings: (1) self-directed good behavior; (2) legal sanctions (3) passive ingress-control measures (principally filtering) and (4) active egress-control measures (principally blocklisting) intended to modify the behavior of polluters and enablers. The first three have definitively failed and will continue to fail for reasons specified in the document. The fourth is generally completely effective in warding off ingress of pollution and frequently results in reforming abuse enablers, but it has two major shortcomings: limited uptake due to fear of loss of competitive market position by early adopters, and sustained transmission outages ("collateral damage"). In view of the failure of (1), (2) and (3) and the effectiveness despite shortcomings of (4), the document proposes to apply to the Internet the same rules society applies to all other resources to deter antisocial behavior viz. proper behavior requires clear published standards, standards entail accountability, accountability entails multiple modes of enforceability, and enforceability entails traceability. The document details procedures and implementing mechanisms of behavior modification, using the only proven effective method: withdrawal of internet resources of identity and connectivity. Numerous tests have shown this sanction to work equally well against both the wilful and the negligent to halt pollution immediately, where prior efforts at polite persuasion to follow best practice were ignored with impunity. The proposal thus innovates in three respects to halt Internet pollution: (1) It makes explicit that every custodian of internet resources is responsible for preventing emission of pollution (2) Adopting a simultaneous universal practice of withdrawal of internet resources means that no provider will suffer competitive disadvantage. The Practice legitimates withdrawal of internet resources as the only method proven effective in halting abuse. (3) The burden of pollution now falls on the polluter and his enabler rather than on the victim, so conforming to the basic principle used everywhere else in society to maintain justice and good order. Well-managed, ethical members of the internet industry already conduct their businesses, successfully and profitably, according to the principles specified in the Practice. The proposed Practice simply aims to raise the entire industry to the level of today's best players. The Practice is intended to apply at every level of allocation, registration and usage of internet resources including but not limited to RIRs, LIRs, ISPs, webhosting firms, backbone connectivity providers, domain name registrars, and end-users. It defines internet resources, unsolicited bulk electronic messaging, and abuse, and specifies procedures progressively to penalize abuse after a period of public admonishment. In effect, the proposal implements the "user pays" paradigm in a completely new and clever way, without requiring any complicated metering technology all proposals for which have failed on issues of complexity, backward compatibility, absence of adequate hardware, and the need for universal adoption to be effective at all. The document embodies the only set of measures now on offer which will quickly end the spam menace internationally sans new legislation, with but small and transitory disruption, by abandoning the discredited "victim pays" model. Adoption will not only be cost-free for the Internet as a whole but will substantially reduce the current economic burden of abuse. It does this by transferring the economic burden from abuse victims to the polluters and their enablers, which is fair and feasible, and indeed the system used everywhere else in society. As such the anticipated vigorous objections to adoption from some parties may be seen in advance as self-serving attempts to perpetuate the discredited "victim pays" model by those now profiting from an Environmental Polluter business model or by their accessories and enablers. Finally, RFCs and Practices are often considered by Courts in adjudicating the existence or extent of tortious conduct. Therefore looking to the longer term, adoption of this Practice may be expected to bring a welcome rule of law to the Internet. ===================END FORWARDED MESSAGE=================== _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 02:19:51 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA13463 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 02:19:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h277VFQ24232 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 02:31:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h277VEO24229 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 02:31:14 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA13449 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 02:19:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h277T3O24084; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 02:29:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h277SaO24055 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 02:28:36 -0500 Received: from mercury.ex.ac.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA13391 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 02:16:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from [144.173.6.20] (helo=cronus.ex.ac.uk) by mercury.ex.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18rC7x-00DDWT-00; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 07:18:45 +0000 From: Adam Back To: Chris Lewis Cc: ietf anti-spam research group , Adam Back Subject: Re: pros and cons of RMX (Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world) Message-ID: <20030307071839.A4561586@exeter.ac.uk> References: <20030306105315.GA4411@danisch.de> <20030306191718.B4198310@exeter.ac.uk> <3E67B830.9070005@americasm01.nt.com> <20030306225023.A4519492@exeter.ac.uk> <3E682C78.6040306@americasm01.nt.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.2i In-Reply-To: <3E682C78.6040306@americasm01.nt.com>; from clewis@nortelnetworks.com on Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 12:22:00AM -0500 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 07:18:39 +0000 On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 12:22:00AM -0500, Chris Lewis wrote: > Sorry, I meant to say "trick every MTA", because it has to flood > (something) for each MTA it tries to attack. Which'd mean that it'd > only be economic to spam _very_ large MTA farms, and maybe not even then. Right, it would change the optimal spamming approach. The trick to efficient spamming would then be to target users of large ISPs, and/or to target individual users for multiple spams on behalf of multiple spammer clients. For larger sites (hotmail, verizon, aol, etc) with millions of users it wouldn't present much of a barier. But it should reduce the spam load for users of smaller ISPs and sites with smaller numbers of users. Of course this is all presuming adaptive behavior of spammers, perhaps they would in practice avoid the cost in other ways (eg either violate ISPs AUPs, or run their own RMX server). Adam _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 02:36:22 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA13762 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 02:36:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h277lk325757 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 02:47:46 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h277lkO25754 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 02:47:46 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA13758 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 02:35:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h277kAO25710; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 02:46:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h277juO25691 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 02:45:56 -0500 Received: from mail.speakeasy.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA13718 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 02:34:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 26465 invoked from network); 7 Mar 2003 07:36:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO spiral.whatever.net) ([64.81.21.85]) (envelope-sender ) by mail16.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 7 Mar 2003 07:36:22 -0000 Received: from spiral.whatever.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by spiral.whatever.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h277eURC017660 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 23:40:30 -0800 Received: from localhost (nathan@localhost) by spiral.whatever.net (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) with ESMTP id h277eUpE017657 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 23:40:30 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: spiral.whatever.net: nathan owned process doing -bs From: Nate W X-Sender: nathan@spiral To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Economic model is borken. (sic.) Let's fix it In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 23:40:30 -0800 (PST) On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Kee Hinckley wrote: > At 3:51 PM -0800 3/6/03, Nate W wrote: > > > Sometimes I whitelist the domain beforehand, most times I just check the > > 'holding pen' folder for a message from the merchant some time later. > > The question is not how we do it. But how someone's grandmother is > going to do it. There is no interface. It's an error-prone and > manual process. It also completely fails when a company changes it's > name, or when the primary domain is not the same as the particular > store you shopped at. Granted that we aren't our own target market, and it's error-prone and manual, but IMAP and a good mail client will provide a UI for the holding pen folder. From the receiver's point of view, it's just a good filter, and like most filters you do need to check the hits from time, and definitely when an expected message doesn't make it to your inbox. > One can certainly imagine standards to deal with this problem. > Browser plugins, special URLs.... > > But fundamentally whitelisting fails without authentication. Fails occasionally, and would be greatly improved without authentication, but I think it's only a couple good client implementations away from acceptance by a sizable chunk of the market. As filters go, it works very well and requires little maintenance. How would you propose using strong authentication for the 'reciept from a merchant' scenario? Or would you? More interestingly, how do you propose adding authentication to email, in general? > In fact, I just got one such. A social engineering paypal theft > scam. Mail from Canada, with a form that submits to Rusia, which > then sends the email to Florida. Fortunately it fails a trivial > header check. Nigerian bank scammers are the only ones to get through my filter so far (two, maybe three occasions). I was beginning to think that they were the only spammers who actually read their responses. -- Nate Waddoups Redmond WA USA http://www.natew.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 02:40:46 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA13808 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 02:40:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h277qAs26021 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 02:52:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h277qAO26018 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 02:52:10 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA13804 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 02:40:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h277o3O25947; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 02:50:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h277niO25918 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 02:49:44 -0500 Received: from mail.speakeasy.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA13780 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 02:37:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 1014 invoked from network); 7 Mar 2003 07:40:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO spiral.whatever.net) ([64.81.21.85]) (envelope-sender ) by mail14.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 7 Mar 2003 07:40:08 -0000 Received: from spiral.whatever.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by spiral.whatever.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h277iGRC017685 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 23:44:16 -0800 Received: from localhost (nathan@localhost) by spiral.whatever.net (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) with ESMTP id h277iGCJ017682 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 23:44:16 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: spiral.whatever.net: nathan owned process doing -bs From: Nate W X-Sender: nathan@spiral To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal In-Reply-To: <3E68394A.90204@americasm01.nt.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 23:44:16 -0800 (PST) On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Chris Lewis wrote: > "Millions CDs" tend not to remember NDRs too well. If they did, they would be "Thousands CDs" and wouldn't sell as well. -- Nate Waddoups Redmond WA USA http://www.natew.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 03:05:10 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA14064 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 03:05:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h278GZp27857 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 03:16:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h278GZO27854 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 03:16:35 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA14061 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 03:04:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h278F4O27763; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 03:15:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h278ECO27705 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 03:14:12 -0500 Received: from mail.speakeasy.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA14037 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 03:02:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 22200 invoked from network); 7 Mar 2003 08:04:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO spiral.whatever.net) ([64.81.21.85]) (envelope-sender ) by mail15.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 7 Mar 2003 08:04:37 -0000 Received: from spiral.whatever.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by spiral.whatever.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2788lRC017864 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:08:47 -0800 Received: from localhost (nathan@localhost) by spiral.whatever.net (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) with ESMTP id h2788lXE017861 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:08:47 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: spiral.whatever.net: nathan owned process doing -bs From: Nate W X-Sender: nathan@spiral To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Economic model is borken. (sic.) Let's fix it In-Reply-To: <023801c2e471$9d30be90$0100a8c0@ymtshanen> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:08:47 -0800 (PST) > The reason is, that if I sent you a mail where I thought I was doing > you a favour with the mail (and this is true in much of the mail I > send to strangers, and I got back a note that said: > > I will not read your mail until you: > a) Get some new software for your MUA or a whole new MUA > b) Mail me the magic token from that software > c) (with real money) pay money to get that token > > Well, my answer would be to say screw you. Is that a bug, or a feature? I've heard a similar objection to simple confirmation whitelists, and my answer is "feature." If the sender values the message so little that they won't do something simple to get it through to me, then there's no reason that I should value it enough to read it. Granted, the MUA update is an onerous requirement, but if it ends spam it's worth it, and sender-pays email *would* end spam. -- Nate Waddoups Redmond WA USA http://www.natew.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 03:38:15 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA14631 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 03:38:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h278neq30177 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 03:49:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h278ndO30174 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 03:49:39 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA14624 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 03:37:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h278j6O30015; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 03:45:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h278ieO29948 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 03:44:40 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id DAA14591 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 03:32:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 4675 invoked from network); 6 Mar 2003 08:32:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.2.100.178?) (10.2.100.178) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 6 Mar 2003 08:32:58 -0000 From: Matt Sergeant X-X-Sender: matt@localhost.localdomain To: Nate W cc: "Asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Economic model is borken. (sic.) Let's fix it In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 08:47:51 +0000 (GMT) On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Nate W wrote: > Granted, the MUA update is an onerous requirement, but if it ends spam > it's worth it, and sender-pays email *would* end spam. It doesn't stop SMS spam. I don't see why it would necessarily end email spam. It surely would cut the load, but to foist something like sender pays on us (which I personally would hate with a passion - I sent about 10 thousand emails last year) I would really hope it could stop the flood entirely. Besides, sender pays requires authentication (or at least to fix the current anonymous problems of email), and if you fix those, you're 99% of the way there, so I don't see why you'd need sender pays after that. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 03:46:59 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA14886 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 03:46:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h278wPv30695 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 03:58:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h278wPO30692 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 03:58:25 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA14881 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 03:46:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h278uCO30599; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 03:56:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h278tbO30554 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 03:55:37 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id DAA14849 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 03:43:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 5343 invoked from network); 6 Mar 2003 08:43:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.2.100.178?) (10.2.100.178) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 6 Mar 2003 08:43:55 -0000 From: Matt Sergeant X-X-Sender: matt@localhost.localdomain To: Asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Asrg] [OT] Sender verification Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 08:58:48 +0000 (GMT) Please do not use sender verification systems when posting to mailing lists. The last thing I want to see when I post to a mailing list is a bounce trying to confirm I'm a real person (I really don't care whether your system believes I'm a real person or not). It's as bad as getting vacation message bounces. Turn it off! For those of you not willing to get rid of your sender verification system, learn to set reply-to to the list so that I don't have to jump through your personal hoops. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 04:28:09 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA15872 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 04:28:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h279dYg02765 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 04:39:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h279dYO02762 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 04:39:34 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA15847 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 04:27:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h279baO02392; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 04:37:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h279XrO01410 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 04:33:53 -0500 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA15555 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 04:21:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 18rE57-0006qN-00; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 09:23:57 +0000 In-Reply-To: <200303070133.h271XM7N006832@splat.viawest.net> Subject: Re: [Asrg] The Consent 4-Tuple To: "Chris Fedde" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: asrg@ietf.org, aland@freeradius.org X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.4.6] Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 09:23:57 +0000 > On Thu, 06 Mar 2003 14:07:23 -0500 "Alan DeKok" wrote: > +------------------ > | The Consent 4-tuple > | ------------------- > | > > I applaud your effort to make an algebra for spam. But I think that your > notation misses the target. > Likewise. > > The sender always "consents" to send the mail (modulo accidents). So we > would never see mail that it is unlikely that the Sender MUA would work > in a way against the senders wishes. And it would be totalitarian indeed > if it did. I'm not sure that that's always the case. For instance, If my webmail system enforces some policy on the content of outgoing mail (I don't want my users to send 419 scam stuff), then this assertion is invalidated. > An algebra to describe spam will involve the recipients view of > email. Mostly it will require notations for functions on the feature > space of the email message and the recipients wishes. > As has been said earlier on this list, we need to identify the entities giving and seeking consent (and the precise nature of that consent?), Alans algebra works towards that. We also need to characterise the "communication". This may include consideration of endpoints (or other traffic characteristics - rate?) as well as content. -- Regards, Jon Kyme -------------------------------------------------------------------- Get your free email address at http://www.merseymail.com/ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 04:42:20 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA16420 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 04:42:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h279rk703799 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 04:53:46 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h279rkO03796 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 04:53:46 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA16411 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 04:41:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h279q3O03657; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 04:52:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h279pMO03611 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 04:51:22 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA16345 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 04:39:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h279fSVI015224 for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:41:28 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h279fKNG003488 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:41:20 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h279fKxx003486 for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:41:20 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <20030307094119.GA2821@danisch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Subject: [Asrg] RMX & DNS: double advantage Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:41:20 +0100 Hi, there have been a lot of objections against RMX due to the security flaws of DNS. I spent some hours of thinking and I'd like to address these objections. While these objections are true on one hand, they are shortsighted at the other hand. What appears to be a security flaw at a first glance, can easily be turned into a double advantage. Let me elaborate this: First of all: Yes, RMX depends on any kind of directory service, which has to be reliable (spoof-proof) _and_ isomorph to the domain space at the same time. The bad thing is, that we currently have only one isomorph directory service, DNS, and that this is not spoof-proof. The first consequence is even worse than most antagonists believe. While I don't believe that spammers significantly success in poisoning DNS caches, this is vulnerable to a bad DoS attack: Imagine an attacker wants to block e-mail traffic from A.com to B.com. All he needs to do is to send a fake message with sender address A.com to B.com to cause B.com's DNS to ask for A.com's RMX entry, and to send a fake answer with a random address in the RMX entry and a long TTL. From now on, B.com will reject messages from A.com. But is this a new vulnerability? No. The same attack could have been achieved by poisoning A.com's DNS cache with a wrong MX record. Did anyone ask to kill SMTP because of this flaw? No. While I still agree that this kind of inacceptable DoS attack exists when using RMX with "old" DNS servers, I'd like to point out, why this isn't really a security flaw, but can be turned into a double advantage: I believe there is consent, that - beyond RMX - DNS is insecure as it is now, and that this causes much more trouble than just breaking RMX. OK. In contrast to other similar proposals, RMX doesn't use existing A or MX records. It uses a _new_ record type. Who wants to participate in the RMX game will have to upgrade the DNS server. Is that too much to ask for? No, since Internet servers are not made for eternity and need to be upgraded from time to time to fix the latest security holes anyway. But if people have to upgrade their DNS servers for RMX anyway, we can give them a secure DNS at the same time without overhead. All we need to do is to cooperate with the DNS working group to develop an improved DNS service at the same time, e.g. have them implement the nonce extension. RMX queries will work only with this new security extension, which is not a constraint, since RMX will require new DNS servers anyway. All we have to do is to ask DNS server manufacturers to implement the nonce (or whatever method is chosen) not later than RMX, advantageously at the same time. This will have several benefits: - The DNS security extensions will be widely deployed, since administrators now have a good reason to upgrade. Thus we will by the way easily fix the DNS problem, which is not a bad side effect, is it? - The RMX records will reliably work and move e-mail security from zero to a certain level. Thus, with just a simple single DNS server upgrade - which is much easier to achieve then to do any MUA changes - we can make two fundamental internet services easily and cheap much more secure: DNS and SMTP. Double advantage. Any further objections? Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 05:31:26 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA18168 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 05:31:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27AgrP08982 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 05:42:53 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27AgqO08979 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 05:42:52 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA18148 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 05:30:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27AeCO08859; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 05:40:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27AdGO08754 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 05:39:16 -0500 Received: from mta10.srv.hcvlny.cv.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA18059 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 05:27:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from asv2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net (asv2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net [167.206.5.51]) by mta10.srv.hcvlny.cv.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.05 (built Nov 6 2002)) with ESMTP id <0HBD000O5JSW8S@mta10.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 05:29:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from p750.thejamesons.com (ool-182d611e.dyn.optonline.net [24.45.97.30]) by asv2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net (8.12.6/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h27AT9sr006028 for ; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 05:29:13 -0500 (EST) From: David Jameson Subject: Re: [Asrg] Economic model is borken. (sic.) Let's fix it X-Sender: (Unverified) To: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030307053207.035ee520@mail.digiportal.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 05:32:16 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Yes, typically when you buy something online, you KNOW to expect an email response pretty quickly so you can go look in your 'holding pen' for it. However, this problem could be solved completely in the short term if we could get merchants to provide an extra field in the form you fill in. You as a user would add any text or code you like to that field. When the merchant sends you any email, they include the contents of that field in the subject line of their message. You then create a single permission rule (either in your spam blocker or indeed in any email client that supports basic filters) that allows anything with that text to come through. Since each user would have a completely different code there, it would be unbreakable by spammers. D >Sometimes I whitelist the domain beforehand, most times I just check the >'holding pen' folder for a message from the merchant some time later. > >-- > >Nate Waddoups ___________________________ Dr. David H. Jameson Founder and CTO, DigiPortal Software Inc. "Winning isn't everything but losing isn't anything" Irwin Cohen _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 05:34:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA18249 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 05:34:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27AkBK09221 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 05:46:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27AkBO09218 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 05:46:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA18237 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 05:34:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27Ai1O09053; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 05:44:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27Ah1O09005 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 05:43:01 -0500 Received: from mta9.srv.hcvlny.cv.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA18162 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 05:31:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from asv2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net (asv2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net [167.206.5.51]) by mta9.srv.hcvlny.cv.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.05 (built Nov 6 2002)) with ESMTP id <0HBD00EDPJSPCI@mta9.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 05:29:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from p750.thejamesons.com (ool-182d611e.dyn.optonline.net [24.45.97.30]) by asv2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net (8.12.6/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h27AT9sp006028 for ; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 05:29:10 -0500 (EST) From: David Jameson X-Sender: (Unverified) To: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030307053101.035ee328@mail.digiportal.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] Stamps Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 05:31:54 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT I sent the note below yesterday but due to my using the wrong FROM email address, it got blocked by the list server :-) -------------------------------------------------- Spam exists because there is an (almost zero) fixed cost associated with sending it out. If ISPs and whoever controls any routers along the path of a message charged the sending router 0.001 cent (say) per message sent, spam could be reduced significantly. The impact on legitimate senders would be negligible, perhaps adding a few cents to the montly bill but it would effectively prevent large numbers of messages from being sent out by a spammer. (It would also stop the ability of a spammer to test email addresses at ISPs) Cheers, David Jameson ___________________________ Dr. David H. Jameson Founder and CTO, DigiPortal Software Inc. "Winning isn't everything but losing isn't anything" Irwin Cohen _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 06:18:01 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA19195 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 06:18:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27BTTN12986 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 06:29:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27BTTO12983 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 06:29:29 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA19186 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 06:17:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27BPmO12711; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 06:25:48 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27BMoO12281 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 06:22:50 -0500 Received: from mail.neosinteractive.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA18954 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 06:10:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from tthompson ([217.35.105.172] unverified) by mail.neosinteractive.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:17:55 +0000 From: "Tom Thomson" To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20030306214803.17918.52367.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Mar 2003 11:17:55.0062 (UTC) FILETIME=[333EE960:01C2E49B] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] RE: claims about law Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:12:15 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > 3.4. The likely endgame for this behaviour is to force senders of > unwanted bulk e-mail to stop lying about who they are, which is > illegal in meatspace anyway Why spoil what might otherwise be a fairly decent piece of work with a blatantly nonsensical claim like this? In the UK, the only time I am required to identify myself as the publisher of something is when I publish election literature for a local, national, or European government election (plus cases where an identity of the publisher is inherently part of the publication, such as certain legal notices). Apart from that I am permitted to publish what I like anonymously (provided I can find the technical/financial/physical means to do so, of course). Do you think the UK is not part of meatspace? How about the other common-law countries where the law on identity is much the same as in the UK (including most if not all states of the US, I believe)? Are they also not part of meatspace? As long as you make nonsense claims like that I for one may well be unable to take you seriously and may simply disregard any statement you make that I can't check from personal knowledge; after all you have demonstrated to me that you are happy to make clearly counter-factual statements in support of your case. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 06:45:52 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA20070 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 06:45:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27BvLM15279 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 06:57:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27BvLO15276 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 06:57:21 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA20040 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 06:45:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27BtOO15162; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 06:55:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27BsIO15083 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 06:54:18 -0500 Received: from s123.dhcp212-198-250.noos.fr (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id GAA19963 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 06:42:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 635 invoked from network); 7 Mar 2003 11:44:21 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO s123.dhcp212-198-250.noos.fr) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 7 Mar 2003 11:44:21 -0000 Message-ID: <3E688610.7020607@paralline.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Chris Lewis CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RMX method validity and alternatives (was Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world) References: <20030306105315.GA4411@danisch.de> <3E677E4F.3070402@paralline.com> <3E678BFC.8080601@americasm01.nt.com> In-Reply-To: <3E678BFC.8080601@americasm01.nt.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Pierre BRUA Organization: Paralline Sarl protected by TMDA Reply-To: Pierre BRUA Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 12:44:16 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Chris Lewis a écrit: > Pierre BRUA wrote: >> http://www.monkeys.com/anti-spam/filtering/additions.html > > Read a little further. It only works reliabily enough to be worthwhile > for a very limited number of very large domains. That's what it has been used for by monkeys.com, since they (of course) cannot take the time to implement rdns data for everyone. > Even if this was RFC'd > into some sort of DNS convention or extension, it's trivially bypassed > by the spammer choosing envelope senders that don't participate in the > convention. And such envelope sender domain owners, knowing it has been abused by spammers, would likely implement rdns records sooner or later, or being listed in blacklists of domains abused by spammers _and_ do not apply the rdns rfc. If a domain is abused by spammers, it means for the domain owner millions of dns queries to verify that the domain really exist, bounce messages from everywhere, complaints, and so on. It doesn't get unnoticed and has quite a high network/server load cost anyway. I know people whose domain has been abused like that and I can assure you they have spent a lot of time clearing the mess. They tried to locate the spammer and intent legal actions, but the spammers have already disappeared at that time. > Given that, for example, huge chunks of the internet don't > have [r]DNS at all, it's pretty clear it'd never become widespread > enough to be long-term useful. Open relays were quite widespread at a time, now there's only around 250k of it, compared to the millions of mail servers, and most are referenced in anti-spam blacklist databases. You can check some statistics at http://www.ordb.org/statistics/ RMX may follow the same evolution, we will know if we try it. > In other words, anything that relies on a significant fraction of the > non-spammers to do something is doomed to failure. For getting mail, non-spammers have to do a lot of things, and they have no way not to do it and get working domains, namely : - Get a domain name and pay for it. - Get DNS servers that manage their domains - Get MX records associated to the domain name - Get the mail server listed on the MX records to be there and receive emails for the domain from the internet - create the mail accounts - maintain valid contacts for domain renewal Do you feel that optionnaly maintaining an added RMX record would be too much ? For most domains it would be set to the MX and/or the network of the ISP customer. > Yes, the technique can be useful sometimes in specific situations. But > not well enough to enshrine into long-term standards, and useless the > day after publication. At least, it will stop domain names from being abused by spammers in From headers. Spammers could today DDoS most mail servers on the internet with such a method, and noone seems to care. If you talk to aol, hotmail or yahoo support and marketing teams about how bad their company is viewed by internet users due to forged from headers ("I receive plenty of spam from aol and hotmail"), and how much bounce/network overload they get related to spammers forgeries, you would see it would be a significant improvement already. Spammers could always use reply-to for domains they have no authorization for, but that would matter quite less. > There's a similar heuristic, which is probably more effective in > blocking spam - that is, for selected domains, _insist_ that the > argument to HELO matches the peer's rDNS domain name in some fashion. The fact that it currently stop some spam is a side-effect, like if you say : I don't accept mail from people who have few mail server configuration skills (bad hostname) and/or who are on a network managed by someone with low network skills (bad or no rdns records). If you prefer that point of view, this is almost equivalent to a blacklisting of the IP adresses listed on http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/how_to_ip.php This heuristic is also in no way related to the server authority to send mail from a certain domain. > But again, while it's currently useful for some specific sites (eg: AOL, > Hotmail/MSN, Yahoo), it's too easily bypassable and compliance will > never be widespread enough to enshrine into public standards. This is an interesting point. If I understand you well, you say that spammers will choose domain names that have no rmx records to spam. Like when they use open relays. This give a choice to the recipient. For example, I can use to implement a email validity confirmation request (like tmda.net) for only domains who do not implement rmx records or are not blacklisted due to their spamming activity. This suppress the burden of confirmation for correct domains. I think (but I understand it may not be your choice) that we are not defining a tool that will be perfect or 100% efficient, but one that give us quite more control of what we (as mailbox users) choose to receive. Pierre -- PARALLINE /// Parallelism & GNU/Linux /// 71,av des Vosges Phone:+33 388 141 740 F-67000 STRASBOURG Fax:+33 388 141 741 http://www.paralline.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 06:54:08 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA21454 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 06:54:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27C5bP15740 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 07:05:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27C5bO15737 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 07:05:37 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA21341 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 06:53:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27Bx3O15329; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 06:59:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27BwNO15304 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 06:58:23 -0500 Received: from mail.neosinteractive.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA20084 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 06:46:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from tthompson ([217.35.105.172] unverified) by mail.neosinteractive.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:53:26 +0000 From: "Tom Thomson" To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20030306214803.17918.52367.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Mar 2003 11:53:26.0918 (UTC) FILETIME=[29EE5260:01C2E4A0] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] RE: PLI and DNSSEC deployability and DNS based solutions Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:47:47 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > On top of that DNSSEC presumes a PKI, which as we've seen over the > > last 5 years is a hard thing to deploy in and of itself. > > Also untrue. > > > Phill Well, we all already knew Phill believed that PKI is easily deployable and he knows that a lot of people disagree with him about it. This isn't really the place to restart the wars about PKI models and methods of deployment and models of business/trust. But couldn't the company of which Phill is so prominent an employee make PKI deployment a lot easier (i) by voluntarily accepting some liability to third parties who rely on keys which it certifies and (ii) by publishing repudiation lists in a far more public manner? I realise that (i) is a commercial rather than a technical issue so it's not really proper to address that to Phill, but surely (ii) falls within his remit? Personally, I wish DNSSEC were fully deployed out there. I suspect there are two reasons it isn't: laziness and vested interests. The latter we can probably overcome, but laziness will delay deployment for a very long time. However, using some DNS capability to get better validation of the Mail From component of a DMTP envelope doesn't require full deployment of DNSSEC, or of PKI. We can get some gain without that, and we need to determine whether the gain is big enough in relation to the cost. The questions we have to ask for reducing spam with something involving DNS changes are (a) what proportion of DNSs will implement it and (b) what proportion of spam is produced by people technically competent to bypass it. The answers depend on whether you are using DNS as a key server or to serve RMX records. If you use it for RMX records, my answer to (a) is "close to zero, at least in the short to medium term" and my answer to (b) is "it will kill off the idiot amateurs and cause the professional spammers some minor inconvenience in the short term until they build a work-around". If you use DNS to provide keys, my answer for (a) remains the same and my answer to (b) is only marginally better than for the RMX case (because the answer to (a) pretty well forces the answer to (b)). My answers could be wrong, of course - and unlike some contributors to this debate I am not going to accuse people who think they are wrong of attempting to destroy this rg. Certainly if DNSSEC were already fully deployed that would change both my answers (wide deployment of DNSSEC would indicate that the general laziness of sysadmins had somehow evaporated, and would reduce the scope for spoofng DNS enormously). _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 07:30:03 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA25922 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 07:30:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27CfWB20341 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 07:41:32 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27CfWO20338 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 07:41:32 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA25857 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 07:29:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27CblO19560; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 07:37:47 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27CJPO17666 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 07:19:25 -0500 Received: from s123.dhcp212-198-250.noos.fr (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id HAA23626 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 07:07:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 16855 invoked from network); 7 Mar 2003 12:09:28 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO s123.dhcp212-198-250.noos.fr) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 7 Mar 2003 12:09:28 -0000 Message-ID: <3E688BF7.8090709@paralline.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jonathan Wilkins CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Problems that make the RMX proposal infeasible References: <7695E2F6903F7A41961F8CF888D87EA809F0164F@red-msg-06.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> In-Reply-To: <7695E2F6903F7A41961F8CF888D87EA809F0164F@red-msg-06.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Pierre BRUA Organization: Paralline Sarl protected by TMDA Reply-To: Pierre BRUA Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 13:09:27 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Jonathan Wilkins a écrit: > Firstly, the DNS protocol is subject to spoofing. This is a fundamental > problem with the protocol and cannot be fixed without totally changing > the protocol. This is due to the fact that the first answer with a > matching request ID is accepted. Since the request ID is a 16 bit > field, > it is trivial for an attacker to send 65536 100 byte packets and provide > this answer. This scenario is unlikely to happen on a large scale : 1) This is more related to server hacking than spamming, which means spammers will risk a lot doing that. 2) That's a 6.5MBytes bandwidth consumption for each mail server you want to spoof. And you are not sure to succeed at first try (or even globally). Got to cost a little... 3) If spammers have to eat 6.5MByte of network bandwidth to send spam to a domain for a limited time (economically costly), and that only works with some DNS server software, I consider it's a sufficient protection. 4) You also need to know if dns requests are sent from the mail server or from other dns servers for this to work. My current configuration (for example) use a DNS server not from my ISP and located in another network... Anyway, this has to be solved at the DNS protocol level, which clearly need to be improved on this subject as you mention it, and we will benefit from it when it gets solved globally. I think defining a new secure DNS-like protocol for that would be too much of a headache. Let DNS people solve DNS problems. Pierre -- PARALLINE /// Parallelism & GNU/Linux /// 71,av des Vosges Phone:+33 388 141 740 F-67000 STRASBOURG Fax:+33 388 141 741 http://www.paralline.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 07:30:23 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA25950 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 07:30:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27Cfrc20397 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 07:41:53 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27CfrO20394 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 07:41:53 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA25913 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 07:29:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27CbiO19519; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 07:37:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27CA1O16803 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 07:10:01 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA22209 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 06:58:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h27C0521016945; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:00:05 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h27Bu8Th001894 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:56:08 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h27Bu89c001892; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:56:08 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Tom Thomson Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] RE: claims about law Message-ID: <20030307115608.GA1812@danisch.de> References: <20030306214803.17918.52367.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:56:08 +0100 On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 11:12:15AM -0000, Tom Thomson wrote: > > In the UK, the only time I am > required to identify myself as the publisher of something is when I > publish Brrrr, in the UK you don't need to identify yourself anymore at all, because whereever you go every step is observated by at least 5 video cameras and your face ist automatically identified. So no need to bother yourself with an additional and redundant identification... Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 07:56:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA28136 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 07:56:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27D7xZ22975 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 08:07:59 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27D7xO22972 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 08:07:59 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA28128 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 07:55:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27D4AO22091; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 08:04:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27D3BO22044 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 08:03:11 -0500 Received: from rad.ig.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA27949 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 07:51:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from spike (spike.ig.co.uk [193.32.60.32]) by mail.ig.co.uk with SMTP id h27CrCD03362 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:53:12 GMT Message-Id: <200303071253.h27CrCD03362@rad.ig.co.uk> From: "Jacqui Caren" To: "asrg@ietf.org" Reply-To: "Jacqui Caren" Priority: Normal X-Mailer: PMMail 98 Standard (2.01.1600) For Windows NT (5.0.2195;3) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] RE: claims about law Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 12:53:11 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:12:15 -0000, Tom Thomson wrote: > > 3.4. The likely endgame for this behaviour is to force senders of > > unwanted bulk e-mail to stop lying about who they are, which is > > illegal in meatspace anyway > > Why spoil what might otherwise be a fairly decent piece of work with a > blatantly nonsensical claim like this? In the UK, the only time I am > required to identify myself as the publisher of something is when I publish > election literature for a local, national, or European government election Depends upon your definition of 'publication'. If you use your phone for commercial calls you are not legally entitled to withhold CLI . I remember a very interesting discussion some years ago in uk.telecom about the actual procedure required to get/force phone companies to withdraw all phone services from the offender if they withold CLI. As witholding CLI is pretty much a de facto standard for the vast majority of UC phone calls and the vast majority of recuitment agencies - they are all risking the removal of all telephone services if a complaint is made (correctly). Evidently the same goes for commercial FAX (but I have no corroboration on this). Quite simply electronic communication (phone fax etc) is reasonably clear and if you know how (and are a persistent sod) can be applied with little cost. Email will have safegards within the EU but enforcement is not something that joe public will have any real input in. (one law for the rich etc). Jacqui Caren, Ingram Group Ltd. jacqui@ig.co.uk ph: +44 (0) 1483 8628xx main=00 fax=01 ddi=65 http://www.ig.co.uk/ http://www.sitedirector.org/ http://www.perl.co.uk/ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 09:02:58 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA02726 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:02:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27EEUJ28523 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:14:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27EEUO28520 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:14:30 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA02690 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:02:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27EAJO28042; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:10:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27E9rO27996 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:09:53 -0500 Received: from new.agentzero.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA02233 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 08:57:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.123.193] (h0050e4251179.ne.client2.attbi.com [66.30.24.79]) by new.agentzero.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h27E0Vmf006806; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:00:31 -0500 Message-Id: <200303071400.h27E0Vmf006806@new.agentzero.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: Kee Hinckley , "'asrg@ietf.org'" From: Jim Youll Subject: Re: [Asrg] Do we need to do anything? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 08:58:48 -0500 At 0:22 -0500 3/7/03, Kee Hinckley wrote: >At 5:18 PM -0500 3/6/03, Jim Youll wrote: >>As a server operator for several domains, I don't know that life >>would be made > >I said ISP. Not domain operator. For some ISPs bounces are already >such a big problem that they are interfering with normal email >processing. I've also run an ISP. Same. Our life as an ISP would not be made hell by addition of additional e-mail addresses that we halt at TO:... if anything, if we could shift the traffic from procmail to that early step, the servers would be happier. Beyond that I'm not going to debate it with you. These techniques are in use at various places already, I've requested statistics and hope to get some soon... It is an effective technique for some people in some settings. These need not be used everywhere to create a noticeable effect on inbound spam for normal people like my grandmothers and niece and nephew, who are more like "typical" internet users than anyone reading this message is. A diversity of techniques is appropriate. This is one of them. > >>"hell" by it. Spammers can send a finite number of messages, there >>IS a point of economic breakdown. As things stand now it seems to >>matter little whether > >What is that point? I know the necessary numbers were presented at >the MIT Spam Conference but I didn't note them. Anyone care to >estimate at what point the return becomes so small that spammers >lose money? Obviously it depends on what you're selling. The >Nigerian schemes can afford to send messages for a very long time, >given that their return is sometimes in the millions of dollars. The numbers for the Nigerians were estimated in the last few weeks at about one million dollars, total, for all instances of the scam worldwide, ever. If they could afford to send continuously, they would, but they cannot. There is a cost, however small, first a matter of efficiency, second a simple matter that if too much mail is bouncing from somewhere, we next cut off that somewhere and that's the end of it. >>Finally, if the same care is taken with these addresses as with the >>addresses we use now (I think I must be reachable by at least 15-30 >>addresses right now), then the rate of turnover need not be >>excruciatingly high... further, a > >You talk about turnover as though it were acceptable. Do you move >your house every year? Do you change your name? What is the >acceptable rate of turnover for the address "kee@hinckley.com"? How >about "support@example.com"? Do you want every user to have to go >the website of every company they do business with every time in >order to find out what the current support address is? What about >this mailing list? Please, don't be so fast to jump. I've already said several times that this does not work for all users in all circumstances. But nothing really does at this point. Nope, support@ and help@ and sales@ are going to be screwed for a long time, and they need other solutions. There are many times that I use an e-mail address that can very well be transient, and in those cases, it is preferable to use a throwaway rather than my main address. For example, posting an online classified ad, posting to a newsgroup... i definitely should use an only-for-there transient address when joining a mailing list such as this due to the wide dissemination, and I'd use it just for this list. So, there are many instances of communications that are _expected_ to be short-lived and i see nothing wrong with using a short-lived e-mail address for them. In fact I already do that. If all the parties behave themselves, no future communication will ever come toward me just to be bounced back. If they don't, then there is a pretty good chance the offender will remove me (because it's not spam but a badly behaved merchant), and finally, sometimes, but not always, the address may have been leaked, and in that case I don't receive spam. I've also said that this process would have to be automated to be really useful. If someone writes to me out of band and we begin talking at length, yeah, that person needs a separate address to write me with since the other may go away someday. So clearly, the best use of these is 1:whatever messaging where the scope of the messaging does not change. I can think of many cases that fit this rule. Not all. Many. The technique could be used to immunize certain settings, in particular public forums that permit out-of-band member-to-member communications, from address harvesting. I have asked for some stats from the people who run craigslist.org, which places an anonymous, transient, FORWARDED (talk about "expensive") e-mail address on every posting. I have never received a spam due to an address that was harvested from there. Why? Because nobody harvests addresses from there, since they are all for the most part invalid from one to thirty days afterward. No value. >>1:1 mapping that allows tracking of a leaked address to its source >>introduces the possibility of enforcement of all manner of >>penalties against the transgressor... so I don't think this >>approach would lead to an explosion of inbound spam, not at all. > >And how do you determine the transgressor for the address you posted >to the web or put on your business card or that was forwarded from >your mother's address book by a virus? We're back to authentication >again. And if you have authentication, you don't need disposal >email addresses. Obviously it was my mother or her computer. I give her a new address for writing to me, I turn off the old one, and we continue to correspond. I note that this is not necessary until a problem occurs. Most instances of mail-forwarding-viruses do not lead to spamming so it is certainly not a given that the turnover rate would be high at all. - jim _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 09:26:22 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA04346 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:26:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27EbtK30732 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:37:55 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27EbtO30729 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:37:55 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA04290 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:25:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27EZEO29769; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:35:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27EXAO29641 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:33:10 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA03864 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:21:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h27EMYBD024870; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:22:36 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: Kee Hinckley cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Locked addresses (was Do we need to do anything? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:22:34 -0500 (EST) On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Kee Hinckley wrote: > You then describe an incredibly complex scheme whereby I am unable to > send anyone email unless I have with me a piece of software which > knows where I am, how I am currently able to communicate with > everyone, and which address is appropriate to use under the current > circumstances. It is not incredibly complex; many people have already implemented bits of it. As I stated, it requires *NO* MUA changes. All of the work can be done on the server. It does require that you relay outgoing mail through the same server all of the time; that's why we have STARTTLS and SMTP AUTH. > It requires that I upgrade every single MUA in the > world that I might possibly use, Not at all; see above. > It makes it virtually impossible to even manage > addresses on *paper*, let alone in my head. Your server keeps track of everything. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 09:27:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA04456 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:27:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27EdEa30903 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:39:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27EdEO30900 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:39:14 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA04443 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:27:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27Eb1O29979; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:37:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27EaHO29881 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:36:17 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA04179 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:24:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h27EQFBD024889; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:26:15 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: Vernon Schryver cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal In-Reply-To: <200303051702.h25H2xQK028983@calcite.rhyolite.com> Message-ID: References: <200303051702.h25H2xQK028983@calcite.rhyolite.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:26:15 -0500 (EST) On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Vernon Schryver wrote: > See http://www.dcc-servers.net/dcc/graphs/ Those graphs are interesting, but hardly constitute proof that a checksum scheme can't be defeated. > > It's very easy to prove that any (useful) checksum algorithm can be > > thwarted. > In theory, yes. In practice, that has not been true since I started > compute spam checksums to prove that that is right and Paul Vixie was > wrong half a dozen years ago. Only because not enough people use DCC to make it a problem for spammers. It's the usual situation that a tool that works well now, stops working well once lots of people use it. Catch-22. :-) -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 09:29:53 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA04664 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:29:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27EfQM31074 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:41:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27EfPO31071 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:41:25 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA04616 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:29:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27Ed3O30877; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:39:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27EcOO30807 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:38:24 -0500 Received: from aismtp1g.bellsouth.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA04343 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:26:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from 01al10015010061.ad.bls.com ([90.152.5.165] [90.152.5.165]) by aismtp1g.bellsouth.com with ESMTP; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:28:35 -0500 Received: by 01al10015010061.ad.bls.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 08:28:25 -0600 Message-Id: <4F0680A5D55CF84EBFA25BB24419CDAF02E23C@01al10015010101> From: "Sauer, Damon" To: "'Jonathan Wilkins'" Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Problems that make the RMX proposal infeasible MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 08:28:23 -0600 -----Original Message----- >From: Postmaster [mailto:Postmaster@bellsouth.com] >Subject: [Asrg] Problems that make the RMX proposal infeasible > >--- Why can't the record just contain the IP range "owned" by the domains >authorized mail servers? >I realize the a spammer can use a valid domain with a valid RMX and this >would not cause a rejection, but at this point I can either put pressure on >the ISP of that domain and/or block the IP altogether. The point is that you _CAN'T_ put the pressure on anyone, since the RMX authenticator is spoofed. You can blacklist the IP, but that is no better than the status quo. --- Is is slightly better because now I know for sure where they are from. > In either case, I now don't have to worry about someone claiming to be from >Yahoo and actually from a Chinese relay server. > I am not adverse to a "solve-all" solution, but I truly don't think it >exists and if it does, it would be just too radical to implement all at >once. Provided that you've done a recent lookup on yahoo.com and it is still in your cache. BTW, yahoo.com has a TTL of 600 seconds. What is it that you think RMX is buying you? --- I realize that there are people out there that will spoof DNS etc. I do not think that it is such a major issue. I think some people are failing to see the big picture. I for one am not currently looking for an "end-all" solution, but if one is found, I would not complain. I truly don't think that there is a "magic bullet" solution to be had. RMX would just be one tool in a tool chest. Start putting your fingers in the holes in the dike and eventually the flood will turn to a trickle. Make it hard for a spammer to spam and there will be less spammers. > I think that RMX and pure ISP administrative changes like credit card >flags, closing port 25, and billing commercial mailers would put a huge dent >in the amount of spam received. > What would be required to make it work? >In a perfect world where everything worked as it is supposed to... How would >this be implemented? If we could eliminate all people who do bad things, then any protocol will work just fine. Since this is not possible today, so we have to use protocols that are resistant to attack. Why waste effort implementing a system that is fundamentally flawed? --- Any system that has people on it that are bend on attacking it will be attacked. It is not a flaw in the system, it is a flaw in the people. We do the best with what we have. I am not out to reinvent the wheel, even if the current one is a little oblong. I just don't want to wait until I retire to see progress. Don't get me wrong, I am not disagreeing with your assessment that an attacked DNS would allow spam, however, what I do disagree with is that suddenly all spammers will start doing this as a business operendi. As far as the spam that DOES make it through that way, filters and other tools can be used. My delete finger works just fine. I am more concerned with the hundreds of thousands of dollars I am spending on equipment, software and time just trying to handle it all. Regards, Damon ***** "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers." _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 09:37:07 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA05101 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:37:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27Emei31501 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:48:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27EmeO31498 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:48:40 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA05060 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:36:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27Ek8O31379; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:46:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27Ej7O31270 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:45:07 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA04791 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:33:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18rE8x-0000TZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 04:27:55 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 07 Mar 2003 00:30:46 EST." <3E682E86.3070508@americasm01.nt.com> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 04:27:54 -0500 "Chris Lewis" wrote: > To be completely fair, Alan, the problem you're having with Striker > isn't a technical one, and it's nothing that a discussion list of this > sort can do anything about. I'm not so sure. I have a few paragraphs of text around about "Why SMTP is different". The summary is that the design of the protocol opens it up to more abuse than other protocols. Other protocols have some parts of SMTP's problems, but not all. That's what makes SMTP different. - Connections to servers can be from any IP - clients can claim to be anyone - clients can forward data to nearly anyone (even without open relays. I can hit you, personally, through Nortel's SMTP servers) - servers can amplify the problem (I send Nortels' SMTP server, or an open relay one message with 100 RCTP TO's.) Fixing many of these protocol problems will minimize SMTP abuse, and minimize the side-effects of that abuse. > Striker and our spamtrap are _far_ outside of the bounds of technical > solutions. The main problem I see is the "thundering herd". I believe that protocol/network changes can help to alleviate this problem. It may not be fixed today, tomorrow, or even next year. But that's what a research group is for. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 09:39:58 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA05495 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:39:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27EpVA31915 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:51:31 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27EpVO31912 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:51:31 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA05430 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:39:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27Eo2O31687; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:50:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27EnOO31627 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:49:24 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA05162 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:37:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18rED7-0000Tl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 04:32:13 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 07 Mar 2003 00:56:08 EST." <3E683478.3020301@americasm01.nt.com> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 04:32:13 -0500 "Chris Lewis" wrote: > Alan, you simply have to recognize that _nothing_ anyone can come up > with of a technical nature can help your situation short of everyone > abandoning SMTP. You're MANY standard deviations away from the mean. A > pathological worst case. I agree completely. Last year, I was telling people my domain was "so far out on the edges of the statistical distribution that I'm getting nosebleeds from the altitude" Not a pretty picture, but it got the point across. > The value that your experience has lies in a different direction - the > signpost for where we're all going if we cannot build solutions > effective enough to severely discourage spammers before we all look like > striker. An early warning for what the death of SMTP email will look > like if we can't get a handle on it _now_. Exactly. That's why I've been so vociferous with my opinions. People with their heads stuck intentionally in the sand are ripe for a good, firm, kick in the pants. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 09:47:57 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA06035 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:47:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27ExUL32338 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:59:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27ExUO32335 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:59:30 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA05955 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:47:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27Ew5O32238; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:58:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27EvAO32198 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:57:10 -0500 Received: from falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA05922 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:45:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.133.182] helo=envy.indecency.org) by falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18rJ7r-0004dr-00; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 06:47:07 -0800 From: Keith Moore To: Nate W Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) Message-Id: <20030307094334.18bc97ce.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:43:34 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Maybe it would help to look at separate problems and their separate > solutions? > > For example, the problem of identifying senders as real-life individuals, > the problem of bandwidth consumption, the problem of recipient's wasted > time, the problem of expressing (or inferring) consent (or lack thereof), > and so on. > > This might keep discussion a bit more focused, like "X solves the N > problem, but should not be considered relevant to the M problem." At > least people wouldn't be compelled to explain "X doesn't solve M" when it > was never meant to. listing problems seems like a very constructive step. another constructive step would be to list desirable criteria for potential soultions or frameworks of solutions. e.g. - should minimize spam to some acceptable level (say, 0.1% of received messages) - should not prevent delivery of legitimate mail - should not adversely impact valuable functionality - should be easy to use (even for grandma) - should be easy to deploy, incrementally - should not depend on universal deployment to be effective - should provide incentives to deploy for those doing the deployment _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 09:54:07 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA07179 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:54:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27F5fe00362 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:05:41 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27F5fO00359 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:05:41 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA07120 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:53:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27F31O32599; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:03:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27F2FO32566 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:02:15 -0500 Received: from aismtp2g.bellsouth.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA06431 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:50:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from 01al10015010061.ad.bls.com ([90.152.5.165] [90.152.5.165]) by aismtp2g.bellsouth.com with ESMTP; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:52:18 -0500 Received: by 01al10015010061.ad.bls.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 08:52:16 -0600 Message-Id: <4F0680A5D55CF84EBFA25BB24419CDAF02E23E@01al10015010101> From: "Sauer, Damon" To: "'David F. Skoll'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 08:52:13 -0600 -----Original Message----- From: David F. Skoll [mailto:dfs@roaringpenguin.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 12:15 PM To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Vernon Schryver wrote: > No, by your own numbers, that's empirically suggested for only 20% of spam. A cheap test that stops 20% of spam is good. -- The problem is that it costs me the price of servers, bandwidth, software, administrators, and other infrastructure to perform the "cheap test" ... not so cheap after all ;-) Regards, Damon ***** "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers." _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 10:10:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA09241 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:10:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27FM5A02857 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:22:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27FM5O02854 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:22:05 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA09171 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:10:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27FKDO02804; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:20:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27FJTO02715 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:19:29 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA08770 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:07:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h27F9SBD025126; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:09:28 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: "Sauer, Damon" cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal In-Reply-To: <4F0680A5D55CF84EBFA25BB24419CDAF02E23E@01al10015010101> Message-ID: References: <4F0680A5D55CF84EBFA25BB24419CDAF02E23E@01al10015010101> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:09:28 -0500 (EST) On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Sauer, Damon wrote: > -- The problem is that it costs me the price of servers, bandwidth, > software, administrators, and other infrastructure to perform the "cheap > test" ... not so cheap after all ;-) Oh, come on. You're already running a mail server. Once the tempfail-first-time software is installed, it takes no administrator interaction at all. The extra bandwidth is minimal; you fail some messages *once* at the MAIL or RCPT command. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 10:15:52 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA10071 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:15:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27FRQn03283 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:27:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27FRQO03280 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:27:26 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA10000 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:15:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27FP1O03091; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:25:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27FOKO02974 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:24:20 -0500 Received: from hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA09634 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:12:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.133.182] helo=envy.indecency.org) by hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18rJY9-0002WG-00; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 07:14:17 -0800 From: Keith Moore To: "Alan DeKok" Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) Message-Id: <20030307101045.425bdc4e.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: References: <3E682E86.3070508@americasm01.nt.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:10:45 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > - Connections to servers can be from any IP that's not a bug, it's a desirable feature > - clients can claim to be anyone that's not a bug, it's a desirable feature > - clients can forward data to nearly anyone that's not a bug, it's a desirable feature > - servers can amplify the problem that's not a bug, it's a desirable feature. (but anytime you introduce proxies into a system then you have an inherent security issue- those proxies can hide and amplify attacks. this is as true for IP proxies as for SMTP proxies) > Fixing many of these protocol problems will minimize SMTP abuse, and > minimize the side-effects of that abuse. and would make email less functional than it was in the 1970s. > The main problem I see is the "thundering herd". The main problem I see is the lack of any way to make senders accountable for their actions, and to distinguish responsible senders from irresponsible ones. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 10:16:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA10152 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:16:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27FSDA03323 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:28:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27FSDO03320 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:28:13 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA10101 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:16:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27FQ1O03179; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:26:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27FPKO03112 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:25:20 -0500 Received: from gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA09766 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:13:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.133.182] helo=envy.indecency.org) by gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18rJZ6-000212-00; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 07:15:16 -0800 From: Keith Moore To: David Jameson Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Stamps Message-Id: <20030307101143.4a4614bb.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030307053101.035ee328@mail.digiportal.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030307053101.035ee328@mail.digiportal.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:11:43 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Spam exists because there is an (almost zero) fixed cost associated with > sending it out. false. snail mail spam exists despite having significant costs associated with sending it. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 10:31:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA10846 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:31:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27FhED04937 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:43:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27FhEO04934 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:43:14 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA10808 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:31:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27Ff4O04795; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:41:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27FemO04764 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:40:48 -0500 Received: from mta5.srv.hcvlny.cv.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA10711 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:28:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from asv16.srv.hcvlny.cv.net (asv16.srv.hcvlny.cv.net [167.206.5.170]) by mta5.srv.hcvlny.cv.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.05 (built Nov 6 2002)) with ESMTP id <0HBD0077DXRAMN@mta5.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 10:30:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from p750.thejamesons.com (ool-182d611e.dyn.optonline.net [24.45.97.30]) by asv16.srv.hcvlny.cv.net (8.12.6/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h27FTwYu011176 for ; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 10:29:58 -0500 (EST) From: David Jameson Subject: Re: [Asrg] Stamps In-reply-to: <20030307101143.4a4614bb.moore@cs.utk.edu> X-Sender: (Unverified) To: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030307102754.02b6cdc0@wheresmymailserver.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030307053101.035ee328@mail.digiportal.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030307053101.035ee328@mail.digiportal.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 10:30:30 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT I don't recall mentioning snail mail and in the context of this group, I think it's reasonable to assume that 'spam' means electronic junk mail. In fact, I don't believe I've ever heard junk mail that comes by snail referred to as spam. Sigh, D At 10:11 AM 3/7/2003, you wrote: > > Spam exists because there is an (almost zero) fixed cost associated with > > sending it out. > >false. snail mail spam exists despite having significant costs associated >with sending it. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 10:31:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA10861 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:31:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27FhG504953 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:43:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27FhGO04950 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:43:16 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA10825 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:31:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27FfAO04814; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:41:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27FenO04768 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:40:49 -0500 Received: from mta5.srv.hcvlny.cv.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA10714 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:28:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from asv16.srv.hcvlny.cv.net (asv16.srv.hcvlny.cv.net [167.206.5.170]) by mta5.srv.hcvlny.cv.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.05 (built Nov 6 2002)) with ESMTP id <0HBD007HLXRDL8@mta5.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 10:30:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from p750.thejamesons.com (ool-182d611e.dyn.optonline.net [24.45.97.30]) by asv16.srv.hcvlny.cv.net (8.12.6/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h27FTwYw011176 for ; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 10:30:02 -0500 (EST) From: David Jameson Subject: Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) In-reply-to: <20030307101045.425bdc4e.moore@cs.utk.edu> X-Sender: (Unverified) To: Asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030307103054.037fb188@wheresmymailserver.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <3E682E86.3070508@americasm01.nt.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 10:31:56 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Requiring senders to pay would make them accountable. David >The main problem I see is the lack of any way to make senders accountable for >their actions, and to distinguish responsible senders from irresponsible ones. > >Keith >_______________________________________________ >Asrg mailing list >Asrg@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 10:36:01 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA11128 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:36:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27FlYS05261 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:47:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27FlYO05258 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:47:34 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA11103 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:35:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27Fk2O05125; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:46:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27FjpO05100 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:45:51 -0500 Received: from new.agentzero.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA11010 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:33:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.123.193] (h0050e4251179.ne.client2.attbi.com [66.30.24.79]) by new.agentzero.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h27FaQmf009874; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:36:26 -0500 Message-Id: <200303071536.h27FaQmf009874@new.agentzero.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030307102754.02b6cdc0@wheresmymailserver.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030307053101.035ee328@mail.digiportal.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030307053101.035ee328@mail.digiportal.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030307102754.02b6cdc0@wheresmymailserver.com> To: David Jameson , asrg@ietf.org From: Jim Youll Subject: Re: [Asrg] Stamps Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:35:40 -0500 At 10:30 -0500 3/7/03, David Jameson wrote: >I don't recall mentioning snail mail and in the context of this >group, I think it's reasonable to assume that 'spam' means >electronic junk mail. > >In fact, I don't believe I've ever heard junk mail that comes by >snail referred to as spam. Is it necessary to be so pedantic? I understood that Jameson was drawing an analogy. You may not agree that it's a valid one, but please. I've actually heard people use that terminology with junk paper mail. I don't, and it's not common, but that's hardly the issue. >Sigh, >D > >At 10:11 AM 3/7/2003, you wrote: > >> > Spam exists because there is an (almost zero) fixed cost associated with >>> sending it out. >> >>false. snail mail spam exists despite having significant costs associated >>with sending it. > >_______________________________________________ >Asrg mailing list >Asrg@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 10:38:03 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA11219 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:38:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27FnZL05417 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:49:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27FnZO05414 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:49:35 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA11181 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:37:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27Fm2O05321; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:48:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27FlvO05285 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:47:57 -0500 Received: from mail-blue.research.att.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA11123 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:35:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from raptor.research.att.com (raptor.research.att.com [135.207.23.32]) by mail-blue.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20CC04CF80 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:37:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from raptor.research.att.com (bala@localhost) by raptor.research.att.com (SGI-8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA14788 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:37:56 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200303071537.KAA14788@raptor.research.att.com> To: asrg@ietf.org From: Balachander Krishnamurthy Subject: [Asrg] requirements for a proposed solution + notion of consent Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 10:37:56 -0500 keith moore suggests the following criteria for potential solutions in https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg00726.html - should minimize spam to some acceptable level (say, 0.1% of received messages) - should not prevent delivery of legitimate mail - should not adversely impact valuable functionality - should be easy to use (even for grandma) - should be easy to deploy, incrementally - should not depend on universal deployment to be effective - should provide incentives to deploy for those doing the deployment all of the above are laudable goals. i would like to add a few more - senders and receivers of wanted (i prefer the term wanted over "legitimate") mail should not have to pay additional monetary costs ("sender pays" scheme causes additional pain for people who send/receive wanted mail - it would penalize "good folks" because "bad folks" send spam) - no new protocol should be required to implement such solutions (maybe this is covered in 'easy to deploy') - there should be no additional impact on privacy of participants as a result of such solutions also, the notion of consent in the original writeup seems to take for granted that participants have to consent a priori. it would be interesting to consider a scheme where the sender takes a very modest risk ('liability') which is lifted when the receiver deems the mail as wanted. the consent is given by the receiver after the mail is received. the receiver gets to decide if mail is "spam". cheers, bala balachander krishnamurthy http://www.research.att.com/~bala/papers _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 10:44:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA11558 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:44:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27FuS405993 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:56:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27FuSO05990 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:56:28 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA11519 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:44:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27Fs4O05701; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:54:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27FrcO05653 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:53:38 -0500 Received: from aismtp4g.bellsouth.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA11372 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:41:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from 01al10015010057.ad.bls.com ([90.152.5.141] [90.152.5.141]) by aismtp4g.bellsouth.com with ESMTP; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:45:30 -0500 Received: by 01al10015010057.ad.bls.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:43:38 -0500 Message-Id: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D569@bremocag> From: "Sauer, Damon" To: "'David F. Skoll'" , "Sauer, Damon" Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:43:31 -0500 -----Original Message----- From: David F. Skoll [mailto:dfs@roaringpenguin.com] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 10:09 AM To: Sauer, Damon Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Sauer, Damon wrote: > -- The problem is that it costs me the price of servers, bandwidth, > software, administrators, and other infrastructure to perform the "cheap > test" ... not so cheap after all ;-) Oh, come on. You're already running a mail server. Once the tempfail-first-time software is installed, it takes no administrator interaction at all. ----- I currently already block 60-80% of all my incoming email. (1.1 billion messages @ 49.8tb. last year) Because of AOL size spam load beating up my corporate size servers, I have to block it. It would require even MORE servers to try and deliver it all. I was not disagreeing with you, what I am saying is- Even if I was able to block 100% of all spam that hit my servers, but it required 100 servers to do it, it is still costing me too much money. It is also additive not subtractive.. meaning, next year I would have to add 5 more servers to my 100 to maintain 100% filtering. The solution that would work best for me is one that requires less horsepower behind it. This is why I do not see content filtering alone as "the" solution and favor a protocol type solution. "UCE Solution: If it requires horsepower, it is the wrong solution." << You can quote me on this. Regards, Damon ***** "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers." _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 10:45:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA11606 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:45:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27FvGs06060 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:57:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27FvGO06057 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:57:16 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA11580 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:45:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27Ft2O05839; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:55:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27FsOO05734 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:54:24 -0500 Received: from mail.neosinteractive.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA11456 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:42:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from tthompson ([217.35.105.172] unverified) by mail.neosinteractive.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:48:49 +0000 From: "Tom Thomson" To: Subject: Re: [Asrg] RE: claims about law Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20030307141001.28007.12975.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Mar 2003 15:48:49.0685 (UTC) FILETIME=[0BC18C50:01C2E4C1] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:43:10 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Jacqui Caren" > To: "asrg@ietf.org" > Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 12:53:11 > Reply-To: "Jacqui Caren" > Subject: Re: [Asrg] RE: claims about law > > On Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:12:15 -0000, Tom Thomson wrote: > > > > 3.4. The likely endgame for this behaviour is to force senders of > > > unwanted bulk e-mail to stop lying about who they are, which is > > > illegal in meatspace anyway > > > > Why spoil what might otherwise be a fairly decent piece of work with a > > blatantly nonsensical claim like this? In the UK, the only time I am > > required to identify myself as the publisher of something is when I publish > > election literature for a local, national, or European government election > > Depends upon your definition of 'publication'. > > If you use your phone for commercial calls you are not legally entitled to > withhold CLI . The relevant law is Telecommunications (Data Protection and Privacy) Regulations 1999 introduced under on 1 March 2000 the Data Protection Act 1998 which does not say anything like what you claim. What it does say that (a) direct marketing organisations must pay attention to TPS listings and (b) you are not allowed to make your equipment fudge CLI data so as to defeat ACR (effectively implementing section 8.3 of the EU's Telecoms Data Protection Directive 97/66/EC). Same regulations prohibit delivering a premium number as CLI. There is nothing there at all to require you to provide CLI if you don't want to. You could also look at section 6.2.1 of Oftel's CLI guide (latest draft is 19 Sept 2002) which explicitly contradicts your claim. Extremely similar laws, regulations, and directives apply to fax. Of course I'm not a lawyer so you can't rely on my interpretations of these laws, and maybe the rules have changed since Sept 19th last (but I think I would have heard about it if they had). Of course the telco knows who the caller is but that's not CLI at the receiver. There is an EU directive making unsolicited bulk email illegal - bulk email is legal only if the recipient has opted in (but watch out: "opt in" is a legal term which doesn't mean what you probably think it means); this is quite a lot stronger than the telephone directive (which only enforces the TPS). So if we could identify senders and track them down we could at least have a decent attack on spam originating in the EU. Of course there are US regulations about this too (I think the US rules are a good deal weaker than the European ones in that you can spam someone as much as you like provided you give them an opt out method that will work sometime in the future, but even weak rules are still potentially useful). > I remember a very interesting discussion some years ago in uk.telecom > about the actual procedure required to get/force phone companies to withdraw all > phone services from the offender if they withold CLI. As witholding CLI is pretty > much a de facto standard for the vast majority of UC phone calls and the vast > majority of recuitment agencies - they are all risking the removal of all telephone > services if a complaint is made (correctly). I think whoever took part in that discussion may have been confusing non-spoofing of ACR with CLI (you can withhold CLI but you must not defeat ACR either by faking CLI or by fooling the receiver into thinking CLI is just unavailable when you've actually withheld it), or may even have been confused between CLI and TPS: the Telecommunications (Data Protection and Privacy) (Direct Marketing) Regulations 1998 (now superseded by the ones mentioned above)introduced punishment for "direct marketers" (telephone/fax spammers) who ignored TPS. > > Evidently the same goes for commercial FAX (but I have no corroboration on > this). The fax rules are much the same as the telephone rules. > Quite simply electronic communication (phone fax etc) is reasonably clear and > if you know how (and are a persistent sod) can be applied with little cost. Yes, if you use TPS you will get very little phone or fax spam originating in the EU. Using ACR will help too. > Email will have safegards within the EU but enforcement is not something > that joe public will have any real input in. (one law for the rich etc). The EU email law is STRONGER than the EU phone/fax law, but the problems as you say are in enforcement. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 10:54:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA12024 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:54:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27G6Am06760 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:06:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27G6AO06757 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:06:10 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA11977 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:54:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27G43O06540; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:04:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27G3sO06525 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:03:54 -0500 Received: from silk.rtr.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA11801 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:51:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from silk.rtr.com (IDENT:root@localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by silk.rtr.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h27FrrQ15767 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:53:53 -0500 Received: from bark (bark [64.241.156.77]) by silk.rtr.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27Frqj15760 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:53:52 -0500 From: "Gary Feldman" To: Subject: [OT] Mailing list alternatives (was RE: [Asrg] Let's try something different) Organization: Ready-to-Run Software, Inc. Message-ID: <00cc01c2e4c1$c19b80d0$4d9cf140@rtr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:53:54 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > It might be a cool alternative to current mailing lists though. This is at least the second time someone has mentioned mailing lists and mailing list alternatives, with Usenet newsgroups having been mentioned at least once. Let me point out (in case it isn't obvious) that a large variety of web-based bulletin board systems already serve as alternatives. In my opinion, the concept is very successful and far superior to conventional mailing lists. Whether the economic models of the service sites that run them will be successful is another story. This is only relevant to this list to the extent that such alternatives introduce questions about the role of mailing lists as a major mode of email usage in the future. Gary _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 10:56:51 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA12288 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:56:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27G8Oj07709 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:08:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27G8OO07706 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:08:24 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA12237 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:56:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27G63O06701; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:06:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27G59O06616 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:05:09 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA11819 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:53:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18rFOP-0000Wo-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 05:47:57 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] The Consent 4-Tuple In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 07 Mar 2003 09:23:57 GMT." Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 05:47:57 -0500 "Jon Kyme" wrote: > > The sender always "consents" to send the mail (modulo accidents). So we > > would never see mail that it is unlikely that the Sender MUA would work > > in a way against the senders wishes. And it would be totalitarian indeed > > if it did. > > I'm not sure that that's always the case. Take virus. The email originator is often an individual with a laptop, who *isn't* running mail/virus filters, so they're (0,*,*,*) for viruses. This allows the viruses to spam themselves to hundreds of people. With a virus scanner installed, the originators are (-,*,*,*) for that problem, and therefore don't contribute to the spam problem. > As has been said earlier on this list, we need to identify the > entities giving and seeking consent (and the precise nature of that > consent?), Alans algebra works towards that. We also need to > characterise the "communication". This may include consideration of > endpoints (or other traffic characteristics - rate?) as well as > content. I agree. Without some kind of short-hand notation, we're left with statements like "the originator failed to indicate non-consent, the MTA's had no opinion, and the recipient filtered out the email as spam from a virus". I find it (0,0,0,-) much simpler, and much more definitively descriptive of the situation. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 10:58:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA12398 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:58:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27GA9h07963 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:10:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27GA9O07960 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:10:09 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA12390 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:58:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27G8NO07704; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:08:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27G7GO07243 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:07:16 -0500 Received: from backbone.midwestcs.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA12104 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:55:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from footbone.midwestcs.com ([206.222.212.237] helo=midwestcs.com) by backbone.midwestcs.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18rKDe-0002JD-00 for ; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 09:57:10 -0600 to: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Economic model is borken. (sic.) Let's fix it References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: wayne In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lines: 25 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanner: exiscan *18rKDe-0002JD-00*xi3nanylezU* () Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 07 Mar 2003 09:57:09 -0600 In Nate W writes: > I've heard a similar objection to simple confirmation whitelists, and my > answer is "feature." If the sender values the message so little that they > won't do something simple to get it through to me, then there's no reason > that I should value it enough to read it. One idea I have heard of to make this kind of system much more useful in practice is to run a spam scanner (such as SpamAssassin) on the email. If the email is classified as not-spam, don't send the confirmation request. The occasional false positive means that the sender has to jump through a hoop. If your confirmation message explains that the spam filter detected it as spam and why, people are going to be much more understanding about why they are being requested to jump through a hoop. The occasional false negative means you need to blacklist that person. Of course, SpamAssassin already has auto whitelists/blacklists. -wayne _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 11:09:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12807 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:09:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27GLBA08540 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:21:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27GLBO08537 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:21:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12732 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:09:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27GJBO08384; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:19:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27GIbO08356 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:18:37 -0500 Received: from aismtp4g.bellsouth.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12610 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:06:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from 01al10015010057.ad.bls.com ([90.152.5.141] [90.152.5.141]) by aismtp4g.bellsouth.com with ESMTP; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:10:27 -0500 Received: by 01al10015010057.ad.bls.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:08:36 -0500 Message-Id: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D56C@bremocag> From: "Sauer, Damon" To: "'Keith Moore'" , David Jameson Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Stamps MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:08:33 -0500 -----Original Message----- From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore@cs.utk.edu] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 10:12 AM To: David Jameson Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu; asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Stamps > Spam exists because there is an (almost zero) fixed cost associated with > sending it out. false. snail mail spam exists despite having significant costs associated with sending it. -- False. Snail mail spam exists because the return is higher than cost. So, David is still right. ***** "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers." _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 11:29:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA14668 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:29:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27Gf5410759 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:41:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27Gf5O10756 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:41:05 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA14631 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:29:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27Gd9O10367; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:39:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27GaHO09504 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:36:17 -0500 Received: from silk.rtr.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA14213 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:24:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from silk.rtr.com (IDENT:root@localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by silk.rtr.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h27GQGQ17687 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:26:16 -0500 Received: from bark (bark [64.241.156.77]) by silk.rtr.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27GQGj17680 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:26:16 -0500 From: "Gary Feldman" To: Organization: Ready-to-Run Software, Inc. Message-ID: <00cd01c2e4c6$4787e0e0$4d9cf140@rtr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] On the need for reliable, objective data Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:26:17 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I've seen a number of posts containing statements of the form "most spam does X", "most spammers do X", "most of the cost is X", "many users need X", etc. These are essentially conclusions that, to be valid, should be drawn from objective, reliable data. However, such data are rarely cited to substantiate these conclusions. The only ones that stick out are of the form "This is what we see on our systems," which while objective, are single samples in a large sample space. Does the ASRG have a need for more reliable data to either confirm or refute statements of this sort? If so, there are at least two tactical questions: How should such data be managed, stored, reviewed, made available to the public, etc? What data is needed and how should it be collected? (OK, maybe that's three questions.) Gary _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 11:38:02 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA15242 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:38:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27GnaI11255 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:49:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27GnaO11252 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:49:36 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA15223 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:37:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27GlQO11111; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:47:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27GkqO11066 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:46:52 -0500 Received: from backbone.midwestcs.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA15133 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:34:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from footbone.midwestcs.com ([206.222.212.237] helo=midwestcs.com) by backbone.midwestcs.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18rKpv-0002Z7-00 for ; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 10:36:43 -0600 To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] RMX & DNS: double advantage References: <20030307094119.GA2821@danisch.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: wayne In-Reply-To: <20030307094119.GA2821@danisch.de> Message-ID: Lines: 39 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanner: exiscan *18rKpv-0002Z7-00*P/O3CXeJgtA* () Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 07 Mar 2003 10:36:43 -0600 In <20030307094119.GA2821@danisch.de> Hadmut Danisch writes: > Imagine an attacker wants to block e-mail traffic from > A.com to B.com. All he needs to do is to send a fake message > with sender address A.com to B.com to cause B.com's DNS to > ask for A.com's RMX entry, and to send a fake answer with a > random address in the RMX entry and a long TTL. From now on, > B.com will reject messages from A.com. It should be pointed out that DNSBLs, including domain specific DNSBLs, use the *absence* of an A record as an indication that IP address is ok. Negative DNS responses are generally not cached anywhere near as log as positive results. I do not know if this was a design decision on the part of DNSBLs, or just a result of it being easier to create that way. However, the results of using domain specific DNSBLs instead of RMX records are: 1) An attacker must *prevent* a DNS response instead of creating a bogus DNS response. 2) The results of a successful attack generally won't last as long. 3) In the (hopefully) typical case of valid email, there is a higher load on blacklists, including DSDNSBLs. This doesn't seem to be a huge problem for DNSBLs, but it is worth point out. Anyway, I still don't know why people would prefer RMX records over domain specific DNSBLs. DSDNSBLs, after all, can be trivially implemented today, while RMX records require bind changes. -wayne _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 12:10:22 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA17236 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:10:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27HLuX14999 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:21:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27HLuO14996 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:21:56 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA17156 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:09:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27HJ6O14707; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:19:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27HCEO13741 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:12:14 -0500 Received: from grebe.mail.pas.earthlink.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA16594 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:00:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.133.182] helo=envy.indecency.org) by grebe.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18rLEV-0002fb-00; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 09:02:07 -0800 From: Keith Moore To: "Sauer, Damon" Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, david@thejamesons.com, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Stamps Message-Id: <20030307115834.0ea469b0.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D56C@bremocag> References: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D56C@bremocag> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:58:34 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Spam exists because there is an (almost zero) fixed cost associated with > > sending it out. > > false. snail mail spam exists despite having significant costs associated > with sending it. > > -- False. Snail mail spam exists because the return is higher than cost. That doesn't contradict my assertion. Let me put it a different way: Artifically increasing the cost of email will not prevent spam. It will reduce spam. It will change who uses spam to advertise. It will also reduce the volume of email that we want to receive. A large percentage of the snail mail I receive is spam, something like 75%. One reason snail mail spam is not as annoying as email spam is that the overall volume of snail mail is lower, so it's easier to deal with the spam portion of it. But the overall volume of snail mail is lower than that of email precisely because snail mail is so much more expensive than email (both in terms of money and effort). If we increase the cost of sending email, we'll find that many of the best things about email - e.g. that it makes it easy for us to keep in touch with people with whom we would not otherwise do so - will be gone. And we'll still be getting spam, it will just be 'slicker', and trying to sell us different products. And the folks who are sending it will claim that they have a right to do so. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 12:10:26 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA17257 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:10:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27HM1115055 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:22:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27HM1O15044 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:22:01 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA17164 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:09:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27HHmO14434; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:17:48 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27H43O12135 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:04:03 -0500 Received: from toad.date.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA15994 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:51:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from date.com (unknown [216.130.219.81]) by toad.date.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F2611C364E for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:54:01 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3E68CEA8.B75D273F@date.com> From: Michael Ellis X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Stamps References: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D56C@bremocag> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------9BEA589A6B146B9ADBEC673C" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 11:54:00 -0500 --------------9BEA589A6B146B9ADBEC673C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "Sauer, Damon" wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore@cs.utk.edu] > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 10:12 AM > To: David Jameson > Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu; asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Stamps > > > Spam exists because there is an (almost zero) fixed cost associated with > > sending it out. > > false. snail mail spam exists despite having significant costs associated > with sending it. > > -- False. Snail mail spam exists because the return is higher than cost. So, > David is still right. > --False. There is still a fixed cost involved and it is not unsubstantial, regardless of the return. -- Michael Ellis Privacy Manager Date.com Phone (416) 306-0022 ext 620 Fax (416) 306-0023 Date.com - "The New Way To Date" --------------9BEA589A6B146B9ADBEC673C Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit  

"Sauer, Damon" wrote:

-----Original Message-----
From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore@cs.utk.edu]
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 10:12 AM
To: David Jameson
Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu; asrg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Asrg] Stamps

> Spam exists because there is an (almost zero) fixed cost associated with
> sending it out.

false.  snail mail spam exists despite having significant costs associated
with sending it.

-- False. Snail mail spam exists because the return is higher than cost. So,
David is still right.
 


--False. There is still a fixed cost involved and it is not unsubstantial, regardless of the return.

--
Michael Ellis
Privacy Manager
Date.com
  Phone   (416) 306-0022 ext 620
  Fax     (416) 306-0023

Date.com - "The New Way To Date"
  --------------9BEA589A6B146B9ADBEC673C-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 12:11:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA17399 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:11:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27HNJ215413 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:23:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27HNJO15410 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:23:19 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA17365 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:11:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27HLsO14941; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:21:54 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27HDEO13777 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:13:14 -0500 Received: from toad.date.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA16653 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:01:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from date.com (unknown [216.130.219.81]) by toad.date.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1E0A1C3668 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:03:12 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3E68D0D0.23F72D98@date.com> From: Michael Ellis X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Stamps References: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D56E@bremocag> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 12:03:12 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > -----Original Message----- > From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore@cs.utk.edu] > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 10:12 AM > To: David Jameson > Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu; asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Stamps > > Spam exists because there is an (almost zero) fixed cost associated with > > sending it out. > false. snail mail spam exists despite having significant costs associated > with sending it. > -- False. Snail mail spam exists because the return is higher than cost. So, > > David is still right. > > --False. There is still a fixed cost involved and it is not unsubstantial, > regardless of the return. > > ---- False. If cost exceeded return it would not exist. Basic economics. > > Can we go for one more ;-) -------False. Snail mail spam exists without any return at all as in politician solicitations. No measureable return and since only one politician can win and the others lose, some get no return however intangible to measure -- Michael Ellis Privacy Manager Date.com Phone (416) 306-0022 ext 620 Fax (416) 306-0023 Date.com - "The New Way To Date" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 12:11:51 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA17419 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:11:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27HNQF15431 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:23:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27HNQO15428 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:23:26 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA17370 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:11:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27HLtO14966; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:21:55 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27HDdO13790 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:13:39 -0500 Received: from backbone.midwestcs.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA16673 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:01:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from footbone.midwestcs.com ([206.222.212.237] helo=midwestcs.com) by backbone.midwestcs.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18rLFr-0002jB-00 for ; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 11:03:31 -0600 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) References: <3E682E86.3070508@americasm01.nt.com> <20030307101045.425bdc4e.moore@cs.utk.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: wayne In-Reply-To: <20030307101045.425bdc4e.moore@cs.utk.edu> Message-ID: Lines: 43 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanner: exiscan *18rLFr-0002jB-00*erN59YvucJo* () Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 07 Mar 2003 11:03:31 -0600 In <20030307101045.425bdc4e.moore@cs.utk.edu> Keith Moore writes: > > [Alan DeKok lists a bunch of attributes that STMP has that > > contribute to the SPAM problem] > > that's not a bug, it's a desirable feature I think the attributes of SMTP that Alan listed *do* indeed contribute to the problems with spam on SMTP. Whether it is a bug or a feature is a different topic. I disagree that all of these attributes are completely desirable features, however. For example: > > - clients can claim to be anyone > > that's not a bug, it's a desirable feature I do not think that it is a desirable feature that anyone can claim to be anyone. *Some* people may want anyone to be able to claim to be them. From what I can tell, *most* people only want themselves to be able to claim to be them. *Some* people want to be able to claim to be themselves from many different ISPs. I suspect that *most* people wouldn't care or even notice if this attribute of SMTP disappeared, especially if they could still claim to be themselves from any ISP that they wanted. I think problem is how to do the latter. > > - servers can amplify the problem > > that's not a bug, it's a desirable feature. In this case, I would say that the attribute of SMTP isn't that the server can amplify the problem, but that it can amplify the problem to arbitrarily large degrees. Rate limiting seems to be a very popular thing to do and it seems to work reasonably well in many cases. -wayne _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 12:13:13 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA17526 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:13:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27HOnl15518 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:24:49 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27HOmO15515 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:24:48 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA17488 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:12:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27HM6O15202; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:22:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27HIwO14613 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:18:58 -0500 Received: from zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA16932 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:06:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h27H8tk24900 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:08:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF44LZR; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:08:56 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBF84A; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:08:55 -0500 Message-ID: <3E68D2EA.5070004@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Stamps References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030307053101.035ee328@mail.digiportal.com> <20030307101143.4a4614bb.moore@cs.utk.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 12:12:10 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Keith Moore wrote: >>Spam exists because there is an (almost zero) fixed cost associated with >>sending it out. > > > false. snail mail spam exists despite having significant costs associated > with sending it. But despite it having been in existance for, what?, 50+ years, the "striker equivalent" isn't getting 1,000,000 snail mail ads a day. Or even at a more normal level, few people are getting, even 5 per day. The economics are simply that the break-even rate, instead of being "a few in a hundred" as it is with snail mail spam, some spammers can "prosper"[*] with a return of "one in a million". [*] Be leary of claims. Most spammers who claim to be raking in the megabucks are actually, currently, in flight from the repo man ;-) Eg: Jef Slaton (if you remember who he was). _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 12:13:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA17566 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:13:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27HP9x15581 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:25:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27HP9O15576 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:25:09 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA17509 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:13:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27HN3O15326; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:23:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27HL8O14887 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:21:08 -0500 Received: from aismtp2g.bellsouth.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA17100 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:09:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from 01al10015010057.ad.bls.com ([90.152.5.141] [90.152.5.141]) by aismtp2g.bellsouth.com with ESMTP; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:11:07 -0500 Received: by 01al10015010057.ad.bls.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:11:05 -0500 Message-Id: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D570@bremocag> From: "Sauer, Damon" To: "'Keith Moore'" , "Sauer, Damon" Cc: david@thejamesons.com, asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Stamps MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:11:04 -0500 -----Original Message----- From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore@cs.utk.edu] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 11:59 AM To: Sauer, Damon Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu; david@thejamesons.com; asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Stamps > > Spam exists because there is an (almost zero) fixed cost associated with > > sending it out. > > false. snail mail spam exists despite having significant costs associated > with sending it. > > -- False. Snail mail spam exists because the return is higher than cost. That doesn't contradict my assertion. Let me put it a different way: Artifically increasing the cost of email will not prevent spam. It will reduce spam. It will change who uses spam to advertise. It will also reduce the volume of email that we want to receive. A large percentage of the snail mail I receive is spam, something like 75%. One reason snail mail spam is not as annoying as email spam is that the overall volume of snail mail is lower, so it's easier to deal with the spam portion of it. But the overall volume of snail mail is lower than that of email precisely because snail mail is so much more expensive than email (both in terms of money and effort). If we increase the cost of sending email, we'll find that many of the best things about email - e.g. that it makes it easy for us to keep in touch with people with whom we would not otherwise do so - will be gone. And we'll still be getting spam, it will just be 'slicker', and trying to sell us different products. And the folks who are sending it will claim that they have a right to do so. ----- I too will put as simply as possible. Economics 101: If (Cost > Return) then (Profit) = 0 (or gosh LESS than 0 - I suppose there could be some philanthropic spammers out there) Increased cost = Decreased Profit Increased cost > profit = Bankruptcy Regards, Damon ***** "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers." _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 12:15:49 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA17703 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:15:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27HRO715823 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:27:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27HROO15820 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:27:24 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA17655 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:15:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27HPBO15611; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:25:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27HM1O15057 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:22:01 -0500 Received: from silk.rtr.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA17165 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:09:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from silk.rtr.com (IDENT:root@localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by silk.rtr.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h27HBwQ18156 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:11:58 -0500 Received: from bark (bark [64.241.156.77]) by silk.rtr.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27HBwj18149 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:11:58 -0500 From: "Gary Feldman" To: "'ietf anti-spam research group'" Subject: RE: pros and cons of RMX (Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world) (fwd) Organization: Ready-to-Run Software, Inc. Message-ID: <00d101c2e4cc$a9fa4e10$4d9cf140@rtr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:11:59 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of william@elan.net > Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 11:53 PM ... > Ok, you're right - ietf are good with technology and set FROM > in the mail > transmission to mailing list (which actually causes some spam > filters to > think email is forged), but there are mail lists and > forwarding systems > that do not do this and set FROM to the original sender. I think this is backwards. The mail headers I see from this mailing list keep From: set to the original sender, and add a Sender: field identifying asrg-admin as the true sender. MS Outlook 2002, for what it's worth, reasonably interprets these fields to combine them with the "on behalf of" verbiage illustrated above. Gary _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 12:15:53 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA17723 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:15:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27HRT915839 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:27:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27HRSO15836 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:27:28 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA17659 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:15:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27HPDO15676; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:25:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27HMWO15276 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:22:32 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA17256 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:10:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (zcard307.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h27HCSj17123 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:12:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDFB2XK3; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:12:29 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBF84C; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:12:28 -0500 Message-ID: <3E68D3BF.7040501@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OT] Mailing list alternatives (was RE: [Asrg] Let's try something different) References: <00cc01c2e4c1$c19b80d0$4d9cf140@rtr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 12:15:43 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Gary Feldman wrote: > This is only relevant to this list to the extent that such > alternatives introduce questions about the role of mailing lists > as a major mode of email usage in the future. In the large scale, perhaps. But when you realize that every receiver list is tantamount to a mailing list, and things like web-based chat groups don't scale down to the small, you'll realize that the overall number of mailing lists are unlikely to go down. So, whatever we come up with should be compatible _at least_ with BCP in mailing lists. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 12:20:00 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA18107 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:20:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27HVZV16336 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:31:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27HVZO16333 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:31:35 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA18065 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:19:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27HTUO16017; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:29:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27HSxO15955 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:28:59 -0500 Received: from aismtp1g.bellsouth.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA17818 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:16:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from 01al10015010057.ad.bls.com ([90.152.5.141] [90.152.5.141]) by aismtp1g.bellsouth.com with ESMTP; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:19:07 -0500 Received: by 01al10015010057.ad.bls.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:18:57 -0500 Message-Id: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D572@bremocag> From: "Sauer, Damon" To: "'Michael Ellis'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Stamps MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:18:56 -0500 -----Original Message----- From: Michael Ellis [mailto:mike@date.com] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 12:03 PM To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Stamps > > -----Original Message----- > From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore@cs.utk.edu] > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 10:12 AM > To: David Jameson > Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu; asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Stamps > > Spam exists because there is an (almost zero) fixed cost associated with > > sending it out. > false. snail mail spam exists despite having significant costs associated > with sending it. > -- False. Snail mail spam exists because the return is higher than cost. So, > > David is still right. > > --False. There is still a fixed cost involved and it is not unsubstantial, > regardless of the return. > > ---- False. If cost exceeded return it would not exist. Basic economics. > > Can we go for one more ;-) -------False. Snail mail spam exists without any return at all as in politician solicitations. No measureable return and since only one politician can win and the others lose, some get no return however intangible to measure ------- False. Return = Value- which may or may not be directly monetary but somebody is making money somewhere over and/or above the cost of the service. (Trying to imagine a broke politician) Can we go for one more ;-) Regards, Damon ***** "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers." _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 12:23:55 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA18349 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:23:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27HZUo16825 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:35:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27HZUO16822 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:35:30 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA18327 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:23:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27HX2O16567; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:33:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27HWAO16432 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:32:10 -0500 Received: from scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA18123 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:20:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.133.182] helo=envy.indecency.org) by scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18rLXp-0006dv-00; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 09:22:05 -0800 From: Keith Moore To: David Jameson Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Stamps Message-Id: <20030307121832.5b9e6c2a.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030307102754.02b6cdc0@wheresmymailserver.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030307053101.035ee328@mail.digiportal.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030307053101.035ee328@mail.digiportal.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030307102754.02b6cdc0@wheresmymailserver.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:18:32 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I don't recall mentioning snail mail and in the context of this group, I > think it's reasonable to assume that 'spam' means electronic junk mail. > > In fact, I don't believe I've ever heard junk mail that comes by snail > referred to as spam. I get email spam, snail mail spam, fax spam, and phone spam. only the first is within the purview of this group, but I do think that comparisons are sometimes useful. unsolicited advertising is annoying no matter what form it takes. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 12:24:46 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA18404 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:24:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27HaMn16880 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:36:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27HaMO16877 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:36:22 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA18386 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:24:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27HZ4O16771; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:35:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27HYOO16673 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:34:24 -0500 Received: from flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA18258 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:22:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.133.182] helo=envy.indecency.org) by flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18rLZw-0007SH-00; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 09:24:16 -0800 From: Keith Moore To: David Jameson Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) Message-Id: <20030307122044.2fac3c70.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030307103054.037fb188@wheresmymailserver.com> References: <3E682E86.3070508@americasm01.nt.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030307103054.037fb188@wheresmymailserver.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:20:44 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Requiring senders to pay would make them accountable. not unless you could somehow vary the cost according to how annoying the message is. if the cost per message is the same no matter who sends it or what the message says, there's no cost I could set which is high enough to deter spammers and low enough to not deter people I want to receive mail from. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 12:24:47 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA18417 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:24:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27HaMr16896 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:36:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27HaMO16893 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:36:22 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA18390 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:24:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27HY1O16615; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:34:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27HXWO16597 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:33:32 -0500 Received: from silk.rtr.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA18228 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:21:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from silk.rtr.com (IDENT:root@localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by silk.rtr.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h27HNUQ18290 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:23:30 -0500 Received: from bark (bark [64.241.156.77]) by silk.rtr.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27HNUj18277 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:23:30 -0500 From: "Gary Feldman" To: Subject: RE: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) Organization: Ready-to-Run Software, Inc. Message-ID: <00d401c2e4ce$466c6520$4d9cf140@rtr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20030307094334.18bc97ce.moore@cs.utk.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:23:31 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Keith Moore > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 9:44 AM > - should not prevent delivery of legitimate mail > - should not adversely impact valuable functionality Let me observe that there is no agreement (yet) on the definition of legitimate mail, nor on the definition of valuable functionality. But at least "valuable functionality" is a better choice than "all existing functionality." > - should not depend on universal deployment to be effective This is highly desirable, but not a rigid requirement. If there are no solutions that reach the desirable level of effectiveness without universal deployment, then a solution that requires it should be considered. Also, "depend on universal deployment" is vague. If I choose to adopt an email solution that requires senders to me to use a particular new technology in order to reach me, is that a dependency on universal deployment? Gary _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 12:31:52 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA18843 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:31:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27HhS218403 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:43:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27HhSO18400 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:43:28 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA18824 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:31:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27Hg2O18179; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:42:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27HfqO18135 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:41:52 -0500 Received: from olmec.nighttide.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA18742 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:29:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (darren@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by olmec.nighttide.net (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h27HVltR006280; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:31:47 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from dkh-asrg@nighttide.net) From: Darren Henderson To: Jon Kyme cc: Chris Fedde , asrg@ietf.org, aland@freeradius.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] The Consent 4-Tuple In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:31:47 -0500 (EST) On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Jon Kyme wrote: > > > > The sender always "consents" to send the mail (modulo accidents). So we > I'm not sure that that's always the case. For instance, If the concept is expanded slightly its most certainly not the case - if the tuples are defined to represent the actual, real, one and only, entities then non-consent would apply to items with forged identities. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 12:43:51 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19297 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:43:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27HtRY19258 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:55:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27HtQO19255 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:55:26 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19234 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:43:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27Hg1O18161; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:42:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27Hf2O18093 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:41:02 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA18717 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:28:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h27HV0BD025955 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:31:00 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] Re: On the need for reliable, objective data In-Reply-To: <20030307170005.11874.72924.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> Message-ID: References: <20030307170005.11874.72924.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:31:00 -0500 (EST) [List volume too high; I've switched to digest mode] From: "Gary Feldman" > I've seen a number of posts containing statements of the > form "most spam does X", "most spammers do X", "most of > the cost is X", "many users need X", etc. > Does the ASRG have a need for more reliable data to > either confirm or refute statements of this sort? Yes! > If so, there are at least two tactical questions: > How should such data be managed, stored, reviewed, > made available to the public, etc? I think a mechanism similar to DCC could be good. We need a way for lots of sensors to dump information into the collection network. We need a way to decide what summaries of the data are useful. And we need a way to extract the data without compromising privacy. (e.g., report SHA1 hashes of addresses rather than addresses themselves.) > What data is needed and how should it be collected? I think some useful data would be the following: - Number of RCPT commands from a given IP - Number of RCPT commands from a given IP that fail due to unknown recipient - Number of DSN's that bounce, correlated with originating IP. It might be dangerous to put too much stock in this statistic, as others have pointed out. - Number of IP addresses from which a "substantially similar" message is received within the last x hours. (Getting the same message from a lot of different IP's might be an indication of spam.) Collecting this data should be a simple modification of Razor or DCC. We have to look at what we, the recipients, control, and only trust that. The spammer controls: - The sender address, so that's worthless as a filtering tool. - The message headers and body, so checksum schemes can be defeated relatively easily, as can most content-filtering techniques. (Sorry, guys; them's the breaks.) - The originating IP address. This is pretty difficult to fake. - The reverse-DNS of the originating IP address. Depending on the situation, this might be very easy or a little expensive to fake. If you're spamming through thousands of open-proxies, it's probably more trouble than it's worth to try to fake the rDNS entries for them all. If you're sending from your box, it might be worth your time to get it to look like smtp-out.yahoo.com. We control, or can conceivably control: - The response from our SMTP servers. - Our own e-mail addresses. - To some extent, the spammer's mailing list, via responsible poisoning. I think any scheme that relies on things beyond our control is doomed. My proposals (1) to look at bounce ratios across a wide proportion of the Internet, (2) to implement a simple way to generate and use disposable e-mail addresses, and (3) to use responsible list-poisoning, are, I think, useful because they actually do things that are expensive for spammers to sidestep. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 12:43:53 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19311 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:43:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27HtTL19274 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:55:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27HtTO19271 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:55:29 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19238 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:43:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27Hs6O19096; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:54:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27HlRO18593 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:47:27 -0500 Received: from mail-blue.research.att.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA18967 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:35:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from raptor.research.att.com (raptor.research.att.com [135.207.23.32]) by mail-blue.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EDBA4CEAE for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:37:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from raptor.research.att.com (bala@localhost) by raptor.research.att.com (SGI-8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA27132 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:37:25 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200303071737.MAA27132@raptor.research.att.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) From: Balachander Krishnamurthy Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 12:37:25 -0500 In https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg00753.html Keith Moore writes: > Requiring senders to pay would make them accountable. *not unless you could somehow vary the cost according to how annoying the *message is. if the cost per message is the same no matter who sends it or *what the message says, there's no cost I could set which is high enough to *deter spammers and low enough to not deter people I want to receive mail from. *Keith Agreed. Thus, there has to be a scheme that would allow people to send wanted mail at zero cost and at some non-zero cost for unwanted mail. A receiver, as busy as Keith, say, could insist validly that cost to sender of unwanted mail be high but ensure that wanted mail senders bear zero cost. I believe such a scheme is doable if we thought of liability rather than cost. cheers, bala Balachander Krishnamurthy _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 12:43:58 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19324 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:43:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27HtYV19292 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:55:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27HtYO19289 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:55:34 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19245 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:43:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27He8O18023; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:40:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27HdEO17898 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:39:14 -0500 Received: from flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA18572 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:27:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.133.182] helo=envy.indecency.org) by flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18rLeg-0007cP-00; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 09:29:10 -0800 From: Keith Moore To: Balachander Krishnamurthy Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] requirements for a proposed solution + notion of consent Message-Id: <20030307122537.4aef91be.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <200303071537.KAA14788@raptor.research.att.com> References: <200303071537.KAA14788@raptor.research.att.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:25:37 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, 07 Mar 2003 10:37:56 -0500 Balachander Krishnamurthy wrote: > > keith moore suggests the following criteria for potential solutions in > https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg00726.html > > - should minimize spam to some acceptable level (say, 0.1% of received > messages)- should not prevent delivery of legitimate mail > - should not adversely impact valuable functionality > - should be easy to use (even for grandma) > - should be easy to deploy, incrementally > - should not depend on universal deployment to be effective > - should provide incentives to deploy for those doing the deployment > > all of the above are laudable goals. i would like to add a few more > > - senders and receivers of wanted (i prefer the term wanted over > "legitimate") mail should not have to pay additional monetary costs I agree, but I'd say this differently - I'd say we don't want to raise the burden of sending email (for the purpose of deterring spam) so high that it deters people from sending mail we want to receive. this applies to monetary costs, having to reply to confirmation messages, having to get prior authorization, whatever. > - no new protocol should be required to implement such solutions (maybe this > is covered in 'easy to deploy') I think it's premature to say that. Replacing the existing mail system would probably be too onerous. But some new protocol, somewhere, might be required. This would not bother me if it could be incrementally deployed, if there were natural incentives to deploy it, etc. > - there should be no additional impact on privacy of participants as a > result of such solutions a laudable goal, I think. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 12:44:04 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19340 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:44:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27HteP19327 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:55:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27HteO19321 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:55:40 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19263 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:43:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27Hs9O19128; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:54:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27HoWO18769 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:50:32 -0500 Received: from hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19058 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:38:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.133.182] helo=envy.indecency.org) by hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18rLpb-0003Lv-00; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 09:40:27 -0800 From: Keith Moore To: wayne Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) Message-Id: <20030307123654.3c87b806.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: References: <3E682E86.3070508@americasm01.nt.com> <20030307101045.425bdc4e.moore@cs.utk.edu> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:36:54 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > - clients can claim to be anyone > > > > that's not a bug, it's a desirable feature > > I do not think that it is a desirable feature that anyone can claim to > be anyone. *Some* people may want anyone to be able to claim to be > them. From what I can tell, *most* people only want themselves to be > able to claim to be them. 1. an email address is not an identity. it's just an identifier. it doesn't have to have any purpose other than having a mailbox associated with it. also, an email address can be bound to any person or group or random association of people. finally, relatively few people have email addresses that match their legal names with any precision. 2. sending documents on other people's behalf is a widespread and valuable practice. secretaries regularly sign documents on behalf of their bosses. yes, they should do so only when granted the authority to do so - but we don't tend to have mechanisms in place to prevent them from doing so. (with a few exceptions - signature stamps for payroll checks are likely to be tightly controlled) > *Some* people want to be able to claim to be themselves from many different > ISPs. > > I suspect that *most* people wouldn't care or even notice if this > attribute of SMTP disappeared, If we only allowed the Internet to support features that most people cared about, the only apps it would support would be the web and email. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 12:45:52 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19471 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:45:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27HvSw19535 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:57:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27HvRO19532 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:57:27 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19432 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:45:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27Hu3O19376; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:56:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27Ht2O19238 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:55:02 -0500 Received: from flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19209 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:42:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.133.182] helo=envy.indecency.org) by flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18rLst-0000f6-00; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 09:43:51 -0800 From: Keith Moore To: "Sauer, Damon" Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, Damon.Sauer@BellSouth.com, david@thejamesons.com, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Stamps Message-Id: <20030307124018.5b1fe6ac.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D570@bremocag> References: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D570@bremocag> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:40:18 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > ----- I too will put as simply as possible. Economics 101: > > If (Cost > Return) then (Profit) = 0 (or gosh LESS than 0 - I suppose there > could be some philanthropic spammers out there) > Increased cost = Decreased Profit > Increased cost > profit = Bankruptcy how do you measure the profit derived from sending mail to a friend? how do you decide whether the return from doing so will be great enough to justify the cost? especially when that cost could be spent on food, rent, etc? your attempt to reduce the value of human communication to monetary terms is based on false premises. it is also offensive. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 12:48:21 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19629 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:48:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27HxvH19712 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:59:57 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27HxvO19709 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:59:57 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19598 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:47:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27HwcO19636; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:58:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27HvkO19559 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:57:46 -0500 Received: from flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19444 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:45:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.133.182] helo=envy.indecency.org) by flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18rLwY-0006q1-00; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 09:47:38 -0800 From: Keith Moore To: "Chris Lewis" Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Stamps Message-Id: <20030307124406.076918f9.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <3E68D2EA.5070004@americasm01.nt.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030307053101.035ee328@mail.digiportal.com> <20030307101143.4a4614bb.moore@cs.utk.edu> <3E68D2EA.5070004@americasm01.nt.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:44:06 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > The economics are simply that the break-even rate, instead of being "a > few in a hundred" as it is with snail mail spam, some spammers can > "prosper"[*] with a return of "one in a million". if you raise the cost of sending spam then the spam will be more targeted. that doesn't mean we'll get much less of it than we (okay, most of us) are getting now. the DMA members would love to spam us more, but they realize that it won't be effective for them to do so until they get rid of the "bottom feeder" spammers. personally I think they're all bottom feeders. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 12:52:26 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19848 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:52:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27I42520128 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:04:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27I42O20125 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:04:02 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19826 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:51:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27I22O19955; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:02:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27I1gO19925 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:01:42 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19716 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:49:35 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h27Fx8TD030954; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 07:59:08 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h27Fx84F030950; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 07:59:08 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: Gary Feldman cc: "'ietf anti-spam research group'" Subject: RE: pros and cons of RMX (Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world) (fwd) In-Reply-To: <00d101c2e4cc$a9fa4e10$4d9cf140@rtr.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 07:59:08 -0800 (PST) That is because you do not see in the header FROM as was set during mail transmission (when one mail server connects to another before initiating data transmission it sends out FROM (sender) and RCPT (recepient) commands. Some email servers will keep this around and consider spam any email where during transmission FROM is not equivalent to "From" header. Such software is hotmail for example. Because many mailing lists (quite appropriatly) set FROM during transmission to their own, these get classified as SPAM and mailing lists have to be whitelisted. If RMX or RTDNSBL are implemented, thse mail filters (checking FROM in transmission and "From" in header) have to be implemented as much as RTDNSBL because otherwise spammers would just begin to set absolutly different FROM during transmission to domain that does not have RMX and still use their preferred forgery domain in "From" header which will make you think email came from that domain and send spam report to them. Now as I mention those mailing lists that actually set FROM during transmission to actual sender (taking it from "From" header) are all also have to be whitelisted bacause otherwise RMX software would think email is being forged because sender mailing list is not authorized to send email for this domain. In the end no matter what we do ALL mailing lists have to be whitelisted for RMX or RTDNSBL. This matter has been discussed before and everybody agreed that all of the various RMX proposals break mailinglists and that they would have to be whitelisted. Some pointed out that those using hotmail already whitelist mailing lists on regular basis and do it on per-user level - but that is because email is classified by HOTMAIL as either spam or not and their email servers do not answer with 500 but just based either send email to regular folder or spam folder for each user, allowing filters to be implimented on per-user level. Current DNSBL and RMX proposals actually do send 500 answer during email transmission, which means whitelisting of mailing lists have to be done on per-mailserver basis and this is a problem for ISPs. I hope I explained this all correctly and fully so everybody can understand, this has been discussed before and no solution has been given yet that would not allow for spammer to also use the same solution to get around the filters. In my opinion until somebody tells me how to deal with mailing list problem RMX should not be implemented, if we do have a solution, then sure - RMX or RTDNSBL can be done - it'll not stop spam but just limit forgeries to different domains, but nothing bad would happen from it then and if there is some good, then why not do it. On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Gary Feldman wrote: > > > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On > > Behalf Of william@elan.net > > Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 11:53 PM > ... > > Ok, you're right - ietf are good with technology and set FROM > > in the mail > > transmission to mailing list (which actually causes some spam > > filters to > > think email is forged), but there are mail lists and > > forwarding systems > > that do not do this and set FROM to the original sender. > > I think this is backwards. The mail headers I see from this > mailing list keep From: set to the original sender, and add > a Sender: field identifying asrg-admin as the true sender. > MS Outlook 2002, for what it's worth, reasonably interprets > these fields to combine them with the "on behalf of" > verbiage illustrated above. > > Gary > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 12:53:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19934 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:53:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27I5Bg20280 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:05:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27I5BO20277 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:05:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19926 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:53:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27I32O20033; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:03:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27I23O19974 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:02:03 -0500 Received: from backbone.midwestcs.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19742 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:49:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from footbone.midwestcs.com ([206.222.212.237] helo=midwestcs.com) by backbone.midwestcs.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18rM0h-00034Z-00 for ; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 11:51:55 -0600 To: "'ietf anti-spam research group'" Subject: Re: pros and cons of RMX (Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world) (fwd) References: <00d101c2e4cc$a9fa4e10$4d9cf140@rtr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: wayne In-Reply-To: <00d101c2e4cc$a9fa4e10$4d9cf140@rtr.com> Message-ID: Lines: 35 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanner: exiscan *18rM0h-00034Z-00*BBTLS5PKbgc* () Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 07 Mar 2003 11:51:55 -0600 In <00d101c2e4cc$a9fa4e10$4d9cf140@rtr.com> "Gary Feldman" writes: > > I think this is backwards. The mail headers I see from this > mailing list keep From: set to the original sender, and add > a Sender: field identifying asrg-admin as the true sender. There is a difference between the From_ header and the From: header. As William points out, this raises the point of "which headers should be authenticated?" Because I cut and pasted code, my 20 line patch to SpamAssassin currently checks the From_ header and the Reply-to: header. I'm not sure if that is the right thing to do. The Sender: header should certainly be considered, but as others have pointed out, you will get false positives. One thing I like about SpamAssassin is that a false positive on one test will not automatically cause a false positive as a result. So, now that I've implemented a domain specific DNSBL for midwestcs.com, if someone sends me email forged to say that it came from midwestcs.com, it will likely still make it into my inbox. Unless, of course, there are several other indications that it is spam. Personally, the biggest problem I've had with "people" forging my domain name is from KLEZ worms and such. I've had several people nastily accuse me of sending them the worm, just because the worm forged my name. -wayne _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 13:05:00 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20531 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:05:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27IGaS21958 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:16:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27IGaO21955 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:16:36 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20483 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:04:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27IDDO21573; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:13:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27IC8O21447 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:12:08 -0500 Received: from silk.rtr.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20225 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:00:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from silk.rtr.com (IDENT:root@localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by silk.rtr.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h27I25Q18834 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:02:06 -0500 Received: from bark (bark [64.241.156.77]) by silk.rtr.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27I25j18827; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:02:05 -0500 From: "Gary Feldman" To: Cc: "'ietf anti-spam research group'" Subject: RE: pros and cons of RMX (Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world) (fwd) Organization: Ready-to-Run Software, Inc. Message-ID: <00d701c2e4d3$aa8db040$4d9cf140@rtr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:02:06 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > From: william@elan.net [mailto:william@elan.net] > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 10:59 AM > That is because you do not see in the header FROM as was set > during mail > transmission (when one mail server connects to another before Actually, it's more because I'm used to seeing it labelled the "MAIL FROM:" command, and not simply FROM (to more clearly disambiguate it from the FROM header). But I suppose different subgroups fall into different habits in terminology. Gary _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 13:05:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20622 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:05:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27IHG622284 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:17:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27IHGO22281 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:17:16 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20563 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:05:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27IG5O21913; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:16:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27IFJO21866 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:15:19 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20372 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:03:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2088436; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 13:05:17 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200303071353.h27DrAo30231@localhost.localdomain> References: <200303071353.h27DrAo30231@localhost.localdomain> To: Bill Yerazunis From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal Cc: dfs@roaringpenguin.com, wsy@merl.com, asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:01:32 -0500 At 8:53 AM -0500 3/7/03, Bill Yerazunis wrote: >When the fraction I/P for any SMTP sender exceeds the administrative >parameter P, the offending IP host may be automatically subjected by >the MTA software to the following sanctions: I know of at least one ISP (and I'm sure there are others) that do this. He blocks based on bounces. As soon as he blocks an IP, another one starts sending him the spam. This goes on for thousands of IPs. I seriously wonder if there isn't some rather sophisticated distributed server spam software running out there on rooted servers, and we just haven't figured it out yet. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 13:06:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20714 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:06:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27IIAE22370 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:18:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27IIAO22367 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:18:10 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20661 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:06:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27IGuO22103; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:16:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27IFEO21844 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:15:14 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20361 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:03:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2088430; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 13:05:12 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: Nate W From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Economic model is borken. (sic.) Let's fix it Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:35:00 -0500 At 11:40 PM -0800 3/6/03, Nate W wrote: > > But fundamentally whitelisting fails without authentication. > >Fails occasionally, and would be greatly improved without authentication, It fails occasionally only because whitelisting is not widely used. Use it widely and the spammers will adapt. I just had to reply to someone's damn challenge response system on this list. Any spammer wanting to hit people on this list need only browse the archive, construct a list of who spoke to whom, and spam away. >but I think it's only a couple good client implementations away from >acceptance by a sizable chunk of the market. As filters go, it works very >well and requires little maintenance. Given the correct UI I will grant that it requires little maintenance for individuals who talk to their friends. It requires quite a bit for individuals who rely on email for their day-to-day business. But the point is, and I think a large number of people have already made it on this list, that solutions that require changing the MUA are less likely to gain acceptance than systems at the MTA level. >How would you propose using strong authentication for the 'reciept from a >merchant' scenario? Or would you? > >More interestingly, how do you propose adding authentication to email, in >general? Of the systems I've seen proposed, I currently lean towards domain authorization. Is this MTA allowed to send email from this domain? To that I would add a fallback that says, if not, is this *user* authorized to send email from this domain? The first is a simple DNS lookup. The second requires cryptographic tokens. I would combine that with a public distributed checksum database, fed by the major ISPs (who must be authorized to join it, and who must meet certain standards of behavior). I would then argue for a gradual system that works like this. 1. Initially ISPs only block bulk email that doesn't match the authorized domain standard. 2. Over time as companies move to protect their domains (and that is the incentive--protecting yourself from forgery), they can (or individuals can) block based on domain or personal authentication even for non-bulk email. Note that at this point there is still no MUA change required unless you are sending email from a location other than one authorized by your domain. I think that meets the necessary requirements of placing changes in the locations where they are most likely to be made, and providing for a gradual path to greater and greater security. What I don't know in that model, is how we deal with malicious ISPs. At 12:08 AM -0800 3/7/03, Nate W wrote: > If the sender values the message so little that they >won't do something simple to get it through to me, then there's no reason >that I should value it enough to read it. You missed the point of the original poster. The value of my sending you a bug report is far greater to you than to me. I can walk away without losing anything. You lose big. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 13:06:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20729 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:06:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27IIEe22387 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:18:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27IIEO22384 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:18:14 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20666 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:06:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27IGrO22067; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:16:53 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27IF9O21827 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:15:09 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20350 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:03:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2088434; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 13:05:06 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20030306105355.2787bd45.pf@pfortin.com> References: <007701c2e381$9d71c340$4d9cf140@rtr.com> <20030306105355.2787bd45.pf@pfortin.com> To: Pierre Fortin From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Back to the charter Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:13:49 -0500 At 10:53 AM -0500 3/6/03, Pierre Fortin wrote: >of control back very simply: enforce path verifiability. Once the path is >verifiable, much spam will crawl back into its hole, IMO. I think it might be valuable to classify spam a bit here, so that we can identify what kinds of solutions address what types of spam. In particular, there are a growing number of spammers who are using perfectly identifiable paths. Some of those paths lead to public ISPs, such that blocking the spammer also results in blocking legitimate users. The Chinese spam I get from 163.net certainly doesn't hide the fact that it comes from 163.net. Nor do they care if I block it. Because the people who can't block it are the people who regularly communicate with people in China and can't afford to block a Chinese ISP. And those of course are also the people who can read the spam. I'm just collateral damage. The bcc spammers who are using temporary webmail accounts are also completely path verifiable. They simply don't care that the account will be torn down in a number of hours. Much of the Spanish Prisoner (aka Nigerian) seems to fall into that category. So, how about a start on a taxonomy for spam. Not based on content, but on the class of technique. 1. Open Relay Uses an open relay to send spam. The relay is typically a loosely configured, misconfigured, or buggy mail server. The server may or may not normally send email. The sender typically attempts to obscure the true source of the email via fake headers or other information. But the original email account is probably throw-away. There's no particular reason the spammer couldn't use the domain of the relay in the sending email if an "authorized server only" system was set up. 2. Open Proxy Like an open-relay, except that the email arrives via a different protocol, so there is usually no trace. HTTP/Socks proxies fit this category. As do formmail exploits. Rooted servers can also be used for this purpose. 3. BCC Uses a throwaway email account sending multiple messages bcc'd to the sender. Very difficult to tell from normal email use. 4. Viral Uses a virus or trojan to send email using the machine owner's account and/or identity. These appear to be on the rise. I've heard of viral ones, but never seen it documented. Trojan ones are definitely in use. In addition some of the trojan's (e.g. the latest e-card one) are reported to have been snarfing the address book back to the spammer--thus making hay of white-listing systems. 5. Spam Indifferent Host Uses a paid account at a legitimate ISP for sending spam. Very common in Chinese spam. No attempt to forge anything. 6. Spam Friendly Host Major spammer with the infrastructure and pipes for sending bulk email directly. They may or may not hide the domain. In one case we've dealt with the spammer regularly registers new domains every few weeks and uses those as the source of the email. The IPs keep changing. The domains keep changing. Any others? Looking at these. You want to think on different spam solutions and see where they have an impact and where they don't. For instance. Blacklists help against open relays and open proxies. But there open relay blacklists have false positives and considerable collateral damage. Open proxy blacklists seem a bit safer, but still can have collateral damage. Both systems might survive an "IP is authorized to send mail for this domain" system, depending on the details and how tightly they were applied. BCC spam is very difficult to tell from legit email. Only by content or "bulkness". It passes any authentication system just fine. Volume limits and manual signup systems help limit this, but not enough so far. And both rely on the goodness of the source site, which is not sufficient. Viral spam has even worse characteristics than BCC spam, since it also can punch through whitelists, including auto-whitelisting challenge-response systems. Spam indifferent hosts are a real pain. You can't necessarily blacklist them. You have very little power over them unless the entire community bands together, and if that happens things could spill over into diplomatic circles. Spam friendly hosts are easier to block. But of course finding a reliable RBL that doesn't generate false positives is tough. And if it were that easy, you'd think they'd be gone by now, instead of growing in number. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 13:06:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20747 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:06:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27IIHf22405 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:18:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27IIHO22402 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:18:17 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20673 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:06:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27IGvO22126; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:16:57 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27IFFO21848 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:15:15 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20365 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:03:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2088433; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 13:05:13 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200303071400.h27E0Vmf006806@new.agentzero.com> References: <200303071400.h27E0Vmf006806@new.agentzero.com> To: Jim Youll From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Do we need to do anything? Cc: "'asrg@ietf.org'" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:47:43 -0500 At 8:58 AM -0500 3/7/03, Jim Youll wrote: >The numbers for the Nigerians were estimated in the last few weeks >at about one million dollars, total, for all instances of the scam >worldwide, ever. If Maybe that's the numbers for Nigeria proper, but certainly it seems to be earning *somebody* money: http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,55329,00.html >According to court records, from February to August 2002, Poet moved >$2.1 million, in amounts ranging from $9,400 to $360,000 per wire >transfer, from the accounts of Olsman Mueller & James -- a Berkley, >Michigan, law firm where she was employed -- to various bank >accounts in South Africa and Taiwan. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 13:06:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20760 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:06:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27IIKT22429 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:18:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27IIKO22426 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:18:20 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20679 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:06:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27IGwO22158; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:16:58 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27IFGO21852 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:15:16 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20368 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:03:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2088435; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 13:05:15 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: "David F. Skoll" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Locked addresses (was Do we need to do anything? Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:52:00 -0500 At 9:22 AM -0500 3/7/03, David F. Skoll wrote: >On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Kee Hinckley wrote: > >> You then describe an incredibly complex scheme whereby I am unable to >> send anyone email unless I have with me a piece of software which >> knows where I am, how I am currently able to communicate with >> everyone, and which address is appropriate to use under the current >> circumstances. > >It is not incredibly complex; many people have already implemented bits of it. That sounds more like support of my claim than a rebuttal. :-) >As I stated, it requires *NO* MUA changes. All of the work can be done on >the server. It does require that you relay outgoing mail through the same >server all of the time; that's why we have STARTTLS and SMTP AUTH. You didn't address any of my examples. Again. My mother is standing at the email kiosk in an airport. She wants to send email to you. You've authorized one of her temporary email messages to send email to one of your temporary email messages. Now what? > > It makes it virtually impossible to even manage > > addresses on *paper*, let alone in my head. > >Your server keeps track of everything. Address book. Somebody needs to keep track of what email address can send to what email address. This is typically an address book. How does this get implemented without the use of MUA changes? Even assuming that I always use the same computer, I don't see it. Feel free to take this offlist if you think I'm being incredible obtuse. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 13:06:46 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20775 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:06:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27IIMx22451 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:18:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27IIMO22446 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:18:22 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20685 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:06:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27IGvO22142; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:16:57 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27IFWO21878 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:15:32 -0500 Received: from aismtp2g.bellsouth.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20395 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:03:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from 01AL10015010060.ad.bls.com ([90.152.5.135] [90.152.5.135]) by aismtp2g.bellsouth.com with ESMTP; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:05:31 -0500 Received: by 01al10015010060.ad.bls.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:05:29 -0500 Message-Id: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D575@bremocag> From: "Sauer, Damon" To: "'Keith Moore'" , "Sauer, Damon" Cc: "Sauer, Damon" , david@thejamesons.com, asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Stamps MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:05:28 -0500 -----Original Message----- From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore@cs.utk.edu] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 12:40 PM To: Sauer, Damon Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu; Sauer, Damon; david@thejamesons.com; asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Stamps >> ----- I too will put as simply as possible. Economics 101: >> >> If (Cost > Return) then (Profit) = 0 (or gosh LESS than 0 - I suppose there >> could be some philanthropic spammers out there) >> Increased cost = Decreased Profit >> Increased cost > profit = Bankruptcy >how do you measure the profit derived from sending mail to a friend? -- I don't. It is not Unsolicited Commercial Email (UCE- Which is exactly the point of all of this). We want to get rid of UCE(spam) and keep the email to a friend. >how do you decide whether the return from doing so will be great enough to justify the cost? -- It is not arbitrary- When the return column is less than expense column, one cannot justify cost. > especially when that cost could be spent on food,rent, etc? -- These would go in the expense column if you your name happens to be Alan Ralsky. >your attempt to reduce the value of human communication to monetary terms is based on false premises. it is also offensive. -- I am not discussing human communication. I am discussing the economics and business drivers behind UCE. FYI- It is okay to assume that in any of my future posts that I am not discussing personal email unless otherwise noted. Regards, Damon ***** "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers." _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 13:10:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21051 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:10:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27IMAj22920 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:22:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27IMAO22917 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:22:10 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21019 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:10:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27IK2O22722; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:20:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27IJVO22560 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:19:31 -0500 Received: from mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20813 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:07:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from asv10.srv.hcvlny.cv.net (asv10.srv.hcvlny.cv.net [167.206.5.38]) by mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.05 (built Nov 6 2002)) with ESMTP id <0HBE00KOA53PVJ@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 13:09:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from p750.thejamesons.com (ool-182d611e.dyn.optonline.net [24.45.97.30]) by asv10.srv.hcvlny.cv.net (8.12.6/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h27I9ImF018185 for ; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 13:09:24 -0500 (EST) From: David Jameson Subject: Re: [Asrg] Stamps In-reply-to: <20030307115834.0ea469b0.moore@cs.utk.edu> X-Sender: (Unverified) To: Asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030307130100.037fea88@wheresmymailserver.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D56C@bremocag> <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D56C@bremocag> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 13:05:27 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT I don't think this is necessarily true. The proposal was that the cost be negligible for "normal" emails and it's only when one tries to send hundreds of thousands out that it becomes "real money". It would not affect the average person at all. As for the claim that people will have the right to send it - that's absolutely true. And we will still need to have mechanisms in place to detect unsolicited mail. A whitelist with challenge/response is very effective for this. D >If we increase the cost of sending email, we'll find that many of the best >things about email - e.g. that it makes it easy for us to keep in touch with >people with whom we would not otherwise do so - will be gone. And we'll still >be getting spam, it will just be 'slicker', and trying to sell us different >products. And the folks who are sending it will claim that they have a right >to do so. > >Keith > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Asrg mailing list >Asrg@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 13:11:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21140 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:11:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27INJU23003 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:23:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27INIO23000 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:23:18 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21120 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:11:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27IL5O22835; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:21:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27IL1O22805 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:21:01 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20893 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:08:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h27IAwBD026193; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:10:58 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: Kee Hinckley cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Locked addresses (was Do we need to do anything? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:10:58 -0500 (EST) On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Kee Hinckley wrote: > Again. My mother is standing at the email kiosk in an airport. She > wants to send email to you. You've authorized one of her temporary > email messages to send email to one of your temporary email messages. > Now what? She logs on to her ISP's Webmail system, where all of her locked addresses are stored. Using her "normal" (to her) e-mail address, she sends you a message over the Webmail. The ISP's server looks up the originator address and the destination address, modifies appropriately, and shoots it off. Piece of cake. > >Your server keeps track of everything. > Address book. Somebody needs to keep track of what email address can > send to what email address. The server. Your server keeps track of who can send to all of your ephemeral addresses, and my server keeps track of who can send to mine. Do you recall the e-mail "anonymizers" of the early 1990's? You could sign up for anonymous addresses, and the anonymizing-service would keep track of who is who. This is a similar system. > This is typically an address book. How > does this get implemented without the use of MUA changes? Easy. In your address book, I am "ephem-zbhsbhbe3@roaringpenguin.com". That's my address. No problem. Any mail you send to that address, from your own address, will work. If you also have ephemeral addresses, then you need to send it out via your server. Your server obscures your address, but that's OK, because my server knows *you* as "ephem-zkjkejruih3@yourdomain.com", which is all it sees. I am planning on implementing this, by the way; we'll see how it goes. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 13:11:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21154 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:11:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27INK623019 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:23:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27INKO23016 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:23:20 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21124 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:11:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27IL3O22819; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:21:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27IKmO22793 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:20:48 -0500 Received: from silk.rtr.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20882 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:08:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from silk.rtr.com (IDENT:root@localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by silk.rtr.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h27IAjQ19063 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:10:45 -0500 Received: from bark (bark [64.241.156.77]) by silk.rtr.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27IAjj19056 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:10:45 -0500 From: "Gary Feldman" To: "'ietf anti-spam research group'" Subject: RE: pros and cons of RMX (Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world) (fwd) Organization: Ready-to-Run Software, Inc. Message-ID: <00d801c2e4d4$e02620b0$4d9cf140@rtr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:10:46 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of wayne > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 12:52 PM > There is a difference between the From_ header and the From: header. As suggested in my previous email, I find the use of the term "From_ header" confusing. I have a very simple view of the world: headers are defined in RFC 2822 and related RFCs, and refers to the stuff at the top of the message data (as message data is defined in 2821). Commands are defined in RFC 2821 and related RFCs. The use of "header" to describe stuff sent in the message envelope triggers my "imprecise language" alarm. I also have no idea where the underscore originates. Or perhaps are you talking about something entirely separate from these two RFC sets? I suppose it's possible my personal choice of terminology is non-standard, and I should adapt. Gary _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 13:12:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21189 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:12:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27IOIw23096 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:24:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27IOIO23093 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:24:18 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21178 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:12:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27IM6O22895; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:22:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27ILNO22853 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:21:23 -0500 Received: from mta9.srv.hcvlny.cv.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20921 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:09:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from asv10.srv.hcvlny.cv.net (asv10.srv.hcvlny.cv.net [167.206.5.38]) by mta9.srv.hcvlny.cv.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.05 (built Nov 6 2002)) with ESMTP id <0HBE00B8L53QNU@mta9.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 13:09:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from p750.thejamesons.com (ool-182d611e.dyn.optonline.net [24.45.97.30]) by asv10.srv.hcvlny.cv.net (8.12.6/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h27I9ImH018185 for ; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 13:09:27 -0500 (EST) From: David Jameson Subject: Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) In-reply-to: <20030307122044.2fac3c70.moore@cs.utk.edu> X-Sender: (Unverified) To: Asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030307130610.035f7030@wheresmymailserver.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030307103054.037fb188@wheresmymailserver.com> <3E682E86.3070508@americasm01.nt.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030307103054.037fb188@wheresmymailserver.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 13:08:03 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT I don't believe that's true. The big differentiator between the normal user and the spammer is the volume of messages sent out. A spammer wishing to send out hundreds of thousands of messages would end up paying hundreds of dollars each time. An average user would see an increased bill every month of perhaps 10 cents! D At 12:20 PM 3/7/2003, you wrote: > > Requiring senders to pay would make them accountable. > >not unless you could somehow vary the cost according to how annoying the >message is. if the cost per message is the same no matter who sends it or >what the message says, there's no cost I could set which is high enough to >deter spammers and low enough to not deter people I want to receive mail from. > >Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 13:12:49 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21210 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:12:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27IOP123112 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:24:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27IOPO23109 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:24:25 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21183 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:12:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27IN2O22981; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:23:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27IMkO22954 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:22:46 -0500 Received: from first.cove-mtn.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21065 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:10:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from cove-mtn.com (dante.cove-mtn.com [172.31.2.255]) by first.cove-mtn.com (8.12.5/8.12.4) with ESMTP id h27ICgIg004995; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:12:42 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <3E68E118.6000305@cove-mtn.com> From: Brad Davis User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en,zh-TW MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jed Margolin CC: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Let's try something different References: <00a101c2e40b$54e40cc0$ca81bbd0@kit> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 11:12:40 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jed Margolin wrote: > 1. Sender's email is stored on Sender's server. Recipient is sent a message > with a unique link to the message and a maximum Subject line of 80 > alphanumeric characters. As has been pointed out, spammers are already going down this path with HTML encoded email. > 2. Sender can be anonymous, but not to Sender's ISP. There will be a feature > (a button) so Recipient can tell Sender's ISP, "Don't send me any further > email from this Sender." > > 3. Broadcasting is prohibited. If Sender wishes to send 1 million identical > messages, then Sender's server will contain 1 million copies of the message. > > 4. Sender's ISP will be notified if (and when) the email has been read so it > can be deleted from Sender's server. Alternatively, email can be deleted > from Sender's server at the end of the day (or week) that it is read. These are useless since the spamming software (and often the spamming machine) is controlled by the spammer. (Some of the most "interesting" spam I've received is for software to do spamming from a Windows PC without the need for an ISP mail server (complete with a list of open SMTP relays and other open proxies to use)). Solutions must assume that the other side (the spam server) is totally under control of spammers, that the other software was completely written by and for spammers, that the other ISP supports spamming (it can be lucrative for the ISP), and that the ISP's connection to the backbone is supportive of spamming (spamming may provide needed hard cash for poor 3rd world nations). This implies two things: spam control must be performed at the client SMTP agent and international organizations must be willing to censure countries that fail to police their assigned domains and addresses (i.e. cut them off). We (the IETF) can work on the first. Are we willing to push for the second? Without the second, we just have an escalating arms war (with, I fear, the advantage to the spammers). Brad Davis _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 13:18:48 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21372 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:18:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27IUPg23437 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:30:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27IUPO23434 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:30:25 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21353 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:18:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27IT4O23333; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:29:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27ISGO23294 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:28:16 -0500 Received: from new.agentzero.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21305 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:16:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.123.193] (h0050e4251179.ne.client2.attbi.com [66.30.24.79]) by new.agentzero.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h27IFTmf014768; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:15:30 -0500 Message-Id: <200303071815.h27IFTmf014768@new.agentzero.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <200303071400.h27E0Vmf006806@new.agentzero.com> To: Kee Hinckley From: Jim Youll Subject: Re: [Asrg] Do we need to do anything? Cc: "'asrg@ietf.org'" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:14:51 -0500 At 12:47 -0500 3/7/03, Kee Hinckley wrote: >At 8:58 AM -0500 3/7/03, Jim Youll wrote: >>The numbers for the Nigerians were estimated in the last few weeks >>at about one million dollars, total, for all instances of the scam >>worldwide, ever. If > >Maybe that's the numbers for Nigeria proper, but certainly it seems >to be earning *somebody* money: > >http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,55329,00.html >>According to court records, from February to August 2002, Poet >>moved $2.1 million, in amounts ranging from $9,400 to $360,000 per >>wire transfer, from the accounts of Olsman Mueller & James -- a >>Berkley, Michigan, law firm where she was employed -- to various >>bank accounts in South Africa and Taiwan. I didn't see that particular story, but ... a) there's enforcement happening at the other end now, and against scams generally, so... the economic disincentive for large-scale high-profit scams (on and off the net) comes from law and criminal punishment, not the mechanisms in any case. b) I intuit that the volume of messages sent does not really correlate to the response rate (as it would for the sale of miracle products and herbal remedies and so on). Greed-driven scams are a different business c) this doesn't go to the main points about why disposable or scope-bounded addresses can be useful at times. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 13:25:26 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21602 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:25:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27Ib3U24044 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:37:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27Ib3O24041 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:37:03 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21584 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:24:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27IYGO23736; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:34:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27IXRO23590 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:33:27 -0500 Received: from aismtp3g.bls.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21450 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:21:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from 01al10015010061.ad.bls.com ([90.152.5.165] [90.152.5.165]) by aismtp3g.bls.com with ESMTP; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:25:41 -0500 Received: by 01al10015010061.ad.bls.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:23:23 -0600 Message-Id: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D577@bremocag> From: "Sauer, Damon" To: "'Balachander Krishnamurthy'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] requirements for a proposed solution + notion of conse nt MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:23:17 -0600 I would like to add: - should do no harm (mundged email due to error) - should have minimal cost of implementation (monetarily and/or administratively) - should require no more horsepower (Don't want to have to buy more servers) - should not significantly increase time to delivery I will think of more I am sure. Regards, Damon -----Original Message----- From: Balachander Krishnamurthy [mailto:bala@research.att.com] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 10:38 AM To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] requirements for a proposed solution + notion of consent keith moore suggests the following criteria for potential solutions in https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg00726.html - should minimize spam to some acceptable level (say, 0.1% of received messages) - should not prevent delivery of legitimate mail - should not adversely impact valuable functionality - should be easy to use (even for grandma) - should be easy to deploy, incrementally - should not depend on universal deployment to be effective - should provide incentives to deploy for those doing the deployment all of the above are laudable goals. i would like to add a few more - senders and receivers of wanted (i prefer the term wanted over "legitimate") mail should not have to pay additional monetary costs ("sender pays" scheme causes additional pain for people who send/receive wanted mail - it would penalize "good folks" because "bad folks" send spam) - no new protocol should be required to implement such solutions (maybe this is covered in 'easy to deploy') - there should be no additional impact on privacy of participants as a result of such solutions also, the notion of consent in the original writeup seems to take for granted that participants have to consent a priori. it would be interesting to consider a scheme where the sender takes a very modest risk ('liability') which is lifted when the receiver deems the mail as wanted. the consent is given by the receiver after the mail is received. the receiver gets to decide if mail is "spam". cheers, bala balachander krishnamurthy http://www.research.att.com/~bala/papers _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg ***** "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers." _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 13:26:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21638 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:26:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27IcDI24834 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:38:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27IcDO24831 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:38:13 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21627 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:26:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27IXtO23652; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:33:55 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27IWOO23555 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:32:24 -0500 Received: from new.agentzero.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21414 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:20:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.123.193] (h0050e4251179.ne.client2.attbi.com [66.30.24.79]) by new.agentzero.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h27IMumf015007; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:22:57 -0500 Message-Id: <200303071822.h27IMumf015007@new.agentzero.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030307130100.037fea88@wheresmymailserver.com> References: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D56C@bremocag> <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D56C@bremocag> <5.2.0.9.2.20030307130100.037fea88@wheresmymailserver.com> To: David Jameson , Asrg@ietf.org From: Jim Youll Subject: Re: [Asrg] Stamps Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:21:55 -0500 At 13:05 -0500 3/7/03, David Jameson wrote: >I don't think this is necessarily true. The proposal was that the >cost be negligible for "normal" emails and it's only when one tries >to send hundreds of thousands out that it becomes "real money". It >would not affect the average person at all. >As for the claim that people will have the right to send it - that's >absolutely true. And we will still need to have mechanisms in place >to detect unsolicited mail. A whitelist with challenge/response is >very effective for this. Various techniques have been proposed for "raising the cost of high volumes of mail" A problem that invariably arises is that there is no clear means to distinguish a high-volume site with many users (e.g. hotmail) from a high-volume sender that's spamming. All handlers of high volumes of mail are penalized equally... the fundamental cost of doing business increases across the board, and this does not create the desired imbalance... _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 13:30:08 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21843 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:30:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27IfkW25152 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:41:46 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27IfjO25149 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:41:45 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21781 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:29:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27Ib2O24031; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:37:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27IaMO23954 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:36:22 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21542 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:24:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h27IQECv016444 for Asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:26:14 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303071826.h27IQECv016444@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] filtering at connect time References: <200303070421.XAA26954@ietf.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:26:14 -0700 (MST) > From: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" > ... > I have just posted a Best Current Practice addressing this matter > ... Who died and made you king of the IETF? (Please don't be insulted by that, because I meant it in jest.) My point is that all of the talk of BCPs, germs of BCPs, IDs for the solution to the spam problem and so forth that I've seen in the flood of noise on this list is not only grossly premature, irritating, and often insulting, but also seems to be based on a misunderstanding of the IETF and the IRTF. No one can simply "post a BCP." BCPs are RFCs and that means they must get the approval of the IESG or at least the IAB merely to be advanced from ID (Internet Draft) to RFC. To become a BCP an RFC must be supported by the consensus of the IETF. This is an IRTF mailing list, not the mailing list of an IETF working group. As such, it seems like a distant source for BCPs. BCPs are necessarily operational ('engineering') documents instead of what you'd except from the Internet Research Task Force. Just writing some thoughts according to the instructions for authors of Internet Drafts and calling them a BCP does not make them valid or cause them to be supported by the consensus of the IETF. Not even Microsoft was able to carry off naming files on a microsoft.com FTP server "RFC's." (early Microsoft PPP contributions) Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 13:32:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21903 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:32:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27IhgH25338 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:43:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27IhgO25335 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:43:42 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21895 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:31:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27IfDO25054; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:41:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27Ie9O24977 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:40:09 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21690 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:28:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h27IU58c023675; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 19:30:05 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h27IQfTh008096 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 7 Mar 2003 19:26:41 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h27IQfAQ008094; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 19:26:41 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: wayne Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] RMX & DNS: double advantage Message-ID: <20030307182641.GA8011@danisch.de> References: <20030307094119.GA2821@danisch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 19:26:41 +0100 On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 10:36:43AM -0600, wayne wrote: > > It should be pointed out that DNSBLs, including domain specific > DNSBLs, use the *absence* of an A record as an indication that IP > address is ok. Negative DNS responses are generally not cached > anywhere near as log as positive results. I do not know if this was a > design decision on the part of DNSBLs, or just a result of it being > easier to create that way. Both presence and absence of a record can be spoofed. Presence is spoofed by the fake record itself, absence by a bogus CNAME. regards Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 13:48:54 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA22453 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:48:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27J0Vn26226 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:00:31 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27J0VO26223 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:00:31 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA22399 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:48:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27Ix2O26058; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:59:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27Iw7O25912 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:58:07 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA22215 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:45:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18rI5k-0000by-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 08:40:52 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 07 Mar 2003 13:01:32 EST." Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 08:40:52 -0500 Kee Hinckley wrote: > I know of at least one ISP (and I'm sure there are others) that do > this. He blocks based on bounces. As soon as he blocks an IP, > another one starts sending him the spam. This goes on for thousands > of IPs. I spent a few days last year blocking IP's based on bounces. It went as follows: No end in sight, > I seriously wonder if there isn't some rather sophisticated > distributed server spam software running out there on rooted servers, > and we just haven't figured it out yet. That would fit the data I'm seeing. Of course, 10,000 clueless small-scale spammers would also fit the data, but I think that's less likely. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 13:48:59 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA22470 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:48:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27J0aJ26260 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:00:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27J0aO26255 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:00:36 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA22409 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:48:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27IwTO25958; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:58:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27IoNO25522 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:50:23 -0500 Received: from flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21999 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:38:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.133.182] helo=envy.indecency.org) by flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18rMlR-0000Gl-00; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 10:40:13 -0800 From: Keith Moore To: "Sauer, Damon" Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, Damon.Sauer@BellSouth.com, david@thejamesons.com, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Stamps Message-Id: <20030307133640.474636f8.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D575@bremocag> References: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D575@bremocag> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:36:40 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >how do you measure the profit derived from sending mail to a friend? > > -- I don't. It is not Unsolicited Commercial Email (UCE- Which is exactly > the point of all of this). We want to get rid of UCE(spam) and keep the > email to a friend. not everyone defines spam as UCE. and offhand I don't know a way to impose costs on either UCE or spam without imposing costs on others who might want to send me mail. if there were a reliable way to distinguish between spam and other kinds of mail, maybe this would be worth something. but offhand I don't know of a way to do that. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 13:49:09 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA22505 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:49:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27J0kI26297 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:00:46 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27J0kO26294 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:00:46 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA22434 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:48:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27IwXO25983; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:58:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27IqxO25593 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:52:59 -0500 Received: from silk.rtr.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA22049 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:40:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from silk.rtr.com (IDENT:root@localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by silk.rtr.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h27IgtQ19583 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:42:55 -0500 Received: from bark (bark [64.241.156.77]) by silk.rtr.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27Igsj19576 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:42:54 -0500 From: "Gary Feldman" To: Subject: RE: [Asrg] Locked addresses (was Do we need to do anything? Organization: Ready-to-Run Software, Inc. Message-ID: <00da01c2e4d9$5e596bf0$4d9cf140@rtr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:42:56 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Again. My mother is standing at the email kiosk in an airport. She > wants to send email to you. You mean father. Mother's call. Technologically adept mothers use instant messaging. Email is way too slow to satisfy motherhood cravings. TGIF :-) Gary _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 13:52:50 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA22776 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:52:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27J4SW26649 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:04:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27J4SO26646 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:04:28 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA22711 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:52:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27J31O26530; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:03:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27J2CO26474 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:02:12 -0500 Received: from emu.st (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA22560 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:50:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 49766 invoked by uid 1015); 7 Mar 2003 18:52:07 -0000 Delivered-To: qmda-intercept-asrg@ietf.org@intercept Comments: QMDA 0.1 - see http://www.geocities.com/mark_delany/qmda.html Received: (qmail 85398 invoked from network); 7 Mar 2003 18:52:07 -0000 Received: from prefix-internal.emu.st (HELO emu.st) (10.100.100.36) by f1-external.emu.st with SMTP; 7 Mar 2003 18:52:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 4671 invoked by uid 1001); 7 Mar 2003 18:52:07 -0000 Message-ID: <20030307185207.4670.qmail@prefix.emu.st> From: "Mark Delany" Mail-Followup-To: asrg@ietf.org To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Locked addresses (was Do we need to do anything? References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: ; from dfs@roaringpenguin.com on Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 01:10:58PM -0500 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 7 Mar 2003 18:52:07 +0000 On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 01:10:58PM -0500, David F. Skoll allegedly wrote: > Piece of cake. [ Discussion of ephemeral/disposable addresses removed ] > I am planning on implementing this, by the way; we'll see how it goes. There are easier ways to "see how it goes". Why not pay ten bucks to one of the numerous commercial offerings, such as spamex.com? Some of these guys have been doing this stuff for years. Regards. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 13:55:10 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20776 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:06:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27IIMg22452 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:18:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27IIMO22445 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:18:22 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20687 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:06:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27IGsO22083; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:16:54 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27IFCO21837 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:15:12 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20356; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:03:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2088431; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 13:05:10 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3E683B23.404@americasm01.nt.com> References: <3E6625E3.8050603@americasm01.nt.com> <200303051646.h25Gk9XL027458@calcite.rhyolite.com> <3E683B23.404@americasm01.nt.com> To: "Chris Lewis" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] SHEESH! Cc: Vernon Schryver , asrg@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:16:44 -0500 At 1:24 AM -0500 3/7/03, Chris Lewis wrote: >>I wonder if you'd say that if your employer were in the drug industry. > >Of course not. So? I'd simply not deploy such a filter. That takes care of some of the incoming. But how do you send email about to anybody outside of your company? (Never mind that some ISPs have egress filters). -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 13:55:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA22933 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:55:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27J7F427101 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:07:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27J7FO27098 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:07:15 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA22913 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:55:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27J52O26708; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:05:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27J34O26541 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:03:04 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA22609 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:50:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h27Iqxhv018989 for Asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:52:59 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303071852.h27Iqxhv018989@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] [OT] Sender verification References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:52:59 -0700 (MST) > Please do not use sender verification systems when posting to mailing > lists. The last thing I want to see when I post to a mailing list is a > bounce trying to confirm I'm a real person (I really don't care whether > your system believes I'm a real person or not). It's as bad as getting > vacation message bounces. Turn it off! > > For those of you not willing to get rid of your sender verification > system, learn to set reply-to to the list so that I don't have to jump > through your personal hoops. Sender verification systems are expressions of "I think I'm so Special that I think you will jump through my hoop merely to have me listen to you. However, that complaint is worse. If you go to the trouble of trimming all but the mailing list address when you respond, you will not be bothered by verification system noise. Besides the extra effort, the only problem with trimming your response list is that your recipient will respond to you context and order of other messages the mailing instead of early. Unless you think your words are Very Special, I don't see any harm in that. Note that sending to both the list and the other person causes the other person to get two copies of your wonderful words. Isn't that Special? Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 13:56:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA22988 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:56:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27J8M327759 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:08:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27J8MO27756 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:08:22 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA22972 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:56:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27J72O26939; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:07:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27J6aO26846 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:06:36 -0500 Received: from silk.rtr.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA22859 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:54:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from silk.rtr.com (IDENT:root@localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by silk.rtr.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h27IuVQ19742 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:56:31 -0500 Received: from bark (bark [64.241.156.77]) by silk.rtr.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27IuVj19735 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:56:31 -0500 From: "Gary Feldman" To: Subject: RE: [Asrg] requirements for a proposed solution + notion of consent Organization: Ready-to-Run Software, Inc. Message-ID: <00db01c2e4db$45534110$4d9cf140@rtr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D577@bremocag> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:56:33 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Sauer, Damon > - should require no more horsepower (Don't want to have to > buy more servers) This should be modified to say "not significantly more horsepower than required by ordinary growth in traffic." If sites are going to be buying more horsepower to support increased downloading of movies, for example, then an increase in processing requirements due to anti-spam measures would be ok, if that increase is small compared to the increase needed to support the movie traffic. Gary _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 14:00:54 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23267 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:00:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27JCWx28055 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:12:32 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27JCWO28052 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:12:32 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23239 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:00:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27JB5O27931; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:11:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27JAxO27887 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:10:59 -0500 Received: from aismtp3g.bls.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA23101 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:58:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from 01al10015010057.ad.bls.com ([90.152.5.141] [90.152.5.141]) by aismtp3g.bls.com with ESMTP; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:03:12 -0500 Received: by 01al10015010057.ad.bls.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:00:54 -0500 Message-Id: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D57B@bremocag> From: "Sauer, Damon" To: "'Keith Moore'" , "Sauer, Damon" Cc: "Sauer, Damon" , david@thejamesons.com, asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Stamps MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:00:47 -0500 -----Original Message----- From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore@cs.utk.edu] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 1:37 PM To: Sauer, Damon Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu; Sauer, Damon; david@thejamesons.com; asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Stamps > >how do you measure the profit derived from sending mail to a friend? > > -- I don't. It is not Unsolicited Commercial Email (UCE- Which is exactly > the point of all of this). We want to get rid of UCE(spam) and keep the > email to a friend. not everyone defines spam as UCE. ----- My definition of spam is: If the recipient thinks it's Spam- it is. The charter does not go into defining it, but for the purposes of my discussion, I am referring to UCE. and offhand I don't know a way to impose costs on either UCE or spam without imposing costs on others who might want to send me mail. --- Make it harder to send and/or receive Spam. Spam is profitable because of sheer volume over costs. Reduced volume means decreased profit and higher cost due to lack of return. if there were a reliable way to distinguish between spam and other kinds of mail, maybe this would be worth something. but offhand I don't know of a way to do that. --- Right now, there is ZERO way to distinguish reliably. But I feel that a DNSRBL or RMX would go a long way and is better than what we have now. Regards, Damon ***** "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers." _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 14:01:47 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23328 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:01:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27JDP728123 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:13:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27JDPO28120 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:13:25 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23296 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:01:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27JC1O28037; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:12:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27JBXO27953 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:11:33 -0500 Received: from snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA23124 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:59:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.133.182] helo=envy.indecency.org) by snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18rN5x-0006Yj-00; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 11:01:25 -0800 From: Keith Moore To: william@elan.net Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, gaf@rtr.com, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: pros and cons of RMX (Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world) (fwd) Message-Id: <20030307135752.06cde7f2.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: References: <00d101c2e4cc$a9fa4e10$4d9cf140@rtr.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:57:52 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Some email servers will keep this around and consider spam any email where > during transmission FROM is not equivalent to "From" header. Those email servers are broken, plain and simple. It's entirely reasonable for MAIL FROM to be different than From. This says nothing at all about the legitimacy of the mail. Stupid measures like this are causing as much harm as the spam itself. I'm all for having ways of making senders more accountable. But tying it to the From header, or to the MAIL FROM field, is just too broken to consider. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 14:10:49 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23647 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:10:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27JMR628756 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:22:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27JMRO28753 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:22:27 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23621 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:10:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27JL3O28646; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:21:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27JKJO28561 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:20:19 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23544 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:08:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h27JAEv0021225 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:10:14 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303071910.h27JAEv0021225@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) References: <20030307101045.425bdc4e.moore@cs.utk.edu> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:10:14 -0700 (MST) > From: Keith Moore > ... > The main problem I see is the lack of any way to make senders accountable for > their actions, and to distinguish responsible senders from irresponsible ones. exactly. That statement belongs somewhere in the problem statement that seems to part of the nominal purpose of this mailing list. All of the variously non-working, working, plauible but not implemented, and silly nonsense based on ignorance of spam fixes that exist or have been proposed are attempts to fix that problem. Unfortunately, "accountable," "responsible," and "irresponsible" are not technical terms and at best can only be approximated with technical means. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 14:11:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23703 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:11:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27JNYx28844 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:23:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27JNYO28841 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:23:34 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23690 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:11:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27JL6O28667; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:21:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27JKuO28626 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:20:56 -0500 Received: from avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23567 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:08:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.133.182] helo=envy.indecency.org) by avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18rNF0-0000Zj-00; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 11:10:47 -0800 From: Keith Moore To: "Gary Feldman" Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) Message-Id: <20030307140714.380d2dab.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <00d401c2e4ce$466c6520$4d9cf140@rtr.com> References: <20030307094334.18bc97ce.moore@cs.utk.edu> <00d401c2e4ce$466c6520$4d9cf140@rtr.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:07:14 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > - should not depend on universal deployment to be effective > > This is highly desirable, but not a rigid requirement. none of these are rigid requirements. actually this is a pet peeve of mine - if these exercises get seen as attempts to establish lists of requirements then everyone tries to justify his pet feature as a requirement. they are "criteria" or "desirable goals". and it's perfectly possible and reasonable for one desirable goal to run afoul of another one. the point about universal deployment is this - if in order to be useful, a spam-blocking scheme requires wide deployment, and no benefit results until that condition is met, then if there is doubt that the scheme will be widely deployed, it becomes difficult to get people to invest in it. all things being equal, a scheme which can be incrementally deployed and which produces some immediate benefit for those who invest in it is more likely to succeed. > If I choose to adopt an email solution that requires senders to > me to use a particular new technology in order to reach me, > is that a dependency on universal deployment? it depends on how you define success. if by imposing the particular new technology you get rid of spam without discouraging people from sending you mail that you want to receive, then it was successful for you. if it does discourage people from sending you mail that you want to receive, then it probably was not successful for you. of course, what is successful for you might not be successful on a large scale. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 14:29:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24146 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:29:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27JfDg30556 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:41:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27JfDO30553 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:41:13 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24132 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:29:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27JcYO30273; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:38:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27JQpO29005 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:26:51 -0500 Received: from hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23784 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:14:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.133.182] helo=envy.indecency.org) by hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18rNKm-00000z-00; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 11:16:44 -0800 From: Keith Moore To: wayne Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: pros and cons of RMX (Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world) (fwd) Message-Id: <20030307141312.19f55eb1.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: References: <00d101c2e4cc$a9fa4e10$4d9cf140@rtr.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:13:12 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > As William points out, this raises the point of "which headers should > be authenticated?" None of the existing header fields contains an identifier which is suitable as a principal name. From: is, by design, settable to one or more addresses, none of which need to match that of the person who sends the mail. Reply-to doesn't have to have anything to do with who sends it - it's perfectly reasonable to ask that replies be sent to a secretary, a list, whatever. The SMTP MAIL FROM field is where (non)delivery reports are sent - again, not the same as the message sender. Sender is the closest match, but it is so widely misused as to be useless. If you want messages to contain some sort of sender identity that works, you need a new header field for that purpose. And it's easier to implement that way anyway. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 14:29:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24169 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:29:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27JfY730615 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:41:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27JfYO30612 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:41:34 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24138 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:29:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27Je2O30444; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:40:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27JYxO29282 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:34:59 -0500 Received: from conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23960 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:22:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.133.182] helo=envy.indecency.org) by conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18rNSZ-0004Ff-00; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 11:24:47 -0800 From: Keith Moore To: David Jameson Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) Message-Id: <20030307142114.3ee8e58f.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030307130610.035f7030@wheresmymailserver.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030307103054.037fb188@wheresmymailserver.com> <3E682E86.3070508@americasm01.nt.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030307103054.037fb188@wheresmymailserver.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030307130610.035f7030@wheresmymailserver.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:21:14 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I don't believe that's true. The big differentiator between the normal user > and the spammer is the volume of messages sent out. A spammer wishing to > send out hundreds of thousands of messages would end up paying hundreds of > dollars each time. snail mail spammers routinely pay considerably larger sums. why wouldn't they do this for email? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 14:32:57 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24307 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:32:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27JiZr31000 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:44:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27JiZO30997 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:44:35 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24290 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:32:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27JhCO30809; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:43:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27JblO30209 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:37:47 -0500 Received: from emu.st (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id OAA24029 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:25:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 18383 invoked by uid 1015); 7 Mar 2003 19:27:42 -0000 Delivered-To: qmda-intercept-asrg@ietf.org@intercept Comments: QMDA 0.1 - see http://www.geocities.com/mark_delany/qmda.html Received: (qmail 62633 invoked from network); 7 Mar 2003 19:27:41 -0000 Received: from prefix-internal.emu.st (HELO emu.st) (10.100.100.36) by f1-external.emu.st with SMTP; 7 Mar 2003 19:27:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 4793 invoked by uid 1001); 7 Mar 2003 19:27:41 -0000 Message-ID: <20030307192741.4792.qmail@prefix.emu.st> From: "Mark Delany" Mail-Followup-To: asrg@ietf.org To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: ; from aland@freeradius.org on Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 08:40:52AM -0500 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 7 Mar 2003 19:27:41 +0000 On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 08:40:52AM -0500, Alan DeKok allegedly wrote: > > I seriously wonder if there isn't some rather sophisticated > > distributed server spam software running out there on rooted servers, > > and we just haven't figured it out yet. > That would fit the data I'm seeing. > > Of course, 10,000 clueless small-scale spammers would also fit the > data, but I think that's less likely. You might want to look at the DHS Club and their strategy of recruiting people and then aiming them at ratware like send-safe.com. There might only be a smallish number of ratware authors but they do rather like selling their product to as large a contingent of clueless small-scale spammers as possible. http://www.theclubbuiltonspam.com/ is a good place to get an interesting view on just one set of spammers. I think it's safe to say that there are "X" categories of spammers, for all values of "X". Regards. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 14:33:07 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24325 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:33:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27Jij031024 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:44:45 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27JijO31021 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:44:45 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24297 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:32:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27JfNO30571; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:41:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27JZBO29322 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:35:11 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23972 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:23:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h27JP6oi024752; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 20:25:06 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h27JNxTh009870 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 7 Mar 2003 20:23:59 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h27JNxBK009868; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 20:23:59 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Kee Hinckley Cc: "David F. Skoll" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Locked addresses (was Do we need to do anything? Message-ID: <20030307192358.GA9801@danisch.de> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 20:23:59 +0100 On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 12:52:00PM -0500, Kee Hinckley wrote: > > Again. My mother is standing at the email kiosk in an airport. She > wants to send email to you. I can't remember to ever have seen someone using an "email kiosk". All people I saw sending mail from airports, hotels, internet cafes were using web browsers to log into some web/mail gateway like hotmail, yahoo,... Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 14:33:11 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24341 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:33:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27Jinu31041 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:44:49 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27JinO31038 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:44:49 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24301 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:32:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27JgdO30782; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:42:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27JZrO29369 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:35:53 -0500 Received: from mercury.ex.ac.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23986 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:23:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from [144.173.6.20] (helo=cronus.ex.ac.uk) by mercury.ex.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18rNTY-00DTnT-00; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 19:25:48 +0000 From: Adam Back To: Balachander Krishnamurthy Cc: asrg@ietf.org, Adam Back Subject: evaluating proposals against requirements (Re: [Asrg] requirements for a proposed solution + notion of consent) Message-ID: <20030307192548.A4583931@exeter.ac.uk> References: <200303071537.KAA14788@raptor.research.att.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.2i In-Reply-To: <200303071537.KAA14788@raptor.research.att.com>; from bala@research.att.com on Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 10:37:56AM -0500 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 19:25:48 +0000 Those requirements sound good to me, it may not be possible to satisfy them all simultaneously but at least they express the problem so people can measure solutions against them. I've numbered them, let's measure a few of the current proposals against these: a) should minimize spam to some acceptable level b) should not prevent delivery of legitimate mail c) should not adversely impact valuable functionality d) should be easy to use (even for grandma) e) should be easy to deploy, incrementally f) should not depend on universal deployment to be effective g) should provide incentives to deploy for those doing the deployment h) senders and receivers should not have to pay additional monetary costs i) should not require new protocols j) there should be no additional impact on privacy (this presumes the solution is universally deployed for the sake of argument; deployability and chances of getting there are covered by 6, 7 and 9). 1) RMX plus fixed DNS b,d,h,j I think the rest it does not do. To explain a) I suspect there will still be lots of spam from AUP violations, and spammers who run their own RMX servers; c) complicates sending while travelling; e) if you deploy it incrementally you lose mail; f) can't reasonably be turned on until fully deployed; g) provides no incentive to deploy until critical mass is reached as you can't turn it on; i) it requires depoyment of new protocols. 2) Bayesian filters + hashcash + token white lists. a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,j About things it does not do: i) it requires deployment of extensions to existing protocols Some of the things it claims to do are not as effective as other solutions: a) it will reduce spam, but it won't stop it because it just increases the cost from 0.0001c to say 1c -- this may help because it may become more targetted; b) bayesian filters have a small but not zero false positive rate; f) before universal deployment you are relying on bayesian filters, and hashcash is just to avoid false positives; g) your incentive to deploy is to avoid mail you send being caught in false positives; h) individuals would have only CPU costs, which they probably already have sufficient spare resources for, some large organizations if they add tokens at the outgoing mail hub may have to upgrade hardware; Also about this approach: it's not clear how long Bayesian filters will hold-out -- they are effective now because of limited deployment, I suspect if deployment got to a high enough spammers might go the next level and win that arms race. I welcome any criticism of the ratings of either of these, and suggested ratings for other proposals. Adam _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 14:33:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24364 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:33:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27JjFO31075 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:45:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27JjFO31072 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:45:15 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24322 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:33:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27JhOO30875; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:43:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27JeuO30536 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:40:56 -0500 Received: from mail.speakeasy.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24121 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:28:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 6177 invoked from network); 7 Mar 2003 19:30:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO spiral.whatever.net) ([64.81.21.85]) (envelope-sender ) by mail16.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 7 Mar 2003 19:30:58 -0000 Received: from spiral.whatever.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by spiral.whatever.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h27JZKRC025552 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:35:20 -0800 Received: from localhost (nathan@localhost) by spiral.whatever.net (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) with ESMTP id h27JZJLD025549 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:35:19 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: spiral.whatever.net: nathan owned process doing -bs From: Nate W X-Sender: nathan@spiral Reply-To: Asrg@ietf.org To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Stamps In-Reply-To: <20030307101143.4a4614bb.moore@cs.utk.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:35:19 -0800 (PST) On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Keith Moore wrote: > > Spam exists because there is an (almost zero) fixed cost associated with > > sending it out. > > false. snail mail spam exists despite having significant costs associated > with sending it. That's pedantically correct, but it completely ignores the point of just about every message posted to this discussion so far. If postal junk mail operated in the same economic fashion as electronic junk mail, you would get truckloads of it. If electronic mail cost as much as postal mail, you'd get far less of it. The cost *is* a factor, and it makes the difference between "X exists" and "X causes expensive problems for everyone with an address and everyone using the infrastructure." Postal spam EXISTS, but until dump trucks start dropping loads of it everyone's from yard on a daily basis, and 20-50 loads on random yards at random times, and making a substantial contribution to traffic congestion in general, there is nothing to be gained by equating postal spam with electronic spam. -- Nate Waddoups Redmond WA USA http://www.natew.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 14:35:55 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24473 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:35:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27JlYd31261 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:47:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27JlYO31258 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:47:34 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24435 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:35:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27JhLO30827; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:43:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27JcNO30266 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:38:23 -0500 Received: from falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24035 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:26:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.133.182] helo=envy.indecency.org) by falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18rNRZ-0004P9-00; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 11:23:45 -0800 From: Keith Moore To: David Jameson Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Stamps Message-Id: <20030307142012.216ae1a5.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030307130100.037fea88@wheresmymailserver.com> References: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D56C@bremocag> <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D56C@bremocag> <5.2.0.9.2.20030307130100.037fea88@wheresmymailserver.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:20:12 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I don't think this is necessarily true. The proposal was that the cost be > negligible for "normal" emails and it's only when one tries to send > hundreds of thousands out that it becomes "real money". It would not > affect the average person at all. I don't see any way to impose costs that are sufficiently large that they will deter spam, that aren't so large that they will chill valuable speech. I do admit that such costs provide an incentive for spammers to target their mail, which would probably reduce the volume from any one spammer, and it would compel them to implement opt-out schemes. But there would be a lot more spammers. As for challenge/response schemes, they're fine for people who want to use them. But I find them so annoying (even with whitelists) that I'm unlikely to impose them on people who send me mail. Maybe if we could automate them somehow so that users didn't have to deal with them directly, they wouldn't be so annoying. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 14:37:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24539 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:37:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27JnCa31364 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:49:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27JnCO31361 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:49:12 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24517 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:37:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27Jl1O31227; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:47:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27JkoO31199 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:46:50 -0500 Received: from new.agentzero.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24390 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:34:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.123.194] (h0050e4251179.ne.client2.attbi.com [66.30.24.79]) by new.agentzero.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h27Ja9mf017477; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:36:09 -0500 Message-Id: <200303071936.h27Ja9mf017477@new.agentzero.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20030307142114.3ee8e58f.moore@cs.utk.edu> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030307103054.037fb188@wheresmymailserver.com> <3E682E86.3070508@americasm01.nt.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030307103054.037fb188@wheresmymailserver.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030307130610.035f7030@wheresmymailserver.com> <20030307142114.3ee8e58f.moore@cs.utk.edu> To: Keith Moore , David Jameson From: Jim Youll Subject: Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, Asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:32:45 -0500 At 14:21 -0500 3/7/03, Keith Moore wrote: > > I don't believe that's true. The big differentiator between the normal user >> and the spammer is the volume of messages sent out. A spammer wishing to >> send out hundreds of thousands of messages would end up paying hundreds of >> dollars each time. > >snail mail spammers routinely pay considerably larger sums. why wouldn't they >do this for email? I believe the snail mail adverts are generally targeted toward some groups and not others. They are geography-bounded. And the response rates are higher. It is a different game. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 14:40:11 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA22471 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:48:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27J0aJ26274 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:00:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27J0aO26257 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:00:36 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA22411 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:48:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27IwYO25999; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:58:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27IrEO25601 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:53:14 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA22057; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:41:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h27Ih97U018120 env-from ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:43:09 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303071843.h27Ih97U018120@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] SHEESH! References: <3E683B23.404@americasm01.nt.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:43:09 -0700 (MST) > From: "Chris Lewis" > ... > > There are other things the IETF lists should do instead. To start, > > they should rejectm mail with MIME content headers declaring mail is > > not English, and specifically reject JP, KR, and GB character sets. > > The IETF has no foreign language special interest groups? Like on > character sets and internationalization? It would be as dumb as a > pharmaceutical company banning the V word. If there are any IETF working group mailing lists that do not use ASCII-English, then those should be exempted. However, as far as I know, there are no such mailing lists. Because of the nature of the IETF, there I doubt any such WG list should use anything but the global international standard character set. The IETF is supposed to be international, and that means that its official communications must use the international language. That the international email language today happens to involve a national varient of an old international character set is an accident of history that is handy for some of us, unfortunate for others, and unchangable for the foreseeable future for all of us. Test mailing lists, private mail, and so forth are different. > > They should probably also reject any MIME multipart mail, > > That would annoy the Mime, multimedia and other specialized WGs would it > not? Again, the offical IETF mailing lists are supposed to be "inclusive." Contrary to some politically correct silliness, in this case that does not involve pretending everyone understands all languages and formats, but using the greatest common divisor. All IETF mailing lists submissions should use the single, common form everyone involved can read. It could make sense for a mail working group to have a special test mailing list that uses very different protocols than 7-bit plantext ASCII, but the official, archived, public record, subject to the "Note This" blather working group mailing lists are not those. > > I think they should also use the DCC to reject all bulk mail, but > > that's probably only my bias speaking. > > That's a _much_ better idea than banning specific character sets or mime. Maybe so or maybe not. Using the DCC to reject all bulk mail would prune a lot of conference announcements and calls for papers. I think that would be a good thing, but I know others disagree with me. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 14:41:52 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24660 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:41:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27JrUV31636 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:53:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27JrUO31633 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:53:30 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24654 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:41:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27Jq2O31563; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:52:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27Jp7O31498 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:51:07 -0500 Received: from mallard.mail.pas.earthlink.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24591 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:38:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.133.182] helo=envy.indecency.org) by mallard.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18rNiD-0006cQ-00; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 11:40:57 -0800 From: Keith Moore To: Jim Youll Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, david@thejamesons.com, Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) Message-Id: <20030307143724.22ed6566.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <200303071936.h27Ja9mf017477@new.agentzero.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030307103054.037fb188@wheresmymailserver.com> <3E682E86.3070508@americasm01.nt.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030307103054.037fb188@wheresmymailserver.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030307130610.035f7030@wheresmymailserver.com> <20030307142114.3ee8e58f.moore@cs.utk.edu> <200303071936.h27Ja9mf017477@new.agentzero.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:37:24 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >> A spammer wishing to > >> send out hundreds of thousands of messages would end up paying hundreds > >> dollars each time. > > > >snail mail spammers routinely pay considerably larger sums. why wouldn't > >they do this for email? > > I believe the snail mail adverts are generally targeted toward some > groups and not others. They are geography-bounded. And the response > rates are higher. mostly true. but it's still annoying, and there's still a lot of it. frankly I don't see the point in raising the cost of spam if the only result is to change who is doing the spamming. especially if it makes it more expensive for someone to send me mail that I want to receive as a side-effect. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 14:46:03 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24910 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:46:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27JvgD32232 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:57:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27JvgO32229 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:57:42 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24901 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:45:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27JuHO32059; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:56:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27JtwO31985 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:55:58 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24757 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:43:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h27JjqUV023826 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:45:52 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303071945.h27JjqUV023826@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Stamps References: <20030307115834.0ea469b0.moore@cs.utk.edu> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:45:52 -0700 (MST) > From: Keith Moore > Artifically increasing the cost of email will not prevent spam. It will > reduce spam. It will change who uses spam to advertise. Those two ideas are clearly true. > It will also reduce > the volume of email that we want to receive. I doubt that's necessary true for all spam targets. > ... > If we increase the cost of sending email, we'll find that many of the best > things about email ... That seems to be based on the false notion the increasing the cost of any mail must increase the cost of all mail. I still think the future of spam is what I've been predicting for years. Recent statements from the Direct Mailers Association seem to me to be confirmation. I believe that eventually bulk mail will be taxed like alcohol and tobacco, at a rate of $0.01 to $0.10 per addressee. The tax will probably not be called a tax, but something like misleading much like the Gore Tax on telephone serice. It will be rationalized as "closing the digital divide" and "for the children." A large part of the money will be spent on bureaucrats to do paper work and detect and punish scofflaws. The remainder will be sent to ISPs that agree to participate to support free or reduced price services. The penalties for failing to pay the tax will be imposed not just on the spammers like Ralsky and Spamford but on their customers. Recall that very little spam fails to provide good ways to contact those people, which means the use of foreign spam service bureaus, open relays, and so forth will be irrelevant or evidence of intent to evade the tax. Foreign spammers will be handled with the same mechanisms used to fight fake Rolex watches and copies of music and movies. Those mechanisms are not perfect, but they don't need to be. The taxes will be welcomed by advertisers for two main reasons. The taxes will limit the amount of spam we get to the volume of junk paper mail which will defuse the public anger. Second, the current cost of spam is "too cheap to meter" and so hard to make a business of. A $0.03/adressee tax would make administrative costs of $0.01/addressee and margins of $0.01/addressee sound reasonable. If I'm right about that, then political implications suggest that body filtering will remain effective. They also suggest that real opt-out/do-not-mail lists will appear. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 14:46:46 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24955 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:46:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27JwPB32310 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:58:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27JwPO32307 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:58:25 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24927 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:46:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27Jv2O32177; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:57:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27JulO32089 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:56:47 -0500 Received: from grebe.mail.pas.earthlink.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24823; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:44:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.133.182] helo=envy.indecency.org) by grebe.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18rNnl-0001pR-00; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 11:46:41 -0800 From: Keith Moore To: Asrg@ietf.org Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@natew.com, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Stamps Message-Id: <20030307144308.6870a192.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: References: <20030307101143.4a4614bb.moore@cs.utk.edu> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:43:08 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > snail mail spam exists despite having significant costs associated > > with sending it. > > That's pedantically correct, but it completely ignores the point of just > about every message posted to this discussion so far. > > If postal junk mail operated in the same economic fashion as electronic > junk mail, you would get truckloads of it. the percentage of snail mail spam / snail mail I get is approximately the same as the percentage of email spam / email that I get. (YMMV - I probably get more legitimate email than most people) yes, it's easier to handle the snail mail spam, but that's mostly because the overall volume of snail mail is so low. lowering the overall volume of email for the sake of lowering the volume of spam does not seem inherently desirable, anyway. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 14:47:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25006 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:47:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27Jx8M32365 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:59:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27Jx7O32362 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:59:07 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24977 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:46:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27Jv1O32151; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:57:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27JueO32084 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:56:40 -0500 Received: from relay05.indigo.ie (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id OAA24817 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:44:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 75702 messnum 1218836 invoked from network[194.125.172.194/ts12-194.dublin.indigo.ie]); 7 Mar 2003 19:46:32 -0000 Received: from ts12-194.dublin.indigo.ie (HELO jmason.org) (194.125.172.194) by relay05.indigo.ie (qp 75702) with SMTP; 7 Mar 2003 19:46:32 -0000 Received: by jmason.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id F1B0B16F16; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 19:46:24 +0000 (GMT) Received: from jmason.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE935F7BB; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 19:46:24 +0000 (GMT) To: Hadmut Danisch Cc: Kee Hinckley , "David F. Skoll" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Locked addresses (was Do we need to do anything? In-Reply-To: Message from Hadmut Danisch of "Fri, 07 Mar 2003 20:23:59 +0100." <20030307192358.GA9801@danisch.de> From: jm@jmason.org (Justin Mason) X-GPG-Key-Fingerprint: 0A48 2D8B 0B52 A87D 0E8A 6ADD 4137 1B50 6E58 EF0A X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to . Message-Id: <20030307194624.F1B0B16F16@jmason.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 19:46:19 +0000 Hadmut Danisch said: > On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 12:52:00PM -0500, Kee Hinckley wrote: > > > > Again. My mother is standing at the email kiosk in an airport. She > > wants to send email to you. > > I can't remember to ever have seen someone using an "email kiosk". > All people I saw sending mail from airports, hotels, internet cafes > were using web browsers to log into some web/mail gateway like > hotmail, yahoo,... FWIW, I used to work for a company that made these kiosks, and that's exactly the case. --j. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 14:47:47 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25032 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:47:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27JxQD32399 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:59:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27JxQO32396 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:59:26 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24999 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:47:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27Jw2O32290; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:58:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27JvIO32213 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:57:18 -0500 Received: from new.agentzero.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24877 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:45:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.123.194] (h0050e4251179.ne.client2.attbi.com [66.30.24.79]) by new.agentzero.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h27Jlcmf017860; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:47:42 -0500 Message-Id: <200303071947.h27Jlcmf017860@new.agentzero.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20030307143724.22ed6566.moore@cs.utk.edu> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030307103054.037fb188@wheresmymailserver.com> <3E682E86.3070508@americasm01.nt.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030307103054.037fb188@wheresmymailserver.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030307130610.035f7030@wheresmymailserver.com> <20030307142114.3ee8e58f.moore@cs.utk.edu> <200303071936.h27Ja9mf017477@new.agentzero.com> <20030307143724.22ed6566.moore@cs.utk.edu> To: Keith Moore From: Jim Youll Subject: Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, david@thejamesons.com, Asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:46:50 -0500 At 14:37 -0500 3/7/03, Keith Moore wrote: > > >> A spammer wishing to >> >> send out hundreds of thousands of messages would end up paying hundreds >> >> dollars each time. >> > >> >snail mail spammers routinely pay considerably larger sums. why wouldn't >> >they do this for email? >> >> I believe the snail mail adverts are generally targeted toward some >> groups and not others. They are geography-bounded. And the response >> rates are higher. > >mostly true. but it's still annoying, and there's still a lot of it. frankly >I don't see the point in raising the cost of spam if the only result is to >change who is doing the spamming. especially if it makes it more expensive >for someone to send me mail that I want to receive as a side-effect. I wrote separately that just raising the cost floor doesn't help because all senders' costs increase (yours and mine included). The core economic argument is not that difficult... if it returns more than it costs, the activity occurs. Spamming is a little different, though, in this way... the senders of the spams are often service bureaus, not principals. Thus if it is profitable to operate a spam service bureau (selling spamming services) then service bureaus will continue to send spams. The success rate for the product itself is removed from the discussion. There are lots of suckers out there who want to get rich on the Internet, they don't know each other, and there is no entry barrier for a new spamming service provider, so there's not a lot of direct feedback about success/failure rates, and thus little to dissuade new customers for the spammers. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 14:51:00 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25211 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:51:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27K2dA32733 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:02:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27K2dO32730 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:02:39 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25178 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:50:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27K13O32608; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:01:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27K06O32512 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:00:06 -0500 Received: from slarti.muc.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id OAA25050 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:47:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 25307 invoked by uid 66); 7 Mar 2003 19:50:00 -0000 Received: from faerber.muc.de by slarti.muc.de with BSMTP (rsmtp-qm-ot 0.4) for asrg@ietf.org; 7 Mar 2003 19:50:00 -0000 Received: by faerber.muc.de (OpenXP/32 v3.9.4 (Win32) alpha @ 2003-03-07-1751d); 07 Mar 2003 20:49:37 +0000 From: list-ietf-antispam@faerber.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Claus_F=E4rber?=) To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <8hPtvhVocDD@3247.org> In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Asrg] MTP draft User-Agent: OpenXP/32 v3.9.4 (Win32) alpha @ 2003-03-07-1751d MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 07 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0000 David F. Skoll schrieb/wrote: > The scanning is done at the end of the DATA phase while the sender is > waiting for the final acknowledgement. The recommended timeout here > according to RFC 2821 is 10 minutes, so adding under a second of > content-scanning shouldn't be a problem. The problem is that this phase is the one vulnerable to race conditions: If the connection breaks between accepting the message and getting the response through to the sender, a dupe will be created. So it's desireable to keep that period of time as short as possible. Claus -- http://www.faerber.muc.de/ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 14:54:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25380 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:54:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27K6Ds00608 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:06:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27K6DO00605 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:06:13 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25347 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:54:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27K43O00370; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:04:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27K3gO00351 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:03:42 -0500 Received: from turkey.mail.pas.earthlink.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25237 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:51:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.133.182] helo=envy.indecency.org) by turkey.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18rNuL-00002w-00; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 11:53:29 -0800 From: Keith Moore To: Vernon Schryver Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Stamps Message-Id: <20030307144956.12c8e78f.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <200303071945.h27JjqUV023826@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <20030307115834.0ea469b0.moore@cs.utk.edu> <200303071945.h27JjqUV023826@calcite.rhyolite.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:49:56 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I believe that eventually bulk mail will be > taxed like alcohol and tobacco, at a rate of $0.01 to $0.10 per > addressee. ... > If I'm right about that, then political implications suggest that > body filtering will remain effective. They also suggest that real > opt-out/do-not-mail lists will appear. my conclusions are similar. note that the real purpose of such a tax would be to make spam legally legitimate, while raising the bar just enough to make it inaccessible by small companies. but it wouldn't do anything to improve the signal-to-noise ratio of email. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 14:55:23 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25423 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:55:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27K72o00754 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:07:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27K72O00751 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:07:02 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25405 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:54:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27K52O00503; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:05:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27K4FO00388 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:04:15 -0500 Received: from mercury.ex.ac.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25270 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:52:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from [144.173.6.20] (helo=cronus.ex.ac.uk) by mercury.ex.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18rNuz-00DT54-00; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 19:54:09 +0000 From: Adam Back To: "Sauer, Damon" Cc: "'Balachander Krishnamurthy'" , asrg@ietf.org, Adam Back Subject: evaluating with the additional requirements (Re: [Asrg] requirements for a proposed solution + notion of conse nt) Message-ID: <20030307195409.A4592632@exeter.ac.uk> References: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D577@bremocag> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.2i In-Reply-To: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D577@bremocag>; from Damon.Sauer@bellsouth.com on Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 12:23:17PM -0600 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 19:54:09 +0000 Damon Sauer proposed some more requirements, let's add 3 of those as k,l,m: k) should have minimal cost of implementation l) should require no more horsepower m) should not significantly increase time to delivery and look at RMX plus fixed DNS: l,m does not have k (depending on what your ideas of minimal cost are) and Bayesian filters + hashcash + whitelists: m does not have k (depending on what your ideas of minimal cost are) horsepower depends on how you deploy it: if only clients create hashcash shouldn't be a problem; if deployed on servers say in corporate networks at the gateway, that might cost them some horsepower (though white lists help that). But I guess that would be a trade-off -- the cost of deploying hashcash creation on clients vs the cost of just doing it at the gateway. Adam _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 15:00:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA25691 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:00:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27KCOu01942 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:12:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27KCOO01939 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:12:24 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA25681 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:00:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27K72O00749; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:07:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27K6jO00676 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:06:45 -0500 Received: from INET-IMC-04.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25394 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:54:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from inet-vrs-04.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.8.149]) by INET-IMC-04.redmond.corp.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6624); Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:56:40 -0800 Received: from 157.54.8.155 by inet-vrs-04.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Fri, 07 Mar 2003 11:56:39 -0800 Received: from RED-MSG-06.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.12.198]) by INET-HUB-04.redmond.corp.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6624); Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:56:40 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.6851.8 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: pros and cons of RMX (Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world) Message-ID: <7695E2F6903F7A41961F8CF888D87EA809F5C88A@red-msg-06.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> Thread-Topic: pros and cons of RMX (Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world) thread-index: AcLka12mLGQEVKiASo6VRT98u7aKeQAd5vvg From: "Jonathan Wilkins" To: "Chris Lewis" Cc: "ietf anti-spam research group" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Mar 2003 19:56:40.0167 (UTC) FILETIME=[AB410770:01C2E4E3] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h27K6jO00677 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:56:41 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit If an attacker fails when spoofing foo.com they can turn around and spoof bar.com. If that fails too, they can keep trying until they manage to get something cached. Once something's cached they can spam all they like. You always know where to spoof. You send the packets at the SMTP server, since that's the machine that's going to make a request of it's server. Further, your estimate of the success ratio is probably overly pessimistic. There are a bunch of layers to go through for a valid response to be returned. The SMTP server makes a request to it's local DNS server which asks the root server who's authorative and then turns around and asks that server for the data. That's several round trips versus a bunch of direct sends. -----Original Message----- From: Chris Lewis [mailto:clewis@nortelnetworks.com] Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 9:26 PM Cc: ietf anti-spam research group Jonathan Wilkins wrote: > Why is 65536 100 byte packets a lot? That's only 655k. (a) it assumes you manage to guess the right packet before the real server gets its answer thru. Let's be generous, and say that they beat it 50% of the time. So, half of your spam run is toast. (b) it's 65536 100 byte packets for _each_ MTA you're trying to get around - _if_ you know where to flood. Worthwhile for attacking large ISPs. Not small MTAs. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 15:10:59 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA26867 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:10:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27KMdO02844 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:22:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27KMdO02841 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:22:39 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA26799 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:10:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27KKAO02690; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:20:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27KJ6O02603 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:19:06 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA26229 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:06:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h27K8xK7026668 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:08:59 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303072008.h27K8xK7026668@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: On the need for reliable, objective data References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:08:59 -0700 (MST) > From: "David F. Skoll" > ... > > How should such data be managed, stored, reviewed, > > made available to the public, etc? > > I think a mechanism similar to DCC could be good. We need a way for > lots of sensors to dump information into the collection network. We > need a way to decide what summaries of the data are useful. And we need > a way to extract the data without compromising privacy. (e.g., report > SHA1 hashes of addresses rather than addresses themselves.) > ... I think I'm qualified to comment on that idea. The short version of my take is "great in theory but nearly hopeless in practice." The hopeless part is that in practice it is extremely difficult to build a network large enough to collect enough data to be other than a muddy pile of annecdotes. The DCC is more than 2 years old, but it still sees at most single-digit percentages of all mail in the network and perhaps less. (I suspect there are more than 1 but probably fewer than 10 Billion mail messages/day today. The DCC sees perhaps 20 M/day.) The DCC has been deployed by only some classes of outfits. For example, it has not be and probably will not be used by the largest organizations that prefer to roll their own solutions. Even in the skewed population that does use the DCC, there is evidence that making generalizations is very hard. There is 3X difference in spam load per user depending on organization type judging from http://www.dcc-servers.net/dcc/graphs/comp-rates There are reasons of self-interest for outfits to install the DCC, but few or at best weak reasons for installing monitoring software that would report to outsiders. There are strong reasons for many outfits to flatly refuse to install such software; that's why the DCC is designed to not collect a lot of the information that one would want. DCC clients can report and DCC servers can collect hashes of addresses, but that's dangerous unless (or even if) you think carefully about what the servers will do with the data. Consider the dangers of being able to ask whether the system has seen a message with a sender of the hash of "Bill Gates" and at recipeint of the hash of "Steve Jobs" today. (By default, DCC servers do not collect anything but body hashes for several reasons, starting with the limited usefulness of those hashes.) Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 15:15:52 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27153 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:15:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27KRW403270 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:27:32 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27KRWO03267 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:27:32 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27132 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:15:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27KQ3O03106; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:26:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27KPYO03057 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:25:34 -0500 Received: from new.agentzero.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27034 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:13:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.123.194] (h0050e4251179.ne.client2.attbi.com [66.30.24.79]) by new.agentzero.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h27KE9mf018655; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:14:10 -0500 Message-Id: <200303072014.h27KE9mf018655@new.agentzero.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200303071945.h27JjqUV023826@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <20030307115834.0ea469b0.moore@cs.utk.edu> <200303071945.h27JjqUV023826@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Vernon Schryver , asrg@ietf.org From: Jim Youll Subject: Re: [Asrg] Stamps Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:50:08 -0500 I have a hard time getting behind any proposed solutions that require global, synchronized changes to infrastructure... such a thing has only happened once in the history of the net, and the net was quite small at the time. At 12:45 -0700 3/7/03, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > From: Keith Moore > >> Artifically increasing the cost of email will not prevent spam. It will >> reduce spam. It will change who uses spam to advertise. > >Those two ideas are clearly true. > >> It will >>also reduce >> the volume of email that we want to receive. > >I doubt that's necessary true for all spam targets. > >> ... >> If we increase the cost of sending email, we'll find that many of the best >> things about email ... > >That seems to be based on the false notion the increasing the cost of >any mail must increase the cost of all mail. > >I still think the future of spam is what I've been predicting for >years. Recent statements from the Direct Mailers Association seem to >me to be confirmation. I believe that eventually bulk mail will be >taxed like alcohol and tobacco, at a rate of $0.01 to $0.10 per >addressee. The tax will probably not be called a tax, but something >like misleading much like the Gore Tax on telephone serice. It will >be rationalized as "closing the digital divide" and "for the children." >A large part of the money will be spent on bureaucrats to do paper >work and detect and punish scofflaws. The remainder will be sent to >ISPs that agree to participate to support free or reduced price services. > >The penalties for failing to pay the tax will be imposed not just on >the spammers like Ralsky and Spamford but on their customers. Recall >that very little spam fails to provide good ways to contact those people, >which means the use of foreign spam service bureaus, open relays, and >so forth will be irrelevant or evidence of intent to evade the tax. > >Foreign spammers will be handled with the same mechanisms used to >fight fake Rolex watches and copies of music and movies. Those >mechanisms are not perfect, but they don't need to be. > >The taxes will be welcomed by advertisers for two main reasons. The >taxes will limit the amount of spam we get to the volume of junk paper >mail which will defuse the public anger. Second, the current cost of >spam is "too cheap to meter" and so hard to make a business of. A >$0.03/adressee tax would make administrative costs of $0.01/addressee >and margins of $0.01/addressee sound reasonable. > >If I'm right about that, then political implications suggest that >body filtering will remain effective. They also suggest that real >opt-out/do-not-mail lists will appear. > > >Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com >_______________________________________________ >Asrg mailing list >Asrg@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 15:24:22 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27606 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:24:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27Ka2n03994 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:36:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27Ka2O03991 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:36:02 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27577 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:23:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27KYAO03830; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:34:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27KXQO03691 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:33:26 -0500 Received: from splat.viawest.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27408 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:21:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from splat.viawest.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by splat.viawest.net (8.12.7/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h27KN97N078157; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:23:09 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from cfedde@splat.viawest.net) Message-Id: <200303072023.h27KN97N078157@splat.viawest.net> To: Keith Moore cc: "Gary Feldman" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) In-Reply-To: <20030307140714.380d2dab.moore@cs.utk.edu> From: Chris Fedde Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 13:23:09 -0700 On Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:07:14 -0500 Keith Moore wrote: +------------------ | | > > - should not depend on universal deployment to be effective | > | > This is highly desirable, but not a rigid requirement. | | none of these are rigid requirements. actually this is a pet peeve of mine - | if these exercises get seen as attempts to establish lists of requirements | then everyone tries to justify his pet feature as a requirement. they are | "criteria" or "desirable goals". and it's perfectly possible and reasonable | for one desirable goal to run afoul of another one. | | the point about universal deployment is this - if in order to be useful, a | spam-blocking scheme requires wide deployment, and no benefit results until | that condition is met, then if there is doubt that the scheme will be widely | deployed, it becomes difficult to get people to invest in it. all things | being equal, a scheme which can be incrementally deployed and which produces | some immediate benefit for those who invest in it is more likely to succeed. | | > If I choose to adopt an email solution that requires senders to | > me to use a particular new technology in order to reach me, | > is that a dependency on universal deployment? | | it depends on how you define success. if by imposing the particular new | technology you get rid of spam without discouraging people from sending you | mail that you want to receive, then it was successful for you. if it does | discourage people from sending you mail that you want to receive, then it | probably was not successful for you. of course, what is successful for you | might not be successful on a large scale. | | Keith | _______________________________________________ | Asrg mailing list | Asrg@ietf.org | https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg +------------------ -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 15:24:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27622 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:24:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27KaDh04016 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:36:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27KaDO04013 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:36:13 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27600 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:24:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27KY2O03774; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:34:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27KThO03496 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:29:43 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27271 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:17:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h27KJbB7027471 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:19:37 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303072019.h27KJbB7027471@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: pros and cons of RMX (Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world) (fwd) References: <00d801c2e4d4$e02620b0$4d9cf140@rtr.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:19:37 -0700 (MST) > From: "Gary Feldman" > ... > > There is a difference between the From_ header and the From: header. > > As suggested in my previous email, I find the use of the term "From_ > header" confusing. I have a very simple view of the world: headers are > defined in RFC 2822 and related RFCs, and refers to the stuff at the > top of the message data (as message data is defined in 2821). Commands > are > defined in RFC 2821 and related RFCs. The use of "header" to describe > stuff sent in the message envelope triggers my "imprecise language" > alarm. Such alarms are valuable because imprecise language often indicates imprecise or simply wrong thinking. > I also have no idea where the underscore originates. Or perhaps are you > > talking about something entirely separate from these two RFC sets? > ... I can't say what the other person meant, but: - "_" has historically been used to indicate a single ASCII blank. - "From_" tends to refer to the non-RFC 822 header historically and optionally added to the start of messages by various mail systems. This header tends (or tended) to contain the RFC 821 sender or SMTP Mail_From value and the data. When UUCP is used, it tends to contain the UUCP path, except when rmail has been hacked to recognize when the last host is an FQDN and use that instead. I think the sendmail "Ops" document calls this the "UNIX From" header. Look for options controlling it in the "mailer" rules or control lines in sendmail.cf. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 15:32:23 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA28292 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:32:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27Ki3D05567 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:44:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27Ki3O05564 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:44:03 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA28097 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:31:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27Kf5O05355; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:41:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27KeAO05290 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:40:10 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27796 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:27:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h27KU5BD026981 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:30:05 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20030307202602.3096.54965.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> Message-ID: References: <20030307202602.3096.54965.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Asrg] Race conditions at end of DATA Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:30:05 -0500 (EST) From: list-ietf-antispam@faerber.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Claus_F=E4rber?=) > David F. Skoll schrieb/wrote: > > The scanning is done at the end of the DATA phase while the sender is > > waiting for the final acknowledgement. The recommended timeout here > > according to RFC 2821 is 10 minutes, so adding under a second of > > content-scanning shouldn't be a problem. > The problem is that this phase is the one vulnerable to race conditions: This is true. > If the connection breaks between accepting the message and getting the > response through to the sender, a dupe will be created. So it's > desireable to keep that period of time as short as possible. Right. But the race condition is there whether you do scanning or not. It's an inherent limitation of the protocol. We have about 40 deployments of our commercial scanning solution, and probably thousands of the GPL'd version, and I haven't heard of anyone getting a dupe because of this race condition. To cause a problem, the scanner would have to take an unreasonably long time, and the sending relay would have to have an unreasonably short timeout. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 15:34:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA29084 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:34:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27KkAg05704 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:46:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27Kk9O05701 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:46:09 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA28885 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:33:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27KiQO05603; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:44:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27KhYO05491 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:43:34 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27939 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:31:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2088856; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 15:33:28 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: "David F. Skoll" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Locked addresses (was Do we need to do anything? Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:12:01 -0500 At 1:10 PM -0500 3/7/03, David F. Skoll wrote: >On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Kee Hinckley wrote: >> Again. My mother is standing at the email kiosk in an airport. She >> wants to send email to you. You've authorized one of her temporary >> email messages to send email to one of your temporary email messages. >> Now what? > >She logs on to her ISP's Webmail system, where all of her locked >addresses are stored. Using her "normal" (to her) e-mail address, she >sends you a message over the Webmail. The ISP's server looks up the >originator address and the destination address, modifies >appropriately, and shoots it off. > >Piece of cake. I see. You're saying that she sends email via her mail server (using some authentication mechanism to be specified by the server). And that mail server retains an N-factorial list of possible email address combinations. Your email client uses your "real" address sending to the MTA. The sending MTA transforms that based on who you are sending email to. And the receiving MTA receives it based on who it was sent to AND from. So now not only am I tied to my ISPs whim for an email address (mediaone last year, attbi last month, comcast today), I'm also tied to them because if I go to another ISP I'm unable to send email to any of my contacts. Not only will they reject the mail if I send it from a new address, I don't even know what their email address is! Of course you can quarantine all of your email that someone sends to an address from the wrong address, and look at it. And you can bet all your spam is going to have subjects like: "My email address just changed" in order to get you to open that mail. You could also fix much of the problem by having a consistent concept of "identity" that could be checked by looking up an address (and vice versa). But then we are talking about cryptographic authentication systems for individuals--again. > > This is typically an address book. How >> does this get implemented without the use of MUA changes? > >Easy. In your address book, I am >"ephem-zbhsbhbe3@roaringpenguin.com". That's my address. No problem. >Any mail you send to that address, from your own address, will work. >If you also have ephemeral addresses, then you need to send it out via >your server. Your server obscures your address, but that's OK, >because my server knows *you* as "ephem-zkjkejruih3@yourdomain.com", >which is all it sees. You've got an interesting protocol problem for initial contacts between two people. It involves quarantines, special server protocols for mapping addresses, and then remapping addresses once the recipient has decided on an ephemeral address to use. I think it looks something like this: 0. You give me dfs-bizcard@example.com, I put it in my address book. 1. I send email to dfs-bizcard@example.com 2. My server sets my from to asdfasdf@example.net 3. Your server quarantines my message until you can okay it. 4. Your server sends back a confirmation to my server telling it that your address for me will be qwerqwer@example.com. 5. My server remaps asdfasdf@example.net to be the standard from address for mail to qwerqwer@example.com. 6. My server sends me mail telling me that your address is qewrqwer@example.com. 7. I add qewrqwer@example.com to my address book and remove dfs-bizcard@example.com. 6. Finally we can talk. But only if I use my server. And if I ever go anywhere else I can no longer communicate with you. And of course, if I don't have a server that supports this, I have to handle this whole negotiation by hand. I think having an address book that is so complex that only a server can manage it is a bad idea. Tying it to your current email address (which as we all know, changes frequently for people) and company or ISP is even worse. Fundamentally this is just another complex challenge/response->whitelist system, and they have two problems that I think will keep them from working. 1. They annoy customers, so businesses won't adopt them. 2. They don't work with automated business email, so customers won't adopt them. We've already had at least one public complaint (and many private I'm sure) of Nate W, who is using such a system on this list. (And a broken one as well, I've had to respond to "Nate's Secretary" multiple times already.) And we've also seen the failure of content filters on this list. I'm surprised nobody's bounced my domain due to some blacklist yet. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 16:01:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA02911 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:01:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27LDFm09646 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:13:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27LDEO09643 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:13:14 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA02798 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:01:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27LAGO08999; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:10:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27L7rO08633 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:07:53 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA02138 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:55:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h27Kvhi3001543 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:57:43 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303072057.h27Kvhi3001543@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Stamps References: <20030307144956.12c8e78f.moore@cs.utk.edu> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:57:43 -0700 (MST) > From: Keith Moore > > I believe that eventually bulk mail will be > > taxed like alcohol and tobacco, at a rate of $0.01 to $0.10 per > > addressee. > ... > > > If I'm right about that, then political implications suggest that > > body filtering will remain effective. They also suggest that real > > opt-out/do-not-mail lists will appear. > > my conclusions are similar. note that the real purpose of such a tax would be > to make spam legally legitimate, while raising the bar just enough to make it > inaccessible by small companies. but it wouldn't do anything to improve > the signal-to-noise ratio of email. Spam is already generally "legally legitimate," albeit becoming a little less so. The taxes will not raise the bar above the reach of what are often called "small companies" (e.g. $1M/year revenue) but above the reach of those who pay $300 for books, tapes and seminars on how to get rich quick. The tax will not directly improve the signat/noise ratio of mail in your mailbox if your spam load is like that of the typical U.S.Postal Service patron. However, if you spam load is like that of many U.S. retail ISP customers, it will be a noticable improvement. The s/n ratio in your mailbox will probably be significantly improved indirectly, or you will spend less effort on filters. The Dell Computers and RealNetworks of the world do and will not deign to try to work around filters as the get rich quick spammers do. The DMA will teach its members that overtly trying to break filters is bad for a business that depends on Congresssional sufferance and that it's dumb to force advertising on people who are willing to spend the effort to filter it. It's better to leave anti-advertising zealots alone than to poke us with sticks. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 16:02:01 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA02953 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:02:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27LDgs09704 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:13:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27LDgO09701 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:13:42 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA02894 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:01:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27LBMO09320; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:11:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27L4oO07600 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:04:50 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA01690 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:52:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2088908; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 15:54:45 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200303071852.h27Iqxhv018989@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <200303071852.h27Iqxhv018989@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Vernon Schryver From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] [OT] Sender verification Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:43:35 -0500 At 11:52 AM -0700 3/7/03, Vernon Schryver wrote: >Note that sending to both the list and the other person causes the other >person to get two copies of your wonderful words. Isn't that Special? Another one of those "the sender decides" problems with SMTP. On the bright side, we could have used X.400 instead. Personally I prefer to get the two messages. They end up in two different queues and the ones that replied to me direct are read before the list. Which is in my mind how it should be. First you listen to the people talking to you--then the ones talking to the room. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 16:02:04 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA02968 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:02:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27LDiO09722 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:13:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27LDiO09719 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:13:44 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA02905 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:01:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27LBJO09240; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:11:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27Kt2O06633 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:55:02 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA00536 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:42:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h27KipBD027053; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:44:52 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: Kee Hinckley cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Locked addresses (was Do we need to do anything? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:44:51 -0500 (EST) On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Kee Hinckley wrote: > I see. You're saying that she sends email via her mail server (using > some authentication mechanism to be specified by the server). And > that mail server retains an N-factorial list of possible email It's not N-factorial; where did you come up with that? It's N-squared. > So now not only am I tied to my ISPs whim for an email address > (mediaone last year, attbi last month, comcast today), I'm also tied > to them because if I go to another ISP I'm unable to send email to > any of my contacts. No. When you send mail to your contacts, you'll need to use their public challenge-response address to revalidate yourself. This is a pain, no doubt. There's no pain-free way to end spam that I can see. > You've got an interesting protocol problem for initial contacts > between two people. No, not really. Like I said, you have an initial challenge-response contact address for the first contact. You need to make the challenge easy to solve by a human, but hard for an automated process. > 6. Finally we can talk. But only if I use my server. And if I ever > go anywhere else I can no longer communicate with you. Yes, you can, via dfs-bizcard. > I think having an address book that is so complex that only a server > can manage it is a bad idea. Lots of people already do that. LDAP, anyone? -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 16:02:15 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA02984 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:02:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27LDu009752 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:13:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27LDuO09746 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:13:56 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA02929 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:01:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27LBIO09215; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:11:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27KpdO06134 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:51:39 -0500 Received: from splat.viawest.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA00055 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:39:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from splat.viawest.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by splat.viawest.net (8.12.7/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h27KfV7N078360; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:41:31 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from cfedde@splat.viawest.net) Message-Id: <200303072041.h27KfV7N078360@splat.viawest.net> To: Vernon Schryver cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) In-Reply-To: <200303071910.h27JAEv0021225@calcite.rhyolite.com> From: Chris Fedde Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 13:41:31 -0700 On Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:10:14 -0700 (MST) Vernon Schryver wrote: +------------------ | > From: Keith Moore | | > ... The main problem I see is the lack of any way to make senders | > accountable for their actions, and to distinguish responsible | > senders from irresponsible ones. | | exactly. That statement belongs somewhere in the problem statement | that seems to part of the nominal purpose of this mailing list. +------------------ The main problem with Keith Moore's statement is that it provides no insight about what to take action against. Todate all anti-spam technology has been implemented on behalf of the recipient. It seems like it will be impossible to impose a motivation on the sender without totally changing what we mean when we say email. It might be a resonable strategic position to re-archetect email along lines that enable enforcement of sender responsability. But that is not a tactical solution available to us in the short term. As such that Mr Moore's statement belongs in the overview, scope or concusion sections of any formal statement of a goals document for this group. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 16:02:16 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA02988 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:02:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27LDuA09770 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:13:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27LDuO09767 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:13:56 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA02931 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:01:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27LARO09021; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:10:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27KoGO06002 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:50:16 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA29838 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:38:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h27Ke4BD027038 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:40:04 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20030307202602.3096.54965.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> Message-ID: References: <20030307202602.3096.54965.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Asrg] Collecting statistics Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:40:04 -0500 (EST) Vernon Schryver wrote: > > I think a mechanism similar to DCC could be good. We need a way for > > lots of sensors to dump information into the collection network. We > > need a way to decide what summaries of the data are useful. And we need > > a way to extract the data without compromising privacy. (e.g., report > > SHA1 hashes of addresses rather than addresses themselves.) > > ... > I think I'm qualified to comment on that idea. The short version of > my take is "great in theory but nearly hopeless in practice." OK. > The hopeless part is that in practice it is extremely difficult to > build a network large enough to collect enough data to be other than > a muddy pile of annecdotes. Well, this is a research group; we consider blue-sky ideas. If most people start seeing the level of spam that striker.ottawa.on.ca does, there will be huge incentive to collaborate. > The DCC is more than 2 years old, but it > still sees at most single-digit percentages of all mail in the network > and perhaps less. I'm not sure that you need a much higher percentage than that. If your sensors are well-dispersed, a couple of percent should be pretty representative, or at least enough to start detecting trends. > Even in the skewed population that does use the DCC, there is evidence > that making generalizations is very hard. There is 3X difference in > spam load per user depending on organization type judging from > http://www.dcc-servers.net/dcc/graphs/comp-rates Yes, I see that also among my customers. But we're looking for trends across the whole Internet. [...] > Consider the dangers of being able to > ask whether the system has seen a message with a sender of the hash of > "Bill Gates" and at recipeint of the hash of "Steve Jobs" today. You probably only want hashes of IP addresses, not e-mail addresses. If the DCC collected not only message hashes, but also the number of different IPs from which those messages originated, I bet we'd see some interesting data. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 16:03:27 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA03109 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:03:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27LF8I09885 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:15:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27LF8O09882 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:15:08 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA03053 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:02:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27LB4O09122; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:11:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27Kp7O06081 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:51:07 -0500 Received: from aismtp3g.bls.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA29934 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:38:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from 01AL10015010060.ad.bls.com ([90.152.5.135] [90.152.5.135]) by aismtp3g.bls.com with ESMTP; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:43:18 -0500 Received: by 01al10015010060.ad.bls.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:41:00 -0500 Message-Id: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D580@bremocag> From: "Sauer, Damon" To: "'Adam Back'" , Balachander Krishnamurthy Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: evaluating proposals against requirements (Re: [Asrg] require ments for a proposed solution + notion of consent) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:40:51 -0500 Ok.. here is my current climate for Friday 03/07/2003- RMX: is really neat, but all the it actually does is allow the validation of the sending server. It does nothing to actually stop the spam. As a postmaster, this concept still has me drooling all over myself as currently most of my spam is spoofed and each IP lookup takes time to insure that the spammer isn't using a legitimate service that I cannot block as a whole. I still believe that it can be incrementally deployed and AUP violators can be more easily identified and CHARGED $$$. DNSRBL: the issue I have with this is- What crazy person is entering the IP's? CONTENT FILTERING: I do this currently. There is a difference between context and content that has yet to be resolved and since it is programmatic, it can be eventually defeated. It is a horsepower hog. TOKENS: I have privacy issues with this if the token is generated by the sender. Virus writers and hackers could also hijack or misuse them. I am sure that point "i)" should be taken out for the time being. I believe that to be a personal preference and would restrict discussion of some really good ideas. I disagree on "h)" too. I believe that the actual sender of UCE should be charged $10 per email ;-) Have a good weekend all! Regards, Damon Sauer -----Original Message----- From: Adam Back [mailto:adam@cypherspace.org] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 2:26 PM To: Balachander Krishnamurthy Cc: asrg@ietf.org; Adam Back Subject: evaluating proposals against requirements (Re: [Asrg] requirements for a proposed solution + notion of consent) Those requirements sound good to me, it may not be possible to satisfy them all simultaneously but at least they express the problem so people can measure solutions against them. I've numbered them, let's measure a few of the current proposals against these: a) should minimize spam to some acceptable level b) should not prevent delivery of legitimate mail c) should not adversely impact valuable functionality d) should be easy to use (even for grandma) e) should be easy to deploy, incrementally f) should not depend on universal deployment to be effective g) should provide incentives to deploy for those doing the deployment h) senders and receivers should not have to pay additional monetary costs i) should not require new protocols j) there should be no additional impact on privacy (this presumes the solution is universally deployed for the sake of argument; deployability and chances of getting there are covered by 6, 7 and 9). 1) RMX plus fixed DNS b,d,h,j I think the rest it does not do. To explain a) I suspect there will still be lots of spam from AUP violations, and spammers who run their own RMX servers; c) complicates sending while travelling; e) if you deploy it incrementally you lose mail; f) can't reasonably be turned on until fully deployed; g) provides no incentive to deploy until critical mass is reached as you can't turn it on; i) it requires depoyment of new protocols. 2) Bayesian filters + hashcash + token white lists. a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,j About things it does not do: i) it requires deployment of extensions to existing protocols Some of the things it claims to do are not as effective as other solutions: a) it will reduce spam, but it won't stop it because it just increases the cost from 0.0001c to say 1c -- this may help because it may become more targetted; b) bayesian filters have a small but not zero false positive rate; f) before universal deployment you are relying on bayesian filters, and hashcash is just to avoid false positives; g) your incentive to deploy is to avoid mail you send being caught in false positives; h) individuals would have only CPU costs, which they probably already have sufficient spare resources for, some large organizations if they add tokens at the outgoing mail hub may have to upgrade hardware; Also about this approach: it's not clear how long Bayesian filters will hold-out -- they are effective now because of limited deployment, I suspect if deployment got to a high enough spammers might go the next level and win that arms race. I welcome any criticism of the ratings of either of these, and suggested ratings for other proposals. Adam _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg ***** "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers." _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 16:03:47 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA03144 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:03:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27LFSG09927 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:15:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27LFSO09924 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:15:28 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA03080 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:03:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27LE1O09797; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:14:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27LD1O09601 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:13:01 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA02722 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:00:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h27L2qk2002103 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:02:52 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303072102.h27L2qk2002103@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] MTP draft References: <8hPtvhVocDD@3247.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:02:52 -0700 (MST) > > waiting for the final acknowledgement. The recommended timeout here > > according to RFC 2821 is 10 minutes, so adding under a second of > > content-scanning shouldn't be a problem. > > The problem is that this phase is the one vulnerable to race conditions: > If the connection breaks between accepting the message and getting the > response through to the sender, a dupe will be created. So it's > desireable to keep that period of time as short as possible. 10 minutes is many eternities for any scanning that does not involve asking outside systems, and is several eternities even for some outside checking. Have there been any reports of increased dups associted with the use of Sendmail milter filters other than the DCC? I've certainly heard of nothing like that from users of DCC clients. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 16:09:27 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA03675 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:09:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27LL8x10542 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:21:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27LL8O10539 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:21:08 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA03595 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:08:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27LIOO10160; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:18:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27LDkO09739 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:13:46 -0500 Received: from mail.speakeasy.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA02906 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:01:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 22434 invoked from network); 7 Mar 2003 21:03:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO spiral.whatever.net) ([64.81.21.85]) (envelope-sender ) by mail11.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 7 Mar 2003 21:03:45 -0000 Received: from spiral.whatever.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by spiral.whatever.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h27L86RC026203 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:08:06 -0800 Received: from localhost (nathan@localhost) by spiral.whatever.net (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) with ESMTP id h27L85Ua026200 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:08:05 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: spiral.whatever.net: nathan owned process doing -bs From: Nate W X-Sender: nathan@spiral Reply-To: Asrg@ietf.org To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Economic model is borken. (sic.) Let's fix it In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:08:05 -0800 (PST) On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Kee Hinckley wrote: > At 11:40 PM -0800 3/6/03, Nate W wrote: > > > But fundamentally whitelisting fails without authentication. > > > >Fails occasionally, and would be greatly improved without authentication, > > It fails occasionally only because whitelisting is not widely used. > Use it widely and the spammers will adapt. I just had to reply to > someone's damn challenge response system on this list. It may have been mine, and (if the message above is any indication) it was probably because you addressed a reply directly to me (or whoever) while CCing the list. Sending replies to the list alone would make more sense, but that's neither here nor there. This may be optimistic, but I don't think spammers will adapt to widespread whitelisting. They'll try, but they'll fail. Maintaining "Millions" CDs of address pairs (recipient and a whitelisted sender known to work for that recipient) is a big job. First there's the problem of finding a whitelisted address that actually works. Then there's the fact that a single spam gets through, the address pair ceases to work. Two-Millions CDs might get popular, but they won't make much difference in the amount of spam actually seen by whitelist users. Sending spam with a customized address in the "From" header of every single outgoing message requires much more bandwidth than the usual relay hijack approach of sending a single message with many enevelope recipients. It does happen now, but AFAICT it's unusual, I assume because it requires enough bandwidth to get noticed and stopped. I'm curious about this though, if anyone has evidence to the contrary I'm all ears. (Note that I see whitelisting as a way to address the problem of time wasted by recipients. It does not solve the bandwidth-waste problem, in fact I acknowledge that it makes that problem worse.) > Any spammer wanting to hit people on this list need only browse the > archive, construct a list of who spoke to whom, and spam away. That assumes that there's a lot of off-list conversation going on among the list members. Having an autoresponder&whitelist setup reduces that a bit. :-) Having usable addresses posted in mailing list archives strikes me as an exceptionally bad idea, though. It's rather ironic that an anti-spam group would create such a resource for spammers. There's plenty of ways around this problem. > But the point is, and I think a large number of people have already > made it on this list, that solutions that require changing the MUA are > less likely to gain acceptance than systems at the MTA level. True, but I doubt that there will be an effective MTA-level solution. The information the MTA has to work with just isn't enough to make a reliable decision about consent. (Not to mention the number of MTAs controlled or hijacked by spammers.) We have DNSBLs and the like, and I think that's about as far as MTA-only solutions will get. Adding information for the MTA to base the consent decision upon will require changing the MUA at one end or the other. I'd love to believe that there's an MTA-only solution out there, but it seems to me that the MTAs don't have access to enough information to solve this problem. But again, I'd like to be persuaded to believe otherwise. > 1. Initially ISPs only block bulk email that doesn't match the > authorized domain standard. Sounds like an authenticated MTA-based whitelist. I like it. > 2. Over time as companies move to protect their domains (and that is > the incentive--protecting yourself from forgery), they can (or > individuals can) block based on domain or personal authentication > even for non-bulk email. Note that at this point there is still no > MUA change required unless you are sending email from a location > other than one authorized by your domain. How does one block email based on sender authentication information without adding authentication information to the message with an MUA? Perhaps I misunderstand; please elaborate. > I think that meets the necessary requirements of placing changes in > the locations where they are most likely to be made, and providing > for a gradual path to greater and greater security. > > What I don't know in that model, is how we deal with malicious ISPs. I like that model a lot. Two ideas come to mind for dealing with losers: Revoke their certificates. How this is accomplished is left as an exercise for the reader. Require member ISPs to join with a contract stating that they will: a) pay cleanup costs associated with spam from their domain; b) pay extra for their membership, with the extra cost paying for spam-control infrastructure; c) pay all costs associated with legally persuing individuals or organizations who send spam through that ISP (this should encourage the ISP to create and enforce strict terms of service for their customers); d) put a deposit in escrow upon joining, to be refunded if they leave the origanization on good terms, to be forfeited it to pay for expenses as above. This would be an obstacle to smaller ISPs though so I'm not real fond of this one. -- Nate Waddoups Redmond WA USA http://www.natew.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 16:24:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA05218 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:24:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27LaAe12115 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:36:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27LaAO12112 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:36:10 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA05165 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:23:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27LYMO11818; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:34:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27LLIO10572 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:21:19 -0500 Received: from mail010.syd.optusnet.com.au (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA03642 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:09:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from co3001591-a.troy.rollo.name (c18374.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [210.49.142.222]) by mail010.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27LB7023533; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 08:11:07 +1100 Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20030308080939.02416100@mail> X-Sender: (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 To: Balachander Krishnamurthy , asrg@ietf.org From: Troy Rollo Subject: Re: [Asrg] requirements for a proposed solution + notion of consent In-Reply-To: <200303071537.KAA14788@raptor.research.att.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 08:11:07 +1100 At 10:37 7/03/03 -0500, Balachander Krishnamurthy wrote: >- no new protocol should be required to implement such solutions (maybe >this is > covered in 'easy to deploy') I would qualify - no substitute protocol should be required. A new protocol that acts as an auxiliary mechanism can be as easy to deploy as anything else. -- Troy Rollo Chairman, CAUBE.AU asrg@troy.rollo.name Executive Director, iCAUCE _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 16:24:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA05233 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:24:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27LaCG12131 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:36:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27LaBO12128 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:36:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA05174 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:23:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27LYTO11947; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:34:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27LRHO11152 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:27:17 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA04295; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:15:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h27LH8j07188; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:17:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF44R4S; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:17:08 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBF87N; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:17:07 -0500 Message-ID: <3E690D15.5050502@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: asrg@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] SHEESH! References: <3E683B23.404@americasm01.nt.com> <200303071843.h27Ih97U018120@calcite.rhyolite.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 16:20:21 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Vernon Schryver wrote: >>From: "Chris Lewis" >>Vernon wrote: >>>I think they should also use the DCC to reject all bulk mail, but >>>that's probably only my bias speaking. >> >>That's a _much_ better idea than banning specific character sets or mime. > Maybe so or maybe not. Using the DCC to reject all bulk mail would > prune a lot of conference announcements and calls for papers. I think > that would be a good thing, but I know others disagree with me. Not _inbound_ to the IETF. Only if they spammed it, got DCC reports, and then forwarded to the IETF would it get blocked. Which is what you want, no? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 16:24:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA05281 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:24:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27LaP612182 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:36:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27LaOO12175 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:36:24 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA05193 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:24:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27LYKO11794; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:34:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27LKkO10464 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:20:46 -0500 Received: from slarti.muc.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id QAA03496 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:08:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 2540 invoked by uid 66); 7 Mar 2003 21:10:38 -0000 Received: from faerber.muc.de by slarti.muc.de with BSMTP (rsmtp-qm-ot 0.4) for asrg@ietf.org; 7 Mar 2003 21:10:38 -0000 Received: by faerber.muc.de (OpenXP/32 v3.9.4 (Win32) alpha @ 2003-03-07-1751d); 07 Mar 2003 22:10:29 +0000 From: list-ietf-antispam@faerber.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Claus_F=E4rber?=) To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <8hPucXg3cDD@3247.org> User-Agent: OpenXP/32 v3.9.4 (Win32) alpha @ 2003-03-07-1751d MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Asrg] Peer to Peer MTA network Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 07 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0000 Hallo, I'd like to present an idea how MTAs could cooperate to stop spamming hosts: * Each MTA host calculates a "score" of each host (IP address) it receives mail from. Messages received from another host contribute to a bad score, if they eventually bounce, are filtered by a message filter or are registered as bad by any other means. Mail that is sucessfully delivered adds to a good score. (The idea is, of course, that bad hosts will send a large number of "bad" mail, i.e. mail that bounces or is filtered. On the other hand, mailing lists tend to send a large number of good messages.) It also calculates a degree of reliability of that score based on the number of messages used and/or the reliability of each individual value the calculation of the score is based on. (This would work well with filters whose output is also some sort of non-boolean "spamicity", e.g. Bayesian filters.) * Each MTA shares its score of other hosts with other MTAs by using some sort of peer-to-peer network. (For example, UDP packets. Other hosts could be found automatically whenever a SMTP connection is made.) Of course, public keys are used for authentication. * Each MTA compares the values it reveives from other hosts with its own calculated values and assigns each host (that is, each public key) a credibility factor based on how much its own calculated values agree with that of other hosts. Of course, it takes the reliabilty of all values into account. (For example, it host A a good score for a host C with a high reliability, it will assign a bad credibility for a host B that claims a bad score for C with a high credibility. It wouldn't give B such a bad credibility if either A or B had assigned a lower reliability for that score.) (The credibility is not only to detect rouge hosts, it can also be used against bad implementations or hosts that just tend to disagree.) * Based on the own calculations and the data a host gets from other hosts, it calculates the probability that a host (IP) connecting will try to send "bad" mail. (This should be statistically equivalent to a calculation based on the good to bad ratio over all receiving MTAs.) * Depending on this probability, it can then take counter-measures. As a general rule, counter-measures should only delay mail receipt of messages (and not cause bounces or even drop messages silently). Examples: * disabling PIPELINING (and checking that a host does not use it nevertheless, which is a common behaviour of spamming sites). * accepting only a low number of recipients per connection. * random generation of transient(!) errors. * refusing SMTP connections randomly. * Teergrubing, i.e. causing long delays by sending responses with a large number of continuation lines at long intervals. The idea is that one host that start spamming will set off the alarm by sending a large number of bad messages: messages that bounce or are labelled as bad by filters. Ideally, it should not make a differencs if a large number of messages is sent to a single host or a low number to a large number of different hosts. In both cases, all hosts should quickly assign a bad score to the spamming host. The desired result is that the spamming host is slowed down more and more until it can't send mail efficiently any longer. Hopefully, this happens before the spammer has spammed most of the net. Claus -- http://www.faerber.muc.de/ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 16:25:13 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA05362 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:25:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27Las512286 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:36:54 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27LasO12283 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:36:54 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA05272 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:24:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27LYBO11757; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:34:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27LJBO10232 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:19:11 -0500 Received: from mail013.syd.optusnet.com.au (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA03327 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:06:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from co3001591-a.troy.rollo.name (c18374.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [210.49.142.222]) by mail013.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27L8wE16415; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 08:08:58 +1100 Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20030308075934.02412e20@mail> X-Sender: (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 To: "Tom Thomson" , From: Troy Rollo Subject: Re: [Asrg] RE: claims about law In-Reply-To: References: <20030306214803.17918.52367.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 08:08:58 +1100 At 11:12 7/03/03 +0000, Tom Thomson wrote: > > 3.4. The likely endgame for this behaviour is to force senders of > > unwanted bulk e-mail to stop lying about who they are, which is > > illegal in meatspace anyway > >Why spoil what might otherwise be a fairly decent piece of work with a >blatantly nonsensical claim like this? In the UK, the only time I am >required to identify myself as the publisher of something is when I publish >election literature for a local, national, or European government election >(plus cases where an identity of the publisher is inherently part of the >publication, such as certain legal notices). There is a difference between mere anonymity and actual misrepresentation as to identity. Misrepresentation as to identity may constitute the torts of deceit (if it causes damage to a person who relies on the misrepresentation to their detriment), passing off (if it causes a person to believe the product is being offered by an unrelated business), or defamation (if it represents that another person or business is the spammer). If done in trade or commerce, any misrepresentation, even an inadvertent one, may be illegal without more under fair trading statutes. If an intentional misrepresentation (that is, a deception) is made with the intention of making a financial gain by that misrepresentation, it may be a criminal offence under statutes supplementing the law of larceny. The use of the domain name of another where the domain name reflects the holder's trademark may be illegal under trademark statutes. Some of these have even been successfully tested in relation to fraudulent misidentification by spammers. -- Troy Rollo Chairman, CAUBE.AU asrg@troy.rollo.name Executive Director, iCAUCE _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 16:28:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA05735 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:28:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27LeFE13457 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:40:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27LeFO13454 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:40:15 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA05690 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:28:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27Lc1O13186; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:38:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27Lb9O12547 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:37:09 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA05321 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:24:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h27LQxtS005958 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:26:59 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303072126.h27LQxtS005958@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Collecting statistics References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:26:59 -0700 (MST) > From: "David F. Skoll" > ... > > Consider the dangers of being able to > > ask whether the system has seen a message with a sender of the hash of > > "Bill Gates" and at recipeint of the hash of "Steve Jobs" today. > > You probably only want hashes of IP addresses, not e-mail addresses. > If the DCC collected not only message hashes, but also the number of > different IPs from which those messages originated, I bet we'd see > some interesting data. Please think how you would utilize such a system if you were a bad guy or just trolling for interesting information for buying and selling stock. Traffic analysis can be applied to more than just names. The DCC can also collect hashes of IP addresses. At Paul Vixie's suggestion, early versions could answer questions like "how many messages with this body checksum had this source IP address?" To mitigate the obvious privacy worries even in the original business model where all DCC servers would be run by a reasonable trustworty outfit as well as to deal with performance issues, the results were imprecise. I removed those mechanisms as the model changed and to gain performance. Please also consider the amount of data you are talking about. You will probably collect 500 or 1000 bytes per mail message. (A dozen 16- byte checksums, pointers, counts, padding, etc.) If you sample 1% of mail, and accept my guess that's 100 M msgs/day, you're talking about collecting and reducing 100 GBytes of data/day. You'd need to repeat your measurements every day for a week, because spam varies during the data and during the week. You'd also want to repeat it every few weeks to catch long term changes. Arithmetic gives numbers that would need a serious source funds. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 16:32:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA06083 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:32:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27LiB413871 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:44:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27LiBO13868 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:44:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA06030 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:31:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27Lf3O13545; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:41:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27LewO13494 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:40:58 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA05756 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:28:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc02.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h27LUo3Z002534; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:30:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:30:50 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: Jonathan Wilkins , Chris Lewis Cc: ietf anti-spam research group Subject: RE: pros and cons of RMX (Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:30:41 -0800 > If an attacker fails when spoofing foo.com they can turn > around and spoof bar.com. If that fails too, they can keep > trying until they manage to get something cached. This attack is very easily prevented. It has only a chance of 1 in 2^16 of succeeding per spoofing try. The DNS client can very easily detect attempts at spoofing. It simply keeps a record of unsolicited DNS responses. So if the DNS client receives 10 unsolicited responses for xyz.com the client simply notes that it is under attack from a party wanting to spoof that address. So the probability of success withthat threshold is 1 in 6636. > You always know where to spoof. You send the packets at > the SMTP server, since that's the machine that's going to > make a request of it's server. That is not going to work. The SMTP server knows what the address of its DNS server is. You may know the destination address but you don't know the source. If it is an issue you can secure the DNS client/server connection using TSIG. I do not find this attack to be persuasive. I might have concerns if we were considering a cryptographic protocol intended to provide robust confidentiality and integrity. However for our particular application the perfect is going to be the enemy of the good. The IETF has not been particularly good at designing security protocols. The only two major successes, Kerberos and SSL were both developed and deployed successfully before being brought to the IETF. Internally developed security protocols have tended to fall victim to requirements bloat leading to protocols that are too inflexible to deploy. For example we could have easily provided a usefull degree of security in SMTP by simply incorporating a certificateless DH key exchange to secure the connection. That idea was squashed as there is a man-in-the-middle vulnerability so we have had NOTHING instead - until people started to use STARTTLS in a configuration that i actually vulnerable to that same MITM attack. All we have to do to defeat spam is to reduce the probability of success to 1 in 100 or so and the spam sender costs are toast. We have a technology already designed and deploed in 100 million clients that reduces the probability of success to 1 in 2^128 - S/MIME. Only it is not going to provide a solution at current deployment rates. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 16:32:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA06121 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:32:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27LiPa13899 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:44:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27LiOO13896 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:44:24 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA06053 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:32:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27Lg1O13666; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:42:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27Lf2O13541 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:41:02 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA05763 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:28:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc02.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h27LUr3Z002544; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:30:53 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:30:53 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: Keith Moore , David Jameson Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:30:42 -0800 > snail mail spammers routinely pay considerably larger sums. > why wouldn't they They do so with considerably greater concern for targetting. We need to be realistic in our definition of success. Signitificantly reducing but not eliminating spam completely is a major success. AOL recently got a billion spams in a day. That means that each week AOL is getting as much spam as Hormel have ever made. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 16:36:08 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA06414 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:36:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27LlmE14160 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:47:48 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27LlmO14157 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:47:48 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA06360 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:35:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27LjHO14004; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:45:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27LivO13951 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:44:57 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA06118 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:32:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (zcard307.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h27LYjj08324 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:34:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDFBJQSW; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:34:46 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBF877; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:34:45 -0500 Message-ID: <3E691138.5070007@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 16:38:00 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alan DeKok wrote: > Kee Hinckley wrote: >>I know of at least one ISP (and I'm sure there are others) that do >>this. He blocks based on bounces. As soon as he blocks an IP, >>another one starts sending him the spam. This goes on for thousands >>of IPs. > I spent a few days last year blocking IP's based on bounces. It > went as follows: > > > > > No end in sight, >>I seriously wonder if there isn't some rather sophisticated >>distributed server spam software running out there on rooted servers, >>and we just haven't figured it out yet. > That would fit the data I'm seeing. Both the analysis I've done on your spamtrap, and the analysis I've done on ours, would indicate that you don't need to go to these lengths to "fit the data". The simpler answer is "Millions CDs and LOTS of open proxies/relays". I've generally not seen IPs _notice_ that we're rejecting email. It's simply that certain spam variants are sent from literally thousands of different IPs. Ie: debt consolidation, viagra, HGH. Some of this is certainly orchestrated from central points (eg: Ralsky's operations), but I don't see anything to indicate that even Ralsky makes use of the rejection information to "drive" his forwarders differentially. > Of course, 10,000 clueless small-scale spammers would also fit the > data, but I think that's less likely. A few Millions CD/open proxy/socks ratware owners would explain it too. Spot checks of both your and our data showed a high correlation between source IPs and IPs already blacklisted by BOPM, Monkeys, OSIRUS proxy/socks et al. Note also that if they're using open relays, with the usual forged MAIL FROM (which is a pretty high percentage of spam), the spammer _CANNOT_ see the rejects or bounces. However, I have seen reports of stealth spamware trojans from ISP abuse desks. This is where somehow a piece of software got installed onto a user's machine, that instead of listening for inbound connects (like an open proxy), periodically calls _out_ to the spammer, and retrieves instructions on what to do. No details or forensics seen yet. These are truly nasty, because you can't scan for them. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 16:37:04 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA06500 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:37:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27Lmi514272 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:48:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27LmiO14269 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:48:44 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA06470 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:36:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27Ll1O14124; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:47:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27LkiO14095 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:46:44 -0500 Received: from mail.speakeasy.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA06267 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:34:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 27800 invoked from network); 7 Mar 2003 21:36:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO spiral.whatever.net) ([64.81.21.85]) (envelope-sender ) by mail14.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 7 Mar 2003 21:36:44 -0000 Received: from spiral.whatever.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by spiral.whatever.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h27Lf4RC026415 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:41:04 -0800 Received: from localhost (nathan@localhost) by spiral.whatever.net (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) with ESMTP id h27Lf3Qh026412 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:41:03 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: spiral.whatever.net: nathan owned process doing -bs From: Nate W X-Sender: nathan@spiral Reply-To: Asrg@ietf.org To: Asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20030307192548.A4583931@exeter.ac.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Asrg] Re: evaluating proposals against requirements Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:41:03 -0800 (PST) On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Adam Back wrote: > Those requirements sound good to me, it may not be possible to satisfy > them all simultaneously but at least they express the problem so > people can measure solutions against them. I've numbered them, let's > measure a few of the current proposals against these: > > a) should minimize spam to some acceptable level May I suggest splitting that into two criteria? 1) should reduce the network bandwidth consumed by spam (including related transmissions such as bounce messages) 2) should reduce the number of unwanted messages presented to the end user -- Nate Waddoups Redmond WA USA http://www.natew.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 16:37:49 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA06553 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:37:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27LnT414398 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:49:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27LnTO14394 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:49:29 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA06537 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:37:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27Lm1O14197; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:48:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27LlXO14142 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:47:33 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA06337; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:35:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h27LbPQ9008005 env-from ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:37:25 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303072137.h27LbPQ9008005@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] SHEESH! References: <3E690D15.5050502@americasm01.nt.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:37:25 -0700 (MST) > From: "Chris Lewis" > ... > > Maybe so or maybe not. Using the DCC to reject all bulk mail would > > prune a lot of conference announcements and calls for papers. I think > > that would be a good thing, but I know others disagree with me. > > Not _inbound_ to the IETF. > > Only if they spammed it, got DCC reports, and then forwarded to the IETF > would it get blocked. Which is what you want, no? I don't understand. The right way to apply the DCC to IETF mailing lists would be with addressee threasholds of 5 or at most 10 to allow a little cross-posting. Any message received by an IETF SMTP server and sent to more than 5 or 10 addresses would be rejected as "unsolicited bulk" using 5 or 10 as the definition of "bulk" and the notion that no IETF mailing list ever solicits any bulk mail. CFPs are often bulkier than 5 or 10 when they first appear on an IETF mailing list. After one copy has been exploded on one IETF list, another copy to another IETF list is likely to be a 100 or 1000 times bulkier. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 16:37:59 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA06568 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:37:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27Lndv14420 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:49:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27LndO14417 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:49:39 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA06546 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:37:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27Lm3O14229; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:48:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27LlsO14174 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:47:54 -0500 Received: from mail016.syd.optusnet.com.au (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA06382 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:35:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from co3001591-a.troy.rollo.name (c18374.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [210.49.142.222]) by mail016.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27LbjI32408 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 08:37:45 +1100 Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20030308083118.02408220@mail> X-Sender: (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Troy Rollo Subject: Re: [Asrg] Economic model is borken. (sic.) Let's fix it In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 08:37:45 +1100 At 13:08 7/03/03 -0800, Nate W wrote: >This may be optimistic, but I don't think spammers will adapt to >widespread whitelisting. They'll try, but they'll fail. Maintaining >"Millions" CDs of address pairs (recipient and a whitelisted sender known >to work for that recipient) is a big job. 1. That's not the only way to adapt to whitelisting. 2. This ignores the damage done by whitelisting. See pp17-22 of http://www.noie.gov.au/projects/confidence/Improving/Spam/Interim_Report/CAUBE_Sub.pdf In fact if you haven't been working on the spam problem for a few years at least, you should probably be reading that whole document in order to come up to speed (or at least to have enough basic knowledge to start evaluating proposed solutions). -- Troy Rollo Chairman, CAUBE.AU asrg@troy.rollo.name Executive Director, iCAUCE _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 16:42:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA06963 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:42:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27LsBx14972 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:54:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27LsBO14969 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:54:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA06918 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:42:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27Lq3O14721; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:52:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27LpAO14529 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:51:10 -0500 Received: from mail.speakeasy.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA06634 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:38:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 27655 invoked from network); 7 Mar 2003 21:41:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO spiral.whatever.net) ([64.81.21.85]) (envelope-sender ) by mail11.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 7 Mar 2003 21:41:11 -0000 Received: from spiral.whatever.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by spiral.whatever.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h27LjVRC026449 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:45:31 -0800 Received: from localhost (nathan@localhost) by spiral.whatever.net (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) with ESMTP id h27LjVOm026446 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:45:31 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: spiral.whatever.net: nathan owned process doing -bs From: Nate W X-Sender: nathan@spiral Reply-To: Asrg@ietf.org To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Stamps In-Reply-To: <20030307142012.216ae1a5.moore@cs.utk.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:45:31 -0800 (PST) On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Keith Moore wrote: > As for challenge/response schemes, they're fine for people who want to > use them. But I find them so annoying (even with whitelists) that I'm > unlikely to impose them on people who send me mail. Maybe if we could > automate them somehow so that users didn't have to deal with them > directly, they wouldn't be so annoying. That's a bit of a double-edge sword, since if you can automate them, the spammers can automate them. On the other hand, I think the odds are low that a spammer can maintain a return address that actually functions long enough to reply to a significant number of whitelist confirmations. Not to mention that the reward for accomplishing such is getting exactly one bit of spam through to a user; once it arrives, the user is likely to blacklist the newly whitelisted address. -- Nate Waddoups Redmond WA USA http://www.natew.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 16:44:57 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA07216 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:44:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27LubE15225 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:56:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27LubO15222 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:56:37 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA07133 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:44:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27Lt2O15097; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:55:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27LslO15039 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:54:47 -0500 Received: from co1.dslextreme.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA06978 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:42:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from kit (eli-208.187.128.5.dslextreme.com [208.187.128.5]) by co1.dslextreme.com (8.12.8/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h27LgXD1022789 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:42:34 -0800 Message-ID: <011d01c2e4f3$68152fc0$0580bbd0@kit> From: "Jed Margolin" To: References: <00a101c2e40b$54e40cc0$ca81bbd0@kit> <3E68E118.6000305@cove-mtn.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Let's try something different MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.3000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:49:17 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Brad Davis wrote: > Jed Margolin wrote: > > 1. Sender's email is stored on Sender's server. Recipient is sent a message > > with a unique link to the message and a maximum Subject line of 80 > > alphanumeric characters. > > As has been pointed out, spammers are already going down this path with HTML > encoded email. The HTML encoded spam I receive uses bandwidth *and* links. > > 2. Sender can be anonymous, but not to Sender's ISP. There will be a feature > > (a button) so Recipient can tell Sender's ISP, "Don't send me any further > > email from this Sender." > > > > 3. Broadcasting is prohibited. If Sender wishes to send 1 million identical > > messages, then Sender's server will contain 1 million copies of the message. > > > > 4. Sender's ISP will be notified if (and when) the email has been read so it > > can be deleted from Sender's server. Alternatively, email can be deleted > > from Sender's server at the end of the day (or week) that it is read. > > These are useless since the spamming software (and often the spamming machine) > is controlled by the spammer. (Some of the most "interesting" spam I've > received is for software to do spamming from a Windows PC without the need for > an ISP mail server (complete with a list of open SMTP relays and other open > proxies to use)). Why would someone leave their SMTP relay open? > Solutions must assume that the other side (the spam server) is totally under > control of spammers, that the other software was completely written by and for > spammers, that the other ISP supports spamming (it can be lucrative for the > ISP), and that the ISP's connection to the backbone is supportive of spamming > (spamming may provide needed hard cash for poor 3rd world nations). Traffic from ISPs who refuse to play by the rules will be refused by the Internet Community. In other words, they will be excommunicated. JM _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 16:50:49 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA07726 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:50:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27M2Tw16343 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 17:02:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27M2TO16340 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 17:02:29 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA07709 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:50:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27M1AO16254; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 17:01:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27M0rO15968 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 17:00:53 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA07635 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:48:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h27LojBD027376 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:50:45 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20030307214800.14179.33021.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> Message-ID: References: <20030307214800.14179.33021.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Asrg] DCC and IP addresses Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:50:45 -0500 (EST) > The DCC can also collect hashes of IP addresses. At Paul Vixie's > suggestion, early versions could answer questions like "how many messages > with this body checksum had this source IP address?" That's not what we want. We want to answer this question: "Has the message with this checksum originated from more than X distinct IP addresses in the last Y hours?" This query lets you detect open-relay and proxy abusers. Although it looks like the DCC servers have to collect the IP information, they don't have to give it out. So the potential for abuse is limited to the people who run the DCC servers, not to anyone who can query them. > Please also consider the amount of data you are talking about. You > will probably collect 500 or 1000 bytes per mail message. No; way less than this. For a mail message, we collect the body checksum, the sending-IP checksum and maybe a few flags indicating failed RCPT commands. At most 60-100 bytes/message. > If you sample 1% of mail, and accept my guess that's 100 M msgs/day, > you're talking about collecting and reducing 100 GBytes of data/day. I'm thinking 10GB/day. You're right; the current DCC scheme of flooding breaks down. So we use a DNS-like approach. A network of DCC servers are responsible for different portions of the checksum space. So if we're interested in a message with checksum abcd1234..., the "root" DCC servers tell us which servers collect statistics for the abcd... subspace. Within a given subspace, you can use flooding for redundancy. > You'd need to > repeat your measurements every day for a week, because spam varies > during the data and during the week. You'd also want to repeat it > every few weeks to catch long term changes. Arithmetic gives numbers > that would need a serious source funds. Or a more scalable architecture than flooding the database. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 16:57:06 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA07950 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:57:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27M8ln17517 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 17:08:47 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27M8kO17514 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 17:08:46 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA07938 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:56:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27M62O16632; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 17:06:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27M5KO16587 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 17:05:20 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA07830 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:53:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h27LtAj09412 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:55:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF44SGM; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:55:10 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBF88P; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:55:10 -0500 Message-ID: <3E691600.6010001@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Nucleus of a draft BCP on filtering Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 16:58:24 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This is something I wrote as a general high level set of suggestions for spam filtering. While it tends to stress current technologies (source and content filtering), it does have some applicability to other techniques. May be useful as a starting point for a BCP on spam filtering. Guiding General Principles: - spam is UBE (unsolicited bulk email) - spam is a behaviour, not a content - a spam filter is not an enforcer of your user's morals, but the protection of your user's mailboxes from timewasting stuff they don't want. - in any but the smallest environment, some spam will get through and some non-spam will be filtered. User expectation must be managed. Provision must be made for detecting and dealing with false positives. - spammers resort to the most extreme (sometimes criminal) measures to get around filtering as well as making the "message" as intrusive as possible. - every spam block should be inline rejected with a contact point for mistakes. - spam should not be bounced - headers are almost always forged, thus bounces go to the wrong places, and often harrass innocent third parties. Mail should be rejected during the SMTP transaction to provide feed back to legitimate senders. - you need to come up with a guidance metric for what level of false positives is acceptable. Because there _will_ be false positives in any but the most trivial and/or ineffective of spam filtering environments. - Environments differ - filtering that may be okay for one may not be acceptable for another. Hence, purchased anti-spam services are sometimes highly sub-optimal. General techniques: - spam is a behaviour, not a content. You're trying to identify the sender behaving that way, not the material per-se. - Blocking on simplistic body word matches, no matter how attractive they appear to be do not work effectively in any but the smallest environments. Even "fuck" appears in legitimate business email. Filtering techniques should attempt to detect only those things that ordinary users cannot do inadvertently, and spammers cannot bypass. - sometimes simplistic content rules work if the rule is "unique" or "unusual" enough. FPs must be monitored within your false positive goals. - header patterns (of spamware), and mail sources (IP ranges and rDNS names) are generally more effective and less FP-prone than simplistic content filters. - Massive spammers are evolving towards "borrowing" innocent third parties for final delivery to your server. Open SMTP relay, open SOCKS proxy, open HTTP proxy. It is not practical to test for these in real-time. You need to rely on third party blacklists. - There are many blacklists. Ranging from hyper-aggressive to totally ineffective. From professionally run to maintained out of spite and hatred. Blacklists should be evaluated for effectiveness rate, FP rate, and professionalism of maintenance. - In some cases your policies will conflict with the blacklists, so you need to be prepared to whitelist sources. - You need the ability to whitelist on sender, recipient and source. - Filtered email should be stored for a reasonable time. - Filtered email should be available for viewing by the end users to help detect and rectify false positives. - Non-existant recipient addresses are valuable - you can use them to detect spammers with little false positive risk (honeypot). _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 17:18:04 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA09614 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 17:18:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27MTjc19296 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 17:29:45 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27MTjO19293 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 17:29:45 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA09603 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 17:17:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27MS8O19235; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 17:28:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27MMGO18855 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 17:22:16 -0500 Received: from backbone.midwestcs.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA09014 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 17:10:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from footbone.midwestcs.com ([206.222.212.237] helo=midwestcs.com) by backbone.midwestcs.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18rQ4R-0004td-00 for ; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 16:12:03 -0600 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: pros and cons of RMX (Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world) (fwd) References: <00d801c2e4d4$e02620b0$4d9cf140@rtr.com> <200303072019.h27KJbB7027471@calcite.rhyolite.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: wayne In-Reply-To: <200303072019.h27KJbB7027471@calcite.rhyolite.com> Message-ID: Lines: 47 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanner: exiscan *18rQ4R-0004td-00*FhETnMsnGV6* () Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 07 Mar 2003 16:12:02 -0600 In <200303072019.h27KJbB7027471@calcite.rhyolite.com> Vernon Schryver writes: > > From: "Gary Feldman" > > > > There is a difference between the From_ header and the From: header. > > > > As suggested in my previous email, I find the use of the term "From_ > > header" confusing. > > Such alarms are valuable because imprecise language often indicates > imprecise or simply wrong thinking. > > I can't say what the other person meant, but: > > [ correct explaination deleted ] Thanks for giving Gary the explanation Vernon, I'm sorry for any confusion my archaic terminology caused and for exposing my UUCP roots. I'll try to use more modern (and accurate) terminology in the future. For what is worth, there are still thousands of references to "from_ header" out there on the net. The point remains that domain specific DNSBLs are incredibly easy to implement and to provide some measure of authentication of where mail claims to be from. I still have doubts about whether this authentication will reduce the spam problem. I have much stronger doubts about whether adding a new DNS RMX record will be worth the effort. For what it is worth, Spamassassin already does some of these kinds of checks. There appears to be some better spots to do this kind of checking in spamassassin than my original 20 line patch used. I may try hacking on SA a little more to see if I can get a good, general patch that others can test. The nice thing about spamassassin is that no single check will cause a false positive. You can check all sorts of headers via a DSDNSBL and as long as there is some correspondence between "unauthorized" use of a domain and spam, it can be a useful check. -wayne _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 17:33:54 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA10357 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 17:33:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27Mjaa21450 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 17:45:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27MjZO21447 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 17:45:35 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA10352 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 17:33:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27MX2O19496; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 17:33:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27MSNO19263 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 17:28:23 -0500 Received: from mail2.microsoft.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA09571 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 17:16:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from INET-VRS-02.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.8.110]) by mail2.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6624); Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:18:14 -0800 Received: from 157.54.6.150 by INET-VRS-02.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Fri, 07 Mar 2003 14:18:13 -0800 Received: from RED-MSG-06.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.12.198]) by INET-HUB-05.redmond.corp.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3765.0); Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:18:16 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.6851.8 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: pros and cons of RMX (Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world) Message-ID: <7695E2F6903F7A41961F8CF888D87EA809F5CA5C@red-msg-06.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> Thread-Topic: pros and cons of RMX (Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world) thread-index: AcLk8NZcL21uQnSgS9CW02WBfpY26gABijJA From: "Jonathan Wilkins" To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , "Chris Lewis" Cc: "ietf anti-spam research group" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Mar 2003 22:18:16.0716 (UTC) FILETIME=[739784C0:01C2E4F7] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h27MSNO19264 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:18:05 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I agree completely that if you go ahead and give your SMTP server knowledge of what's happening in your DNS server that this attack can be thwarted. However this is bad design. You're creating a linkage that is unnecessary. Why not look for an alternative transport. Why are you so stuck on using DNS? Allowing a mail administrator to state that "only these IP addresses will send mail for my domain" isn't a horrible idea. It is the use of DNS as a transport for this statement that is the problem. -----Original Message----- From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip [mailto:pbaker@verisign.com] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 1:31 PM To: Jonathan Wilkins; Chris Lewis Cc: ietf anti-spam research group > If an attacker fails when spoofing foo.com they can turn > around and spoof bar.com. If that fails too, they can keep > trying until they manage to get something cached. This attack is very easily prevented. It has only a chance of 1 in 2^16 of succeeding per spoofing try. The DNS client can very easily detect attempts at spoofing. It simply keeps a record of unsolicited DNS responses. So if the DNS client receives 10 unsolicited responses for xyz.com the client simply notes that it is under attack from a party wanting to spoof that address. So the probability of success withthat threshold is 1 in 6636. > You always know where to spoof. You send the packets at > the SMTP server, since that's the machine that's going to > make a request of it's server. That is not going to work. The SMTP server knows what the address of its DNS server is. You may know the destination address but you don't know the source. If it is an issue you can secure the DNS client/server connection using TSIG. I do not find this attack to be persuasive. I might have concerns if we were considering a cryptographic protocol intended to provide robust confidentiality and integrity. However for our particular application the perfect is going to be the enemy of the good. The IETF has not been particularly good at designing security protocols. The only two major successes, Kerberos and SSL were both developed and deployed successfully before being brought to the IETF. Internally developed security protocols have tended to fall victim to requirements bloat leading to protocols that are too inflexible to deploy. For example we could have easily provided a usefull degree of security in SMTP by simply incorporating a certificateless DH key exchange to secure the connection. That idea was squashed as there is a man-in-the-middle vulnerability so we have had NOTHING instead - until people started to use STARTTLS in a configuration that i actually vulnerable to that same MITM attack. All we have to do to defeat spam is to reduce the probability of success to 1 in 100 or so and the spam sender costs are toast. We have a technology already designed and deploed in 100 million clients that reduces the probability of success to 1 in 2^128 - S/MIME. Only it is not going to provide a solution at current deployment rates. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 18:25:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA14055 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:25:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27NbKf25519 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:37:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27NbJO25510 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:37:19 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA14006 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:25:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27NMAO24163; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:22:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27NBlO23791 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:11:47 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12037 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 17:59:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h27N1Zhx016941 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:01:35 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303072301.h27N1Zhx016941@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] DCC and IP addresses References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:01:35 -0700 (MST) > From: "David F. Skoll" > ... > Although it looks like the DCC servers have to collect the IP > information, they don't have to give it out. So the potential for > abuse is limited to the people who run the DCC servers, not to anyone > who can query them. That's not an effective response to the privace issues. As I said, that reasoning seemed almost ok when it was thought that DCC servers would be run by one organization. The current, real life global network of ~120 DCC servers already involves far more people and organizations than I think can be trusted. It's not that any single DCC server operator is untrustworthy, but that every group of 120 or more people is untrustworthy. > ... > > Please also consider the amount of data you are talking about. You > > will probably collect 500 or 1000 bytes per mail message. > > No; way less than this. For a mail message, we collect the body > checksum, the sending-IP checksum and maybe a few flags indicating > failed RCPT commands. At most 60-100 bytes/message. If I thought you knew how to make a single checksum that is fuzzy enough to ignore "hashbusters" but not so fuzzy that it has false positives, I'd ask you in private about it. I've spent years thinking about that problem and listening to other people's ideas. My imperfect current solution involves 3 checksums. A single naive checksum would discover no two IP addresses ever send the same message, except for trivial cases such as some virus warnings, because its answers would all differ. > ... > You're right; the current DCC scheme of flooding breaks down. I suspect you don't understand it, because the DCC scheme of flooding doesn't just break down for what you are talking about; it's irrelevant. DCC serves database currently run at 100-400 MByte. The default non-spam expiration for the cheksums in the databases averages 1.5 days. At 20 Mmsgs/day, that's 30 Msgs, or 1-4 bytes message. While I'm a hopeless, old-school bit-fiddler, I can't cram 3 16-byte MD5 body checksums, flags, pointers, and the rest of the stuff needed for a database into 1-4 bytes message. > ... > Or a more scalable architecture than flooding the database. While this mailing list is under the auspices of the IRTF, it should not be used for unsupported wouldn't-it-be-nice-if speculation. "Running code" often matters even IRTF lists. I've already said more than I should have about the practicality what the proposal. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 18:26:47 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA14151 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:26:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27NcTP26040 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:38:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27NcTO26037 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:38:29 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA14103 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:26:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27NU2O24753; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:30:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27NTSO24717 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:29:28 -0500 Received: from flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA13586 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:17:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.133.182] helo=envy.indecency.org) by flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18rR7U-0002bV-00; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 15:19:16 -0800 From: Keith Moore To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, david@thejamesons.com, Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) Message-Id: <20030307181542.414be7ea.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:15:42 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > snail mail spammers routinely pay considerably larger sums. > > why wouldn't they > > They do so with considerably greater concern for targetting. > > We need to be realistic in our definition of success. Signitificantly > reducing but not eliminating spam completely is a major success. it's not clear that this would significantly reduce spam. it might reduce the number of recipients per mailing, but increase the number of spammers. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 18:30:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA14426 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:30:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27NfmV26342 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:41:48 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27NfmO26339 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:41:48 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA14404 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:29:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27Nd5O26113; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:39:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27NcVO26058 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:38:31 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA14107 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:26:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2089273 for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 18:28:22 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: Asrg@ietf.org From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Economic model is borken. (sic.) Let's fix it Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:27:26 -0500 At 1:08 PM -0800 3/7/03, Nate W wrote: >Sending spam with a customized address in the "From" header of every >single outgoing message requires much more bandwidth than the usual relay >hijack approach of sending a single message with many enevelope >recipients. It does happen now, but AFAICT it's unusual, I assume because >it requires enough bandwidth to get noticed and stopped. I'm curious >about this though, if anyone has evidence to the contrary I'm all ears. I just ran a database query on 22,000 pieces of confirmed spam. They came from 18,000 distinct email addresses. They already have to change the from header because they need to avoid filters and checksums. In fact, if I look at the top repeating addresses most of them are actually viruses. The rest are messages from spam-friendly bulkmailers (GreatDeals, DailyInbox, ClickForMail...). Now admittedly, that's on a small user-base and over time. You'd need to talk to someone with a huge real-time database to get an idea of how frequently they change the data. >Having usable addresses posted in mailing list archives strikes me as an >exceptionally bad idea, though. It's rather ironic that an anti-spam I've long since given up worrying about obscuring my email address. My experience has been that your address on one web page or having it on 4000 does not make much difference in how much spam you get. Having it on one just means the spam ramps up a bit more slowly. I'm not going to let spammers get in the way of people communicating with me--whether by obscuring my email address or by using challenge response systems. Then again. Microsoft put my webmaster address on every template shipped in one version of FrontPage. So I'm kind of resigned to having my addresses public. The number of sites that change the text of the mailto but not the data is scary. The number of people who click on it and don't notice (or know to edit the address) is even more so. >True, but I doubt that there will be an effective MTA-level solution. >The information the MTA has to work with just isn't enough to make a >reliable decision about consent. (Not to mention the number of MTAs >controlled or hijacked by spammers.) We have DNSBLs and the like, and I >think that's about as far as MTA-only solutions will get. Adding >information for the MTA to base the consent decision upon will require >changing the MUA at one end or the other. First of all, I think we can go a long way without even thinking about consent. You need to leverage incentive. Legitimate bulk mailers (like ZDNet and those that handle commercial mailings) are running scared. Two many anti-spam solutions are likely to nail them. (Especially the ones that talk about economic models.) They are incented to authenticate, and they'll pay to make it happen. [Kind of repeating what I said before here, but I'm still trying to come up with the clearest version of the process.] MTAs at ISPs are incented to reduce volume and customer complaints. They could use existing systems to identify bulk email, but they'd get false positives (mind you, some of them don't care :-). Combine a tool for recognizing bulk email (e.g. DCC) and a tool for authorizing bulk mail (pick one) and what we have left are the lower-volume spammers. A solution? No. But we've bought ourselves some breathing space. *Then* we can talk about moving tools into the MUA. Again, we start where the incentive is there. Nobody likes their domain to be forged. The vast majority of users are at ISPs and enterprises. Those domains can implement domain authorization systems similar to what we imposed on the bulkmailers. Who gets burnt in the legit user space? The roadwarriers and the techies, who now have to find a way to authorize their out-of-domain email. But those are the folks who will find it with the pain to take advantage of MUA changes, VPNs or other techniques. At that point you've reduced the number of forgeable email addresses by (I'm completely guessing here) an order of magnitude. Now it becomes reasonable to start instituting general filters against all unauthenticated email, not just unauthenticated bulk email. And with that, the DCC-like portion can be retired from the system. > > 2. Over time as companies move to protect their domains (and that is >> the incentive--protecting yourself from forgery), they can (or >> individuals can) block based on domain or personal authentication >> even for non-bulk email. Note that at this point there is still no >> MUA change required unless you are sending email from a location >> other than one authorized by your domain. > >How does one block email based on sender authentication information >without adding authentication information to the message with an >MUA? Perhaps I misunderstand; please elaborate. You still make it an MTA decision. Mind you, that doesn't mean that the end user can't make the choice via a configuration option--but the blocking is done at the MTA. > > What I don't know in that model, is how we deal with malicious ISPs. > >I like that model a lot. Two ideas come to mind for dealing with losers: > >Revoke their certificates. How this is accomplished is left as an >exercise for the reader. > >Require member ISPs to join with a contract stating that they will: ... Keep in mind that this assumes they have to join something. It's not clear how you persuade (for instance) 163.net to signup for anything. Sure, they don't get to block spam with the system, but who's going to stop them from sending? -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 18:31:01 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA14524 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:31:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27Ngis26408 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:42:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27NgiO26405 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:42:44 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA14462 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:30:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27Nd3O26097; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:39:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27NcUO26053 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:38:30 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA14102 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:26:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2089275; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 18:28:21 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: "David F. Skoll" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Locked addresses (was Do we need to do anything? Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 17:30:23 -0500 At 3:44 PM -0500 3/7/03, David F. Skoll wrote: >It's not N-factorial; where did you come up with that? It's >N-squared. Sorry. Up too late last night. > > So now not only am I tied to my ISPs whim for an email address >> (mediaone last year, attbi last month, comcast today), I'm also tied >> to them because if I go to another ISP I'm unable to send email to >> any of my contacts. > >No. When you send mail to your contacts, you'll need to use their >public challenge-response address to revalidate yourself. > >This is a pain, no doubt. There's no pain-free way to end spam that I >can see. True. But this doesn't come close to ending spam. All spam ends up having to be filtered by a system that tells you which messages in your challenge-response queue should be looked at. Why go to all this hassle if you're going to have to filter anyway? Yes, it's easier to filter, yes you can look less often. On the other hand, with all these email addresses, you're going to have a lot more spam there. > > You've got an interesting protocol problem for initial contacts >> between two people. > >No, not really. Like I said, you have an initial challenge-response >contact address for the first contact. You need to make the challenge >easy to solve by a human, but hard for an automated process. It's more than just challenge response, there's a multi-step process going back and forth. If I send you mail initially with a throw-away address then you have't a clue whether "Kee Hinckley" is really the person you were talking to at the conference yesterday. So I have to send you email with my bizcard address in the from so you recognize it, and then you have to reply with your throw-away, and then I need to reply with my throw-away. > > 6. Finally we can talk. But only if I use my server. And if I ever >> go anywhere else I can no longer communicate with you. > >Yes, you can, via dfs-bizcard. So I actually need to keep *two* addresses in my address book for every person, and be careful only to use the correct one? Or are you assuming that the server will remap the To: address as well? I suppose it might as well. > > I think having an address book that is so complex that only a server > > can manage it is a bad idea. > >Lots of people already do that. LDAP, anyone? Nope. LDAP is a static directory. I can always download it to my desktop. This address book is algorithmically driven. Look. From a technical perspective you're proposing something very cool with lots of flexibility and neat possibilities. It's got lots of power. You've even convinced me that it could be done. But the average user isn't going to understand it at all. Never mind that they don't need any of the side benefits. There is no incentive for creating the infrastructure required for such a system. It makes dealing with new people and new addresses much harder than it currently is in email or any other medium. We've got people hear yelling at someone whose challenge response is simply a "reply", but you're proposing a complicated back and forth combined with a Turing test. If we want a system to be deployed for end-user use, it's got to pass the elevator test. That's the standard VC test for a concept. You've got to be able to explain it to someone during an elevator ride. I don't see that with any system described so far. That's why I'm convinced that the initial solution has to be a simple modification to the MTA, with later migration to the MUA. *Static* directory services still haven't taken off, I don't think dynamic ones are going to have any more success. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 18:33:58 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA14754 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:33:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27NjfO26570 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:45:41 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27NjfO26567 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:45:41 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA14712 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:33:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27Ni2O26509; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:44:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27NhGO26455 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:43:16 -0500 Received: from flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA14539 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:31:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.133.182] helo=envy.indecency.org) by flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18rRKj-0000rF-00; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 15:32:58 -0800 From: Keith Moore To: Chris Fedde Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) Message-Id: <20030307182924.0f45bc53.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <200303072041.h27KfV7N078360@splat.viawest.net> References: <200303071910.h27JAEv0021225@calcite.rhyolite.com> <200303072041.h27KfV7N078360@splat.viawest.net> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:29:24 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > +------------------ > | > From: Keith Moore > | > | > ... The main problem I see is the lack of any way to make senders > | > accountable for their actions, and to distinguish responsible > | > senders from irresponsible ones. > | > | exactly. That statement belongs somewhere in the problem statement > | that seems to part of the nominal purpose of this mailing list. > +------------------ > > The main problem with Keith Moore's statement is that it provides no > insight about what to take action against. that's the problem with brief statements - if you make the statement short enough that people will read it, you have to leave out details :) > It seems like it will be impossible to impose a motivation on the sender > without totally changing what we mean when we say email. I don't think it's quite that bad. There are lots of ways to motivate senders to be responsible. e.g. - make the mail tracable and bill them huge amounts for sending abusive mail - make the mail tracable and take their accounts away if they send abusive mail - make the mail tracable and allow potential recipients to learn about a sender's reputation - they can handle the mail pessimistically if the reputation isn't good enough - rate-limit outgoing mail > It might be a resonable strategic position to re-archetect email along > lines that enable enforcement of sender responsability. But that is not > a tactical solution available to us in the short term. depends on what you mean by short term. but none of this requires changes to the basic email protocols that are in use. some of it requires new protocols that could be used by MTAs and/or mail filters. but there would be plently of incentive for say, SpamAssasin to implement those protocols. > As such that Mr Moore's statement belongs in the overview, scope or > concusion sections of any formal statement of a goals document for > this group. that's how it was intended. I think it's too early to start trying to nail down solutions. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 18:36:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA14974 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:36:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27NmIT26848 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:48:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27NmIO26845 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:48:18 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA14925 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:36:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27Nk4O26689; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:46:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27NjtO26603 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:45:55 -0500 Received: from scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA14740 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:33:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.133.182] helo=envy.indecency.org) by scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18rRNN-0000tu-00; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 15:35:41 -0800 From: Keith Moore To: Asrg@ietf.org Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@natew.com Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: evaluating proposals against requirements Message-Id: <20030307183207.1648a41c.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: References: <20030307192548.A4583931@exeter.ac.uk> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:32:07 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > a) should minimize spam to some acceptable level > > May I suggest splitting that into two criteria? > > 1) should reduce the network bandwidth consumed by spam (including related > transmissions such as bounce messages) > > 2) should reduce the number of unwanted messages presented to the end user yes, I think it's useful to make that distinction. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 18:36:53 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA14993 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:36:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27NmZL26869 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:48:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27NmZO26866 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:48:35 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA14951 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:36:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27Nk2O26657; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:46:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27NjOO26555 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:45:24 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA14685 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:33:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h27NZABD027959; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:35:10 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: Kee Hinckley cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Locked addresses (was Do we need to do anything? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:35:09 -0500 (EST) On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Kee Hinckley wrote: > True. But this doesn't come close to ending spam. All spam ends up > having to be filtered by a system that tells you which messages in > your challenge-response queue should be looked at. You don't look at that queue at all. It's managed automatically; anything that stays in the queue more than a few days without getting a response is discarded. > If I send you mail initially with a throw-away address then you > have't a clue whether "Kee Hinckley" is > really the person you were talking to at the conference yesterday. Sure I do. I remember you by your name, not your email address. > So I actually need to keep *two* addresses in my address book for > every person, and be careful only to use the correct one? Not necessarily. If an email comes in for a throwaway address from the wrong person, it could just issue a challenge. So the only time you need to update your address book is if you're changing ISP's. > But the average user isn't going to understand it at all. That's the problem. It has to be implemented in a way that makes it easy to use. This is a long-term research group, right? :-) -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 18:39:16 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA15185 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:39:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h27Noxk27023 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:50:59 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27NoxO27020 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:50:59 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA15145 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:38:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27Nn1O26916; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:49:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h27Nm0O26838 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:48:00 -0500 Received: from snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA14873 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:35:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.133.182] helo=envy.indecency.org) by snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18rRPR-00014Y-00; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 15:37:50 -0800 From: Keith Moore To: Asrg@ietf.org Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@natew.com Subject: Re: [Asrg] Stamps Message-Id: <20030307183416.62dac173.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: References: <20030307142012.216ae1a5.moore@cs.utk.edu> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:34:16 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > On the other hand, I think the odds are low that a spammer can maintain a > return address that actually functions long enough to reply to a > significant number of whitelist confirmations. so this amounts to yet another heuristic for identifying possible spammers - if they can't respond to a challenge, they're not stable enough to bother with. not a perfectly reliable indication, but perhaps still useful? Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 18:53:09 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA16132 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:53:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2804rE28284 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 19:04:53 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2804qO28281 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 19:04:52 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA16120 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:52:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28038O28198; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 19:03:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28028O28111 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 19:02:08 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA15893 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:49:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h27NpvxD021775 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:51:57 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303072351.h27NpvxD021775@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) References: <20030307182924.0f45bc53.moore@cs.utk.edu> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:51:57 -0700 (MST) > From: Keith Moore > ... > I don't think it's quite that bad. There are lots of ways to motivate > senders to be responsible. e.g. > > - make the mail tracable and bill them huge amounts for sending abusive > mail > - make the mail tracable and take their accounts away if they send abusive > mail > - make the mail tracable and allow potential recipients to learn about > a sender's reputation - they can handle the mail pessimistically if > the reputation isn't good enough > - rate-limit outgoing mail > ... Almost all spam is already traceable more than one way. All spam carries a practically unforgable token pointing to the SMTP client that is the last hop. That token is the IP address of the SMTP client. That last hop is either the spammer itself, its ISP, or an open relay or proxy. Everyone with a box connected to the Internet is responsible for every IP packet it sends. It doesn't matter whether it is a part of a legitimate mail message, part of a DDoS attack, part of spam, or something else; the responsibility does not vary. The appropriate punnishment, if any, might vary. The IP address of the SMTP client for a lot of high volume spam points to the spammer, so in many cases, there's no issue about punnishment. In addition, in almost all cases, spam contains a way to contact the spammer to buy the goods or services advertised. That is sufficent to find and hold accountable most spammers. The only problem is that ISPs choose to not hold their spamming customers accountable for more than terminating a $20/month account after a day of spam or a $500/month account after 3 months of spam. This responsiblity problem is not technical, and has no technical solution. Thus, today I doubt that talk about mail tracing and accountability belongs in the document except to point out that spam is already traceable but that the parties to whom it is traced are not held accountable. ISPs don't hold there spammers accountable, and society does not hold ISPs accountable. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 19:14:58 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA17556 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 19:14:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h280Qgg30383 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 19:26:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h280QgO30380 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 19:26:42 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA17512 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 19:14:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h280OCO30229; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 19:24:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h280NsO30197 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 19:23:54 -0500 Received: from mail.speakeasy.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA17316 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 19:11:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 3504 invoked from network); 8 Mar 2003 00:13:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO spiral.whatever.net) ([64.81.21.85]) (envelope-sender ) by mail12.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 8 Mar 2003 00:13:53 -0000 Received: from spiral.whatever.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by spiral.whatever.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h280ICRC027793 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:18:12 -0800 Received: from localhost (nathan@localhost) by spiral.whatever.net (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) with ESMTP id h280IBl7027790 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:18:12 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: spiral.whatever.net: nathan owned process doing -bs From: Nate W X-Sender: nathan@spiral To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Economic model is borken. (sic.) Let's fix it In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20030308083118.02408220@mail> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:18:11 -0800 (PST) On Sat, 8 Mar 2003, Troy Rollo wrote: > At 13:08 7/03/03 -0800, Nate W wrote: > >This may be optimistic, but I don't think spammers will adapt to > >widespread whitelisting. They'll try, but they'll fail. Maintaining > >"Millions" CDs of address pairs (recipient and a whitelisted sender known > >to work for that recipient) is a big job. > > 1. That's not the only way to adapt to whitelisting. If you've got a more worrisome idea I'm all ears. I did read the document you referenced and did not see anything to be very concerned about. Some of the "problems" listed there were not very well thought out. For example, the "problem" of establishing initial communication between two whitelisted individuals, subscribing to mailing lists, etc. The author seems to have assumed that non-approved messages are lost forever. > 2. This ignores the damage done by whitelisting. Yes, because you snipped the bit that didn't. I acknowledge (for the Nth time) that there are costs to whitelisting. However I believe the cost to be smaller than the benefit. Not perfect, but I find it a big improvement, at least until something better comes along. -- Nate Waddoups Redmond WA USA http://www.natew.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 19:37:14 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA19503 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 19:37:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h280mwN00410 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 19:48:58 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h280mwO00407 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 19:48:58 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA19472 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 19:36:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h280kbO32619; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 19:46:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h280ckO31784 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 19:38:46 -0500 Received: from mail005.syd.optusnet.com.au (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA18401 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 19:26:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from co3001591-a.troy.rollo.name (c18374.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [210.49.142.222]) by mail005.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h280SYu21970 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:28:34 +1100 Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20030308112630.0241ad00@mail> X-Sender: (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Troy Rollo Subject: Re: [Asrg] Economic model is borken. (sic.) Let's fix it In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.1.2.20030308083118.02408220@mail> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 11:28:34 +1100 At 16:18 7/03/03 -0800, Nate W wrote: >If you've got a more worrisome idea I'm all ears. I did read the document >you referenced and did not see anything to be very concerned about. > >Some of the "problems" listed there were not very well thought out. For >example, the "problem" of establishing initial communication between two >whitelisted individuals, subscribing to mailing lists, etc. The author >seems to have assumed that non-approved messages are lost forever. As I indicated, that document is a starting point - it doesn't enumerate each difficulty through all possible angles to its final conclusion. I would suggest that if you think these are not problems, you haven't done so either. -- Troy Rollo Chairman, CAUBE.AU asrg@troy.rollo.name Executive Director, iCAUCE _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 19:48:25 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA20728 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 19:48:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2810Ah01505 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 20:00:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2810AO01502 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 20:00:10 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA20684 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 19:47:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h280weO01341; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 19:58:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h280vrO01216 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 19:57:53 -0500 Received: from mail.speakeasy.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA20552 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 19:45:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 24035 invoked from network); 8 Mar 2003 00:47:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO spiral.whatever.net) ([64.81.21.85]) (envelope-sender ) by mail11.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 8 Mar 2003 00:47:53 -0000 Received: from spiral.whatever.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by spiral.whatever.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h280qCRC028002 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:52:12 -0800 Received: from localhost (nathan@localhost) by spiral.whatever.net (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) with ESMTP id h280qBas027999 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:52:11 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: spiral.whatever.net: nathan owned process doing -bs From: Nate W X-Sender: nathan@spiral To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Stamps In-Reply-To: <20030307183416.62dac173.moore@cs.utk.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:52:11 -0800 (PST) On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Keith Moore wrote: > > On the other hand, I think the odds are low that a spammer can maintain a > > return address that actually functions long enough to reply to a > > significant number of whitelist confirmations. > > so this amounts to yet another heuristic for identifying possible spammers - > if they can't respond to a challenge, they're not stable enough to bother > with. not a perfectly reliable indication, but perhaps still useful? That is basically how I viewed this system in the first place, so yeah, I think it's useful. :-) Put another way, there is a pretty high correlation between people I want to correspond with and people who can and do monitor responses to their messages. There is an even higher correlation between people I don't want to hear from and people who can't or don't monitor the responses to what they send. -- Nate Waddoups Redmond WA USA http://www.natew.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 19:56:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA21369 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 19:56:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2818fu02915 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 20:08:41 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2818fO02912 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 20:08:41 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA21334 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 19:56:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28050O28314; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 19:05:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2804MO28261 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 19:04:22 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA16110 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:52:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h27Ns9BD028040; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:54:09 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com cc: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20030307233904.26082.60695.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> Message-ID: References: <20030307233904.26082.60695.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Asrg] DCC and IP checksums Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:54:08 -0500 (EST) > > Although it looks like the DCC servers have to collect the IP > > information, they don't have to give it out. So the potential for > > abuse is limited to the people who run the DCC servers, not to anyone > > who can query them. > That's not an effective response to the privace issues. Well, most of the other proposals on this forum are far more invasive (witness the argument involving Hadmut and others.) > The current, real life global > network of ~120 DCC servers already involves far more people and > organizations than I think can be trusted. It's not that any single > DCC server operator is untrustworthy, but that every group of 120 or > more people is untrustworthy. The privacy implications of leaking the fact that IP address x.y.z.w sent the same message 1,000 times, or had 25 failed RCPT commands, are not huge. > > No; way less than this. For a mail message, we collect the body > > checksum, the sending-IP checksum and maybe a few flags indicating > > failed RCPT commands. At most 60-100 bytes/message. > If I thought you knew how to make a single checksum that is fuzzy > enough to ignore "hashbusters" but not so fuzzy that it has false > positives, I'd ask you in private about it. I use the following algorithm in CanIt. It is by no means perfect, but it's pretty good: - Ignore the headers - Read message lines as follows: - Delete leading and trailing whitespace - Ignore blank lines - Ignore MIME part delimiters - Skip a line starting "Dear " - Collapse multiple spaces into single spaces - Stop reading once you have 200 non-ignored lines or reach end of message - If you have between 10 and 20 lines, ignore the first and last, else - If you have between 20 and 40 lines, ignore the first and last 3 lines, else - If you have more than 40 lines, ignore the first and last 4 lines - Do a SHA1 hash on what's left. > My imperfect current solution involves 3 checksums. How are 3 checksums better than one, unless you're checksumming different parts of the message? > checksum would discover no two IP addresses ever send the same > message, except for trivial cases such as some virus warnings, > because its answers would all differ. I have hard evidence to the contrary. See, for example, http://www.roaringpenguin.com/canit/showincident.php?id=3037 (You may have to authenticate as "demo/demo" and then enter 3037 as the incident ID.) I have lots more messages like that, and that's just on my server. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 19:58:24 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA21554 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 19:58:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h281A9P03016 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 20:10:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h281A8O03013 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 20:10:08 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA21491 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 19:57:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28071O28423; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 19:07:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2806pO28362 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 19:06:51 -0500 Received: from swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA16154 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:54:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.133.182] helo=envy.indecency.org) by swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18rRhM-0006o9-00; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 15:56:20 -0800 From: Keith Moore To: "Chris Lewis" Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Nucleus of a draft BCP on filtering Message-Id: <20030307185246.1dea2603.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <3E691600.6010001@americasm01.nt.com> References: <3E691600.6010001@americasm01.nt.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:52:46 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Guiding General Principles: - spam is UBE (unsolicited bulk email) I don't think we're going to end up with a single uniform definition of spam. to some, spam is simply unwanted mail. presumably unwanted implies unsolicited, but unsolicited does not imply unwanted. to some, bulk is a necessary condition for spam. I'm guessing that this is based on a presumption that bulk mail is necessarily untargeted, or perhaps that we only need to be concerned about bulk unwanted mail since that is the biggest part of the problem. to some, commercial is a necessary condition for spam. I'm guessing that this is based on a desire to not censor non-commercial speech. to some, spam is entirely a matter of content, not behavior. to others, it's exactly the opposite. to others, it is some of each. I could see where we might end up with a mechanism by which mail was tagged according to each of several attributes: whether it was bulk, whether it was commercial, whether the sender could be reliably traced, whether the sender had a good or bad or no reputation, etc. a recipient's filter (or a filter acting on consent of a recipient) could then treat different kinds of mail differently based on the tags, or the absence of such tags. that way, we wouldn't all have to agree on what spam was. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 21:16:01 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA03128 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 21:16:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h282RmU11523 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 21:27:48 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h282RmO11520 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 21:27:48 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA02975 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 21:15:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h282QDO11275; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 21:26:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h282PiO11225 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 21:25:44 -0500 Received: from mta6.srv.hcvlny.cv.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA02445 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 21:13:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from asv21.srv.hcvlny.cv.net (asv21.srv.hcvlny.cv.net [167.206.5.175]) by mta6.srv.hcvlny.cv.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.05 (built Nov 6 2002)) with ESMTP id <0HBE004EFRLVU1@mta6.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 21:15:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from p750.thejamesons.com (ool-182d611e.dyn.optonline.net [24.45.97.30]) by asv21.srv.hcvlny.cv.net (8.12.6/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h282DUJd019324 for ; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 21:13:34 -0500 (EST) From: David Jameson X-Sender: (Unverified) To: Asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030307141505.02b73e78@mail.digiportal.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] Receiving messages twice Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 14:16:21 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT I am receiving every message twice although I only have one email address subscribed (I checked on the website to make sure that my other main email address wasn't on the list). Would the appropriate person please check the listserver settings? Thank you, David Jameson ___________________________ Dr. David H. Jameson Founder and CTO, DigiPortal Software Inc. "Winning isn't everything but losing isn't anything" Irwin Cohen _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 21:16:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA03285 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 21:16:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h282SSC11550 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 21:28:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h282SSO11547 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 21:28:28 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA03178 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 21:16:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h282R2O11502; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 21:27:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h282QxO11476 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 21:26:59 -0500 Received: from mta7.srv.hcvlny.cv.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA02778 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 21:14:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from asv21.srv.hcvlny.cv.net (asv21.srv.hcvlny.cv.net [167.206.5.175]) by mta7.srv.hcvlny.cv.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.05 (built Nov 6 2002)) with ESMTP id <0HBE00IKJRM99Y@mta7.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 21:15:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from p750.thejamesons.com (ool-182d611e.dyn.optonline.net [24.45.97.30]) by asv21.srv.hcvlny.cv.net (8.12.6/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h282DUJj019324 for ; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 21:13:47 -0500 (EST) From: David Jameson Subject: Re: [Asrg] Stamps In-reply-to: X-Sender: (Unverified) To: Asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030307174712.02b910b0@wheresmymailserver.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <20030307142012.216ae1a5.moore@cs.utk.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 17:48:51 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Nope - you can use mechanisms that requires a human to be in the loop - people have been experimenting with that since 1994 at least. For example, generate a graphic that must be typed in or use audio to say a word that must be typed in. David ___________________________ Dr. David H. Jameson Founder and CTO, DigiPortal Software Inc. "Winning isn't everything but losing isn't anything" Irwin Cohen _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 21:49:59 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA08643 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 21:49:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2831lg14975 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 22:01:47 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2831lO14972 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 22:01:47 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA08535 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 21:49:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28306O14534; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 22:00:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h282xjO14484 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 21:59:45 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA08227 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 21:47:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (zcard307.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h282nUj15435 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 21:49:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDFBJ89A; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 21:49:30 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (acart4va.ca.nortel.com [47.129.10.14]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBF9AG; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 21:49:30 -0500 Message-ID: <3E695AFC.70306@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Economic model is borken. (sic.) Let's fix it References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 21:52:44 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kee Hinckley wrote: > I just ran a database query on 22,000 pieces of confirmed spam. They > came from 18,000 distinct email addresses. Tried a bigger sample. Out of 1715448 spam _connections_, 659228 unique MAIL FROMs. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 21:51:50 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA09080 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 21:51:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2833c415205 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 22:03:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2833cO15202 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 22:03:38 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA08958 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 21:51:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28323O15050; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 22:02:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2831xO14999 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 22:01:59 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA08572 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 21:49:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2089639; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 21:51:47 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200303072301.h27N1Zhx016941@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <200303072301.h27N1Zhx016941@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Vernon Schryver From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] DCC and IP addresses Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 20:46:33 -0500 At 4:01 PM -0700 3/7/03, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > Although it looks like the DCC servers have to collect the IP >> information, they don't have to give it out. So the potential for >> abuse is limited to the people who run the DCC servers, not to anyone >> who can query them. > >That's not an effective response to the privace issues. As I said, >that reasoning seemed almost ok when it was thought that DCC servers >would be run by one organization. The current, real life global So why give you the IP address? Why not encode it with a one-way hash/encryption? All IP addresses will code the same, but the database will have no way to determine what IP addresses were passed. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 21:54:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA09634 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 21:54:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2836K415667 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 22:06:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2836KO15664 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 22:06:20 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA09528 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 21:54:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28330O15095; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 22:03:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28321O15020 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 22:02:01 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA08581 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 21:49:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2089658; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 21:51:49 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: "David F. Skoll" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Locked addresses (was Do we need to do anything? Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 21:04:04 -0500 At 6:35 PM -0500 3/7/03, David F. Skoll wrote: >You don't look at that queue at all. It's managed automatically; anything >that stays in the queue more than a few days without getting a response >is discarded. Ah. I see. So the Turing test is a necessary part of it. Otherwise the spammer can simply automate the response and then send the spam. But now you've just said that you never check the queue. So you don't get the quick message from someone going on vacation, the notification from the library system that your book is overdue, or the email from shipping at your favorite book company telling you that your book is out of stock. > > If I send you mail initially with a throw-away address then you >> have't a clue whether "Kee Hinckley" is >> really the person you were talking to at the conference yesterday. > >Sure I do. I remember you by your name, not your email address. But you've just reduced the limited amount of authentication that the email system has. If I tell you my email address is xxx@example.com, and you get email from xxx@example.com, you can be pretty sure a reply will go to the real me. If all you know is my name, and you get mail from someone claiming to be me with the address xxx@example.com you know only know whether the domain name matches what you were expecting. I'm not saying this is a huge authentication problem as there probably aren't a lot of exploits--but it certainly seems like a step in the wrong direction. I suppose you could work around it by using a convention based on the real address. That would make things work a bit better. (E.g. nazgul+12312312@example.com). Then at least a human could reconstruct the original contact address. Or do you consider that too much of an opening for spammers? Then too, I have a bias towards long term identities. I'm virtually certainly the only person in the world with my name. Everything I say is directly traceable back to me, so I don't say anything online that I'm not comfortable having traced back to me, and I assume that anyone can contact me. Now if the Eudora/PGP plugin would come back, I'd go back to signing all my messages as well. > > But the average user isn't going to understand it at all. > >That's the problem. It has to be implemented in a way that makes >it easy to use. This is a long-term research group, right? :-) Sure. But I'd rather see all that effort put towards something more obviously useful--like authentication. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 21:54:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA09660 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 21:54:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2836OZ15684 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 22:06:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2836OO15681 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 22:06:24 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA09548 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 21:54:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28322O15030; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 22:02:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2831uO14994 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 22:01:56 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA08563 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 21:49:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2089656; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 21:51:45 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <011d01c2e4f3$68152fc0$0580bbd0@kit> References: <00a101c2e40b$54e40cc0$ca81bbd0@kit> <3E68E118.6000305@cove-mtn.com> <011d01c2e4f3$68152fc0$0580bbd0@kit> To: "Jed Margolin" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Let's try something different Cc: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 20:41:45 -0500 At 1:49 PM -0800 3/7/03, Jed Margolin wrote: >Traffic from ISPs who refuse to play by the rules will be refused by the >Internet Community. > >In other words, they will be excommunicated. I that is demonstrably not true. The system has gotten too big for that, and the need for connectivity too large. Blacklisting is no longer a sufficient threat, and attempts to do so to mixed-use providers have resulted in law-suits (witness MAPS). The entire thing is complicated by the subjective nature of spam, and the question of when to pull the trigger on an ISP. Are they spam friendly, or just having trouble keeping their system clean? I've yet to find any blacklist that was reliable. Even the proxy list someone recently posted a URL to here promptly gave us false positives--including ones for some people on this list! -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 7 22:43:15 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA17619 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 22:43:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h283t4p20334 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 22:55:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h283t4O20331 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 22:55:04 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA17512 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 22:42:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h283oAO20128; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 22:50:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h283nEO20095 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 22:49:14 -0500 Received: from zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA16374 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 22:36:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h283cwk20733 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 22:38:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF44TRK; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 22:38:58 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (amert1fy.ca.nortel.com [47.131.82.230]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBF9AR; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 22:38:51 -0500 Message-ID: <3E696682.4020001@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Nucleus of a draft BCP on filtering References: <3E691600.6010001@americasm01.nt.com> <20030307185246.1dea2603.moore@cs.utk.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 22:41:54 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Keith Moore wrote: >>Guiding General Principles: - spam is UBE (unsolicited bulk email) > I don't think we're going to end up with a single uniform definition of spam. I believe we have to, insofar as we need to limit the scope of what the "S" in ASRG means. Of course, some people will call the nagging email from the SO, about forgetting their lunch, spam. But that's just plain wrong. If we don't limit our scope, we'll just be in an endless rathole. The thing we're primarily concerned about is that activity/behaviour which endangers the future of email. The behaviour that turned striker into a smoking crater. Sending 1:1 email isn't it. Having a salesman for widgets pick your email address out of a mailing list about widgets and suggesting "you might be able to solve the problem you asked about by buying our XYZ widget" isn't it. Changing your mind about email you explicitly asked for isn't it. Your neighbor's emailed porn from Germany isn't it. Anti-spam lobby organizations, such as the various branches of CAUCE, have, I believe, now all fixated on "UBE" as the spam they're concerned about (regardless of the "C" in the name) - I'm a director of CAUCE Canada. "Usenet spam" isn't content. It's simply "the same thing posted many times" [I wrote the consensus standard...] Perhaps it would be nice to exert effort on a classification system that provides more flexibility than a simple UBE definition. But you can forget about individuals classifying things properly. And we can forget about getting very far. And if we include that, the pro-spam side, and the media will just continue on their merry way "they can't even define it". Think about most the strategies that people are talking about here. Counting bounces correlated to senders. Establishing authorized "sending MTAs" for given "from" domains. DCC. Spamtrap analysis. Bayesian, Razor, Brightmail recognizing messages that "look like stuff seen before" Etc. That's _all_ about bulk. The original direction of defining spam as "UCE" (actually, UBCE) derived directly out of a belief that C was easier to legislate given US jurisprudence. Thinking has shifted since then, to that believing a content-neutral definition of spam is (a) easier to legislate and (b) easier to implement (because you don't have to write AI engines to recognize whether something is commercial). You can automate bulk detection a lot easier than commercial detection. Yes, some people will call commercial email spam. But why? Why should they care if their neighbor is getting commercial email that they asked for? Defining the "S" in ASRG as "UBE" helps us focus on solutions that may prevent more strikers. Isn't that what all of us are primarily interested in? Besides, I was hoping that the _rest_ of that original message would generate the majority of comments ;-) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 00:42:46 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA06439 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 00:42:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h285sbT28638 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 00:54:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h285saO28635 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 00:54:36 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA06423 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 00:42:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h285paO28531; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 00:51:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h285oBO28466 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 00:50:11 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA06402 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 00:37:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h285dgmM026744 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 22:39:42 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303080539.h285dgmM026744@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] DCC and IP addresses References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 22:39:42 -0700 (MST) > From: Kee Hinckley > ... > So why give you the IP address? Why not encode it with a one-way > hash/encryption? All IP addresses will code the same, but the > database will have no way to determine what IP addresses were passed. One-way hash functions are relevant only when the plaintext is unknown. If the bad guy knows the plaintext such as an SMTP sender or an IP address, then the bad guy can compute the hash. He can trivially invert the hash function. For example, assume the checksum database has records that contain "cksum(IP address) sent cksum(msg)" and you can somehow guess the contents of the message and the block 10.1.0.0/16 of addresses. Then you can make a few thousand queries of the form "how many messages with cksum M were sent from the address with with cksum I" to discover whether that message was sent and if so from which IP address. The privacy problem is like that of the U.S. Census. How do you release some of the Census data without releasing all of it? For example, assume the system refuses to answer the question "what was the household income of the family as 124 Main Street?" but will answer general queries like "how many families living on the 100 block of Main St. have at least 2 children and an income of more than $10,000?" or "how many families on the North side of Main Street and fewer than 3 children have an income of less than $20,000?" Unless the system lies, you can trick it blabbing the forbidden answer. Even if the system lies, it's hard to be sure it won't blab through a tricky series of questions. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 01:15:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA13023 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 01:15:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h286RKx30539 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 01:27:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h286RKO30536 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 01:27:20 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA12935 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 01:14:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h286P5O30508; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 01:25:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h286OJO30484 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 01:24:19 -0500 Received: from frodo.willrose.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA12376 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 01:11:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from shadowfax ([192.168.1.2]) by frodo.willrose.net (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with SMTP id net for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 00:14:01 -0600 Message-ID: <004a01c2e539$eb87fe50$0201a8c0@shadowfax> From: "Will E. Rose" To: Subject: [Asrg] A technological or legal solution? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 00:14:04 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I've been reviewing our charter and the different approaches that have been discussed of late, and I find myself increasingly struggling with the question of whether it is possible to achieve a reasonably effective solution to the spam problem (even an imperfect one) without changes to the legal system. We surely want a system where any individual can email any other individual, anywhere in the world, for apparently zero cost. What's to stop that individual from becoming a spammer? We have to remember that ultimately at the source is a human being. Someone is DECIDING to spam you. The only thing that can truly affect human behaviour is another human. Time and time again it has been demonstrated that any technological system, especially a eclectic and complex one, can be circumvented by determined individuals. I'm afraid that if we design a purely technological solution that has no true power of enforcement on human beings, it will be circumvented, and we'll end up with a situation not much different than we have now, but after having expended a huge amout of money and effort. Can we build a system that will achieve our goals without changes to the legal system? Should international commercial email be regulated? Should there be some sister organization to the International Telecommunications Union and Universal Postal Union to ensure nations cooperate in imposing sanctions on illegal spammers? I'm concerned that if we simply engage in a technological arms race with spammers, it will go on indefinitely, until one side collapses under its own weight, after great cost to the other. I'm not suggesting that we begin a debate on what legal changes are necessary to enforce a spam-controlled internet, but we need to decide if we're embarking upon a fool's errand. Our charter indicates we should design a technological solution, but does our charter need to be changed to incorporate recommending legislative changes if it is the consensus that such changes are necessary to achieve spam control? --- Will Rose _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 04:26:54 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA26016 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 04:26:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h289coe20560 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 04:38:50 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h289coO20557 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 04:38:50 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA25927 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 04:26:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h289aPO19697; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 04:36:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h289ZmO19658 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 04:35:48 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA25346 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 04:23:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h289P6rP002636; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:25:06 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h289LIrf003521 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:21:18 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h289LITu003519; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:21:18 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: "David F. Skoll" Cc: vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] DCC and IP checksums Message-ID: <20030308092117.GA3080@danisch.de> References: <20030307233904.26082.60695.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:21:18 +0100 On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 06:54:08PM -0500, David F. Skoll wrote: > > I use the following algorithm in CanIt. It is by no means perfect, > but it's pretty good: > ... > - Skip a line starting "Dear " ... > - Do a SHA1 hash on what's left. This won't work. A significant amount of spam mails I receive slightly differs for every recipient. E.g. many mails contain the recipients name, even in lines not starting with "Dear". And several mails asking to watch a web page where the URL contains a hash of the recipient's e-mail address in order to verify that e-mail address and whether the recipient is willing to read such messages. Just that special URL is enough to break your method. Once your system gets wideley deployed, spammers will start to include other random content. Especially in spam messages with HTML content it is extremely easy to hide some invisible information. Even in plain mail, that's easy. Just print a random number anywhere. If it should look neat, just have something like "Welcome to the porn club, your member number is ####" I've already received some messages assigning me some silly member numbers. Maybe these numbers were supposed to spoil any hash based spam protection. Since you have to publish the details of your hash algorithm in order to deploy it, it's extremely easy for spammers to design their message such that every single message has a different hash value. And, it is a leakage of information: Let's assume a central server is sending standard messages with some kind of secret, e.g. Dear David, welcome to this whatever-service, your password is 12345 or something like Dear David, your current account balance is 123.45 I can register to the same service to get the skelleton of the message. If I know that you have received a message from the same IP address with a given hash value I can easily perform an exhaustive search through the secret's space to find your secret. Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 05:07:24 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA03360 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 05:07:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h28AJLu22471 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 05:19:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28AJLO22468 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 05:19:21 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA03273 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 05:06:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28AG5O22392; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 05:16:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28AFvO22373 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 05:15:57 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id FAA02634 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 05:03:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 8368 invoked from network); 7 Mar 2003 10:03:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.2.100.178?) (10.2.100.178) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 7 Mar 2003 10:03:38 -0000 From: Matt Sergeant X-X-Sender: matt@localhost.localdomain To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" cc: Keith Moore , David Jameson , "Asrg@ietf.org" Subject: RE: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:18:52 +0000 (GMT) On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > AOL recently got a billion spams in a day. That means that each > week AOL is getting as much spam as Hormel have ever made. Rejected a billion spams (using DNS blacklistings). They get significantly more. Scary, isn't it? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 06:41:01 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA21071 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 06:41:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h28Bqw327992 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 06:52:58 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28BqvO27989 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 06:52:57 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA20964 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 06:40:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28BpHO27964; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 06:51:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28BoAO27941 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 06:50:10 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id GAA20386 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 06:37:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 14099 invoked from network); 7 Mar 2003 11:37:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.2.100.178?) (10.2.100.178) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 7 Mar 2003 11:37:51 -0000 From: Matt Sergeant X-X-Sender: matt@localhost.localdomain To: Chris Lewis cc: "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: [OT] Snail mail spam (Was: Re: [Asrg] Stamps) In-Reply-To: <3E68D2EA.5070004@americasm01.nt.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:53:07 +0000 (GMT) On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Chris Lewis wrote: > Keith Moore wrote: > >>Spam exists because there is an (almost zero) fixed cost associated with > >>sending it out. > > > > > > false. snail mail spam exists despite having significant costs associated > > with sending it. > > But despite it having been in existance for, what?, 50+ years, the > "striker equivalent" isn't getting 1,000,000 snail mail ads a day. Or > even at a more normal level, few people are getting, even 5 per day. Except for Ralsky. He gets an unacceptably high level of snail mail junk ;-) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 08:33:02 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA12328 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 08:33:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h28Dj3r02534 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 08:45:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28Dj2O02531 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 08:45:02 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA12268 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 08:32:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28DhRO02462; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 08:43:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28DgmO02420 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 08:42:48 -0500 Received: from mail630.gsfc.nasa.gov (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA11872 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 08:30:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from tux.gsfc.nasa.gov (tux.gsfc.nasa.gov [128.183.191.134]) by mail630.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.12.8/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h28DWLPT027071 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 08:32:22 -0500 Received: from tux.gsfc.nasa.gov (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by tux.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.12.8/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h28DWLgi002526 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 08:32:21 -0500 Received: (from kodis@localhost) by tux.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.12.8/8.12.5/Submit) id h28DWLBc002524 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 08:32:21 -0500 From: John Kodis To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) Message-ID: <20030308133221.GB2292@tux.gsfc.nasa.gov> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 08:32:21 -0500 On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 10:18:52AM +0000, Matt Sergeant wrote: > On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > > > AOL recently got a billion spams in a day. That means that each > > week AOL is getting as much spam as Hormel have ever made. > > Rejected a billion spams (using DNS blacklistings). They get significantly > more. Scary, isn't it? Yup. Now imagine the situation after the wide-spread deployment of IPv6 which exacerbates the problem by a factor of about 2^96. -- John Kodis Goddard Space Flight Center kodis@mail630.gsfc.nasa.gov Greenbelt, Maryland, USA Phone: 301-286-7376 Fax: 301-286-1771 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 08:41:13 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA13556 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 08:41:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h28DrEe02856 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 08:53:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28DrDO02853 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 08:53:13 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA13427 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 08:40:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28Dm2O02615; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 08:48:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28DkJO02564 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 08:46:19 -0500 Received: from swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA12393 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 08:33:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.133.182] helo=envy.indecency.org) by swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18reUH-0005NC-00; Sat, 08 Mar 2003 05:35:41 -0800 From: Keith Moore To: Matt Sergeant Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, pbaker@verisign.com, david@thejamesons.com, Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) Message-Id: <20030308083205.671fb967.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 08:32:05 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > AOL recently got a billion spams in a day. That means that each > > week AOL is getting as much spam as Hormel have ever made. > > Rejected a billion spams (using DNS blacklistings). They get significantly > more. Scary, isn't it? if they were using DNS blacklists, how do they know they were really spam? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 08:41:22 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA13600 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 08:41:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h28DrMU02873 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 08:53:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28DrMO02870 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 08:53:22 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA13472 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 08:40:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28Do1O02719; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 08:50:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28DnRO02691 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 08:49:27 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA12645 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 08:36:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h28Dcv522196 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 08:38:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF444ZL; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 08:38:58 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (amert1fy.ca.nortel.com [47.131.82.230]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBF917; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 08:38:57 -0500 Message-ID: <3E69F330.8010607@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] DCC and IP checksums References: <20030307233904.26082.60695.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> <20030308092117.GA3080@danisch.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 08:42:08 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hadmut Danisch wrote: > On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 06:54:08PM -0500, David F. Skoll wrote: > >>I use the following algorithm in CanIt. It is by no means perfect, >>but it's pretty good: >> - Skip a line starting "Dear " >>- Do a SHA1 hash on what's left. > This won't work. It works for certain classes of spammer. It can be made significantly better (eg: stripping HTML tags and comments, stripping non-alphanumerics, not only collapsing whitespace, but _removing_ it), but it's still trivially bypassable. Good for the low rent spammers. Not enough for Ralsky. Not enough for some of the ratware out there. [ie: there are "pay services" which tune your email to get past SpamAssassin. Not necessarily "bad", unless the intent is to spam as opposed to minimizing the possibility of interference with legit opt-in/confirmed bulk email.] _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 08:42:09 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA13792 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 08:42:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h28Ds9s02951 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 08:54:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28Ds9O02948 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 08:54:09 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA13666 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 08:41:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28Dn2O02667; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 08:49:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28DmGO02625 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 08:48:16 -0500 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA12479 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 08:35:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 18reWM-0004H8-00; Sat, 08 Mar 2003 13:37:50 +0000 In-Reply-To: <3E696682.4020001@americasm01.nt.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Nucleus of a draft BCP on filtering To: From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "Chris Lewis" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.4.8] Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 13:37:50 +0000 > Keith Moore wrote: > >>Guiding General Principles: - spam is UBE (unsolicited bulk email) > > > > I don't think we're going to end up with a single uniform definition of > spam. > > I believe we have to, insofar as we need to limit the scope of what the > "S" in ASRG means. Well, no, but I believe we must form a consensus on a definition of "consent-based communication". That's what the RG is chartered for. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 09:08:14 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA18781 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 09:08:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h28EKFj04811 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 09:20:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28EKFO04808 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 09:20:15 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA18669 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 09:07:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28EI7O04637; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 09:18:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28EHnO04561 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 09:17:49 -0500 Received: from harvee.billerica.ma.us (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA18217 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 09:05:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from harvee.org (rufus.billerica.ma.us [192.168.0.10]) by harvee.billerica.ma.us (8.12.8/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h28EFqd6027280; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 09:15:53 -0500 Message-ID: <3E69F90C.804@harvee.org> From: "Eric S. Johansson" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kee Hinckley CC: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Economic model is borken. (sic.) Let's fix it References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 09:07:08 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kee Hinckley wrote: > At 5:29 PM -0800 3/5/03, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > >> there. He wrote a challenge/response authentication callback >> loop back in 1992 for the COMLINK mailer that we used to >> publish the Clinton/Gore '92 (and the other candidates who made >> it available) campaign litterature on the Internet. > > > The other problem with challenge/response systems is that there's a > missing link in the interface. > > I go to a web site and purchase something. They send me an email > receipt. How exactly are they going to automatically get through my > challenge response? And don't say "you should have whitelisted them." > J. Random User is not going to do it unless it's as simple as hitting a > single button. Not to mention the question of "whitelist *what*?" > Their sales address? Their support address? Their domain? And using > what authentication system? problem has been solved with stamps. I know I'm sounding like a broken record (or will very shortly). The model is if you filter for stamps, then a robot can attach a stamp to an auto response and it will get to your inbox. It's simple, it's reliable, and if you make the right stamps, it's not easily exploited by spammers. by using stamps, you will eliminate any need for special white listing, domain authentication, complicated dns reverse lookup rules and can be implemented quickly and easily without major changes to infrastructure. ---eric _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 09:11:00 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA19292 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 09:11:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h28EN1M04910 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 09:23:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28EN1O04907 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 09:23:01 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA19192 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 09:10:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28EL3O04846; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 09:21:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28EKBO04804 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 09:20:11 -0500 Received: from harvee.billerica.ma.us (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA18654 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 09:07:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from harvee.org (rufus.billerica.ma.us [192.168.0.10]) by harvee.billerica.ma.us (8.12.8/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h28EIGd6027299; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 09:18:16 -0500 Message-ID: <3E69F99B.1000707@harvee.org> From: "Eric S. Johansson" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Troy Rollo CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Economic model is borken. (sic.) Let's fix it References: <4.3.1.2.20030308083118.02408220@mail> In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20030308083118.02408220@mail> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 09:09:31 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Troy Rollo wrote: > 1. That's not the only way to adapt to whitelisting. > > 2. This ignores the damage done by whitelisting. > 3. ignores the theft value of white lists If white lists become widespread, they will become a theft target. You'll see more identity theft as result of white lists. Happy, happy, Joy, joy ---eric _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 09:15:04 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA20054 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 09:15:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h28ER4m05134 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 09:27:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28ER4O05131 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 09:27:04 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA19944 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 09:14:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28EP1O04993; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 09:25:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28EOQO04969 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 09:24:26 -0500 Received: from harvee.billerica.ma.us (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA19455 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 09:11:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from harvee.org (rufus.billerica.ma.us [192.168.0.10]) by harvee.billerica.ma.us (8.12.8/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h28EMWd6027332; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 09:22:33 -0500 Message-ID: <3E69FA9C.9080101@harvee.org> From: "Eric S. Johansson" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: wayne CC: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Economic model is borken. (sic.) Let's fix it References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 09:13:48 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit wayne wrote: > One idea I have heard of to make this kind of system much more useful > in practice is to run a spam scanner (such as SpamAssassin) on the > email. If the email is classified as not-spam, don't send the > confirmation request. we are incorporating that feature into camram. We're doing a slightly differently. We're assuming there is an "unknown" score range in addition to the clearly spam/not spam score ranges. Only the "unknown" scores get postage due notices. ---eric _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 09:20:09 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA21046 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 09:20:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h28EWAD05357 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 09:32:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28EWAO05354 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 09:32:10 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA20957 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 09:19:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28EU5O05262; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 09:30:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28EThO05218 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 09:29:43 -0500 Received: from harvee.billerica.ma.us (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA20488 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 09:17:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from harvee.org (rufus.billerica.ma.us [192.168.0.10]) by harvee.billerica.ma.us (8.12.8/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h28ERnd6027370; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 09:27:49 -0500 Message-ID: <3E69FBD8.7010406@harvee.org> From: "Eric S. Johansson" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Jameson CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Economic model is borken. (sic.) Let's fix it References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030307053207.035ee520@mail.digiportal.com> In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030307053207.035ee520@mail.digiportal.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 09:19:04 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit David Jameson wrote: > Yes, typically when you buy something online, you KNOW to expect an > email response pretty quickly so you can go look in your 'holding pen' > for it. this is atrocious human factors. The whole point behind an antispam system is so that you don't have to look at the stuff. > However, this problem could be solved completely in the short term if we > could get merchants to provide an extra field in the form you fill in. > You as a user would add any text or code you like to that field. When > the merchant sends you any email, they include the contents of that > field in the subject line of their message. > You then create a single permission rule (either in your spam blocker or > indeed in any email client that supports basic filters) that allows > anything with that text to come through. Since each user would have a > completely different code there, it would be unbreakable by spammers. again, human factors nightmare. My mother-in-law (74-year-old lovely person) wouldn't be able to cope. To give you a feel for her level of skill, she uses an I-opener Web terminal and is quite comfortable sending e-mail and browsing the Web. She's even getting comfortable google. In contrast she doesn't know how to operate a VCR and is suspicious of remote controls. Telling her she needs to add a special field and have that field found by antispam filter whenever she orders something online? Not bloody likely. A stamp model simplifies the entire process because it is done without requiring any human interaction. --- eric _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 09:21:09 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA21233 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 09:21:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h28EXB005406 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 09:33:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28EXBO05403 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 09:33:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA21136 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 09:20:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28EV1O05333; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 09:31:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28EUFO05282 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 09:30:15 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA20600 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 09:17:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h28EJj522654 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 09:19:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF4446Z; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 09:19:46 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (amert1fy.ca.nortel.com [47.131.82.230]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBF9F1; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 09:19:44 -0500 Message-ID: <3E69FCC0.8050400@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Nucleus of a draft BCP on filtering References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 09:22:56 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jon Kyme wrote: > Well, no, but I believe we must form a consensus on a > definition of "consent-based communication". > That's what the RG is chartered for. Ie: from the charter: The definition of spam messages is not clear and is not consistent across different individuals or organizations. Therefore, we generalize the problem into "consent-based communication". This means that an individual or organization should be able to express consent or lack of consent for certain communication and have the architecture support those desires. I see that. On the other hand, as Paul's welcome to the list also comments, we should consider whether that's too confining. I agree, being able to express consent and have the architecture support those desires is an interesting topic. But, unless you strain the definition of consent implementation to the limit (and build automatic classifiers, which we're a long way away from), you're faced with "merely" a technical infrastructure that implements something that spammers will ignore. It only works if the spammer "consent" to telling the truth. Rule #1: spammers lie. Like voluntary classification systems, if the incentive to get around it is enough, they will. And they do. We have ample demonstration of that. Even relatively legitimate operations do things to ensure that their message gets through, because of measures we're taking to stop the totally spammish are believed by the more legitimate operations to be overbroad. For example, you can consider SpamAssassin to be a consent implementation that automatically classifies (coarsely) the emails. There are already "services" available to tune your message against SpamAssassin - equally attractive to both spammers, and legitimate bulk mailers. Which defeats the purpose of consent systems. I think that one of the early, yet valuable, things that the ASRG can do is level-set the "anti-spam" effort: identify which definition of "spam" warrants the efforts (UBE, IMHO), classify existing solutions, make them play nice with each other, establish best-current-practises for various aspects of spam control - ie: BCPs on how anti-spam gateways should behave, BCPs on how DNSBLs should operate (ie: truth in advertising), BCPs on how false positives should be handled (ie: rejects, versus bouncing, versus silent blackholing), BCPs on privacy concerns of distributed bulk detection (hi Vernon! ;-), etc. BCPs not necessarily as "musts", but guidance to administrators and filter designers when they're designing, building, deploying and operating stuff. Through this, we also begin to understand what works better, as well as answering the age old question, "is it going to be enough to prevent striker meltdown of the entire Internet?" (IMHO, no, just a last ditch defence that's ultimately doomed without "help" from non-technical means). _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 10:03:47 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29565 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:03:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h28FFnR08923 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:15:49 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28FFnO08920 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:15:49 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29435 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:03:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28FECO08866; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:14:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28FDbO08796 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:13:37 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29010 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:01:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2090364; Sat, 08 Mar 2003 10:03:10 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3E69F90C.804@harvee.org> References: <3E69F90C.804@harvee.org> To: "Eric S. Johansson" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Economic model is borken. (sic.) Let's fix it Cc: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:03:10 -0500 At 9:07 AM -0500 3/8/03, Eric S. Johansson wrote: >problem has been solved with stamps. I know I'm sounding like a >broken record (or will very shortly). The model is if you filter >for stamps, then a robot can attach a stamp to an auto response and >it will get to your inbox. It's 1. What is the incentive for a company to add a stamp? You initiated the transaction, and now you are charging them to communicate with you about it. Why won't they just add a disclaimer to the site telling you that you should let there stuff through? 2. If they do automatically add a stamp, what keeps me from abusing that fact by continuously generating non-paying transactions which require responses? (If you've got an FAQ on these things somewhere, feel free to point me at it.) -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 10:31:07 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA05505 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:31:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h28FhAZ10689 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:43:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28FhAO10686 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:43:10 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA05397 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:30:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28Ff5O10501; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:41:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28Fe5O10458 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:40:05 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04789 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:27:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18rbTE-0000Hx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Mar 2003 05:22:24 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Nucleus of a draft BCP on filtering In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 07 Mar 2003 16:58:24 EST." <3E691600.6010001@americasm01.nt.com> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 05:22:23 -0500 "Chris Lewis" wrote: > - spam is a behaviour, not a content. You're trying to identify the > sender behaving that way, not the material per-se. One glaring difference in behaviour is volume. But the net isn't currently set up to even be *aware* of volume. e.g. The "slashdot effect". DDoS attacks. Ping floods. e.g. The misconfigured open relay which tries to deliver spam 10x per second, and ignores any reject messages. The sysadmin of that machine may not even notice any problem, if he's over-built his system. While DDoS attacks aren't part of this groups charter, they are, in my opinion, a large part of the spam problem. Is the IETF going to decide that traffic/protocol attacks on the network infrastructure are outside of the scope of technical solutions? Are there not existing technical methods which can address the problem? Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 10:36:27 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA06520 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:36:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h28FmUL10872 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:48:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28FmUO10869 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:48:30 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA06428 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:35:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28Fl2O10808; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:47:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28Fk2O10773 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:46:02 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA05945 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:33:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (zcard307.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h28FZV523551 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:35:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDFBKK8Z; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:35:32 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (amert199.ca.nortel.com [47.131.82.10]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBF9FR; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:35:30 -0500 Message-ID: <3E6A0E81.4020106@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Let's try something different References: <00a101c2e40b$54e40cc0$ca81bbd0@kit> <3E68E118.6000305@cove-mtn.com> <011d01c2e4f3$68152fc0$0580bbd0@kit> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 10:38:41 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kee Hinckley wrote: > Even the proxy list > someone recently posted a URL to here promptly gave us false > positives--including ones for some people on this list! I suppose I can understand why people have such myopic views of such things. But one glance at the metrics our tools produce of such things would make a believer out of just about anyone. The hugely critical thing is how you handle false positives. Do you just sigh, and say "blacklists are STUPID!!!" and turn them off, or do you take a broader view and get the open proxy fixed? It's not as if a given FP is something you can't do something about. A FP or two? So what? If you're doing it right, the worst that happens is that the email is delayed a bit. For example, there are class Bs in Brazil that have 500 IPs pumping email at us, and a simple combination of, say, BOPM and Monkeys lists over 95% of them. The _accuracy_ of BOPM's and Monkey's listings is easily seen - virtually every one of those IPs is pumping 10 (or a hundred or even a thousand) times as much email into our spamtraps as they manage to address to real users. We're talking hundreds or _thousands_ of daily spamtrap hits. The well run proxy lists are fiendishly accurate - at the time the test was done, they _were_ open, and in almost every case, pumping only spam, no legit email (remember, that most open proxies are things like default open AnalogX proxies on ADSL lines that were never intended to send any email in the first place). But, of course, this leaves a hole - the blacklists often don't get realtime notification of closure, and won't know to delist. This is clearly MUCH more pronounced in less well known/used blacklists[*]. Consider this, then, if _every_ mail system made use of open proxy blacklists, and every mail system utilized a reasonably sane method of back-notifying legit senders from these IPs of the blacklisting. [Hence, for example, my posting of points for a BCP on filtering.] Result? Senders get their systems fixed ASAP, and things get delisted in a timely fashion. The FPs have been resolved. Virtually no harm done. The only ones left open are the ones not sending any legit email, just spam. Better accuracy. Fewer spam sources. I'd almost suggest that the ASRG propose a BCP that at least recommends that MTAs reject email from promiscuous proxies. I can't think of a faster way to get them all fixed and take a pretty substantial bite out of our current spam loads. At least it may prompt the developer of AnalogX to _finally_ make the thing default to non-promiscuous - I've tried, no joy. [*] we run a combination of DNSBLs in addition to other filtering techniques. We also have a well developed procedure for being notified of false positives and pushing fixes, retests and delistings. When we introduced these blacklists, we had an initial flurry of FPs as small-time senders encountered a system using blacklists for the first time. We forward the blocked email, queue the retests, and help the sender get their problem fixed and delisted - if it's still open. One of the most compelling results was that the highest FP ratio (FPs per IP listed) was that of an open relay blacklist that only two systems on the planet use (ours and the BL maintainer. We're big. The BL owner is about 600 times larger.). Its accuracy is obviously directly dependent on the number of MTAs that actually use it. You know what? At first, we routinely saw 5-10 FPs per day (repeat after me: forward the email, send the sender boilerplate of why it was blocked, queue the retests, help the sender get the problem fixed. No harm done). We're now averaging about 2/day. Soon, we'll be seeing a few per week. Each being handled the same way - no harm done. Our users are paranoid about losing email. Our company _relies_ on email for business purposes. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 10:40:19 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA07247 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:40:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h28FqMV11006 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:52:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28FqMO11003 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:52:22 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA07150 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:39:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28Fp2O10945; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:51:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28ForO10924 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:50:53 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA06832 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:38:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 28701 invoked from network); 7 Mar 2003 15:38:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.2.100.178?) (10.2.100.178) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 7 Mar 2003 15:38:27 -0000 From: Matt Sergeant X-X-Sender: matt@localhost.localdomain To: John Kodis cc: "Asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) In-Reply-To: <20030308133221.GB2292@tux.gsfc.nasa.gov> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 15:53:46 +0000 (GMT) On Sat, 8 Mar 2003, John Kodis wrote: > On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 10:18:52AM +0000, Matt Sergeant wrote: > > On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > > > > > AOL recently got a billion spams in a day. That means that each > > > week AOL is getting as much spam as Hormel have ever made. > > > > Rejected a billion spams (using DNS blacklistings). They get significantly > > more. Scary, isn't it? > > Yup. Now imagine the situation after the wide-spread deployment of > IPv6 which exacerbates the problem by a factor of about 2^96. Why does that increase the problem? IPv6 doesn't mean the number of open relays/proxies or spammers increases, does it? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 10:43:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA07855 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:43:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h28FtXW11135 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:55:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28FtWO11132 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:55:32 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA07740 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:42:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28Fs2O11090; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:54:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28FrFO11057 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:53:15 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA07336 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:40:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 28849 invoked from network); 7 Mar 2003 15:40:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.2.100.178?) (10.2.100.178) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 7 Mar 2003 15:40:50 -0000 From: Matt Sergeant X-X-Sender: matt@localhost.localdomain To: Chris Lewis cc: "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] DCC and IP checksums In-Reply-To: <3E69F330.8010607@americasm01.nt.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 15:56:09 +0000 (GMT) On Sat, 8 Mar 2003, Chris Lewis wrote: > [ie: there are "pay services" which tune your email to get past > SpamAssassin. Not necessarily "bad", unless the intent is to spam as > opposed to minimizing the possibility of interference with legit > opt-in/confirmed bulk email.] SpamAssassin 2.50 includes a bayesian component. Thus all SpamAssassin installations are different, rendering this sort of service pretty much useless once people upgrade. We recognised the above as a major problem, so we fixed it. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 10:48:04 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA08258 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:48:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h28G06M11356 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:00:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28G06O11353 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:00:06 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA08191 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:47:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28Fw3O11252; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:58:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28FvxO11227 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:57:59 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA08114 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:45:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 29140 invoked from network); 7 Mar 2003 15:45:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.2.100.178?) (10.2.100.178) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 7 Mar 2003 15:45:34 -0000 From: Matt Sergeant X-X-Sender: matt@localhost.localdomain To: Kee Hinckley cc: Jed Margolin , "Asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Let's try something different In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 16:00:52 +0000 (GMT) On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Kee Hinckley wrote: > At 1:49 PM -0800 3/7/03, Jed Margolin wrote: > >Traffic from ISPs who refuse to play by the rules will be refused by the > >Internet Community. > > > >In other words, they will be excommunicated. > > I that is demonstrably not true. The system has gotten too big for > that, and the need for connectivity too large. Blacklisting is no > longer a sufficient threat, and attempts to do so to mixed-use > providers have resulted in law-suits (witness MAPS). The entire > thing is complicated by the subjective nature of spam, and the > question of when to pull the trigger on an ISP. Are they spam > friendly, or just having trouble keeping their system clean? > > I've yet to find any blacklist that was reliable. Even the proxy > list someone recently posted a URL to here promptly gave us false > positives--including ones for some people on this list! The SBL seems very sane and very reliable. The removal mechanism is swift and responsive, and they seem to achieve action not by threat, but by communication. I'd like to see more DNSBLs run like the SBL. Matt. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 10:54:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA09751 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:54:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h28G6bR11608 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:06:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28G6bO11605 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:06:37 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA09636 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:54:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28G54O11560; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:05:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28G4aO11508 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:04:36 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA09212 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:51:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h28Fs36X029130 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 08:54:03 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303081554.h28Fs36X029130@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Economic model is borken. (sic.) Let's fix it References: <3E69F90C.804@harvee.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 08:54:03 -0700 (MST) > From: "Eric S. Johansson" > ... > > I go to a web site and purchase something. They send me an email > > receipt. How exactly are they going to automatically get through my > > challenge response? ... >problem has been solved with stamps. I know I'm sounding like a broken record > (or will very shortly). The model is if you filter for stamps, then a robot can >attach a stamp to an auto response and it will get to your inbox. ... No, that is not a solution, because it is based on the engineering of wishful thinking. So is absolutely any other idea related to the Internet that begins with "Install X at most Internet X" when X is a kind of hardware or software operated by 1,000 or more people. Anything that requires actions by 1000 people or 0.01% of the relvant population, whichever is smaller, before it is useful will probably never happen and certainly cannot be relied on. Unless the first few dozen individuals who install your proposed change benefit significantly, there will never be another few dozen individuals who install it. People do not do things unless they see some real benefit from it or progress toward their goals. Charging for email is an exceptionally hopeless idea, because it starts with "first a large minority of users install email stamp software and buy stamps." Until at least 10,000,000 people regularly stamp their messages and require stamps on incoming mail, stamps are only overhead that will merely cause legitimate mail to be lost. If the next XP automatic update installed the necessary software, you would still not have critical mass. You would still need to convince the first 10,000,000 to buy e-stamps. Until all of your correspondents had bought e-stamps, your own roll of e-stamps would be useless. Your friends would see how little you got out of the exercise, and somehow never get around to buying their own rolls of e-stamps...or signing up with Verisign for a PKI email non-spamming identity or any other proposal that starts "first you get everyone to ..." When do you think the IESG would install e-stamp software on all of the IETF WG mailing list systems? Before you answer, note that most of the spam I suffer comes from IETF lists because their operators refuse to install minimal spam filtering such as rejecting mail entirely in Asian character sets. Look at history: - PayPal looks like it could survive, because the first people who used it got some good out of it. If you need to pay or receive $10, rendezvousing on a PayPal account is easier than sending a check. - the WWW took off because HTML was somewhat useful for the first users as a mark-up language and a very few individuals at enough big outfits (e.g. CERN) pushed it as a network thing that it was immediately useful to others at those big outfits and eventually outside. - Paul Vixie's RBL took off because the first people who used it it benefited. It was similar for all other well known blacklists and non-distributed filters. - the DCC took off and will survive as long as new versions of the checksums stay ahead of the spammers, because the handful of outfits that first tried the DCC had enough mail traffic to exceed its required critical mass and so got some spam filtered that would otherwise have been delivered. On the the other side, the dot-com boom and bust is filled with ideas that went "first we'll get lots of users, and then those users will find it useful and we'll get more users." Look at the history of "micropayments." That idea is quite similar to e-stamps, and was a dud. If you don't remember microspayments see http://www.openp2p.com/pub/a/p2p/2000/12/19/micropayments.html In the real world, if the first "early adopter" users don't find it useful (whatever it is), you will never have a second batch of users, and the early adopters will soon drop it. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 10:54:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA09782 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:54:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h28G6hc11624 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:06:43 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28G6hO11621 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:06:43 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA09654 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:54:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28G53O11544; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:05:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28G4BO11487 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:04:11 -0500 Received: from harvee.billerica.ma.us (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA09107 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:51:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from harvee.org (rufus.billerica.ma.us [192.168.0.10]) by harvee.billerica.ma.us (8.12.8/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h28G2Dd6027988; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:02:13 -0500 Message-ID: <3E6A11F7.6050809@harvee.org> From: "Eric S. Johansson" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Chris Lewis CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) References: <3E683148.10306@americasm01.nt.com> In-Reply-To: <3E683148.10306@americasm01.nt.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 10:53:27 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Chris Lewis wrote: > Eeek! I don't want to read 50,000 spams per day! not to mention that it is a horrible human factors problem. You want to keep users out of the spam trap because the whole point of antispam filter is to keep you from seeing spam. > False positives have a very simple solution. Treat it as the first step > in a "do something else to get this thru". Just like confirming a > mailing list subscription with per-transaction keywords. Or, "click > here" to get it through. classic challenge response systems have a serious problem if the center of the message is a robot. For example, you purchase something on the net, you get an invoice from a robot confirming the order and the robot is given a challenge message. You never see the invoice and never will unless you go to your spam trap and root around in all the garbage. As have pointed out elsewhere on the list, I believe a more reasonable solution will be a combination of postage stamp plus white list plus spam filter as discriminator. If mail doesn't have a postage stamp, it is passed to the discriminator which evaluates the message as spam/unknown/good mail. Only unknown messages are given a postage due or challenge response. You minimize false positives and minimize challenge messages outbound to reduce potential annoyance of challenge/postage due messages. I'm almost done with some reference code on the receive filter. I'm hoping to finish the discriminator integration this weekend. > If your filters are good, the FP rate is low. Our false positive > handling address averages less than 5 per day. unfortunately, that's a moving target. Spam is an economic problem with biological characteristics. Filters create evolutionary pressures and I'm noticing spam is evolving to be more and more indistinguishable from real mail. The end result is an increasing false positive rate because the difference between good and bad mail will get smaller and smaller. I believe that most of the techniques people have outlined on this list will send us down the same rathole as the virus/antivirus community. Evolutionary pressures creating change which requires yet another revision of the software or techniques. It's a great revenue stream for the anti- manufacturers but it's hell for everyone else. This is why I believe that we need to hit the spammers in the pocketbook through technical solutions. From what I see, tools like connection grabbers, postage stamps, and legitimizing narrow forms of e-mail marketing will have a far greater impact than anything proposed so far. it's a fundamental axiom of animal training that rewarding good behavior extremely quickly produces much more rapid change than punishing. See: "don't shoot the dog" by Karen Pryor. If we can give a legitimate outlet for e-mail advertising, a lot of the incentive to spam will be reduced. Those that remain can be punished through negative reinforcement techniques like connection grabbing and postage stamps. ---eric _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 10:55:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA09997 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:55:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h28G7jI12458 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:07:45 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28G7jO12455 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:07:45 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA09894 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:55:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28G61O11597; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:06:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28G5CO11569 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:05:12 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA09357 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:52:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h28Fsf523790 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:54:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF44VD1; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:54:42 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (amert199.ca.nortel.com [47.131.82.10]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBF9F5; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:54:41 -0500 Message-ID: <3E6A1300.3090708@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Nucleus of a draft BCP on filtering References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 10:57:52 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alan DeKok wrote: > "Chris Lewis" wrote: > >>- spam is a behaviour, not a content. You're trying to identify the >>sender behaving that way, not the material per-se. > One glaring difference in behaviour is volume. But the net isn't > currently set up to even be *aware* of volume. That leads to an interesting question: can we extend the lower layers of the Internet protocols (eg: at TCP/IP) to allow someone to specify and enforce rate limiting in such a way as to seriously affect spam? Unfortunately, I think not. Consider striker - that's a broad-source attack. Any one of the IPs spamming striker has less volume than some of our legitimate senders. Anyone disagree? > Is the IETF going to decide that traffic/protocol attacks on the > network infrastructure are outside of the scope of technical > solutions? I think there's going to have to be. As door locks are a good technical solution for certain classes of undesirable behaviour, you need ot resort to legislation and police enforcement to even begin to get a handle on the overall problem. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 11:01:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA11155 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:01:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h28GDaT12763 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:13:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28GDaO12760 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:13:36 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA11051 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:01:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28GB2O12583; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:11:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28GAEO12542 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:10:14 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA10398 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:57:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h28FxiNs029451 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 08:59:44 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303081559.h28FxiNs029451@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Economic model is borken. (sic.) Let's fix it References: <3E69FBD8.7010406@harvee.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 08:59:44 -0700 (MST) > From: "Eric S. Johansson" > ... > how to operate a VCR and is suspicious of remote controls. Telling her she > needs to add a special field and have that field found by antispam filter > whenever she orders something online? Not bloody likely. > >A stamp model simplifies the entire process because it is done > without requiring any human interaction. The first part of that is right, but the second part is wrong. You require her to sign up for stamps, to agree to require them on her incoming bulk-looking mail. That won't happen. She can see the benefit of using email and google, but the benefit of receiving somewhat less spam is too theoretical. When you tell her that signing up will block a lot of spam, but not all, she unconsciously think you're exaggerating and never get around to it. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 11:06:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12093 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:06:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h28GIgo12908 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:18:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28GIgO12905 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:18:42 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA11987 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:06:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28GH8O12867; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:17:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28GG1O12827 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:16:01 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA11515 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:03:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 30238 invoked from network); 7 Mar 2003 16:03:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.2.100.178?) (10.2.100.178) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 7 Mar 2003 16:03:35 -0000 From: Matt Sergeant X-X-Sender: matt@localhost.localdomain To: Chris Lewis cc: "Asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Let's try something different In-Reply-To: <3E6A0E81.4020106@americasm01.nt.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 16:18:54 +0000 (GMT) On Sat, 8 Mar 2003, Chris Lewis wrote: > Consider this, then, if _every_ mail system made use of open proxy > blacklists, and every mail system utilized a reasonably sane method of > back-notifying legit senders from these IPs of the blacklisting. [Hence, > for example, my posting of points for a BCP on filtering.] > > Result? Senders get their systems fixed ASAP, and things get delisted > in a timely fashion. The FPs have been resolved. Virtually no harm > done. The only ones left open are the ones not sending any legit email, > just spam. Better accuracy. Fewer spam sources. I like DNS blacklists, I really do. I think they're the right thing to do most of the time, when they are sane lists. My one big problem with them is bounce messages - they suck. We need a friendlier bounce message system than "MAILER-DAEMON" messages so my mum can understand why her email didn't get through. Matt. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 11:21:27 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA14472 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:21:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h28GXWf13339 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:33:32 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28GXWO13336 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:33:32 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA14466 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:20:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28GV5O13278; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:31:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28GUnO13251 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:30:49 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA14085 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:18:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h28GKJEY002462 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 09:20:19 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303081620.h28GKJEY002462@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Nucleus of a draft BCP on filtering References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 09:20:19 -0700 (MST) > From: "Chris Lewis" > ... > > One glaring difference in behaviour is volume. But the net isn't > > currently set up to even be *aware* of volume. What about things like the DCC? The fundamental purpose and idea of the DCC is to measure the volume of mail messages. > That leads to an interesting question: can we extend the lower layers of > the Internet protocols (eg: at TCP/IP) to allow someone to specify and > enforce rate limiting in such a way as to seriously affect spam? > > Unfortunately, I think not. Consider striker - that's a broad-source > attack. Any one of the IPs spamming striker has less volume than some > of our legitimate senders. Anyone disagree? The lower layers have since practically the beginning been set up to measure rates and some ISPs have since the 1980's been set u to "specify and enforce rate limiting." Recall the rates that said "buy a T1 and pay for a 56K unless and until you use more." You also said "in such a way as to seriously affect spam". The fact that all email including spam is a small part of the total bandwidth used kills the idea of doing much about spam by counting raw bits. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 11:28:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA15588 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:28:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h28GedP14373 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:40:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28GedO14370 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:40:39 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA15438 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:28:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28Gd2O14292; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:39:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28GcrO14278 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:38:53 -0500 Received: from harvee.billerica.ma.us (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA15057 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:26:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from harvee.org (rufus.billerica.ma.us [192.168.0.10]) by harvee.billerica.ma.us (8.12.8/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h28Gavd6028273; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:36:57 -0500 Message-ID: <3E6A1A1A.5040601@harvee.org> From: "Eric S. Johansson" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kee Hinckley CC: "Eric S. Johansson" , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Economic model is borken. (sic.) Let's fix it References: <3E69F90C.804@harvee.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 11:28:10 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kee Hinckley wrote: > At 9:07 AM -0500 3/8/03, Eric S. Johansson wrote: > >> problem has been solved with stamps. I know I'm sounding like a >> broken record (or will very shortly). The model is if you filter for >> stamps, then a robot can attach a stamp to an auto response and it >> will get to your inbox. It's > > > 1. What is the incentive for a company to add a stamp? You initiated > the transaction, and now you are charging them to communicate with you > about it. Why won't they just add a disclaimer to the site telling you > that you should let there stuff through? good question. here are two answers that I usually give. Which works for you? 1) the incentive is to make sure their messages delivered. In the physical world, if I call them up on the telephone and order a catalog, they have an incentive to add postage to make sure I get but I asked for otherwise they risk me taking my business elsewhere. so, why should not be the same electronically. 2) increasingly, antispam filters are taking out legitimate communications from businesses. The use of a stamp would allow them to bypass the filters without requiring the recipient to do anything special (i.e. white list, filter exception). > > 2. If they do automatically add a stamp, what keeps me from abusing that > fact by continuously generating non-paying transactions which require > responses? this is a serious risk factor before near full adoption. In a nutshell, the business would need to be careful about how many messages it was prodded into generating for a given address. There would need to be some logic put into the robot to say "hey! I have received over X messages in the past Y hours from this user. Time to get a human". another variant of this would be to create a denial service attack by forging from address so simple logic like the above wouldn't work. A third variant would be to have a robot hammering on the Web site generating message requests to random destination addresses. I accepted this is a weak spot but I believe it can be solved. Using techniques such as address probes (i.e. does this domain/user exist) and rate analysis (normal vs. abnormal levels of traffic) can help minimize the impact. There are some other solutions I'm thinking about but they aren't well enough formed for public disclosure. > (If you've got an FAQ on these things somewhere, feel free to point me > at it.) unfortunately, not yet. have you read http://harvee.billerica.ma.us/camram/ yet? I want to do an faq in a wiki but I need a wiki for the camram site and I haven't had the cycles to set it up. ---eric _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 11:34:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA17026 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:34:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h28Gkd514700 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:46:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28GkdO14697 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:46:39 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA16896 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:34:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28Gj4O14620; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:45:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28GipO14583 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:44:51 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA16509 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:32:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h28GYJ524251 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:34:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF44VFX; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:34:20 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (acart523.ca.nortel.com [47.129.10.238]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBF9GC; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:34:19 -0500 Message-ID: <3E6A1C49.2010804@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Good versus bad (was Re: RMX Records ) References: <3E665320.1030004@americasm01.nt.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 11:37:29 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit David F. Skoll wrote: > On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Chris Lewis wrote: >>Alan knows of what he speaks. >>See http://striker.ottawa.on.ca > I have a hard time believing that's typical, except for large > companies and ISP's. Nobody's suggesting it's typical. It's just where we're all headed if we don't put on the brakes. There are plenty of reports of in-the-ballpark-comparable experiences with much smaller organizations. Striker is, admittedly, a far out case, where it looks like a single spammer malfunction has led to a continuous and unstoppable DDOS. On the other hand, our spamtrap metrics are what a, say, long-existing[+] 100,000[*] user company looks like after 18+ months of turning off the deliverability of the domain. Imagine if it was an ISP with considerably higher turnover and similarly long life. 100,000 users is a _small_ provider in comparison to moderate to large ISPs... AOL blocks three and a half orders of magnitude more spam than our spamtrap represents... [*] for reasons I won't go into here, what was a 10,000 employee company probably looked like a 100,000-seat ISP on the Internet in terms of proliferation of email addresses. Thank god we got rid of that mess. [+] long-existing? Consider: the domain behind that spamtrap was in the game early enough to get a class A with no questions asked. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 11:35:07 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA17139 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:35:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h28GlAJ14751 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:47:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28GlAO14746 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:47:10 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA17022 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:34:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28Gj3O14604; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:45:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28GiFO14562 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:44:15 -0500 Received: from zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA16358 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:31:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (zcard307.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h28GXiu04486 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:33:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDFBKLZ0; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:33:44 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (acart523.ca.nortel.com [47.129.10.238]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBF9GA; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:33:43 -0500 Message-ID: <3E6A1C25.20300@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) References: <3E683148.10306@americasm01.nt.com> <3E6A11F7.6050809@harvee.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 11:36:53 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Eric S. Johansson wrote: >> False positives have a very simple solution. Treat it as the first >> step in a "do something else to get this thru". Just like confirming >> a mailing list subscription with per-transaction keywords. Or, "click >> here" to get it through. > classic challenge response systems have a serious problem if the center > of the message is a robot. For example, you purchase something on the > net, you get an invoice from a robot confirming the order and the robot > is given a challenge message. You never see the invoice and never will > unless you go to your spam trap and root around in all the garbage. Who said anything about "you" (the recipient)? Let's say that you purchase something on the web, the robot generates the invoice, and the robot sees a challenge (or a reject). What would intelligent engineering of a system that deals with money suggest? What would due diligence suggest in the face of the user typing their email address wrong? Or the recipient mail server being offline for a bit too long? Email isn't 100% reliable, entirely aside from spam filtering misfires. Properly designed systems (ie: those ones that don't get sued for negligence in handling financial transactions) make allowances for them. That's right, the reject gets dropped in someone's mailbox on the sending side, and a human being figures out what to do. Or something analogous. It works. We get FP reports regarding robots, mailing lists, "trial software registration systems" and the like all the time. The "robot" factor is not an issue with properly designed systems. If they're not properly designed to handle ordinary exceptions, I'd suggest that doing business with them at all is a bad idea, entirely aside from whether they can get thru your spam filters. > it's a fundamental axiom of animal training that rewarding good behavior > extremely quickly produces much more rapid change than punishing. See: > "don't shoot the dog" by Karen Pryor. If we can give a legitimate > outlet for e-mail advertising, a lot of the incentive to spam will be > reduced. Those that remain can be punished through negative > reinforcement techniques like connection grabbing and postage stamps. This only works when having the dog behave good is the desirable outcome. I would suggest that, with Stubberfield [*] for example, the only desirable outcome is an "ex-dog" in Monty Python terminology ;-). The only way to make Ralsky "behave" is to _promise_ to deliver what he sends. Do we really want that? I don't think so. [*] Stubberfield is the unstoppable spammer of "teenage girl with horse" sex videos - seems to relish spamming children with this crap. Or, consider the guy who spams animated gifs of dogs and um, you know. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 12:02:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA21955 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:02:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h28HEaX17744 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:14:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28HEaO17741 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:14:36 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA21836 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:02:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28HA5O17423; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:10:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28H4tO15979 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:04:55 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA20230 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:52:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h28GsN524438 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:54:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF44VHA; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:54:24 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (acart523.ca.nortel.com [47.129.10.238]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBF9G2; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:54:23 -0500 Message-ID: <3E6A20FB.5010202@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Let's try something different References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 11:57:31 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Matt Sergeant wrote: > I like DNS blacklists, I really do. I think they're the right thing to do > most of the time, when they are sane lists. My one big problem with them > is bounce messages - they suck. We need a friendlier bounce message system > than "MAILER-DAEMON" messages so my mum can understand why her email > didn't get through. This is in fact the biggest problem in handling FPs - making the return email legible enough so that the user understands what it means. Our rejection messages are pretty explicit: "this email was blocked by our spam filters. If you believe this to be in error, please forward this message, including session ID, to , sessionID: 123244.4444" Three problems: 1) A few MTAs manage not to show these messages to the sender AT ALL. They just get a generic "it didn't work". 2) Many MTAs bury these strings so deep in bafflegab about NDRs/X.400 gunk and other sillyness (like listing each MX and retry in excrutiatingly useless detail), that it's very easy to miss the message. 3) Language. Here's an idea: extend RFC2821 to mandate a series of response codes that MTAs can interpret and display to the senders. Eg, some sort of SMTP policy return error: 55x Ie: 554 a.b.c NOUBE MAIL fp_handling@foo.bar or: 554 a.b.c NOUBE URL http://ourblacklist.foo.bar/lookup?ip=A.A.A.A or: 554 a.b.c SENDERPAYS POSTAGE http://postoffice.bar.foop/?session= Then the sending MTA has a chance to generate a much more intelligible reject - ie: couch it in the user's own language, etc. If we can push to make FPs less painful, then filtering becomes more palatable with less collateral damage. If this is standardized in an RFC, you could use it right away (it could often be explanatory enough without any MTA support on the sender's side) and MTAs fully understanding the return codes will get more common with time. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 12:16:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA24655 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:16:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h28HSiU18714 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:28:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28HSiO18711 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:28:44 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA24571 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:16:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28HRAO18657; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:27:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28HQBO18582 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:26:11 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA24112 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:13:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18rd7r-0000K0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Mar 2003 07:08:27 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Nucleus of a draft BCP on filtering In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 08 Mar 2003 09:20:19 MST." <200303081620.h28GKJEY002462@calcite.rhyolite.com> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 07:08:26 -0500 Vernon Schryver wrote: > > > One glaring difference in behaviour is volume. But the net isn't > > > currently set up to even be *aware* of volume. > > What about things like the DCC? The fundamental purpose and idea of > the DCC is to measure the volume of mail messages. That's great, but most of the net isn't running DCC. And notwithstanding my opinions about filters, if most of the net *did* run something like DCC, we probably wouldn't be in this mess. > The lower layers have since practically the beginning been set up to > measure rates and some ISPs have since the 1980's been set u to "specify > and enforce rate limiting." Recall the rates that said "buy a T1 and > pay for a 56K unless and until you use more." That's raw bandwidth, which isn't a good measure of network attacks, or of end-user consent to being hammered by that bandwidth. > You also said "in such a way as to seriously affect spam". The fact > that all email including spam is a small part of the total bandwidth > used kills the idea of doing much about spam by counting raw bits. If you assume that you can't distinguish email from any other traffic, then yes. But I don't think that assumption is true. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 12:20:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25440 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:20:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h28HWbb18919 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:32:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28HWbO18916 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:32:37 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25335 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:19:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28HV3O18902; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:31:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28HUeO18861 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:30:40 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA24949 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:18:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h28HK7k5008446 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 18:20:07 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h28HIgrf011375 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 18:18:42 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h28HIgHf011373 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 18:18:42 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <20030308171841.GA9148@danisch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: [Asrg] Why content filters are inacceptable Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 18:18:42 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit One of the principles to stop spam discussed so far are content filters, i. e. filtes which basically ignore the SMTP connection and the header, and focus on the body of the message (and maybe the Subject header line). I'd like to point out why such systems are inacceptable and a severe threat to privacy and freedom of speech. To do so, let me distinguish between two fundamental types of such filters: Those which need to reveal any kind of information about the message to be analyzed (e.g. the full message or just a hash value) to a third party, and those which don't (but download some kind of pattern set from a third party). The first kind (those revealing some information): The basic principle is to ask a third party "is this message known to be spam?". As discussed, this question will not include the full message, but only some kind of hash value. If that third party has seen the full message before, it immediately knows that the party sending the request has received that particular message. Even if the third party doesn't know the message text, it can easily see which persons do receive the same e-mail, and therefore can build a database of relations between persons, exactly as secret services use to do to undermine privacy. That's the way it works even in the most democratic countries (USA: such databases are known to exist for decades, and meanwhile there's a "total information awareness" program. Germany: Could be used for the "Raster- or Zielfahndung".) If posession of a mail could in any way compromise you, you can't deny to have received the message since your request with that specific hash sum was recorded. So once a government observes any kind of a politically unwanted message, it can immediately list all those people who have received that particular message simply by doing a database lookup. I do refuse to sacrifice all my privacy and to feed Big Brother. Ironically, as I pointed out in an earlier message, this kind of system fails to block spam, because once such systems become widely spread, spammers will individualize their messages to defeat the hash mechanism, and many of today's spam messages already are individualized. The second kind (not revealing any information): In contrast to the first kind, these systems need to "learn" what's an undesired message. If you do not want them to train yourself - and that's unreasonable for most users - they need to download some kind of "knowledge" from an external third party, usually a set of patterns. Thus, a third party is controlling which messages make the way into my mailbox, and which don't. After all, that's the idea. Except for the intention, there is absolutely no difference - and especially not a technical difference - between this and a censorship machinery. Any kind of organisation - whether government, your own secret service, a hostile secret service, Scientology, large monopolistic companies, intellectual property/patent warriors - could spoof spam alerts or even fake spam in order to perform a denial of service attack by poisoning the pattern set and thus getting all messages matching those patterns filtered. This is not phantasy. A similar effect is well known from newsgroups, where unwanted messages were removed by faked cancel messages. Since those patterns will not just match a particular message, but a wide range of messages - e.g. "money transfer from africa", "penis enlargement devices" - blocking virtually every message about a certain subject can easily be achieved. This is the perfect invitation for abuse. Since 9/11, there are severe efforts to enforce political correctness and to impact the freedom of speech. Even in Germany, a few politicians try to block websites (Bezirksregierung Düsseldorf). Their credo is: "If blocking is possible, then we'll do it." Building up such a pattern distribution infrastructures provides the ultimate and perfect tool to perform the same filtering on e-mails. If they do it with web pages, they won't hesitate to do the very same with e-mail. Once there is a third party able to control which mails are passed through, they will order them to block unwanted messages exactly the same way as they currently order providers to block web sites. I do refuse to open the door for Big Brother and to sacrifice my freedom of speech. And by the way, not every message from a girl asking me to have wild sex with her is spam. I don't accept that any third party could be able to block all my e-mails matching the "wild sex" pattern. Especially not if Big Brother's government is deprecating wild sex for religious reasons. Ironically again, this kind of system is also unable to block spam. Why? Have a look at a mechanism of exactly the same kind we already use for years: Virus/Worm filters. These filters always fail to block the first distribution, because of the recognition and pattern update delay. These pattern based content filters block the redistribution only. In contrast to viruses and worms, spam doesn't have a redistribution step. Spam is distributed only once. So how could such a pattern filter, which requires adaption for getting effective, ever be effective against a one-time-shot attack like spam? Adaptive pattern based content filters are effective against contents bound to a longer time interval or redistribution, such as viruses or free speech. They are not effective against contents distributed through one-time-shots, such as spam. A problem applying to both kinds: Even if we are far away from having a widely deployed public key infrastructure, we should take care to not slam that door closed. A content based spam filter would defeat the success of a common PKI. Why? Imagine there were content based spam filters working effectively. Imagine there would also be a widely spread PKI and it would be common to make people's public key publicly available. What would the next generation spammers do? Obviously, they would collect e-mail addresses _and_ public keys, and encrypt their spam, thus rendering the content filters ineffective. People would tend to not distribute their public key or to not having one at all. Thus, content filters make it even more difficult to establish a common PKI. I am very convinced about the fact, that any content filtering system does not effectively block spam, but is a severe threat to fundamental human and constitutional rights, such as privacy and freedom of speech. While a government would never be able to establish such a surveillance and censorship infrastructure for political reasons, spam-fighters are ready to establish it. (And some of them even claim to defend the constitution.) If even democratic countries do abuse any method to block unwanted contents, what would those contries do which's governments not even claim to be democratic and to care about human rights? Imagine what a Senator McCarthy could have done with such a tool. Imagine how such a tool would fit in a patriot act III. Imagine what a Saddam could do with such a tool. I am already scared if I imagine what the Bezirksregierung Düsseldorf could do with such a tool. Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 12:28:26 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA26960 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:28:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h28HeVh19971 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:40:31 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28HeVO19968 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:40:31 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA26856 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:27:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28Hc3O19832; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:38:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28HbbO19807 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:37:37 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA26294 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:25:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h28HR4AD010284 for Asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:27:04 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303081727.h28HR4AD010284@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Let's try something different References: <3E6A20FB.5010202@americasm01.nt.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:27:04 -0700 (MST) > From: "Chris Lewis" > ... > Our rejection messages are pretty explicit: "this email was blocked by > ... > Three problems: > > 1) A few MTAs manage not to show these messages to the sender AT ALL. > They just get a generic "it didn't work". > > 2) Many MTAs bury these strings so deep in bafflegab about NDRs/X.400 > gunk and other sillyness (like listing each MX and retry in > excrutiatingly useless detail), that it's very easy to miss the message. > > 3) Language. > > Here's an idea: extend RFC2821 to mandate a series of response codes > that MTAs can interpret and display to the senders. > Eg, some sort of SMTP policy return error: > 55x > ... That does nothing at all for your first two problems. It also does nothing for the third problem without a whole other system that does not exist on all platforms and that in any case would require a lot of new code in MTAs. That other system is required to translate the extended codes into "localized" natural language. (Never mind that the local language of the MTA doing the translating might be Spanish while the language of the person using the MUA that finally sees the bounce that might be delivered via a third MTA could be Finnish.) However, the fact that fancy response codes wouldn't help your three problems is not the worst. Worse is that it is yet another solution that depends on deploying extended policyflag decoding software in 10,000,000 MTAs. But wait, there's still more. In 35 years I've been in the software trade, I've seen a lot of "error code" systems. *ALL* of them are the same at the end. Sometimes the translation from a number (e.g. "ABEND 1234" or "killed signal 10") to a string (e.g. "bad pointer") is automatic and sometimes is manually finding the number in a list of numbers and strings. In either case, you get a general message that is meaningless except to the high priests of the system. The best and only working solution is to do as SMTP does. That is to include numbers that some software might but probably won't understand as well as English for humans. The English can be tailored for special cases such as including a telephone number. In special cases it can be a language other than English. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 12:30:04 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA27277 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:30:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h28Hg8120044 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:42:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28Hg8O20041 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:42:08 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA27165 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:29:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28He1O19941; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:40:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28HdOO19903 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:39:24 -0500 Received: from oregon.uoregon.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA26639 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:26:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from OREGON.UOREGON.EDU by OREGON.UOREGON.EDU (PMDF V6.1-1 #40185) id <01KT9Z8AUJDC8WX7QG@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU> for Asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Mar 2003 09:28:51 -0800 (PST) From: Joe St Sauver Subject: Re: [Asrg] Let's try something different To: clewis@nortelnetworks.com Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <01KT9Z8AUKB68WX7QG@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU> X-VMS-To: IN%"clewis@nortelnetworks.com" X-VMS-Cc: IN%"Asrg@ietf.org" MIME-version: 1.0 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 09:28:51 -0800 (PST) Chris said: #Consider this, then, if _every_ mail system made use of open proxy #blacklists, and every mail system utilized a reasonably sane method of #back-notifying legit senders from these IPs of the blacklisting. [Hence, #for example, my posting of points for a BCP on filtering.] # #Result? Senders get their systems fixed ASAP, and things get delisted #in a timely fashion. The FPs have been resolved. Virtually no harm #done. The only ones left open are the ones not sending any legit email, #just spam. Better accuracy. Fewer spam sources. This is precisely what's needed, and much like the stategy that the IRC folks adopted, except that they tend to take it a step further: rather than just checking existing open proxy lists, they actively scan connecting hosts for common open proxy ports at connect time, and feed positive hits back to the blacklist. But regardless of whether you simply consult an existing list, or actively check each connecting host at connection time, I agree that this is a key step. Regards, Joe _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 12:31:02 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA27489 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:31:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h28Hh6q20104 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:43:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28Hh6O20101 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:43:06 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA27379 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:30:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28Hf1O20008; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:41:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28HeEO19961 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:40:14 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA26803 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:27:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h28HTYBD032534; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:29:35 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: Hadmut Danisch cc: vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] DCC and IP checksums In-Reply-To: <20030308092117.GA3080@danisch.de> Message-ID: References: <20030307233904.26082.60695.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> <20030308092117.GA3080@danisch.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:29:34 -0500 (EST) On Sat, 8 Mar 2003, Hadmut Danisch wrote: > This won't work. I know it won't. As I wrote before, ANY checksum scheme can be defeated. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 12:36:11 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA28419 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:36:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h28HmGv20337 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:48:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28HmFO20334 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:48:15 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA28341 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:35:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28Hk3O20250; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:46:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28HjHO20233 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:45:17 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA27826 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:32:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h28HYi524919 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:34:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF44VKF; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:34:45 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (acart523.ca.nortel.com [47.129.10.238]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBF9HA; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:34:41 -0500 Message-ID: <3E6A2A6F.3050007@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Nucleus of a draft BCP on filtering References: <200303081620.h28GKJEY002462@calcite.rhyolite.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 12:37:51 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Vernon Schryver wrote: >From: "Chris Lewis" >>Alan wrote: >>> One glaring difference in behaviour is volume. But the net isn't >>>currently set up to even be *aware* of volume. > What about things like the DCC? The fundamental purpose and idea of > the DCC is to measure the volume of mail messages. What about things like the DCC? No, seriously, I think it's instructive to look at the experience with Usenet spam, because it's "farther along the learning curve". There are fundamental differences, which I'll get into in a moment, but much of what I'm going to talk about mirrors the experience with email exactly - only more so. And with all due respect, DCC isn't ubiquitous enough to really warrant much specific attention from the ratware authors. In the beginning, there were rate detectors, such as the one I operated starting in 1994 which simply detected the same From: appearing in over X postings in Y minutes. Human being checks, yup, it's the same stuff, take remedial action. Few false detections, never FPs. That worked well for quite a while (a couple of years). Never automated that tool to take remedial action on its own - because there _were_ FPs. Then spammers got smart, and started minimally mutating from lines and subjects, yet, the bodies tended to remain pretty similar. Then we started doing things like matching NNTP-Posting-Hosts (sound like the peerIP versus bounce rate proposal perhaps? ;-) Then, Usenet's "DCC" came on the scene, in the guise of something called Cosmo Roadkill. CR does virtually the same thing that DCC does - computes MD5 checksums of dehashed article bodies. Only difference being there was only one of them - it wasn't distributed, but it didn't need to be because of the nature of Usenet. My detector quickly became obsolete. CR did a vastly better job. Overnight CR outstripped my stuff by an order of magnitude. All unattended. No FPs. So, I essentially switched roles to the small amount of stuff CR didn't handle. Then came crackerbuster emulators, such as Hipcrime/NewsAgent, the pheromone spammer and such like. Hashbusting galore. As much as hundreds of lines of random words or sentences specifically designed to screw around with "volume detectors". You should have seen some of the gyrations the manual filter designers went through to cope. (ie: extremely complicated regexp analysis of message-id headers looking for artifacts in random number generators) The changes were dramatic. One day, I was it. Next day CR was it. A little while later, CR's effectiveness dropped to 20%, and Usenet anti-spam relied on (and still does) a small number of singularly _stubborn_ people eyeballing what was going on - which became less and less useful because Hipcrime was also attacking the "curative measures" themselves. Not only were there hash busting, there were people searching for open NNTP relays (open smtp relays anyone?). Later open proxies (Hipcrime may well have pioneered the technology that's now used to do open socks/http proxying - Hipcrime had his roots in writing some moderately ineffectual (by today's standards) email spamming tools). "Fake" ISPs. The works. So after 10 years, where is the Usenet now? Well, luckily, not bad (in the mainstream groups). Is that because of the effectiveness of the tools? For a time it was. But now even the tools don't work that effectively for a variety of reasons. The tools were a stopgap. Nowadays, most ISPs capable of running Usenet in a serious fashion have learned how to secure their systems, so abuse is much harder, and a lot more people see every incident. That's the difference: Usenet is a broadcast medium, and people making bad on it are a lot more obvious. The tools bought time. But, rogues still occur (see David Ritz's proposed UDP of Telstra). The main reason why I say this is, like CR, DCC will have a distinct lifetime during which it's useful. Ask yourself, how well would DCC fair if someone with the experience of you or I started writing ratware with what we know? The thought is appalling. > The lower layers have since practically the beginning been set up to > measure rates and some ISPs have since the 1980's been set u to "specify > and enforce rate limiting." Recall the rates that said "buy a T1 and > pay for a 56K unless and until you use more." IIRC, that wasn't so much a factor of detecting the rates, but simply not installing a full set of line cards. At least that is what it was with our partial T3. That would be hard to automate ;-) > You also said "in such a way as to seriously affect spam". The fact > that all email including spam is a small part of the total bandwidth > used kills the idea of doing much about spam by counting raw bits. Not even striker can much, even with 99.9999% of their bandwidth being connection attempt rejects... That's what I thought (and said). I'm hoping someone will prove the both of us wrong. But I'm not holding my breath. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 12:40:13 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA29142 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:40:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h28HqIS20532 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:52:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28HqIO20529 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:52:18 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA29060 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:39:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28Hp3O20501; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:51:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28HoaO20478 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:50:36 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA28732 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:37:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18rdVU-0000Ke-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Mar 2003 07:32:52 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Pushing consent upstream (was Re: [Asrg] Nucleus of a draft BCP on filtering ) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 08 Mar 2003 10:57:52 EST." <3E6A1300.3090708@americasm01.nt.com> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 07:32:51 -0500 "Chris Lewis" wrote: > > One glaring difference in behaviour is volume. But the net isn't > > currently set up to even be *aware* of volume. > > That leads to an interesting question: can we extend the lower layers of > the Internet protocols (eg: at TCP/IP) to allow someone to specify and > enforce rate limiting in such a way as to seriously affect spam? Current QoS methods may address this issue. Do you really consent to accepting more SMTP traffic than your MTA's can handle? > Unfortunately, I think not. Consider striker - that's a broad-source > attack. Any one of the IPs spamming striker has less volume than some > of our legitimate senders. Anyone disagree? No, but that's not quite on-point. I didn't consent to having 100 TCP SYN's per second sent to my MTA. Even those syn's wouldn't be much of a problem if I could inform my upstream provider that I do not consent to that traffic. But I can't. Look at it as a problem of the network not being aware of consent. If there was a mechanism available for consent to flow back in the network, that would result in back-pressure on the originator. Near the recipient, consent is easy to administer, because most people consent to most traffic. As we get closer in the network to the sender, consent becomes more difficult to administer, because the entire net is informing the sender of their non-consent. There's no problem with "who created the consent", either. Someone 3 hops away from me doesn't know, or care, that I didn't consent to some traffic. But I have a consent relationship with my upstream hop, to not send me traffic. He can accept it from his upstream provider and then not send it to me, or he can tell his upstream provider that he doesn't consent to that traffic. Either way, I don't care. I don't get the traffic. But notice the consent model: When my upstream provider tells his provider he doesn't consent to the traffic, it's NOT my consent any more. It's his. So there's no problem with tracking consent across multiple hops. Each hop already has a mutual business, technical, and trust relationship which can be leveraged to administer consent. The end result is that if someone sends you traffic you indicated non-consent for, it's incentive to stop talking to them at all. If a site hosts someone who gets non-consent from the everyone on net, then they may decide that administering that consent is more expensive than the money they get from that client. If they *don't* administer that consent, then everyone else cuts them off. The Usenet Death Penalty has been proven to work. But it requires administrator input, and isn't automated. For people who say that administering consent (most likely implemented in the form of massive ACL's) is difficult, remember that this is a *research* group. Even with that, solutions exist today which can do packet filtering at multi gigabit rates, with 10's of 1000's of ACL's. It's not trivial, but it shouldn't prevent us from examining consent enforcement in the network. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 12:46:20 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA00445 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:46:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h28HwPo20766 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:58:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28HwOO20763 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:58:24 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA00330 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:45:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28Hv2O20694; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:57:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28HutO20679 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:56:55 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA29999 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:44:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h28HkM7o012314 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:46:22 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303081746.h28HkM7o012314@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Nucleus of a draft BCP on filtering References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:46:22 -0700 (MST) > From: "Alan DeKok" > > > > One glaring difference in behaviour is volume. But the net isn't > > > > currently set up to even be *aware* of volume. > > > > What about things like the DCC? The fundamental purpose and idea of > > the DCC is to measure the volume of mail messages. > > That's great, but most of the net isn't running DCC. It's great for the fraction of the net that is running the DCC. Even more true than Brad Templeton's observations that spam solutions should not be 100% perfect is the fact that a significant part of the net will never want or use good spam defenses, not to mention any particular defense. > And notwithstanding my opinions about filters, if most of the net > *did* run something like DCC, we probably wouldn't be in this mess. Maybe so or not. As others have said, should the DCC or something similar become seriously popular instead of merely entirely usefully popular, spammers would pay more attention and more work would be needed to stay ahead of them. > ... > > You also said "in such a way as to seriously affect spam". The fact > > that all email including spam is a small part of the total bandwidth > > used kills the idea of doing much about spam by counting raw bits. > > If you assume that you can't distinguish email from any other > traffic, then yes. But I don't think that assumption is true. You can distinguish most mail from HTTP or other traffic by looking at TCP headers (exceptions include VPNs), but that's not useful. You need to distinguish spam. It's not exactly true that "one glaring difference in [spam] behaviour is volume." Sending 100,000 mail messages/day is not necessarily spam or otherwise bad. It's not even remarkable for at least 1000's and probably 10,000's of entirely reputable, very "anti-spam' outfits. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 12:48:07 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA00817 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:48:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h28I0Bq20905 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:00:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28I0BO20902 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:00:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA00726 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:47:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28Hx1O20835; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:59:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28HwDO20759 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:58:13 -0500 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA00280 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:45:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 18riQ3-0000UX-00; Sat, 08 Mar 2003 17:47:35 +0000 In-Reply-To: <3E69FCC0.8050400@americasm01.nt.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Nucleus of a draft BCP on filtering To: From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "Chris Lewis" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.4.8] Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 17:47:35 +0000 > > Ie: from the charter: > > The definition of spam messages is not clear and is not consistent > across different individuals or organizations. Therefore, we generalize > the problem into "consent-based communication". This means that an > individual or organization should be able to express consent or lack of > consent for certain communication and have the architecture support > those desires. > The charter for the RG is online :-) > On the other hand, as Paul's welcome to the list also > comments, we should consider whether that's too confining. > > I agree, being able to express consent and have the architecture support > those desires is an interesting topic. But, unless you strain the > definition of consent implementation to the limit (and build automatic > classifiers, which we're a long way away from), you're faced with > "merely" a technical infrastructure that implements something that > spammers will ignore. It only works if the spammer "consent" to telling > the truth. > > Rule #1: spammers lie. > Indubitably. Of course the content (while deceiving some automatic classifiers) can't. Which is why so many people favour these approaches. However, either "consenting-ness" is only considered proximal to the receiver (in the receivers MUA?) or it's propogated back toward the sender in the transport chain. In the latter case some means of representing and publicising "consent" is *required* and so considerations of what consent is, what entities give and and seek it, are not just "interesting" but merely acedemic exercises, but (I guess) key to the definition of a framework which can utilise whatever particular technology we might individually espouse. > > I think that one of the early, yet valuable, things that the ASRG can do > is level-set the "anti-spam" effort: identify which definition of "spam" > warrants the efforts (UBE, IMHO), classify existing solutions, make them > play nice with each other, establish best-current-practises for various > aspects of spam control - ie: BCPs on how anti-spam gateways should > behave, BCPs on how DNSBLs should operate (ie: truth in advertising), > BCPs on how false positives should be handled (ie: rejects, versus > bouncing, versus silent blackholing), BCPs on privacy concerns of > distributed bulk detection (hi Vernon! ;-), etc. Yes, absolutely, for which a taxonomy / theory of "spam" and "spam reduction" technologies is *required" or this push will become a morass of narrowly empirical, anecdotal and disjoint initiatives. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 13:04:03 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA03381 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:04:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h28IG8s22385 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:16:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28IG8O22382 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:16:08 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA03271 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:03:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28IEdO22315; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:14:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28IDOO22237 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:13:24 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA02711 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:00:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h28I2pR7013797 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:02:51 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303081802.h28I2pR7013797@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Nucleus of a draft BCP on filtering References: <3E6A2A6F.3050007@americasm01.nt.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:02:51 -0700 (MST) > From: "Chris Lewis" > ... > So after 10 years, where is the Usenet now? Well, luckily, not bad (in > the mainstream groups). Is that because of the effectiveness of the > tools? For a time it was. But now even the tools don't work that > effectively for a variety of reasons. The tools were a stopgap. > Nowadays, most ISPs capable of running Usenet in a serious fashion have > learned how to secure their systems, so abuse is much harder, and a lot > more people see every incident. > ... > The main reason why I say this is, like CR, DCC will have a distinct > lifetime during which it's useful. > > Ask yourself, how well would DCC fair if someone with the experience of > you or I started writing ratware with what we know? The thought is > appalling. > ... I see much the same, but from a different, perhaps optimistic angle. Since I resumed email spam checksumming with the DCC, I've said that the DCC is targeted against "mainsleaze" or junk such as the Dell newsletters that have been rattling my traps. I'm counting on the cottage spammers being controlled by governments. If my predictions (not proposals!) about what Congress and the DMA will do come true in time, then defenses like the DCC and even other defenses like SpamAssassin and so called Bayesian filters will be remain effective. I'm predicting that the genuinely professional advertisers will move to save email advertising with fees or taxes, including capping the spam per victim rate at about 1 dozen interesting commercial messages/day. The professionals will not deign or even want to do things like hire the anti-SpamAssassin groomers. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 13:13:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA05098 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:13:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h28IPZb22812 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:25:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28IPZO22809 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:25:35 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA04983 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:12:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28IO2O22757; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:24:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28INbO22708 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:23:37 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA04660 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:10:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (zcard307.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h28ID3525358 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:13:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDFBKNLT; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:13:02 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (acart523.ca.nortel.com [47.129.10.238]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBF9HG; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:13:02 -0500 Message-ID: <3E6A3306.2010709@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Let's try something different References: <3E6A20FB.5010202@americasm01.nt.com> <200303081727.h28HR4AD010284@calcite.rhyolite.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 13:14:30 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Vernon Schryver wrote: >>From: "Chris Lewis" >>Our rejection messages are pretty explicit: "this email was blocked by >>Three problems: >>1) A few MTAs manage not to show these messages to the sender AT ALL. >>They just get a generic "it didn't work". >>2) Many MTAs bury these strings so deep in bafflegab about NDRs/X.400 >>gunk and other sillyness (like listing each MX and retry in >>excrutiatingly useless detail), that it's very easy to miss the message. >>3) Language. >>Here's an idea: extend RFC2821 to mandate a series of response codes >>that MTAs can interpret and display to the senders. >>Eg, some sort of SMTP policy return error: >>55x > That does nothing at all for your first two problems. It also does > nothing for the third problem without a whole other system that does > not exist on all platforms and that in any case would require a lot > of new code in MTAs. You missed one of guiding principles. That the extended return convention be specifically designed to be human readable, and at the same time easy to machine parse. Our experience has been that even when the person receiving our bounce doesn't understand english prose, there's enough hints in it that they can usually react properly. Abuse desks in China often don't understand a word of english. But a forwarded email with the word "spam" in the subject is pretty obvious... As is our experience - I get a significant fraction of FP reports with non-english text, or even non-8-bit character sets. I still manage to figure out what the problem is and fix it. Even if they don't understand my reply. With a standard convention for doing this, even people who don't recognize english meanings at all can learn (from their friends if necessary) how to react since it'd be consistent across bounces from all systems generating the conventions. In essence, with zero MTA support, the situation is no worse than it is now. It provides for extended functionality when it becomes available. Because it would. Not having it doesn't cripple email or cause more bounces (as trying to deploy a stamp/signature system would). Having a compliant MTA simply makes it easier to decipher the bounces you'd get anyways. A painless deployment, and trivial/no brainer to implement for the next iteration of MTAs. MTA bounce "presentation" has always been an overlooked area. It's time that someone paid a little attention to it and did some useful things - at least at a BCP level. > That other system is required to translate the > extended codes into "localized" natural language. Perhaps I shouldn't have phrased it that way. It'd be _more_ than adequate to simply generate text consistent with the language that the MTA is already configured to generate (ie: all of our reported FPs that contain MTA bounce notices in French. Or Arabic. Or even in unicode). Leave true "sender language" generation for those willing to go that extra mile with their "Language-Preference" headers and other gunk. Nice feature, but not required. > However, the fact that fancy response codes wouldn't help your three > problems is not the worst. Worse is that it is yet another solution > that depends on deploying extended policyflag decoding software in > 10,000,000 MTAs. Doesn't require that at all. I could do it _now_ with our mailers without anyone anywhere parsing the results, and it'd still work fine. 100% backwards compatible. > But wait, there's still more. In 35 years I've been in the software > trade, I've seen a lot of "error code" systems. *ALL* of them are > the same at the end. Sometimes the translation from a number (e.g. > "ABEND 1234" or "killed signal 10") to a string (e.g. "bad pointer") > is automatic and sometimes is manually finding the number in a list of > numbers and strings. In either case, you get a general message that > is meaningless except to the high priests of the system. But it doesn't need to be. All it is is a protocol "escape" to something with more power to explain exactly what happened. If you got: 550 x.y.z NOSPAM http://foo.bar.blat?reason=XYZ I don't expect or even want the user to be able to instantly say "ohmygosh my proxy is open!", and go off and try to "fix" something - anything. All I want is the user to click on the link (or cut-and-paste it into a browser). Or, if it says: 550 x.y.z NOSPAM FORWARDBOUNCE mailto:spamhandler@mydomain.org?subject=XYZ simply send email to the address. The idea is to get the user to "call" something that can do a much better job of explaining what's going on, using routine, every-day, current web (or human beings behind a mailbox etc) practise. > The best and only working solution is to do as SMTP does. That is to > include numbers that some software might but probably won't understand > as well as English for humans. The English can be tailored for special > cases such as including a telephone number. In special cases it can > be a language other than English. This is "doing as SMTP does". It's simply providing an additional machine-readable convention for better interpretation of the message the rejecting MTA is trying to communicate in an ordinary SMTP response code. It's a lot easier for the sending MTA than the rejecting MTA to get closer to a language other than english - it's already configured that way. But it ain't hard to make the convention human readable. There's less than a dozen different meanings you're trying to convey anyway. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 13:21:08 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06635 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:21:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h28IXEL23204 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:33:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28IXEO23201 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:33:14 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06516 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:20:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28IVAO23096; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:31:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28IUeO23039 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:30:40 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA05929 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:18:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2090747; Sat, 08 Mar 2003 13:20:09 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3E6A0E81.4020106@americasm01.nt.com> References: <00a101c2e40b$54e40cc0$ca81bbd0@kit> <3E68E118.6000305@cove-mtn.com> <011d01c2e4f3$68152fc0$0580bbd0@kit> <3E6A0E81.4020106@americasm01.nt.com> To: "Chris Lewis" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Let's try something different Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:20:05 -0500 At 10:38 AM -0500 3/8/03, Chris Lewis wrote: >The hugely critical thing is how you handle false positives. Do you >just sigh, and say "blacklists are STUPID!!!" and turn them off, or do >you take a broader view and get the open proxy fixed? It's not as if a >given FP is something you can't do something about. I used to spend time tracking down that kind of thing. The volume exceeded what I could deal with years ago. But more critically, now that I'm running a service, I simply cannot afford it. Do the math on what someone pays to have their email spam-free, and then compare that to the amount of time it takes to track down and complain about proxies. No can do. I'd far rather spend my time here trying to fix the problem for once and for all than run around sticking my fingers in dikes. You can afford to do it for two reasons. One, you're relatively large. Two, your salary isn't being paid *just* by spam filtering income--you're subsidized. >A FP or two? So what? If you're doing it right, the worst that happens >is that the email is delayed a bit. This is a common misconception. "False positives aren't a problem, they just go into a queue that people can check." Technically, it's true. Practically, it doesn't work. I've got bad news for you. People don't check the queues. Oh sure, our technical users do. They understand fuzzy matching, they know that this kind of technology isn't 100% reliable. Our non-technical users don't, and furthermore, when they do look at them, they delete them without scanning them all. The longer they use the system, the less carefully they check. And the problem gets worse. The better your filtering gets, the less likely the user is to scan the queue. In other words, the lower the false positive rate, the more likely the end user is to delete the false positive without seeing it. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 13:31:23 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA08771 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:31:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h28IhSE24700 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:43:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28IhSO24697 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:43:28 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA08638 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:30:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28If9O24497; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:41:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28IeOO24423 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:40:24 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07981 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:27:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc02.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h28ITm3Z015130; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:29:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:29:48 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "Eric S. Johansson" , Kee Hinckley Cc: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Economic model is borken. (sic.) Let's fix it MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:29:47 -0800 > by using stamps, you will eliminate any need for special > white listing, domain > authentication, complicated dns reverse lookup rules and can > be implemented > quickly and easily without major changes to infrastructure. Changing from a model in which email is free to one where there is a per message charge *IS* a major change to the infrastructure. This is like saying that its a long way to go down the street to the convenience store so lets climb Mount Everest instead. Instead of taking infrastructure change as an impossible task lets look at the reasons why. The IETF has not shown much ability to achieve major infrastructure changes in the past. When I first started attending IETFs ten years ago the three big problems were deploying security for DNS, deploying security for IP and transitioning from the 32 bit address space. To date none of those transitions have been achieved. IPSEC is the only protocol of the three that is widely deployed and used - but it is only addressing the VPN space which is not what it was designed for. There have been infrastructure changes that have taken place, they are all incremental changes on existing specifications. I think that the main reason that the DNSSEC, IPSEC and IPv6 have failled thus far is because the people writing the specs have not put the effort into convincing the vendor community to deploy. A lot of people have the idea that you get a spec through the IETF and then everyone implements it. Well it never worked like that ever. To get people to implement XKMS I started by working with Microsoft, webMethods and two major banks. We approached our competitors for support when we started the W3C working group. We are still working with vendors getting XKMS built into products - with some success but we are far from finished. Changing the infrastructure is not impossible, we just need to go about it in the right way. Make sure that we co-opt the major ISPs and software providers as part of the solution. Another problem with the IPSEC/DNSEC/IPv6 deployment is that the IETF proposals were overly complex and either proposed too late to meet market needs or the market did not see a need for them. I think that all of these problems are completely fixable. I do not believe that moving from a free mail system to a pay per message system is viable. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 13:31:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA08868 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:31:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h28IhmM24733 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:43:48 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28IhmO24730 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:43:48 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA08709 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:31:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28If6O24465; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:41:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28IeGO24407 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:40:16 -0500 Received: from new.agentzero.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07953 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:27:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.123.193] (h0050e4251179.ne.client2.attbi.com [66.30.24.79]) by new.agentzero.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h28IU8js027106; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:30:12 -0500 Message-Id: <200303081830.h28IU8js027106@new.agentzero.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <00a101c2e40b$54e40cc0$ca81bbd0@kit> <3E68E118.6000305@cove-mtn.com> <011d01c2e4f3$68152fc0$0580bbd0@kit> <3E6A0E81.4020106@americasm01.nt.com> To: Kee Hinckley , "Chris Lewis" From: Jim Youll Subject: Re: [Asrg] Let's try something different Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:29:34 -0500 At 13:20 -0500 3/8/03, Kee Hinckley wrote: >I've got bad news for you. People don't check the queues. Oh sure, >our technical users do. They understand fuzzy matching, they know >that this kind of technology isn't 100% reliable. Our non-technical >users don't, and furthermore, when they do look at them, they delete >them without scanning them all. The longer they use the system, the >less carefully they check. And the problem gets worse. The better >your filtering gets, the less likely the user is to scan the queue. >In other words, the lower the false positive rate, the more likely >the end user is to delete the false positive without seeing it. I would like to add that scanning such a queue for errors becomes increasingly more _difficult_ and error-prone as the accuracy goes up... it's not entirely the user's fault when one "good" message is obscured in a field of hundreds of bad ones. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 13:32:04 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA08973 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:32:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h28IiAC24775 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:44:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28IiAO24767 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:44:10 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA08831 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:31:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28If7O24481; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:41:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28IeMO24411 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:40:22 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07978 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:27:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc01.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53] (may be forged)) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h28IRYnR027621; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:27:34 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:29:48 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: Alan DeKok , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Nucleus of a draft BCP on filtering MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:29:47 -0800 > Is the IETF going to decide that traffic/protocol attacks on the > network infrastructure are outside of the scope of technical > solutions? Are there not existing technical methods which can address > the problem? If the IETF is to make such a decision better it be done now so we can go to another forum which will address technical solutions. We can start an OASIS working group in 7 days. It would be best if we can avoid unnecessarily fracturing the standards making process for the Internet. Don't underestimate the pressure this is creating in the ISP community. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 13:36:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA09847 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:36:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h28ImgD25103 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:48:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28ImgO25100 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:48:42 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA09796 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:36:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28Il5O25058; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:47:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28Ik2O24981 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:46:02 -0500 Received: from new.agentzero.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA09308 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:33:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.123.193] (h0050e4251179.ne.client2.attbi.com [66.30.24.79]) by new.agentzero.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h28IZwjs027326 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:35:58 -0500 Message-Id: <200303081835.h28IZwjs027326@new.agentzero.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: Message-Id: To: asrg@ietf.org From: Jim Youll Subject: re: [Asrg] Why content filters are inacceptable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:35:22 -0500 I don't have anything to add to this, except to say I agree. Mostly, I wanted to mention that it was snagged and filed away by a content filter on my server and never reached my in-box :) How many others never saw the message? (the snip below is truncated before the appearance of the troublesome words) - jim >From: Hadmut Danisch >To: asrg@ietf.org >Message-ID: <20030308171841.GA9148@danisch.de> >Subject: [Asrg] Why content filters are inacceptable >Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 18:18:42 +0100 > >One of the principles to stop spam discussed so far are >content filters, i. e. filtes which basically ignore the >SMTP connection and the header, and focus on the body of the >message (and maybe the Subject header line). > >I'd like to point out why such systems are inacceptable and >a severe threat to privacy and freedom of speech. > >To do so, let me distinguish between two fundamental types of >such filters: Those which need to reveal any kind of information about >the message to be analyzed (e.g. the full message or just a >hash value) to a third party, and those which don't (but download >some kind of pattern set from a third party). > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 13:40:25 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA10524 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:40:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h28IqVY25380 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:52:31 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28IqVO25377 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:52:31 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA10427 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:39:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28Io2O25231; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:50:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28InuO25187 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:49:56 -0500 Received: from mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA09976 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:37:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from asv3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net (asv3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net [167.206.5.52]) by mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.05 (built Nov 6 2002)) with ESMTP id <0HBG00JF215NQ6@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Mar 2003 13:39:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from p750.thejamesons.com (ool-182d611e.dyn.optonline.net [24.45.97.30]) by asv3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net (8.12.6/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h28IdD7v006478 for ; Sat, 08 Mar 2003 13:39:16 -0500 (EST) From: David Jameson Subject: Re: [Asrg] Economic model is borken. (sic.) Let's fix it In-reply-to: <3E69FBD8.7010406@harvee.org> X-Sender: (Unverified) To: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030308101210.03737920@wheresmymailserver.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030307053207.035ee520@mail.digiportal.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030307053207.035ee520@mail.digiportal.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 10:14:16 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT In theory I agree with you completely - but our customers don't have any problem with it. In particular, you only have to look for the few moments after you complete a purchase online and are EXPECTING an email - no different than going to the post office to pick up a package rather than waiting for it to be delivered. >this is atrocious human factors. The whole point behind an antispam >system is so that you don't have to look at the stuff. Understood - and the solution here would be to automate it, which of course requires some cooperation between all vendors. >again, human factors nightmare. My mother-in-law (74-year-old lovely >person) wouldn't be able to cope. To give you a feel for her level of >skill, she uses an I-opener Web terminal and is quite comfortable sending >e-mail and browsing the Web. She's even getting comfortable google. In >contrast she doesn't know how to operate a VCR and is suspicious of remote >controls. Telling her she needs to add a special field and have that >field found by antispam filter whenever she orders something online? Not >bloody likely. I agree with this too - I'm convinced that this is the long term solution. >A stamp model simplifies the entire process because it is done without >requiring any human interaction. > >--- eric _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 13:43:11 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA11050 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:43:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h28ItHw25548 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:55:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28ItHO25545 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:55:17 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA10945 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:42:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28Ip2O25301; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:51:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28IopO25285 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:50:51 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA10135 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:38:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc02.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h28IeF3Z015951; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:40:15 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:40:15 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "Eric S. Johansson" , Kee Hinckley Cc: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Economic model is borken. (sic.) Let's fix it MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=SHA1; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_004B_01C2E577.A40E8880"; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:40:14 -0800 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_004B_01C2E577.A40E8880 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > 1) the incentive is to make sure their messages delivered. > 2) increasingly, antispam filters are taking out legitimate > communications from > businesses. The use of a stamp would allow them to bypass > the filters without > requiring the recipient to do anything special (i.e. white > list, filter exception). [I don't see the distinction between these arguments] The same argument holds for authentication based approaches that do not involve a per message charge. If C|Net has a certificate that proves that they sent an outgoing message their subscribers know it came from them and is not spam. This mail has an S/MIME signature, you can tell it came from me. Phill ------=_NextPart_000_004B_01C2E577.A40E8880 Content-Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIC7jCCAuow ggJToAMCAQICEDnHZh38yomzsfxfGAeS1vIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEEBQAwUTELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMx FzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMRYwFAYDVQQLEw1Db3Jwb3JhdGUgSVNHMREwDwYDVQQD EwhJUFNlYyBDQTAeFw0wMjEyMTcwMDAwMDBaFw0wMzEyMTcyMzU5NTlaMHgxFzAVBgNVBAoUDlZl cmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMRswGQYDVQQLFBJSZW1vdGUgQWNjZXNzIFVzZXIxHDAaBgNVBAMTE1BoaWxp cCBIYWxsYW0tQmFrZXIxIjAgBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWE3BiYWtlckB2ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20wgZ8wDQYJ KoZIhvcNAQEBBQADgY0AMIGJAoGBAKkhaJri8XN1lHlJFV30UZZ39bOHHto7TFDG0Gixhqc88+EH fAtmPBvd/ExR+QliLYhf/EivBniWXAWL/gdrshBhFIJYiBi+XtYF168uKBXV8IQ1tUWR8x0Xmm3H nX0kJ0bdCwYz2XkzCr63PtFVEp9ClOq/rmjm47/uO9yk1BW3AgMBAAGjgZswgZgwCQYDVR0TBAIw ADALBgNVHQ8EBAMCBaAwEQYJYIZIAYb4QgEBBAQDAgeAMFgGA1UdHwRRME8wTaBLoEmGR2h0dHA6 Ly9vbnNpdGVjcmwudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL1ZlcmlTaWduSW5jUmVtb3RlQWNjZXNzVXNlci9MYXRl c3RDUkwuY3JsMBEGCmCGSAGG+EUBBgkEAwEB/zANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQQFAAOBgQAV0/3Sv/jmi+7p Iar2Uunx5DR9fDxw3KqKv5U0wELbEcv9HE0FI4vseT+dYJF3Ca388ssMsHgWXJ+B9K6C5oh11InY Tywy0DAWzq3pqd+vQxMx8Rs7wiUnILFLIjty92OOx9EbONsqlNjK7+BzUeXdoEVkInV738Jjw4LA bmEd/zGCAlowggJWAgEBMGUwUTELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxFzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMu MRYwFAYDVQQLEw1Db3Jwb3JhdGUgSVNHMREwDwYDVQQDEwhJUFNlYyBDQQIQOcdmHfzKibOx/F8Y B5LW8jAJBgUrDgMCGgUAoIIBSzAYBgkqhkiG9w0BCQMxCwYJKoZIhvcNAQcBMBwGCSqGSIb3DQEJ BTEPFw0wMzAzMDgxODM1NTNaMCMGCSqGSIb3DQEJBDEWBBTGAT8N12xH13qmjlsfBUUtSlGKBTB0 BgkrBgEEAYI3EAQxZzBlMFExCzAJBgNVBAYTAlVTMRcwFQYDVQQKEw5WZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLjEW MBQGA1UECxMNQ29ycG9yYXRlIElTRzERMA8GA1UEAxMISVBTZWMgQ0ECEDnHZh38yomzsfxfGAeS 1vIwdgYJKoZIhvcNAQkPMWkwZzAKBggqhkiG9w0DBzAOBggqhkiG9w0DAgICAIAwBwYFKw4DAgcw BwYFKw4DAgcwDQYIKoZIhvcNAwICASgwBwYFKw4DAhowBwYFKw4DAhowCgYIKoZIhvcNAgUwCgYI KoZIhvcNAgUwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQAEgYBkGnDV4XsmdLsqSB4SE0nzZ4KxQ1/cneCifuIpvgZ8 Z1LKKPxTNuvWi4pGco+CC9/qDrHr/tatfzxKCnSIBZRLdCfjUrW2iHLHC7PlenjzFZccZ/cYNwf5 qhM+aJVtI39vO0Gv4s2gAYTVqXbHRmwhxPsvnHDa2zQe9GeRYjzhKgAAAAAAAA== ------=_NextPart_000_004B_01C2E577.A40E8880-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 14:08:57 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA16063 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 14:08:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h28JL4e27740 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 14:21:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28JL3O27737 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 14:21:03 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA15951 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 14:08:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28JG6O27506; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 14:16:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28JFlO27487 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 14:15:47 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA14868 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 14:03:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.57] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h28J5B3Z017773; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:05:11 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:05:11 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: Vernon Schryver , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Economic model is borken. (sic.) Let's fix it MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:05:09 -0800 > had bought e-stamps, your own roll of e-stamps would be useless. Your > friends would see how little you got out of the exercise, and somehow > never get around to buying their own rolls of e-stamps...or signing up > with Verisign for a PKI email non-spamming identity or any other > proposal that starts "first you get everyone to ..." Now that is an idea! Actually there are people who would pay $500 or so for such a certificate but they are big volume senders. The problem would then be to persuade the spam filter writers to take note of the certificate. The cash value to the buyer would be getting legitimate email through spam filters. I dont think that there is a market for a cert that costs 0.01 cent per message. C|Net sends out a billion emails a year so they would end up paying us $100,000 a year. Possible... To do anything about spam the cost would have to be 1 cent or so, I don't see C|Net doing that. If I thought microsopayments would be viable I would be pushing them. Guess who bought the Cybercash assets? Obligatory IP disclosure - certain uses of this technology may be covered by IP owned by VeriSign or by others. This message does not grant any rights to use this technology. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 14:09:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA16194 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 14:09:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h28JLiC27769 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 14:21:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28JLiO27766 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 14:21:44 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA16102 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 14:09:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28JH0O27537; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 14:17:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28JG6O27508 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 14:16:06 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA14924 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 14:03:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h28J5V525947 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 14:05:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF44VRF; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 14:05:31 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (acart523.ca.nortel.com [47.129.10.238]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBF9HV; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 14:05:30 -0500 Message-ID: <3E6A3FA1.8010801@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Let's try something different References: <00a101c2e40b$54e40cc0$ca81bbd0@kit> <3E68E118.6000305@cove-mtn.com> <011d01c2e4f3$68152fc0$0580bbd0@kit> <3E6A0E81.4020106@americasm01.nt.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 14:08:17 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kee Hinckley wrote: > At 10:38 AM -0500 3/8/03, Chris Lewis wrote: > >> The hugely critical thing is how you handle false positives. Do you >> just sigh, and say "blacklists are STUPID!!!" and turn them off, or do >> you take a broader view and get the open proxy fixed? It's not as if a >> given FP is something you can't do something about. > I used to spend time tracking down that kind of thing. The volume > exceeded what I could deal with years ago. But more critically, now > that I'm running a service, I simply cannot afford it. Do the math on > what someone pays to have their email spam-free, and then compare that > to the amount of time it takes to track down and complain about > proxies. No can do. Simple. Do what we do. We blacklist the open proxies, and let the people who hit the blacklist (if any do) report it. We provide pretty boilerplate responses for the sender to give to their provider. That's much easier than trying to figure out what the responsible email address corresponding to the IP of a given open proxy. By definition, the user hitting the blacklist will have a better idea of who to contact. >> A FP or two? So what? If you're doing it right, the worst that happens >> is that the email is delayed a bit. > This is a common misconception. "False positives aren't a problem, they > just go into a queue that people can check." Technically, it's true. > Practically, it doesn't work. I think you missed a step. The sender sees the reject, and reports the FP as instructed in the reject. > I've got bad news for you. People don't check the queues. Pardon my french: Like hell I don't! In case you missed it, I'm the FP handler for the entire company. When I say 5-10 FPs per day, that's for ALL email coming into the 50,000 seat company (a bad day at that, and that's including FPs not due to blacklists) I process the queue. There's too many people watching (CC'd on the FP handling address, many capable themselves of handling most FPs if I'm not around) for me not to. [FP handling takes me about 15 minutes/day - for the whole company. I'm in the midst of handing over the "problem resolver" tool over to operations, so I won't even have to do that anymore.] So, let's say you don't want to funnel your FP reports into a FP-handling service, or you're worried that too FPs doesn't get reported by the sender. Simple, do what Brightmail does (and we're currently trialing something similar). Send each user, according to whatever schedule they may choose, a single email containing dates, froms and subject lines of mail that's been filtered. Give them the opportunity (via a link to your quarantine server) to view or discard the blocked emails. Or even provide a mechanism for selecting automatic forward (ie: based on from) without having to adjust the front-end server-wide filtering. Simply by scanning the email they get, they can decide not to bother checking, or, see something that perhaps shouldn't have been blocked, and go get it. Then no user has a plausible excuse for missing anything - nothing to "remember" to check. It's in their face, just as if the email got through in the first place. Even moderately high levels of FPs (1-10%) are truly irrelevant if you handle them properly. Full deployment of our spamviewer facility will permit the filters to become far more draconian than they are now. Don't say it doesn't work. It does. We've been doing it for >5 years already, and nobody's shot me yet ;-) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 14:51:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24088 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 14:51:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h28K3pT31017 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 15:03:51 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28K3pO31014 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 15:03:51 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23977 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 14:51:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28K2AO30951; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 15:02:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28K1RO30925 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 15:01:27 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23528 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 14:48:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2090891; Sat, 08 Mar 2003 14:50:55 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3E6A11F7.6050809@harvee.org> References: <3E683148.10306@americasm01.nt.com> <3E6A11F7.6050809@harvee.org> To: "Eric S. Johansson" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) Cc: Chris Lewis , asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 14:23:51 -0500 At 10:53 AM -0500 3/8/03, Eric S. Johansson wrote: >classic challenge response systems have a serious problem if the >center of the message is a robot. For example, you purchase >something on the net, you get They also have another problem I haven't seen addressed. People are talking about Turing-test type challenges to prove you are human. So far all the ones I've seen proposed require that you can see. They will not pass federal requirements in the U.S. as they currently stand. And if they get widely deployed outside of the federal arena you are certain to see accessibility lawsuits. Solveable perhaps by including both visual and audio prompts, but someone should start thinking about it now. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 14:51:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24111 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 14:51:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h28K3rk31033 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 15:03:53 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28K3rO31030 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 15:03:53 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23979 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 14:51:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28K2KO30971; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 15:02:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28K1RO30923 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 15:01:27 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23518 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 14:48:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2090886; Sat, 08 Mar 2003 14:50:53 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3E6A1A1A.5040601@harvee.org> References: <3E69F90C.804@harvee.org> <3E6A1A1A.5040601@harvee.org> To: "Eric S. Johansson" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Economic model is borken. (sic.) Let's fix it Cc: "Eric S. Johansson" , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 14:20:51 -0500 At 11:28 AM -0500 3/8/03, Eric S. Johansson wrote: >1) the incentive is to make sure their messages delivered. In the >physical world, if I call them up on the telephone and order a >catalog, they have an incentive to add postage to make sure I get >but I asked for otherwise they risk me taking my business elsewhere. >so, why should not be the same electronically. That incentive does not exist until a significant percentage of systems block non-stamped email. Until then the only person suffering is the one who installed a non-stamp-blocking system, not the vendor. >2) increasingly, antispam filters are taking out legitimate >communications from businesses. The use of a stamp would allow them >to bypass the filters without requiring the recipient to do anything >special (i.e. white list, filter exception). This logic works better. But of course any standard authorization mechanism can provide this benefit, not just stamps. >>2. If they do automatically add a stamp, what keeps me from abusing >>that fact by continuously generating non-paying transactions which >>require responses? > >this is a serious risk factor before near full adoption. In a >nutshell, the business would need to be careful about how many >messages it was prodded into generating for a given address. There >would need to be some logic put into the robot to say "hey! I have >received over X messages in the past Y hours from this user. Time >to get a human". I can register a new domain for $10. I can receive all email sent to that domain, and create a new one every day. Now if you aren't going to give me a cut of the stamp price, then maybe I don't have a big incentive. But if you are then you have a fraud problem. >I accepted this is a weak spot but I believe it can be solved. >Using techniques such as address probes (i.e. does this domain/user >exist) and rate analysis (normal vs. abnormal levels of traffic) can >help minimize the impact. Yow. That's a pretty heavy bit of infrastructure for doing nothing but set up a mailing list. Something to remember when thinking about fraud, spam, and attacks on the internet--especially when comparing to that in real life. There are lots of things that people would never do in real life that they will do online. Furthermore, do to the point to point nature of the internet, every single lowlife in the world has a direct connection to you. So, multiple decreased inhibitions by increased access and you've got to be a lot more careful. The other thing that really concerns me about spam fighting is the cost of unintended consequences. Stamps are one type of solution that is very prone to this, as are many of the legal solutions people have proposed. These solutions don't try to stop spam. They try and set rules for spamming. "You may spam if you pay postage." "You may spam if you provide an unsubscribe address." These solutions legitimize spam. They open up the door for lawsuits against ISPs who block email that meets the rules. They send a message to every company in the world that it's okay to send email to people who didn't give consent, so long as they follow the rules. A postage-paid system that doesn't put a company like ZDNet out of business (what, a million messages a day or something like that?) is *not* going to be a barrier to entry for most companies. Instead of having a thousand or so spammers running around hitting you every day, you're going to have tens of thousands of companies sending you email every month saying, "If you don't want to be on this list, please follow these arcane unsubscribe directions." This will *not* be an improvement. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 15:39:19 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA03703 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 15:39:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h28KpSd02827 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 15:51:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28KpSO02824 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 15:51:28 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA03598 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 15:38:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28Km5O02692; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 15:48:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28KlkO02598 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 15:47:46 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA02917 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 15:35:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2090976; Sat, 08 Mar 2003 15:37:10 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3E6A3FA1.8010801@americasm01.nt.com> References: <00a101c2e40b$54e40cc0$ca81bbd0@kit> <3E68E118.6000305@cove-mtn.com> <011d01c2e4f3$68152fc0$0580bbd0@kit> <3E6A0E81.4020106@americasm01.nt.com> <3E6A3FA1.8010801@americasm01.nt.com> To: "Chris Lewis" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Let's try something different Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 15:36:50 -0500 At 2:08 PM -0500 3/8/03, Chris Lewis wrote: >Simple. Do what we do. We blacklist the open proxies, and let the >people who hit the blacklist (if any do) report it. We provide >pretty boilerplate A company, especially a small company, cannot afford to do that to a potential customer. If someone sends my consulting company email asking for my business, and I bounce it and tell them they can't talk to me until they straighten it out with their ISP--I've just lost a potential client. It also doesn't work for the prototypical end-user. For a year I sent back a response to everyone who sent email to wormalert@somewhere.com. It explained why they were getting the response, why they shouldn't send email to the address, why they should take it out of their address book. Every day I'd get dozens of responses. "Who are you?" "How did you get my email?" "You aren't in my address book!". So I gave up and started bouncing the stuff with an extended bounce message explaining the message. Now I just get 3-4 messages a day saying the same thing. (That's about a 1% "I'm confused" response rate.) And then there are the people who completely ignore the bounces and keep sending mail over and over again. When I finally get them to listen, I ask them why they ignored the bounce. "I didn't know what it was." "I thought it was spam." "I thought it was a virus." "My ISP told me never to respond to email from someone I didn't know." (E.g. MAILER-DAEMON). And then there are people's address books. wormalert tends to get email sent to everyone in the address book. When people repeatedly do this, I would reply-all to their message. So here's someone who has been sending email to everyone in his address book for days (at least). When I send to those addresses, I get a dozen bounces. This guy has been getting dozens of bounces a day from bad addresses in his address book, and he has ignored them all. And this is *common*. We are talking of hundreds and thousands of people doing this. These are the people who have been told over and over again that they shouldn't open mail from someone they don't know. They get email from MAILER-DAEMON (pretty scary name if you think about it) and we expect them to open the message, read past the garbage, find the place where it says they were blocked because we thought they were sending spam, figure out that this isn't a permanent problem, and forward it to their ISP? >>This is a common misconception. "False positives aren't a problem, >>they just go into a queue that people can check." Technically, >>it's true. Practically, it doesn't work. > >I think you missed a step. The sender sees the reject, and reports >the FP as instructed in the reject. See above. Try thinking like someone's grandmother. >>I've got bad news for you. People don't check the queues. > >Pardon my french: Like hell I don't! You didn't read the next line did you. Techies do. But even techies get sloppy over time. >In case you missed it, I'm the FP handler for the entire company. When I say And that makes you about the least qualified person in the world to consider what the average user will do with a false positive. It's your *job* to read the things. First rule of end-user false positives. You don't call them false positives. The end user has no clue what that means. We call it "misidentified email", and I don't even like that. We don't talk about spam (or, God forbid, "ham"!). There's mail that was blocked, and mail that was approved. I just got off the phone with my father last night. I was getting his feedback on some new forms for dealing with misidentified email. He's one of our beta testers because he definitely fits into the "it's all magic to me" category. It took a while to explain the form because it turned out that he had gotten so complacent about the junk folder that he had stopped checking it at all. He just deleted them. This had all been explained many times. But this *isn't* his job. It's an annoyance. And finding false positives was not something he had to do every day, but just occasionally, so he forgot. And that's the real world. >similar). Send each user, according to whatever schedule they may >choose, a single email containing dates, froms and subject lines of >mail that's been filtered. Give them the opportunity (via a link to >your quarantine server) to view or discard the blocked emails. Or >even provide a mechanism for selecting automatic forward (ie: based >on from) without having to adjust the front-end server-wide >filtering. That is *exactly* what PureMessaging does. Sending the spam through flagged is an option, but the normal behavior is to leave the mail on the server and send you a periodic summary. You can have messages sent through to you, or you can whitelist/blacklist/unsubscribe/report-to-abuse--as appropriate for the given message. It doesn't solve the problem. They glance at the mail and delete it. Now you can tell me that people are being stupid. But that's kind of pointless. You design a system for the users. They know what they know. Fundamentally when you are designing systems like this you are designing a user interface. And like all good UI design, it needs to take into account how real users behave. As people intimately involved in email systems for most of our lives, we are supremely unqualified to make that determination by examining our own behavior. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 16:06:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA08860 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 16:06:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h28LIoY05172 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 16:18:50 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28LInO05169 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 16:18:49 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA08733 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 16:06:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28LD8O04958; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 16:13:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28LCHO04908 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 16:12:17 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07550 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 15:59:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc01.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53] (may be forged)) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h28KxOnR020050; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:59:25 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:01:38 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: Hadmut Danisch , asrg@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [Asrg] PKI and Filters Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 13:01:37 -0800 > A problem applying to both kinds: > > Even if we are far away from having a widely deployed > public key infrastructure, we should take care to not slam that > door closed. A content based spam filter would defeat the success > of a common PKI. Why? On the contrary. Filters are the reason that PKI will become practical. First premise: Filters do not work better than 95% All the filters proposed thus far are based on technologies that are known to have severe limitations. That includes the Bayesian filtering approach for which some have been claiming ridiculous 99.5% success rates with no failures. Second Premise: False Positives Matter a LOT A lot of interest in the JamSpam consortium comes from people who send out lots of mail that does not get through. People like C|Net and relationsip management companies that send out email from your bank or airline with account status and special offers. Proposal: Use Filters and Authentication together Content filters should use authentication based approaches to whitelist known good mail from AUTHORIZED sources. PKI allows the authorization to be quite broad. I know that AOL now has rate limiting on outbound mail so I will take any AUTHENTICATED email from AOL, Hotmail, Yahoo, etc. PKI has been a success in the e-commerce space. I do not know of any case where a credit card number was stolen from a communication over the wire. If everyone used PKI to protect the credit card numbers in storage as well there would not be problems with theft of cc databases. PKI for email clients has not been a big success. This has partly been because of the unfair advertising advantage that the FBI gave to PGP. It has also been because there has been no infrastructure for discovery of encryption keys and because the business model has been screwed up in the consumer space. I believe that I address these problems with XKMS which is a DNS linked PKI. * The PGP/X.509 Mindshare war is over People can use either scheme for their keying needs. I propose that we unify the messaging standard as well so that standard email clients can send and receive mail to/from PGP and/or S/MIME users. * The public key discovery problem is solved XKMS is DNS linked. So to find the XKMS service for example.com look up the XKMS SRV record at example.com. Then do a locate on the result to get the key. * The fat client problem is solved Any XKMS client can access the most sophisticated (i.e. complicated) PKI that is in use. The complexity is managed at the XKMS service, not on the client. So you can have full strength PKI accessible from Zaurus or your pocketPC. I think we could solve the marketing issues as well. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 16:51:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA17258 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 16:51:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h28M3pr08788 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 17:03:51 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28M3pO08785 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 17:03:51 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA17137 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 16:51:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28Lw7O07905; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 16:58:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28LvaO07879 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 16:57:36 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA15884 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 16:44:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h28LkrH2006992 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 14:46:53 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303082146.h28LkrH2006992@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] PKI and Filters References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 14:46:53 -0700 (MST) > From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" > ... > First premise: Filters do not work better than 95% > > All the filters proposed thus far are based on technologies that are known > to have severe limitations. That includes the Bayesian filtering approach > for which some have been claiming ridiculous 99.5% success rates with no > failures. I'm not sure whether "the" numbers is 80%, 90%, 95%, or perhaps even 99%, but I'm sure it's not 100%. Part of the cause for the ridiculous claims of 99.5% averages for Bayesian filters (but notably not on official Bayesian web pages) is that someone who receives one or two legitimate messages per week and 28 spam/day really can see better than 99% accuracy. People who receive 100's of legitimate messages/day will have other views. > Second Premise: False Positives Matter a LOT > > A lot of interest in the JamSpam consortium comes from people who send out > lots of mail that does not get through. People like C|Net and relationsip > management companies that send out email from your bank or airline with > account status and special offers. That went wrong in a couple of ways. People like C|Net and specifically including C|Net have well earned reputations as senders of unsolicited, unwanted, unasked for, irritating, commercial bulk mail. That's partly because all big outfits will always occassionally hire an idiot that will send some spam before being educated or fired. It's also partly because outfits that depend on advertising are incapable of understanding that many people *never* want unsolicited bulk advertising or any unsolicited "sample subscriptions" to "newsletters." The second wrong turn is that what advertisers like C|Net want don't matter, except to the extent it affects their own behavior. The only people with standing to complain about false positives are people who failed to receive mail. People who failed to send can go pound sand. As the slogan goes, "My mailbox, my rules." > Proposal: Use Filters and Authentication together > > Content filters should use authentication based approaches to whitelist > known good mail from AUTHORIZED sources. PKI allows the authorization to be > quite broad. I know that AOL now has rate limiting on outbound mail so I > will take any AUTHENTICATED email from AOL, Hotmail, Yahoo, etc. How will Hotmail and Yahoo ensure that a new user is not a spammer? They can't afford to check identities for free accounts. Ralsky can contact Hotmail for a new account, get his certificate signed, and start pounding away for at least a day or two until his certificate is revoked--provided you use some kind of on-line verification. On the other hand, if Hotmail requires a credit card number, they can detect Ralsky, or at least wreck the credit rating of the owner of the credit card. However, they could to that today without Verisign's "help." > PKI has been a success in the e-commerce space. I do not know of any case > where a credit card number was stolen from a communication over the wire. If > everyone used PKI to protect the credit card numbers in storage as well > there would not be problems with theft of cc databases. Nonsense! PKI has been a resounding failure. The fact that no credit cards have been stolen on the net is as irrelevant as the fact that no babies have been killed on the net. PKI has failed to do what it promised and there is no hope that it can ever be fixed given the business model, price points, and public opposition to government identity cards. The Microsoft certificate story (not to mention the cert revocation story) demonstrated the already obvious fact that $350 is at least 10X and probably 100X too small to allow even a well intentioned organization to ensure that the prospective holder of a certificate is who he says he is. In the real world, all that's need to get a certificate is a check for $150-350 and some faxes of typical business registration forms that you assure the cert vendor really are the real things. Judging from my investigations before I gave up and went with self-signed certs, the commercial certificate vendors do not even try to validate those forms or anything more than perhaps a check the email address in whois records is plausible. > PKI for email clients has not been a big success. This has partly been > because of the unfair advertising advantage that the FBI gave to PGP. It has > also been because there has been no infrastructure for discovery of > encryption keys and because the business model has been screwed up in the > consumer space. That's worse nonsense than the claims about credit card numbers, HTTPS, and PKI. The business model in the commercial space is just bad because it is the same "send us some money and we'll sign your key, but don't hold us responsible for anything at all." The only reason that Verisign is still selling commercial certificates is that consumers believe Verisign's bald faced lie that the reason credit card numbers are not stolen by packet sniffing has something to do with PKI and Microsoft's nonsense that authentication (e.g. ActiveX) has something to do with authorization. > I believe that I address these problems with XKMS which is a DNS linked PKI. > * The PGP/X.509 Mindshare war is over > ... > * The public key discovery problem is solved > XKMS is DNS linked. ... > * The fat client problem is solved > Any XKMS client can access the most sophisticated (i.e. complicated) > PKI that is in use. The complexity is managed at the XKMS service, not on > the client. So you can have full strength PKI accessible from Zaurus or your > pocketPC. > > I think we could solve the marketing issues as well. The result of that would be to cram the Internet back into the old AOL/Genie/Compuserv fancy BBS model. You don't need the crypto frosting to do that. All the PKI trappings do is give Verisign a piece of the action. You might be right about the marketing issues, but I hope you're wrong and that people will not go back to the old AOL BBS model. I'm sorry to be so blunt about the Verisign nonsense, but SHEESH--give us a break! Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 18:20:02 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA03958 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 18:20:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h28NWDp14221 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 18:32:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28NWDO14218 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 18:32:13 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA03889 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 18:19:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28NPFO14039; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 18:25:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h28NOVO13995 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 18:24:31 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id SAA02479 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 18:11:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 23780 invoked from network); 7 Mar 2003 23:11:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.2.100.178?) (10.2.100.178) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 7 Mar 2003 23:11:56 -0000 From: Matt Sergeant X-X-Sender: matt@localhost.localdomain To: Vernon Schryver cc: "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] PKI and Filters In-Reply-To: <200303082146.h28LkrH2006992@calcite.rhyolite.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 23:27:21 +0000 (GMT) On Sat, 8 Mar 2003, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" > > > ... > > First premise: Filters do not work better than 95% > > > > All the filters proposed thus far are based on technologies that are known > > to have severe limitations. That includes the Bayesian filtering approach > > for which some have been claiming ridiculous 99.5% success rates with no > > failures. > > I'm not sure whether "the" numbers is 80%, 90%, 95%, or perhaps even > 99%, but I'm sure it's not 100%. Part of the cause for the ridiculous > claims of 99.5% averages for Bayesian filters (but notably not on > official Bayesian web pages) is that someone who receives one or two > legitimate messages per week and 28 spam/day really can see better > than 99% accuracy. People who receive 100's of legitimate messages/day > will have other views. The accuracy of a bayesian filter very much depends on training, and the variance in your regular email and its differentiation from spam. On my personal email, of which including mailing list subscriptions I get about 400 mails a day, about 50-100 of which are spam, bayesian filters *are* 99.9% accurate. Throw in a mixed user base and that figure drops quite a bit (though not unreasonably so). The bad thing is that bayesian filters are thwartable (though no more so than any other body-based mechanisms are, including hashes). Matt. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 19:44:50 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA19603 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 19:44:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h290v3r19021 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 19:57:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h290v3O19018 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 19:57:03 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA19514 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 19:44:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h290sEO18978; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 19:54:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h290rDO18943 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 19:53:13 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA18811 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 19:40:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc02.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h290gW3Z008599 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 16:42:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 16:42:32 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: Asrg@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 16:42:32 -0800 Lets face it the management of mailing lists is a mess. A member of the IESG told me that this is because the mailing lists and mail MUAs don't adhere to the specs. An employee of a company that writes one of the most widely used MTAs gave a reply that to use the J.K.Rowling technique would go 'horsepuckey, indecipherable, impractical, arrogant, not suprised'. I think that we need to address mailing lists as a special case for action. In particular it should be possible to communicate to MTAs in the communication path the fact that a user has opted in to the list. One reason for this is that if my mailer could detect mail from mailing lists reliably I could then ditch the 50% of the spam I get that is not addressed to me at all. [Yes I know that they would adapt, but their current behaviour has a purpose and I want to block that purpose]. If we are going to get the mail infrastructure sorted out for the sake of stopping spam we might as well sort out a bunch of the other pathologies it currently suffers from if the cost is low. I believe that the way we will eventually end up propagating whatever changes are required will be through some form of branding, whether it be 'RFC6388 Compliant' or 'JamSpam Compliant' or whatever. My pet mailing list peves: 1 Reply to sends the reply to the original author, not the mailing list. Reply to all sends the reply to the mailing list and to all prior authors, creating a shadow mailing list 2 Out of office responses getting sent to list members 3 I have to tell the mail client to create a folder for each list 4a Delays introduced by anti-spam moderation 4b Time taken to do anti-spam moderation 4c Time spent reading idiotic posts from 'Prof' Bernstein complaining that the anti-spam filtering is censorship. 5 Spam on mailing lists 6 Opt-in verification to prove its me when my original request had a digital signature and cert. 7 Unsubscribe that does not work (often due to burster lists) 8 Web archives that only show an index of 20 messages at a time so you have to backspace through 15 pages when catching up. [OK its only the IETF that configures MonHarc this stupid way] 9 Maintenance messages that get sent to the list complaining about the above. 10 Having the messages from a list get trapped in some dozy spam filter. Lots of these are synchronization problems. There is one basic behavior that people expect from mailing lists. However the clients and mailing lists have slightly different configurations, work arrounds etc. that causes chaos. A header that identified mail as comming from a mailing list would help a lot here. There have been proposals, but how do we get to DEPLOYMENT??? On the spam issue what we need is a means of communicating consent from the MUA to MTAs in the path. This can be done efficiently using either symmetric cryptography or public key. If we are using a symmetric scheme Alice generates a key and sends the symmetric key to her receiving MTA. if we are using a public key scheme Alice probably has her key already, the MTA can pull the public key from her XKMS service. To subscribe to a list Alice goes to the 'subscribe to list' option in the tools menu of her client. This generates a subscription blob that contains Alice's email address, the address of the list [possibly including a wildcard], date and is signed with Alice's key. We might want to use DSA for this for compactness. The subscription blob is sent to the mailing list server manager. If the mailing list is compliant then it will subscribe Alice immediately. The mailing lists stores Alice's subscription blob along with each message and sends it out with each mailing. This allows Alice's MTA (and if public key is used all the intervening MTAs) to determine that the message was solicited. Legacy mailing lists can also be supported with a bit of intelligence on the part of the subscriber's MTA. Basically it records the fact that Alice has subscribed and then records the fact she is subscribed locally. It can also process the opt-in callback loop for her. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 20:15:06 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA25197 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 20:15:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h291RKG20503 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 20:27:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h291RKO20500 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 20:27:20 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA25091 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 20:14:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h291P4O20465; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 20:25:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h291ObO20445 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 20:24:37 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA24601 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 20:11:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.57] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h291Ds3Z010535; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 17:13:54 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 17:13:54 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Vernon Schryver'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] PKI and Filters MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 17:13:52 -0800 > That went wrong in a couple of ways. People like C|Net and > specifically > including C|Net have well earned reputations as senders of > unsolicited, > unwanted, unasked for, irritating, commercial bulk mail. Which it why I believe we have to have a protocol that makes consent an empirical fact that can be checked by the MTA. Let us get away from the whole 'he said she said' thing. > The second wrong turn is that what advertisers like C|Net want don't > matter, except to the extent it affects their own behavior. The only > people with standing to complain about false positives are people who > failed to receive mail. People who failed to send can go pound sand. > As the slogan goes, "My mailbox, my rules." The problem is when ISPs claim this. So they have a subscriber who pays to get an INTERNET account and then finds that the ISP is going to decide who she gets mail from. Oh it turns out that planned parenthood is on the ISPs blacklist. Don't think such a thing is impossible. SPEWS recently listed the whole of UUNET because a maintainer took a dislike to a Web site they hosted. Several blacklists list the whole of China and Korea. And presumably if you subscribe to something like Amber Alert which relays the state amber alert (kidnaped kids) warnings to subscribers you probably want to get the messages. > How will Hotmail and Yahoo ensure that a new user is not a spammer? They have pseudo turing tests for subscribers and they implement rate limiting. You cannot send 100 emails a minute from a new hotmail account. There are also limits on connections from the same IP address. > On the other hand, if Hotmail requires a credit card number, they can > detect Ralsky, or at least wreck the credit rating of the owner of the > credit card. However, they could to that today without > Verisign's "help." They could or they could take advantage of the extreemly reasonable prices of VeriSign payment services. > The result of that would be to cram the Internet back into the old > AOL/Genie/Compuserv fancy BBS model. You forget who you are talking to, I did more to destroy that model than most people on this list. > I'm sorry to be so blunt about the Verisign nonsense, but > SHEESH--give us a break! Don't deny yourself a tool out of spite. If you believe that you can do just as well with self signed certs, or raw keys in the DNS that is fine too. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 20:19:10 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA25935 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 20:19:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h291VPZ20638 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 20:31:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h291VPO20635 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 20:31:25 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA25844 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 20:18:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h291U3O20605; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 20:30:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h291T3O20563 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 20:29:03 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA25462 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 20:16:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h291IIKt001663 for Asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 18:18:18 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303090118.h291IIKt001663@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 18:18:18 -0700 (MST) > From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" > ... > 1 Reply to sends the reply to the original author, not > the mailing list. Reply to all sends the reply to the > mailing list and to all prior authors, creating a shadow > mailing list Those are bugs and errors by users. There's nothing the IETF can or should do about it. > 2 Out of office responses getting sent to list members Even worse is when out-of-office responses go to the list. But both are well known bugs that the responsible parties refuse to acknowledge or fix. > 3 I have to tell the mail client to create a folder for each list "Folders" are features of MTAs beyond the appropriate influence of the IETF (or IRTF). Just as the IETF doesn't presume to talk about GUIs, window managers, and other stuff, it shouldn't talk about MTA user interface features or bugs. > 4a Delays introduced by anti-spam moderation > 4b Time taken to do anti-spam moderation > 4c Time spent reading idiotic posts from 'Prof' Bernstein > complaining that the anti-spam filtering is censorship. The first two may have something to do with the IESG. The entire IETF including IAB and IESG has working on the more general case of 4c for at leaset 10 years. See http://www.google.com/search?q=tap+ident+Bernstein > 5 Spam on mailing lists In general, if you can stop spam to individual mailboxes, you can stop it to mailing lists. I think defenses such as the DCC and Pyzor/Razor are particularly well suited for mailing lists, since bulk mail sent to mailing lists is almost always spam. > 6 Opt-in verification to prove its me when my original request > had a digital signature and cert. That's mistaken. Signatures and certs may prove (for various notions of "prove"; recall the Microsoft cert saga) that you are you, but they do not necessarily bind you to any particular RFC 2821 mailbox. Your cert may authenticate you, but it does not by itself authorize you to subscribe a mailbox to a mailing list. Outside Redmond and its colonies, authentication differs from authorization. > 7 Unsubscribe that does not work (often due to burster lists) Those are bugs, often in the very existence of the burster. > 8 Web archives that only show an index of 20 messages at a time > so you have to backspace through 15 pages when catching up. > [OK its only the IETF that configures MonHarc this stupid way] That's high on my list, but it's the domain of the IESG not the IRTF. > 9 Maintenance messages that get sent to the list complaining about > the above. > > 10 Having the messages from a list get trapped in some dozy > spam filter. yes. > ... > A header that identified mail as comming from a mailing list > would help a lot here. There have been proposals, but how do > we get to DEPLOYMENT??? RFC 2369 is more than merely a proposal. > On the spam issue what we need is a means of communicating > consent from the MUA to MTAs in the path. This can be done > efficiently using either symmetric cryptography or public > key. Cryptography might be a part of implementing that, but it's not the whole thing. Neither confidentiality, authentication, nor non-repudiation are the same as authorization. "Consent" sounds more like authorization than the other crypto stuff. > If we are using a symmetric scheme Alice generates a key and > sends the symmetric key to her receiving MTA. if we are using > a public key scheme Alice probably has her key already, > the MTA can pull the public key from her XKMS service. > > To subscribe to a list Alice goes to the 'subscribe to list' > option in the tools menu of her client. This generates a > subscription blob that contains Alice's email address, the > address of the list [possibly including a wildcard], date > and is signed with Alice's key. We might want to use DSA > for this for compactness. > > The subscription blob is sent to the mailing list server > manager. If the mailing list is compliant then it will > subscribe Alice immediately. > > The mailing lists stores Alice's subscription blob along > with each message and sends it out with each mailing. This > allows Alice's MTA (and if public key is used all the > intervening MTAs) to determine that the message was solicited. Where's the connection between Alice's key and the email address she subscribed? Again, authentication is not the same as authorization. > Legacy mailing lists can also be supported with a bit of > intelligence on the part of the subscriber's MTA. > > Basically it records the fact that Alice has subscribed > and then records the fact she is subscribed locally. > It can also process the opt-in callback loop for her. If you can teach MTA's to recognize mailing lists enough to do that, then you do not need to send any keys, blobs, or other crypto stuff to any mailing list. The crypto stuff that is needed is not from Alice to the mailing list, but only something that authenticates the mailing list so that Alice's MTA or MUA can authorize its mail. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 20:42:15 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA00250 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 20:42:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h291sUg22084 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 20:54:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h291sTO22081 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 20:54:29 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA00138 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 20:41:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h291r3O22037; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 20:53:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h291qmO21995 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 20:52:48 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA29791 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 20:40:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h291g5hF003760 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 18:42:05 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303090142.h291g5hF003760@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] PKI and Filters References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 18:42:05 -0700 (MST) > From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" ... > The problem is when ISPs claim this. So they have a subscriber > who pays to get an INTERNET account and then finds that the ISP > is going to decide who she gets mail from. Oh it turns out that > planned parenthood is on the ISPs blacklist. You wrote about C|NET, not ISPs. C|NET is not an ISP but an advertiser, or at best a publisher. > Don't think such a thing is impossible. SPEWS recently listed > the whole of UUNET because a maintainer took a dislike to a > Web site they hosted. Several blacklists list the whole of China > and Korea. Are you sure of your facts there? I don't recall hearing of SPEWS listing all of UUNET's IP addresses. > ... > > How will Hotmail and Yahoo ensure that a new user is not a spammer? > > They have pseudo turing tests for subscribers and they implement > rate limiting. You cannot send 100 emails a minute from a new > hotmail account. There are also limits on connections from the > same IP address. So you're saying that Hotmail users could no longer send mail from other ISPs using their Hotmail addresses as Reply-To, From, or Sender header values or envelope Mail_From values? So you'd push them back into the AOL BBS model and off the Internet? I hope that is impossible. > > On the other hand, if Hotmail requires a credit card number, they can > > detect Ralsky, or at least wreck the credit rating of the owner of the > > credit card. However, they could to that today without > > Verisign's "help." > > They could or they could take advantage of the extreemly > reasonable prices of VeriSign payment services. The credit card factor, whether PayPal, VeriSign, or some other outfit is obviously irrelevant. So why did you mention Verisign? > > The result of that would be to cram the Internet back into the old > > AOL/Genie/Compuserv fancy BBS model. > > You forget who you are talking to, I did more to destroy that > model than most people on this list. No, you forget who you're talking to, and I'm not referring only to myself. There are, or were the worst of the flood, readers who I think did incomparably more than you to break open the BBS model. > > I'm sorry to be so blunt about the Verisign nonsense, but > > SHEESH--give us a break! > > Don't deny yourself a tool out of spite. > > If you believe that you can do just as well with self signed certs, > or raw keys in the DNS that is fine too. My problems with commercial CAs have nothing to do with spite, but with their business models. The prices of certs are orders of magnitude too low to do the things that the customers of commercial CA vendors are lead to expect they're buying. You can't verfy my identity for a mere $150-$350, no matter how good your intentions, and so you (not just Verisign) cannot issue a cert that really authenticates me. I suspect a $350 price won't buy the liability insurance for errors in issuing certs, and that is why Verisign says "here's a cert, but we really don't know if it's any good so don't call us if it's a waste of bits and CPU cycles that causes you to lose money or launch missles." On the other hand, even $350 is barely below the price point for a commercial cert. No user will spent $50 to buy a cert for a personal mailbox, which is why no one has a Verisign personal cert. Cert vendors simply cannot get the money to do honest authenticating because cert buyers won't pay for it. My problem with Verisign itself is not spite, but continuing lies and gross misrepresentations. Your obviously completely bogus claim that Verisign has had anything whatsoever to do with keeping credit card numbers out of the hands of bad guys is classic Verisign self-serving knowing misrepresentation. Perhaps you assumed no one around here knows about DH or other means to get session confidentiality. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 21:04:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA04448 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 21:04:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h292Gic23491 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 21:16:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h292GiO23488 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 21:16:44 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA04340 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 21:03:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h292E7O23443; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 21:14:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h292DDO23412 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 21:13:13 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA03671 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 21:00:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2922Vb1005510 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 19:02:31 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303090202.h2922Vb1005510@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] PKI and Filters References: <200303090142.h291g5hF003760@calcite.rhyolite.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 19:02:31 -0700 (MST) I just wrote: ] Perhaps you assumed no one around here ] knows about DH or other means to get session confidentiality. To forestall quibbles, yes, a simple DH exchange with random keys won't exclude men in the middle. To exclude a man in the middle, you need something like certs. However, I've never heard of any men-in-the middle attacks on "internet commerce" sessions that certs would have prevented. There have been plenty of man-in-the middle attacks on credit card numbers, but they've been outside the parts of the path protected by public keys or within the end systems. Two recent examples are described in http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/22.61.html#subj9 and http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/22.61.html#subj10 See also http://www.securitymanagement.com/library/000836.html http://www.counterpane.com/pki-risks-ft.txt http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/60 http://www.csl.sri.com/users/neumann/insiderisks.html#132 and http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms01-017.asp Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 21:11:21 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA05733 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 21:11:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h292NaN23783 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 21:23:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h292NaO23780 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 21:23:36 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA05637 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 21:10:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h292M1O23736; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 21:22:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h292LYO23709 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 21:21:34 -0500 Received: from riesling.local.levkowetz.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id VAA05263 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 21:08:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 11591 invoked from network); 9 Mar 2003 02:10:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO riesling) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 9 Mar 2003 02:10:50 -0000 From: Henrik Levkowetz To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists Message-Id: <20030309031050.2880c197.henrik@levkowetz.com> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10claws13 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-debian-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 03:10:50 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sat, 8 Mar 2003 16:42:32 -0800, "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" wrote: > > A header that identified mail as comming from a mailing list > would help a lot here. There have been proposals, but how do > we get to DEPLOYMENT??? These two procmail rules sort 23 of the 37 lists I'm currently subscribed to automatically, and my mail client picks up the new folders without me having to create them specifically, today: :0 * ^List-Id: .*<\/[^>@.]* mailing-lists/$MATCH/. :0 * ^List-Owner: .*@.]* mailing-lists/$MATCH/. Mailman out of the box today is set up to add "List-Id:" to all mails passed on. Most lists that don't have List-Id: seems to be rather mature lists; 5 of my 14 are actually ietf.org lists. I think we can move this particular problem off the urgent list in this forum; this *is* getting deployment. Henrik -- Error message in Haiku form: Printer not ready. Could be a fatal error. Have a pen handy? -- Pat Davis _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 21:54:26 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA13870 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 21:54:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2936gE25903 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:06:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2936gO25900 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:06:42 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA13782 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 21:53:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29355O25792; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:05:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h292nGO25367 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 21:49:16 -0500 Received: from yossarian.aniota.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA10591 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 21:36:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from yossarian.aniota.com (IDENT:abuse@localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by yossarian.aniota.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h292cX21016411 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 18:38:33 -0800 Received: from localhost (abuse@localhost) by yossarian.aniota.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) with ESMTP id h292cXaq016408 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 18:38:33 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: yossarian.aniota.net: abuse owned process doing -bs From: abuse To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <3E683148.10306@americasm01.nt.com> <3E6A11F7.6050809@harvee.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 18:38:33 -0800 (PST) on "3-8-2003" "Kee Hinckley" writ: : the ones I've seen proposed require that you can see. : They will not pass federal requirements in the U.S. as they currently : stand. And if they get widely deployed outside of the federal arena : you are certain to see accessibility lawsuits. Solveable perhaps by : including both visual and audio prompts, but someone should start : thinking about it now. ... i lay claim to being the "guy that's blind in one eye, and can't see out the other". what, exactly, are the "fed's" requirements with regard to 'americans with disabilities' vis-a-vis 'software'. is that an implication, or a requirement of the statute. the 'threat' of lawsuits in the us is a given, so that something of a moot point. i am at a loss in 'seeing' (sorry) how a 'visual prompt' helpful to those blind enough to warrent its use ... _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 21:54:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA13901 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 21:54:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2936kT25919 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:06:46 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2936kO25916 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:06:46 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA13794 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 21:53:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29359O25864; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:05:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h292qcO25444 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 21:52:38 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA11174 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 21:39:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18rlxs-0000Ox-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Mar 2003 16:34:44 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] PKI and Filters In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 08 Mar 2003 18:42:05 MST." <200303090142.h291g5hF003760@calcite.rhyolite.com> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 16:34:44 -0500 Vernon Schryver wrote: > So you're saying that Hotmail users could no longer send mail from > other ISPs using their Hotmail addresses as Reply-To, From, or Sender > header values or envelope Mail_From values? If those users have Hotmails consent, that's fine. If the mail recipients can verify that consent, it's also fine. Without those two parts of the puzzle, the recipient can only tell he's being lied to. Lack of informed consent means no consent, and the deceitful mail should get trashed. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 21:55:09 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA14029 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 21:55:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2937PC26715 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:07:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2937PO26712 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:07:25 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA13935 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 21:54:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29358O25840; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:05:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h292q5O25434 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 21:52:05 -0500 Received: from emu.st (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id VAA11090 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 21:39:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 84089 invoked by uid 1015); 9 Mar 2003 02:41:21 -0000 Delivered-To: qmda-intercept-Asrg@ietf.org@intercept Comments: QMDA 0.1 - see http://www.geocities.com/mark_delany/qmda.html Received: (qmail 25383 invoked from network); 9 Mar 2003 02:41:21 -0000 Received: from prefix-internal.emu.st (HELO emu.st) (10.100.100.36) by f1-external.emu.st with SMTP; 9 Mar 2003 02:41:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 9708 invoked by uid 1001); 9 Mar 2003 02:41:20 -0000 Message-ID: <20030309024120.9707.qmail@prefix.emu.st> From: "Mark Delany" Mail-Followup-To: Asrg@ietf.org To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists References: <200303090118.h291IIKt001663@calcite.rhyolite.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200303090118.h291IIKt001663@calcite.rhyolite.com>; from vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com on Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 06:18:18PM -0700 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 9 Mar 2003 02:41:20 +0000 On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 06:18:18PM -0700, Vernon Schryver allegedly wrote: > > From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" I completely agree with Phillip that mailing lists need to be fixed. But to me, fixed means being able to distinguish them from spam and currently there is no reliable way of doing that. As a consequence, their bulkiness makes them very vulnerable to a lot of the spam detection strategies and the need for lots of whitelist guff. I also include in the "mailing list" category, all of the e-marketers and e-commerce sites that routinely send communications to their opt-in customers. A simple example might be ebay sending "out bid" alerts (I'm pretty sure ebay only send such stuff to people who ask for it, but it still counts as bulky just because so many people ask for it). I also agree that it shouldn't be that hard to "fix" mailing lists so that bulk detection systems can let legitimate mailing list traffic through. But, as Vernon says, doing so doesn't need fancy crypto solutions. It strikes me that mailing lists could be "fixed" by having MUAs recognize the confirmation process initiated as part of making a subscription request to the mailing list. This could be as simple as a new header field that tells the MUA to generate a unique token - let's call it a confirmation token - as part of the confirmation reply. Heck, even the Message-ID might do. If the mailing list s/w records the confirmation token and then uses it in all subsequent outbound email to the subscriber, than the MUA can reliably override any bulk detectors/indicators that might be set by the ISP/MUA/whatever. It doesn't strike me as especially hard for a mailing list system to record the confirmation token along with the email address. It also doesn't strike me as especially hard for an MUA to track the confirmation tokens it has generated. After all, most of them track UIDLs for POP, so they probably have the s/w infrastructure to deal with this sort of keyed data. The confirmation tokens could also be algorithmic checked of course, obviating the need for a database. I probably being cavalier about the changes need, but they might be a reasonable price to pay to forever exclude mailing lists from bulk detectors and whitelist management hassles. Confirmation tokens also get the ISP/service provider out of the loop of guessing whether permission has really been granted for bulky traffic. The one down side is that all mailing lists have to send individual mails to each recipient and we all know what sort of red flag that is to some bulls. I'm not trying to propose this as a specific solution, all I'm trying to demonstrate is that some of our problems could be fixed with relatively simple solutions, if it weren't for the huge inertia. Regards. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 21:56:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA14366 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 21:56:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h29392O26927 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:09:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29392O26924 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:09:02 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA14261 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 21:56:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2937UO26744; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:07:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h292shO25481 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 21:54:43 -0500 Received: from yossarian.aniota.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA11545 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 21:41:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from yossarian.aniota.com (IDENT:abuse@localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by yossarian.aniota.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h292i121016428 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 18:44:01 -0800 Received: from localhost (abuse@localhost) by yossarian.aniota.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) with ESMTP id h292i1Id016425 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 18:44:01 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: yossarian.aniota.net: abuse owned process doing -bs From: abuse To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Nucleus of a draft BCP on filtering In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 18:44:01 -0800 (PST) on "3-8-2003" "Jon Kyme" writ: : Well, no, but I believe we must form a consensus on a : definition of "consent-based communication". : That's what the RG is chartered for. ... i'd like to see 'obscurity' considered as a element of it ... _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 22:11:26 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA17193 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:11:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h293Nhh27401 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:23:43 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h293NhO27398 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:23:43 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA17102 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:10:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h293L9O27346; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:21:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h293K5O27256 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:20:05 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA16375 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:07:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2939MDJ013142 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 20:09:22 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303090309.h2939MDJ013142@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] PKI and Filters References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 20:09:22 -0700 (MST) > From: "Alan DeKok" > > So you're saying that Hotmail users could no longer send mail from > > other ISPs using their Hotmail addresses as Reply-To, From, or Sender > > header values or envelope Mail_From values? > > If those users have Hotmails consent, that's fine. If the mail > recipients can verify that consent, it's also fine. > ... I guessed at two different intended meanings for what the other person was talking about. The other involved checking Hotmail's consent about mail from another outfit and so not going back to the BBS model. Checking Hotmail's consent is not trivial in practice, unless you are a member of the Wishful Thinking Design School and accept handwaving. It's not obviously impossible, but neither is it obviously practical. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 22:22:55 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA19424 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:22:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h293ZDc27827 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:35:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h293ZDO27824 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:35:13 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA19308 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:22:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h293X3O27737; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:33:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h293W6O27675 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:32:06 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA18685 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:19:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc01.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53] (may be forged)) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h293J8nR009060 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 19:19:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 19:21:21 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 19:21:21 -0800 > > ... > > 1 Reply to sends the reply to the original author, not > > the mailing list. Reply to all sends the reply to the > > mailing list and to all prior authors, creating a shadow > > mailing list > > Those are bugs and errors by users. > There's nothing the IETF can or should do about it. No it is a user interface problem that is cause by an inadequate specification. The IETF should stop sticking its head in the sand when these issues come up. > > 2 Out of office responses getting sent to list members > > Even worse is when out-of-office responses go to the list. > But both are well known bugs that the responsible parties refuse > to acknowledge or fix. The responsible parties including the IETF. > > 3 I have to tell the mail client to create a folder for > each list > > "Folders" are features of MTAs beyond the appropriate > influence of the IETF > (or IRTF). Just as the IETF doesn't presume to talk about > GUIs, window > managers, and other stuff, it shouldn't talk about MTA user interface > features or bugs. Should have the information in the protocol to allow the user interface to do its job properly. > > 6 Opt-in verification to prove its me when my original request > > had a digital signature and cert. > > That's mistaken. Signatures and certs may prove (for various notions > of "prove"; recall the Microsoft cert saga) that you are you, but they > do not necessarily bind you to any particular RFC 2821 mailbox. Your > cert may authenticate you, but it does not by itself authorize you to > subscribe a mailbox to a mailing list. Outside Redmond and its > colonies, authentication differs from authorization. DNS Linked PKI addresses that problem, the owner of the DNS zone can specify what certificates they consider to be valid for the zone. As for the authorization thing, it is exactly the same as with existing mail opt-in, if you can read mail to the account you can subscribe it to a mailing list. > RFC 2369 is more than merely a proposal. How much effort went into getting the software vendor community to buy into it? > > The mailing lists stores Alice's subscription blob along > > with each message and sends it out with each mailing. This > > allows Alice's MTA (and if public key is used all the > > intervening MTAs) to determine that the message was solicited. > > Where's the connection between Alice's key and the email address > she subscribed? Again, authentication is not the same as > authorization. In the public key case check the digital signature, use XKMS or other mechanism of your choice to verify the key. > > Legacy mailing lists can also be supported with a bit of > > intelligence on the part of the subscriber's MTA. > > > > Basically it records the fact that Alice has subscribed > > and then records the fact she is subscribed locally. > > It can also process the opt-in callback loop for her. > > If you can teach MTA's to recognize mailing lists enough to do that, > then you do not need to send any keys, blobs, or other crypto stuff > to any mailing list. Only if you can count on always going through the same MTA and that there is only one MTA in your receving path. Some of us have a lot of MTAs... Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 22:23:46 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA19596 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:23:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h293a3U27856 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:36:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h293a3O27853 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:36:03 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA19507 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:23:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h293Y2O27798; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:34:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h293XUO27777 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:33:30 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA18977 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:20:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h293MkTv014479 for Asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 20:22:46 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303090322.h293MkTv014479@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists References: <20030309024120.9707.qmail@prefix.emu.st> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 20:22:46 -0700 (MST) > From: "Mark Delany" > ... > This could be as simple as a new header field that tells the MUA to > generate a unique token - let's call it a confirmation token - as part > of the confirmation reply. Heck, even the Message-ID might do. > ... > The one down side is that all mailing lists have to send individual > mails to each recipient and we all know what sort of red flag that is > to some bulls. > ... If you are willing to use some trivial crypto, you don't need to suffer that hassle. All that the target's MUA or MTA needs to do is recognize or authenticate traffic from the mailing list. For that it does not need unique-per-target tokents. Simple public key signatures using a public key conveyed in the initial subscription confirmation would do. If you believe as I do that the reason genuine mail forgery (as opposed to using a legitimately owned Hotmail dropbox) fell off dramatically a year or three ago is related to the laws criminalizing header forger, then you don't need any crypto. Simply have the MTU or MTU choose and record a suitable RFC 2369 List-whatever header from the confirmation message. Consider the common claims about spammers forging headers. When was the last time you saw spam supposedly from CERT? Don't you think that if spammers were willing to forge headers to get around simple whitelists, at least some would use that envelope or header From value? Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 22:33:13 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA21365 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:33:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h293jUb28880 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:45:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h293jUO28877 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:45:30 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA21245 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:32:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h293h1O28816; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:43:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h293g9O28794 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:42:09 -0500 Received: from new.agentzero.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA20619 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:29:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.123.193] (h0050e4251179.ne.client2.attbi.com [66.30.24.79]) by new.agentzero.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h293VopQ012540; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:31:50 -0500 Message-Id: <200303090331.h293VopQ012540@new.agentzero.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200303090322.h293MkTv014479@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <20030309024120.9707.qmail@prefix.emu.st> <200303090322.h293MkTv014479@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Vernon Schryver , Asrg@ietf.org From: Jim Youll Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:31:18 -0500 At 20:22 -0700 3/8/03, Vernon Schryver wrote: >Consider the common claims about spammers forging headers. When was >the last time you saw spam supposedly from CERT? Don't you think that >if spammers were willing to forge headers to get around simple >whitelists, at least some would use that envelope or header From value? You mean like this? I have tonnes of these... From i2secc0i@hotmail.com Wed Mar 5 14:06:40 2003 Received: from 200.203.76.54 ([200.203.76.54]) by aleve.media.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/+ALEVE) with SMTP id OAA18641 for (...); Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:05:44 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:05:44 -0500 (EST) From: "Efrain Franckowiak" To: "Contact List" <...@media-lab.media.mit.edu> Subject: Men, you have science in your corner I see many forged headers. The biggest difference between "now" and the state of things, oh, five years ago, is that the MTAs do their own corrections to the headers within [ ] so we can see where things actually came from. The above didn't attempt to lie, but I've got plenty that do. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 22:33:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA21463 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:33:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h293jt228910 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:45:55 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h293jtO28907 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:45:55 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA21338 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:33:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h293g2O28784; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:42:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h293f8O28764 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:41:08 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA20423 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:28:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc02.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h293UP3Z019255 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 19:30:25 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 19:30:24 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] PKI and Filters MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 19:30:22 -0800 > I just wrote: > > ] Perhaps you assumed no one around here > ] knows about DH or other means to get session confidentiality. > > To forestall quibbles, yes, a simple DH exchange with random > keys won't exclude men in the middle. As I have said repeatedly, the IETF has locked up too many times insisting on security that is perfect and ended up with something unusable. If you read my previous messages to the list you will find that I state that DH would have been sufficient for purposes of mail. This is clearly the case if the alternative is to send en-clair. In this particular case it would be sufficient to use self signed certificates whose only authentication came from the fact that they were obtained by means of XKMS Locate from the XKMS server in the relevant DNS zone. Don't assume you know my business strategy, you do not. I believe that the more people who use cryto of any type - yes including self-signed certs and PGP keys, the greater the demand there will be for trusted third parties who add value through appropriate authentication mechanisms. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 22:37:52 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA22276 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:37:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h293o9H29044 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:50:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h293o9O29041 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:50:09 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA22170 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:37:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h293m2O29004; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:48:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h293lbO28981 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:47:37 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA21693 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:34:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc02.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h293as3Z019670 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 19:36:54 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 19:36:53 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 19:36:53 -0800 > Consider the common claims about spammers forging headers. When was > the last time you saw spam supposedly from CERT? I got 6 bounce messages in my mail yesterday that indicated that the cause was my own email address having been stolen by a spam sender. I started looking into this issue a year ago when it happened to my boss. Since then I have had my email address stollen on 10 occasions at least. That does not count the viruses, these are spam messages (can tell from the subject lines). Some means of fixing spurious bounces would be a good idea as well. The proposal you make is interesting but does not get past the problem of communicating consent. It leaves the legitimate bulk sender in the same he said/ she said situation they are in today. I want a means of proving that yes you great steaming nit you did just ask for this message. I also want something I can impose on the outgoing systems to make sure that no recent hire who has a bright idea can spam against company policy. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 22:44:10 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA23406 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:44:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h293uSm29253 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:56:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h293uRO29250 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:56:27 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA23327 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:43:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h293t2O29191; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:55:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h293sTO29163 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:54:29 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA22968 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:41:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h293hj87016199 for Asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 20:43:45 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303090343.h293hj87016199@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists References: <200303090331.h293VopQ012540@new.agentzero.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 20:43:45 -0700 (MST) > From: Jim Youll > >Consider the common claims about spammers forging headers. When was > >the last time you saw spam supposedly from CERT? Don't you think that > >if spammers were willing to forge headers to get around simple > >whitelists, at least some would use that envelope or header From value? > > You mean like this? I have tonnes of these... > > From i2secc0i@hotmail.com Wed Mar 5 14:06:40 2003 > Received: from 200.203.76.54 ([200.203.76.54]) > by aleve.media.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/+ALEVE) with SMTP id OAA18641 > for (...); Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:05:44 -0500 (EST) > Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:05:44 -0500 (EST) > From: "Efrain Franckowiak" > To: "Contact List" <...@media-lab.media.mit.edu> > Subject: Men, you have science in your corner Where is cert.org among those headers? How do you know that i2secc0i@hotmail.com is forged and not legitimately owned by the spammer? Are you sure Efrain Franckowiak is not the name of the spammer? That 200.203.76.54 is supposedly in Brazil and not owned by Hotmail does not imply that message has forged headers. Yes, some spammers have begun or resumed forging sender addresses, often using addresses from the target list. However, they're still not doing blatent forging as they were a few years ago. > I see many forged headers. The biggest difference between "now" and > the state of > things, oh, five years ago, is that the MTAs do their own corrections to the > headers within [ ] so we can see where things actually came from. The above > didn't attempt to lie, but I've got plenty that do. I've also seen plenty of genuine forged headers. However, most mismatches between SMTP client IP address and sender mail address(es) are not obvious forgeries, unless you use Hotmail's odd, self-serving definition of "forgery" which coveres using not using your current hotel room as your return address while travelling. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 22:48:47 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA24273 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:48:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h29415t29406 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 23:01:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29415O29403 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 23:01:05 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA24170 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:48:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h293x3O29315; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:59:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h293wFO29297 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:58:15 -0500 Received: from zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA23656 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:45:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h293lUg03482 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:47:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF44WR3; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:47:31 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (amert192.ca.nortel.com [47.131.82.3]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBF9JZ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:47:29 -0500 Message-ID: <3E6ABA14.2050200@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists References: <20030309024120.9707.qmail@prefix.emu.st> <200303090322.h293MkTv014479@calcite.rhyolite.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 22:50:44 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Vernon Schryver wrote: > If you believe as I do that the reason genuine mail forgery (as opposed > to using a legitimately owned Hotmail dropbox) fell off dramatically > a year or three ago is related to the laws criminalizing header forger, > then you don't need any crypto. We still get a heck of a lot of spam that claims to be from our own servers and/or users. Thousands of spam blowback (spam forged in our domains bouncing back) too. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 22:51:55 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA24852 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:51:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2944Ek29573 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 23:04:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2944EO29570 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 23:04:14 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA24751 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:51:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29421O29465; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 23:02:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29414O29399 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 23:01:04 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA24159 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:48:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h293oIh1016576 for Asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 20:50:18 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303090350.h293oIh1016576@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 20:50:18 -0700 (MST) > From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" > ... > > > 6 Opt-in verification to prove its me when my original request > > > had a digital signature and cert. > > > > That's mistaken. Signatures and certs may prove (for various notions > > of "prove"; recall the Microsoft cert saga) that you are you, but they > > do not necessarily bind you to any particular RFC 2821 mailbox. Your > > cert may authenticate you, but it does not by itself authorize you to > > subscribe a mailbox to a mailing list. Outside Redmond and its > > colonies, authentication differs from authorization. > > DNS Linked PKI addresses that problem, the owner of the DNS zone > can specify what certificates they consider to be valid for the zone. > > As for the authorization thing, it is exactly the same as with existing > mail opt-in, if you can read mail to the account you can subscribe it > to a mailing list. > ... Then why did you mention "digital signature and cert"? Certs, DNS linked PKI, owners of DNS zones and so forth are all fine and dandy when you need them but why do you need them to authorize a stream of mail from a mailing list to a mailbox? They're irrelevant to authorization based on replying to a confirmation request recieved by the subscribing mailbox. The only relevance I can see of any sort of crypto in the subscription process is confidentiality using STMP-TLS, PGP, SMIME or the like on the mail stream, but that's is not particular to the subscription process. I'd also like to see encryption used far more often, but I don't pump for it when it's irrelevant. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 22:52:57 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA25043 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:52:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2945Fk29618 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 23:05:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2945FO29615 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 23:05:15 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA24952 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:52:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29434O29514; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 23:03:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2942TO29485 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 23:02:29 -0500 Received: from new.agentzero.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA24425 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:49:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.123.193] (h0050e4251179.ne.client2.attbi.com [66.30.24.79]) by new.agentzero.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h293qBpQ013173; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:52:11 -0500 Message-Id: <200303090352.h293qBpQ013173@new.agentzero.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200303090343.h293hj87016199@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <200303090331.h293VopQ012540@new.agentzero.com> <200303090343.h293hj87016199@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Vernon Schryver , Asrg@ietf.org From: Jim Youll Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:51:37 -0500 At 20:43 -0700 3/8/03, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > From: Jim Youll > > > >Consider the common claims about spammers forging headers. When was >> >the last time you saw spam supposedly from CERT? Don't you think that >> >if spammers were willing to forge headers to get around simple >> >whitelists, at least some would use that envelope or header From value? >> >> You mean like this? I have tonnes of these... >> >> From i2secc0i@hotmail.com Wed Mar 5 14:06:40 2003 > > Received: from 200.203.76.54 ([200.203.76.54]) >> by aleve.media.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/+ALEVE) with SMTP id OAA18641 >> for (...); Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:05:44 -0500 (EST) >> Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:05:44 -0500 (EST) >> From: "Efrain Franckowiak" >> To: "Contact List" <...@media-lab.media.mit.edu> >> Subject: Men, you have science in your corner > >Where is cert.org among those headers? You picked one domain out of an infinity of them... fine, they don't forget cert.org any more. They forge all the others. Great. I feel good about cert.org mail now. But it's the rest that's making a mess of the incoming traffic. >How do you know that i2secc0i@hotmail.com is forged and not legitimately >owned by the spammer? Are you sure Efrain Franckowiak is not the name >of the spammer? That 200.203.76.54 is supposedly in Brazil and not >owned by Hotmail does not imply that message has forged headers. right. But your logic is broken. If 200.203.76.54 were owned by Hotmail, the message would have come from a Hotmail server. It didn't. I mean, sure, maybe, Hotmail is also known as brt-f0-0-0-cslce7003.brasiltelecom.net.br (200.180.192.27) Forgive me if I have my doubts. >Yes, some spammers have begun or resumed forging sender addresses, >often using addresses from the target list. However, they're still >not doing blatent forging as they were a few years ago. oh baloney. It's saturday night and I should be out dancing but I have to answer this message instead... no, there's plenty of forgery. I'm really not sure what the issue is then, why are we discussing it? > > I see many forged headers. The biggest difference between "now" and >> the state of >> things, oh, five years ago, is that the MTAs do their own corrections to the >> headers within [ ] so we can see where things actually came from. The above >> didn't attempt to lie, but I've got plenty that do. > >I've also seen plenty of genuine forged headers. However, most >mismatches between SMTP client IP address and sender mail address(es) >are not obvious forgeries, unless you use Hotmail's odd, self-serving >definition of "forgery" which coveres using not using your current >hotel room as your return address while travelling. So what did I miss? You say there are plenty of forgeries, I say there are plenty of forgeries, why are we discussing something about forgeries not being relevant? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 22:59:14 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA26199 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:59:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h294BXj30546 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 23:11:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h294BXO30543 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 23:11:33 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA26095 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:58:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h294A2O30516; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 23:10:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2949bO30471 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 23:09:37 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA25744 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:56:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h293wrNk017411 for Asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 20:58:53 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303090358.h293wrNk017411@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists References: <3E6ABA14.2050200@americasm01.nt.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 20:58:53 -0700 (MST) > From: "Chris Lewis" > > If you believe as I do that the reason genuine mail forgery (as opposed > > to using a legitimately owned Hotmail dropbox) fell off dramatically > > a year or three ago is related to the laws criminalizing header forger, > > then you don't need any crypto. > > We still get a heck of a lot of spam that claims to be from our own > servers and/or users. Thousands of spam blowback (spam forged in our > domains bouncing back) too. Again, for the umpteenth time, of course there is some header forgery, but is it as much as most people claime? I don't think so. My guess is that perhaps 10% of what most people claim is "forged" spam really is. 10% of all of the spam in the world implies a "heck of a lot of blowback and other noise. Do you have any evidence that your heck of a lot of forged spam is the majority or even a large fraction of spam? My jihad in this area is to get people to stop using "forged" to mean "sender domain differs from SMTP client reverse DNS". That sloppy language thinking is like using "douple plus super duper opt-in" for "(confirmed) opt-in." People use both sorts of language to mislead and to try to justify positions that have no honest justification. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 23:05:02 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA27300 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 23:05:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h294HLS30761 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 23:17:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h294HLO30758 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 23:17:21 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA27212 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 23:04:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h294F4O30642; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 23:15:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h294EWO30620 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 23:14:32 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA26701 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 23:01:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2091638; Sat, 08 Mar 2003 23:03:50 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 20:29:12 -0500 At 4:42 PM -0800 3/8/03, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >Lets face it the management of mailing lists is a mess. A member of the IESG This depends on the software. Mailing list software integrated with the MTA can work quite well (CommuniGate is an excellent example, although weak for moderated lists.) But I'll agree, it's certainly very easy to run a badly managed mailing list, and the "standards" are all over the map. >I think that we need to address mailing lists as a special case for action. >In particular it should be possible to communicate to MTAs in the >communication path the fact that a user has opted in to the list. > >One reason for this is that if my mailer could detect mail from mailing >lists reliably I could then ditch the 50% of the spam I get that is not >addressed to me at all. [Yes I know that they would adapt, but their current >behaviour has a purpose and I want to block that purpose]. Requiring mailing lists to include verification of consent is an intriguing idea. Although it suffers from the same problem as sending encrypted email--you either need to send an individual copy to every person, or include multiple consent verifications with each message (which, if you have good list software, is batched up on a per-domain basis into groups of 50 to 200 people per message). However I'm not sure how this lets you ditch "bcc"d spam. Bcc'ing recipients is becoming more and more common as people become more aware that cc'ing their friends and relatives with the latest joke is a great way to spread people's addresses to spammers and viruses. >If we are going to get the mail infrastructure sorted out for the sake of >stopping spam we might as well sort out a bunch of the other pathologies it >currently suffers from if the cost is low. I believe that the way we will If the cost is low. We don't want to pull a Mozilla here and spend three years developing a nifty new cross-platform toolkit and bug reporting tool when what people wanted was a browser. > 1 Reply to sends the reply to the original author, not > the mailing list. Reply to all sends the reply to the > mailing list and to all prior authors, creating a shadow > mailing list Given that most email clients have only two types of reply, neither of which map directly to the list model, it's not clear there's a right way to fix this, it would require an MUA option as well, but there could be a consistent list header to help it. (Eudora has an option to make reply go to sender, reply-all go to list, but it doesn't work on all lists, including this one.) > 2 Out of office responses getting sent to list members That is 100% an MTA problem, and the finger for 99% of those points directly to Microsoft. Delivery problems are supposed to go the envelope from. Out of office messages are delivery problems. End of story. > 3 I have to tell the mail client to create a folder for each list What would you have the list do for this? (Speaking as someone who filters some lists into shared folders, some into single folders, and splits some based on content into sub folders.) The rest of the issues are pretty much addressed directly by the charter of this list. (Well, not 4c.) >To subscribe to a list Alice goes to the 'subscribe to list' >option in the tools menu of her client. This generates a And then we are back to the deployment problem. But backing up. If you want to block mailing lists that send to you without authorization, then you first need to be able to identify mailing lists. So we need an authentication system for them. And then you need a way to tell bulk mail from spam so you know that something is a mailing list when it's pretending not to be. The one bright side on all of this, and the thing I really think we need to leverage, is that legitimate bulk mailers are currently in a position where they would be very receptive to spending money and time installing an authentication system. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 23:14:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA29065 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 23:14:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h294QxH31056 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 23:26:59 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h294QxO31053 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 23:26:59 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA28978 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 23:14:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h294P9O31018; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 23:25:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h294OnO30986 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 23:24:49 -0500 Received: from new.agentzero.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA28595 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 23:11:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.123.193] (h0050e4251179.ne.client2.attbi.com [66.30.24.79]) by new.agentzero.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h294EVpQ013867; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 23:14:32 -0500 Message-Id: <200303090414.h294EVpQ013867@new.agentzero.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200303090358.h293wrNk017411@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <3E6ABA14.2050200@americasm01.nt.com> <200303090358.h293wrNk017411@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Vernon Schryver , Asrg@ietf.org From: Jim Youll Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 23:13:25 -0500 At 20:58 -0700 3/8/03, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > From: "Chris Lewis" > >> > If you believe as I do that the reason genuine mail forgery (as opposed >> > to using a legitimately owned Hotmail dropbox) fell off dramatically >> > a year or three ago is related to the laws criminalizing header forger, >> > then you don't need any crypto. >> >> We still get a heck of a lot of spam that claims to be from our own >> servers and/or users. Thousands of spam blowback (spam forged in our >> domains bouncing back) too. > >Again, for the umpteenth time, of course there is some header forgery, >but is it as much as most people claime? I don't think so. My guess >is that perhaps 10% of what most people claim is "forged" spam really >is. 10% of all of the spam in the world implies a "heck of a lot of >blowback and other noise. Do you have any evidence that your heck of >a lot of forged spam is the majority or even a large fraction of spam? > >My jihad in this area is to get people to stop using "forged" to mean >"sender domain differs from SMTP client reverse DNS". That sloppy >language thinking is like using "douple plus super duper opt-in" for >"(confirmed) opt-in." People use both sorts of language to mislead >and to try to justify positions that have no honest justification. 10% would still be a pretty big number. If you create a mechanism that doesn't account for forgeries, then forgeries will increase. I absolutely don't believe that spammers are not forging because they have some fear of law enforcement over a small matter of technology... considering that their "products" are often themselves illegal scams. More likely, mailers that reject unmatched forward/reverse DNS are responsible for any changes there. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 23:40:58 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA03488 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 23:40:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h294rIu32664 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 23:53:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h294rIO32660 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 23:53:18 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA03374 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 23:40:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h294m4O32478; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 23:48:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h294lAO32459 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 23:47:10 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA02307 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 23:34:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h294aQBD002732 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 23:36:26 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20030308215800.7894.15874.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> Message-ID: References: <20030308215800.7894.15874.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Asrg] Filtering limitations Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 23:36:26 -0500 (EST) From: "Chris Lewis" > Send each user, according to whatever schedule they may choose, a > single email containing dates, froms and subject lines of mail > that's been filtered. Give them the opportunity (via a link to your > quarantine server) to view or discard the blocked emails. Or even > provide a mechanism for selecting automatic forward (ie: based on > from) without having to adjust the front-end server-wide filtering. Our product does this, and it works very well. You can also view the queue in spam-score order; this tends to clump the obvious spam together and makes it really easy and efficient to process the queue. Also, our filter lets people opt out if they choose, set their own thresholds, blacklists, whitelists, custom rules, etc. I think the key to successful filtering is to make it as customizable as possible. It makes it harder for spammers to evade filtering (everyone has his/her own rules) and makes it much easier to sell to skeptical end-users. Of course, you provide pre-canned settings for unsophisticated users, and give the power users the full range of settings. From another post [sorry, I get the digest]: > First premise: Filters do not work better than 95% Sounds about right. > Second Premise: False Positives Matter a LOT That's true too. So you need a *very* efficient user-interface for dealing with false positives. Our solution was to present quarantined messages sorted by spam-score order; you'd be amazed how quickly one person can dispatch hundreds of spam and a few non-spam e-mails. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 8 23:53:15 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA06005 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 23:53:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2955Zr00618 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 00:05:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2955YO00615 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 00:05:34 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA05906 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 23:52:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29503O00476; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 00:00:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h294xjO00433 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 23:59:45 -0500 Received: from ares.redsword.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA04768 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 23:46:53 -0500 (EST) From: tjacobs@redsword.com Received: from tymdahl (adsl-65-65-78-123.dsl.rcsntx.swbell.net [65.65.78.123]) by ares.redsword.com (Rockliffe SMTPRA 3.4.7) with ESMTP id ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:49:00 -0600 Organization: Red Sword Corporation To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists CC: "Mark Delany" Message-ID: <3E6A7383.20009.A802581@localhost> Priority: normal In-reply-to: <20030309024120.9707.qmail@prefix.emu.st> References: <200303090118.h291IIKt001663@calcite.rhyolite.com>; from vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com on Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 06:18:18PM -0700 X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v4.02) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 22:49:39 -0600 > But, as Vernon says, doing so doesn't need fancy crypto solutions. > > This could be as simple as a new header field that tells the MUA to > generate a unique token - let's call it a confirmation token - as part > of the confirmation reply. Heck, even the Message-ID might do. > > If the mailing list s/w records the confirmation token and then uses > it in all subsequent outbound email to the subscriber, than the MUA > can reliably override any bulk detectors/indicators that might be set > by the ISP/MUA/whatever. Short of the protections offered by some "fancy crypto solutions", what is to keep a spammer from using the public algorithm used in generating tokens to generate his own? Obviously it would result in a huge number of failures, but the fact that spammers now use dictionary attacks (and worse) suggests that they would be just as willing to try that approach. > I probably being cavalier about the changes need, but they might be a > reasonable price to pay to forever exclude mailing lists from bulk > detectors and whitelist management hassles. It doesn't sound that unreasonable to me (then again, I think HTML e- mail should be eliminated so maybe I'm not the best person to define "reasonable"), but I think a crypto approach (preferably one that doesn't involve making annual rental payments to some "authority" for the use of a very large number; i.e., the list is it's own authority) might be more technically solid. Ideally, what I would like to see is some approach that requires large CPU overhead for sending a large number of messages, because this should at least throttle the bulk mailers. There are a couple of variations to this approach that I think might be workable, such as a mail protocol where the sender first sends a "i'm about to send a message" message, and the receiver generates a key pair, sending the arbitrary "public" key to the sender, who then uses it to encrypt the message, which is then sent to the receiver who can decode it with the private key. One obvious problem with that approach is that the receiver does too much work (key generation), but that duty can't be given to the sender for obvious reasons (key reuse, etc., as well as the fact that if you're going to go to that much trouble you might as well get "secure" transmission out of it as well). Thus, the only way it would be workable is to use an algorithm where key generation is fast, decryption is fast, but encoding is very CPU intensive, a combination that doesn't seem very likely. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 9 00:06:57 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA08424 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 00:06:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h295JGu01914 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 00:19:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h295JGO01911 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 00:19:16 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA08317 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 00:06:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h295H3O01831; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 00:17:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h295GIO01776 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 00:16:18 -0500 Received: from new.agentzero.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA07770 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 00:03:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.123.193] (h0050e4251179.ne.client2.attbi.com [66.30.24.79]) by new.agentzero.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2955vpQ015417; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 00:05:57 -0500 Message-Id: <200303090505.h2955vpQ015417@new.agentzero.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200303090358.h293wrNk017411@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <3E6ABA14.2050200@americasm01.nt.com> <200303090358.h293wrNk017411@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Vernon Schryver , Asrg@ietf.org From: Jim Youll Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 00:05:22 -0500 At 20:58 -0700 3/8/03, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > From: "Chris Lewis" > >> > If you believe as I do that the reason genuine mail forgery (as opposed >> > to using a legitimately owned Hotmail dropbox) fell off dramatically >> > a year or three ago is related to the laws criminalizing header forger, >> > then you don't need any crypto. >> >> We still get a heck of a lot of spam that claims to be from our own >> servers and/or users. Thousands of spam blowback (spam forged in our >> domains bouncing back) too. > >Again, for the umpteenth time, of course there is some header forgery, >but is it as much as most people claime? I don't think so As your message was arriving, so were three copies of this: Return-Path: Received: from aleve.media.mit.edu (aleve.media.mit.edu [18.85.2.171]) by new.agentzero.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h294VZpP014377 for <...@......>; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 23:31:35 -0500 Received: from afzhg1296.com ([213.181.64.35]) by aleve.media.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/+ALEVE) with SMTP id XAA21073 for <....@......>; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 23:31:04 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200303090431.XAA21073@aleve.media.mit.edu> From: "STELLA KOFI" Reply-To: stelakofi@ecplaza.net To: ....@........ Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 05:29:37 -0800 Subject: REPLY NEEDED X-Priority: 1 To answer your questions from the last go-round: afzhg1296.com does not resolve nslookup afzhg1296.com *** can't find afzhg1296.com: Non-existent host/domain stela_kofi@mail.com is an unknown user rcpt to: 550 5.2.1 ... UseR UnKnowN this passed through MY filters because the previous hop (aleve.media) was trusted the '1' priority was probably not appropriate (this is a Nigerian 419 scam) So, everything claimed about this message was forged by the sender, except the reply-to, which, Nigerian authorities have made clear, will be received at stelakofi@wcplaza.net by someone whose names is certainly not "Stella Kofi" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 9 00:31:23 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA12780 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 00:31:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h295hgL03421 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 00:43:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h295hgO03418 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 00:43:42 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA12681 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 00:30:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h295eAO03362; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 00:40:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h295dLO03318 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 00:39:21 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA11895 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 00:26:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.57] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h295SY3Z026441; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 21:28:34 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 21:28:33 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Vernon Schryver'" , Asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 21:28:33 -0800 You can't whitelist on the sender address domain unless you have authentication. If you can trust that everything claiming to come from cisco.com or microsoft.com really is from there you can whitelist the zone. I could draw up a whitelist of 95% of the zones that legit mail is likely to be sent from. But if the spam senders can forge headers then they are soon ganna be worthless. And yes over 50% of my spams (ones I have received that is) have forged headers. Phill > -----Original Message----- > From: Vernon Schryver [mailto:vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com] > Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 10:59 PM > To: Asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists > > > > From: "Chris Lewis" > > > > If you believe as I do that the reason genuine mail > forgery (as opposed > > > to using a legitimately owned Hotmail dropbox) fell off > dramatically > > > a year or three ago is related to the laws criminalizing > header forger, > > > then you don't need any crypto. > > > > We still get a heck of a lot of spam that claims to be from our own > > servers and/or users. Thousands of spam blowback (spam > forged in our > > domains bouncing back) too. > > Again, for the umpteenth time, of course there is some header forgery, > but is it as much as most people claime? I don't think so. My guess > is that perhaps 10% of what most people claim is "forged" spam really > is. 10% of all of the spam in the world implies a "heck of a lot of > blowback and other noise. Do you have any evidence that your heck of > a lot of forged spam is the majority or even a large fraction of spam? > > My jihad in this area is to get people to stop using "forged" to mean > "sender domain differs from SMTP client reverse DNS". That sloppy > language thinking is like using "douple plus super duper opt-in" for > "(confirmed) opt-in." People use both sorts of language to mislead > and to try to justify positions that have no honest justification. > > > Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 9 02:40:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA14120 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 02:40:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h297r6220385 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 02:53:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h297r5O20382 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 02:53:05 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA14015 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 02:40:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h297pKO20354; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 02:51:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h297ogO20333 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 02:50:42 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA13568 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 02:37:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h297dnrl009120 for Asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 00:39:49 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303090739.h297dnrl009120@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists References: <200303090414.h294EVpQ013867@new.agentzero.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 00:39:49 -0700 (MST) > From: Jim Youll > ... > >but is it as much as most people claime? I don't think so. My guess > >is that perhaps 10% of what most people claim is "forged" spam really > >is. 10% of all of the spam in the world implies a "heck of a lot of > >blowback and other noise. Do you have any evidence that your heck of > >a lot of forged spam is the majority or even a large fraction of spam? > ... > 10% would still be a pretty big number. That's what I said. > If you create a mechanism that doesn't account for forgeries, then > forgeries will increase. If you mean real forgeries, then there are laws and there have been convictions. See http://news.com.com/2100-1023-249758.html http://www.spamlaws.com/ and http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/04/19/state_spam/ > I absolutely don't believe that spammers are not forging because > they have some fear of law enforcement over a small matter of > technology... It certainly seems to me that forgery is involved in a far smaller fraction of spam today than several years ago. What's your explanation. > considering that their "products" are often themselves > illegal scams. More likely, mailers that reject unmatched forward/reverse > DNS are responsible for any changes there. There's an unsubtle difference between obvious, undeniable header forgery on 30,000,000 copies of spam and selling spamware or herbal v***** that for all anyone can readily prove might do what the spammer claims. Obvious, undeniable header forgery would be putting your or CERT's address on every copy of a 30,000,000 target spew. That would create bounce problems large enough for you or CERT to interest the courts, as it did for Flowers.com. See http://www.google.com/search?q=%22flowers.%2Bcom%22+spam A spammer putting your or CERT's address on a 10, 100, or even 1000 copies won't do more than make you or CERT angry. It's very unlikely to cause any real harm, and so the cops will have trouble justifying spending the time and money to hire someone who can spell "email" or tell the court that you were terribly damaged. For better or worse, courts tend to ignore some laws involving what they consider "victimless crimes." To get a flavor of that problem, talk to people with experience in TCPA actions (junk fax or telephone solicitation). It's common for judges to ignore the law when no significant harm was done. (I'm not talking about how things ought to be, but how they are.) Flogging "untraceable" spamware or pills to make your "tool" bigger is also petty enough to escape attention most of the time. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 9 02:51:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA14783 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 02:51:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h29846F20661 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 03:04:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29845O20658 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 03:04:05 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA14773 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 02:51:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29824O20617; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 03:02:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29817O20592 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 03:01:08 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA14762 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 02:48:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h297oJel009951 for Asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 00:50:19 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303090750.h297oJel009951@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists References: <3E6A7383.20009.A802581@localhost> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 00:50:19 -0700 (MST) > From: tjacobs@redsword.com > ... > Short of the protections offered by some "fancy crypto solutions", > what is to keep a spammer from using the public algorithm used in > generating tokens to generate his own? I don't think digital signatures involve fancy crypto solutions, at least not if based on a public key published with the subscription confirmation. If you know of a way that a spammer can generate its own authenticating tokens in such a scheme, you should publish it and become famous. > Obviously it would result in > a huge number of failures, but the fact that spammers now use > dictionary attacks (and worse) suggests that they would be just as > willing to try that approach. Please read about digital signatures. Brute force ictionary attacks involving a few 1000 or 1,000,000 names are one thing. Brute force attacks on public key signatures that involve an SMTP transaction per test are something else entirely. You couldn't begin to start a single attack before the human race has disappeared. > ... > Ideally, what I would like to see is some approach that requires > large CPU overhead for sending a large number of messages, because > this should at least throttle the bulk mailers. Why penalize legitimate bulk mailers such as the IETF? The IETF, CERT, and many other outfits are bulk mailers. > There are a couple > of variations to this approach that I think might be workable, such > as a mail protocol where the sender first sends a "i'm about to send > a message" message, and the receiver generates a key pair, sending > the arbitrary "public" key to the sender, who then uses it to encrypt > the message,... Please read about simple crypo-based authentication. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 9 03:04:25 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA15096 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 03:04:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h298GmP21727 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 03:16:48 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h298GlO21724 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 03:16:47 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA15028 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 03:03:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h298F4O21643; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 03:15:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h298EcO21600 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 03:14:38 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA14931 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 03:01:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2983mLb012534 for Asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 01:03:48 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303090803.h2983mLb012534@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 01:03:48 -0700 (MST) > From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" > You can't whitelist on the sender address domain unless you have > authentication. That is wrong in the real world, at least today. For example, lot of mail has been authenticated by simplistic whitelists like that in http://www.dcc-servers.net/dcc/dcc-tree/homedir/whitecommon For years that page has been the most commonly fetched of all of the on-line DCC source. I'm not sure why that is, but I am sure that no significant spam has used it for header forgery. I theorize that is because of the header forgery laws. The DCC depends on whitelists and outfits installing the DCC usually start their whitelists with that whitelist. Maybe the DCC is too small so recall that the current anti-spam filters of the big mail providers involve per-user and probably per-provider whitelists. > If you can trust that everything claiming to come from cisco.com or > microsoft.com really is from there you can whitelist the zone. > > I could draw up a whitelist of 95% of the zones that legit mail is > likely to be sent from. For you, but not for me or the next person. More than a few people complain about spam from microsoft.com. > But if the spam senders can forge headers then they are soon ganna > be worthless. Again, except for whitelist entries for one's own address, that is not the case in the real world. > And yes over 50% of my spams (ones I have received that is) have > forged headers. What do you define as "forged headers," genuine forgery or the bogus notion that is merely inconsistencies between header or envelope domain names and the reverse DNS name of the IP address of the SMTP client? Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 9 05:04:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA05835 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 05:04:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h29AH4f32444 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 05:17:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29AH4O32441 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 05:17:04 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA05727 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 05:04:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29AFEO32358; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 05:15:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29AEDO32329 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 05:14:13 -0500 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA05211 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 05:01:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 18rxeL-0007kY-00; Sun, 09 Mar 2003 10:03:21 +0000 In-Reply-To: <20030308171841.GA9148@danisch.de> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Why content filters are inacceptable To: From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "Hadmut Danisch" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.4.8] Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 10:03:21 +0000 > > I'd like to point out why such systems are inacceptable and > a severe threat to privacy and freedom of speech. I can see that there might be privacy issues - but any submission of an *unencrypted* message to transport on the public internet caries an tacit acceptance that the content becomes, in a sense, public. I can't see a free speech issue here, who's proposing that employment of such a system be mandatory? > So once a government observes any kind of a politically unwanted In many jurisdictions I suspect this would be illegal. > message, it can immediately list all those people who have > received that particular message simply by doing a database lookup. > > Except for the intention, there is absolutely no difference > - and especially not a technical difference - between this and > a censorship machinery. Except a censorship machine is imposed, while this kind of service would be voluntarily subscribed to, or implicit in the acceptance of a contract with, say, an ISP or employer? > > Any kind of organisation - > could spoof spam > alerts or even fake spam in order to perform a denial of service > attack by poisoning the pattern set and thus getting all messages This is a concern. > > This is the perfect invitation for abuse. Since 9/11, there are > severe efforts to enforce political correctness and to impact the Mechanisms are needed to guard against this. > And by the way, not every message from a girl asking me to have > wild sex with her is spam. I don't even get *spam* inviting me to wild sex anymore :( > could such a pattern filter, which requires adaption for getting > effective, ever be effective against a one-time-shot attack like > spam? And yet it moves. Patterns are conserved from old to new spam (to an extent). > > Imagine there were content based spam filters working effectively. > Imagine there would also be a widely spread PKI and it would > be common to make people's public key publicly available. > > What would the next generation spammers do? Obviously, they would > collect e-mail addresses _and_ public keys, and encrypt their spam, > thus rendering the content filters ineffective. People would tend > to not distribute their public key or to not having one at all. Er, no. That's just not right is it? > While a government would never be able to establish such a > surveillance and censorship infrastructure for political reasons, You seriously think that they haven't already? Bless you! -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 9 06:32:49 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA22351 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 06:32:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h29BjG707091 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 06:45:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29BjFO07088 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 06:45:15 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA22239 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 06:32:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29BhTO06534; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 06:43:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29BQ0O04300 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 06:26:00 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA18487 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 06:13:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h29BF7GK023588; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 12:15:07 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h29BA9fF006202 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 9 Mar 2003 12:10:09 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h29BA9cG006200; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 12:10:09 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Jon Kyme Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Why content filters are inacceptable Message-ID: <20030309111009.GA5702@danisch.de> References: <20030308171841.GA9148@danisch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 12:10:09 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 10:03:21AM +0000, Jon Kyme wrote: > > I can see that there might be privacy issues - but any submission of an > *unencrypted* message to transport on the public internet caries an tacit > acceptance that the content becomes, in a sense, public. There are several degrees of "public". When I receive a message from someone else in Germany or another country in Europe, than this could have been wiretapped. Maybe. It would be at least a lot of overhead to wiretap every message on the world. But if I volunteer to register every single mail I receive in the way "Hey Big Brother, I just received mail with hash #######" that's a completely different story. If you want to actively wiretap someone, usually an order from a judge is required. If people volunteer to register their incoming mail at a central registry, it isn't. The SMTP relay I use for inbound and outbound message at least offers to use TLS. Even if there is no PKI and the key could be faked, it stops a passive eavesdropper from reading if the other SMTP relay agrees to use TLS. Wouldn't it be stupid to first receive a message encrypted and then register that mail to a third party? > I can't see a free > speech issue here, who's proposing that employment of such a system be > mandatory? It doesn't need to be mandatory. It's sufficient that enough people use it voluntarily. It doesn't matter for which reason people use it. > > So once a government observes any kind of a politically unwanted > > In many jurisdictions I suspect this would be illegal. There are so many things in the world which would be illegal in many jurisdictions. Actually spam is illegal in Germany. Does anybody care about? And in most cases it even wouldn't be illegal. Imagine some politically unwanted message becomes spread around. There's always someone forwarding this message to the government. Then the government could simply lookup in a database who else has received that message. Maybe you're not aware of it, but the US government started to collect informations about which books people buy. Buy the wrong book in the bookshop at the corner and - bang - you're declared as being suspicous. In our jurisdictions this would be more than just illegal, it would be ridiculous. > > Except for the intention, there is absolutely no difference > > - and especially not a technical difference - between this and > > a censorship machinery. > > > Except a censorship machine is imposed, while this kind of service would be > voluntarily subscribed to, or implicit in the acceptance of a contract > with, say, an ISP or employer? That's the dangerous point: If you were required to use it by law, people would be cautious and develop ways to bypass it. But if it comes as a voluntary service promising help against spam, people would be unsuspicous. The Bezirksregierung Düsseldorf required some german ISPs to poison their DNS servers with wrong entries in order to block access to certain web pages. Again, nobody requires the customers to use the DNS server given in the PPP handshake. You can use any other DNS server or setup your own one to easily get rid of that blockade. But most people don't understand the details and thus they don't get access. It's still voluntary to use the poisoned DNS server or not. > > And by the way, not every message from a girl asking me to have > > wild sex with her is spam. > > I don't even get *spam* inviting me to wild sex anymore :( If you don't mind to get them in german language, I can register you to some sex contact services and you will have more than plenty of such spams for years. Most of them even come with attached pictures in order to give you the feeling that your mailbox is really filled. It comes even better if you download your mailbox through a cellphone to give you a feeling about the costs and to help you to appreciate the mails as worthwile. Would you like? > > What would the next generation spammers do? Obviously, they would > > collect e-mail addresses _and_ public keys, and encrypt their spam, > > thus rendering the content filters ineffective. People would tend > > to not distribute their public key or to not having one at all. > > Er, no. That's just not right is it? You'll change your mind once you received the first 5,000 encrypted spam messages. > > While a government would never be able to establish such a > > surveillance and censorship infrastructure for political reasons, > > You seriously think that they haven't already? I'm pretty sure your's did. I guess my one didn't. I was working for an ISP and certainly would have known. If they could manage to establish such an infrastructure, that would be the first thing that our government gets finished and working. Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 9 08:46:25 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA16086 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 08:46:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h29DwsD13921 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 08:58:54 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29DwsO13918 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 08:58:54 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA15979 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 08:45:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29DvFO13876; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 08:57:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29DueO13857 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 08:56:40 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA15603 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 08:43:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc02.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h29Djj3Z023790 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 05:45:45 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 05:45:45 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 05:45:43 -0800 > For you, but not for me or the next person. More than a few people > complain about spam from microsoft.com. I have yet to see spam from microsoft.com that was not forged. You seem to be determined to preserve the status quo here. You don't want any mechanism to make consent an empirical fact that can be checked independently of claims by microsoft or the recipient. You deny that forged headers exist, on what evidence I have no idea. ALL the spam purporting to come from hotmail that I have checked has been forged. That is 100%, not 10%. Same for yahoo. I have checked 20 odd messages already, so someone do the poisson thing and work out the highest percentage microsoft is likely to be sending at a 95% confidence, no 90% confidence interval. I bet it is not very high. What positive or constructive contributions do you intend to make to this debate? Or do you intend to simply sit back and snipe at any evil commercial organization that tries to do something about the problem? Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 9 09:12:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA20888 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 09:12:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h29EPBg15438 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 09:25:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29EPBO15435 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 09:25:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA20785 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 09:12:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29EN3O15374; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 09:23:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29EMVO15352 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 09:22:31 -0500 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA20288 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 09:09:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 18s1Wa-0001V2-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Mar 2003 14:11:36 +0000 Subject: Re: [Asrg] Why content filters are inacceptable To: Asrg@ietf.org From: "Jon Kyme" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.4.8] Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 14:11:36 +0000 > Wouldn't it be stupid to first receive a message > encrypted and then register that mail to a third party? > I didn't say it wouldn't be stupid. I was just pointing out that if someone freely chooses to use such a system, it's not a free speech issue. > > > I can't see a free > > speech issue here, who's proposing that employment of such a system be > > mandatory? > > It doesn't need to be mandatory. It's sufficient that enough people > use it voluntarily. It doesn't matter for which reason people use it. ??? > > Maybe you're not aware of it, but the US government started to collect > informations about which books people buy. Buy the wrong book in the > bookshop at the corner and - bang - you're declared as being > suspicous. Catcher in the Rye? > > > > I don't even get *spam* inviting me to wild sex anymore :( > > > If you don't mind to get them in german language, I can register > you to some sex contact services and you will have more than plenty of > such spams for years. Would you like? > I do hope that that was a joke. > > > > While a government would never be able to establish such a > > > surveillance and censorship infrastructure for political reasons, > > > > You seriously think that they haven't already? > > I'm pretty sure your's did. I guess my one didn't. I was working for > an ISP and certainly would have known. If they could manage to > establish such an infrastructure, that would be the first thing > that our government gets finished and working. http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/jan/12eudatret.htm -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 9 10:43:59 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA07386 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 10:43:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h29FuWC20056 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 10:56:32 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29FuVO20053 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 10:56:31 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA07299 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 10:43:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29FsCO20012; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 10:54:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29FrAO19961 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 10:53:10 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA07031 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 10:40:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18ry8y-0000cO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Mar 2003 05:35:00 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 08 Mar 2003 20:58:53 MST." <200303090358.h293wrNk017411@calcite.rhyolite.com> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 05:34:59 -0500 Vernon Schryver wrote: > Again, for the umpteenth time, of course there is some header forgery, > but is it as much as most people claime? I don't think so. My guess > is that perhaps 10% of what most people claim is "forged" spam really > is. 10% of all of the spam in the world implies a "heck of a lot of > blowback and other noise. Do you have any evidence that your heck of > a lot of forged spam is the majority or even a large fraction of spam? My (admittedly unusual) traffic is 90%+ forged. In my less moral moments, I wonder what would happen if I set up the MX to lie, and force open relays to send mail in an infinite loop. A looks up MX, gets B. B looks up MX, gets C. C looks up MX, gets A. Happiness and frivolity ensue... At least until the cops show up at my door, wanting to know why mail for my domain took down N international links. Q: Is this a valid use of my MX? Q: Am I responsible for abuse resulting from my valid use of my MX? > My jihad in this area is to get people to stop using "forged" to mean > "sender domain differs from SMTP client reverse DNS". I understand. But one of the guidelines I was taught in Physics was "If you can't tell the difference between two things, then they're the same." As you said in an earlier message, verifying consent for such header re-writing is difficult. So for the recipient, it's almost impossible to tell the difference between consentual uses of such header rewriting, and non-consentual uses. Since the recipient can't tell the difference between the two, he might as well lump them all into the same "deceitful sender" bin. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 9 11:02:07 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA10780 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 11:02:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h29GEd221187 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 11:14:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29GEdO21184 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 11:14:39 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA10683 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 11:01:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29GB6O21096; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 11:11:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29GAlO21080 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 11:10:47 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA09947 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 10:57:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h29Fxj5p002644 for Asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 08:59:45 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303091559.h29Fxj5p002644@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 08:59:45 -0700 (MST) > From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" > > For you, but not for me or the next person. More than a few people > > complain about spam from microsoft.com. > > I have yet to see spam from microsoft.com that was not forged. Search news.admin.net-abuse.{sightings,email} and you'll find reports about mail that was not forged in any sense and by people who do not seem to have a habit of lying. I wrote about other people's reports instead of my own experience, because the Microsoft spam that has hit my traps has been from bcentral.com, bcentralhost.com, listbot.com, and listbuilder.com. > You seem to be determined to preserve the status quo here. You > don't want any mechanism to make consent an empirical fact that > can be checked independently of claims by microsoft or the > recipient. I think you know that is false statement. > You deny that forged headers exist, You know that is a false statement. > on what evidence I have no > idea. ALL the spam purporting to come from hotmail that I have > checked has been forged. That is 100%, not 10%. Same for yahoo. How do you check to see that a message with Hotmail or Yahoo envelope or header From value is forged? That the IP address of the SMTP client sending the message is not Yahoo's or Microsoft's does no imply anything about the question. That the IP address is that of an open relay or proxy also does not say whether the headers are forged. > I have checked 20 odd messages already, so someone do the poisson > thing and work out the highest percentage microsoft is likely > to be sending at a 95% confidence, no 90% confidence interval. > I bet it is not very high. Unless you have contacts inside Yahoo or Hotmail who can check whether a given mail address was ever assigned to a given spammer, you cannot compute honest statistics. Bouncing a message of a Yahoo or Hotmail address found in spam only shows that the address is now invalid but implies nothing about forgery. When you leave a hotel, your previous use of the hotel's U.S.Postal Service address does not retroactively become forgery. Similarly, when Hotmail cancels a spammer, the spammers' previous use of its Hotmail address does not retroactively become forgery. Moreover, its continued use of a cancelled Hotmail adderss is not really forgery, at least not for a few days, unless you can show it knows its account has been cancelled. > What positive or constructive contributions do you intend to > make to this debate? Or do you intend to simply sit back and > snipe at any evil commercial organization that tries to do > something about the problem? Yes, things would be more positive if you would stick to the facts instead of claiming that - Verisign has had anything to do with securing credit card numbers on the Internet in "PKI has been a success in the e-commerce space. I do not know of any case where a credit card number was stolen from a communication over the wire." - PKI for email clients has not done well partly "because of the unfair advertising advantage that the FBI gave to PGP." - C|NET is an ISP that wants its mail to get delivered. - advertisers such as C|NET have standing to demand that their advertising be delivered. - "SPEWS recently listed the whole of UUNET." - "You can't whitelist on the sender address domain unless you have authentication." Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 9 11:22:46 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA14619 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 11:22:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h29GZKL21767 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 11:35:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29GZKO21764 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 11:35:20 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA14527 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 11:22:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29GX5O21709; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 11:33:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29GWDO21676 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 11:32:13 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA13958 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 11:19:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc01.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53] (may be forged)) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h29GIwL0011546; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 08:18:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 08:21:12 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: Vernon Schryver , Asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 08:21:11 -0800 > Search news.admin.net-abuse.{sightings,email} and you'll find reports > about mail that was not forged in any sense and by people who do not > seem to have a habit of lying. No, you made the assertion. It is up to you to supply the evidence. Go search some mailing list is not a valid means of supporting such a claim. > > on what evidence I have no > > idea. ALL the spam purporting to come from hotmail that I have > > checked has been forged. That is 100%, not 10%. Same for yahoo. > > How do you check to see that a message with Hotmail or Yahoo envelope > or header From value is forged? That the IP address of the > SMTP client > sending the message is not Yahoo's or Microsoft's does no > imply anything > about the question. That the IP address is that of an open relay or > proxy also does not say whether the headers are forged. Ah I get it, you think that Microsoft would engage in an easily detected criminal activity and nobody would have reported it to the press by now. That does not seem very likely to me. I have seen more plausible stories on alt.conspiracy. More likely is that something like what this 419 fraud reporting site describes is going on: [SPAM-FREE SITE We do NOT spam. Various multi-level marketers and other criminals have recently sent out spam impersonating us, and having our return e-mail address, so that people would complain about spam and cause us to be shut down (a/k/a "joe job"). These multi-level marketers and other criminals have engaged in this form of cyber-terrorism because our telling the truth about their fraudulent schemes was hurting their ability to sell to new victims. Fortunately, our ISP now recognizes that these fake spams are bogus and ignores them, and additionally we are duplicating this site on numerous other servers (including "hardened" servers as well as our own proprietary servers) so that we cannot be harmed by these multi-level marketers and other criminals. Death to Spammers!] > - "SPEWS recently listed the whole of UUNET." Sorry, that did actually happen. One of the servers hit by that blacklisting was one of our own servers that hosts a bunch of IETF mailing lists out of VeriSignLabs. People were demanding that we move to an ISP that was not blacklisted. We sent out messages telling people to stop using a blacklist run by anonymous cretins. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 9 11:30:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA16095 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 11:30:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h29GhEI22827 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 11:43:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29GhEO22824 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 11:43:14 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA16009 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 11:30:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29Ge2O22728; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 11:40:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29GdQO22677 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 11:39:26 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA15304 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 11:26:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h29GSRFA007254 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 09:28:27 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303091628.h29GSRFA007254@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 09:28:27 -0700 (MST) > From: "Alan DeKok" > > Again, for the umpteenth time, of course there is some header forgery, > > but is it as much as most people claime? I don't think so. My guess > > is that perhaps 10% ... > My (admittedly unusual) traffic is 90%+ forged. How do you determine that a given message has forged headers? Again, for the umpteenth time, you cannot compare the reverse DNS dommain of the STMP client IP address with domains in the envelope or the headers, with the possible exception of the HELO, to define forgery. Mail from a Brazilian IP address carrying Hotmail sender is not necessarily forged in any honest sense. If you define a mismatch between reverse DNS and HELO domains as forgery, you'll say that at least 1% and perhaps more than 10% of all otherwise completely legitimate mail is "forged." > In my less moral > moments, I wonder what would happen if I set up the MX to lie, and > force open relays to send mail in an infinite loop. > > A looks up MX, gets B. B looks up MX, gets C. C looks up MX, gets > A. Happiness and frivolity ensue... That's not how MX RRs work. Please read pages 3 and 4 of RFC 974. The answer to an MX query is a collection of A and CNAME RRs. The value of an A RR is an IP address and the value a CNAME RR cannot be an MX RR. > ... > > My jihad in this area is to get people to stop using "forged" to mean > > "sender domain differs from SMTP client reverse DNS". > > I understand. But one of the guidelines I was taught in Physics was > "If you can't tell the difference between two things, then they're the > same." Did your physics teachers really say that that two things are the same if you merely don't go to the trouble to distinguish them? You can often distinguish "header forgery" from "sender domain differs from SMTP client reverse DNS" by serving checking records. For example, you could check Hotmail's records to see whether a given spammer ever owned a Hotmail address. That making such checks can require expensive legal paperwork does not make them impossible or justify calling mismatches between envelope or headers and IP address "forgery." > As you said in an earlier message, verifying consent for such header > re-writing is difficult. So for the recipient, it's almost impossible > to tell the difference between consentual uses of such header > rewriting, and non-consentual uses. Since the recipient can't tell > the difference between the two, he might as well lump them all into > the same "deceitful sender" bin. "Deceitful sender" is not the same as "forgery." The difference is important because one can carry significant penalites while the other is merely a reason to reject mail. See http://news.com.com/2100-1023-249758.html and http://www.google.com/search?q=%22flowers.%2Bcom%22+spam Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 9 11:35:48 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA17117 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 11:35:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h29GmL023076 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 11:48:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29GmLO23073 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 11:48:21 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA17026 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 11:35:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29Gk3O22977; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 11:46:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29GjnO22917 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 11:45:49 -0500 Received: from new.agentzero.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA16522 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 11:32:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.123.193] (h0050e4251179.ne.client2.attbi.com [66.30.24.79]) by new.agentzero.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h29GZCpQ003627; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 11:35:13 -0500 Message-Id: <200303091635.h29GZCpQ003627@new.agentzero.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200303091628.h29GSRFA007254@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <200303091628.h29GSRFA007254@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Vernon Schryver , asrg@ietf.org From: Jim Youll Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 11:34:41 -0500 Can you state concisely in two sentences the purpose of this particular thread? This appears to be going nowhere and in any case I cannot see the relevance to the greater discussion. This may be one instance where content filters will be useful. - jim At 9:28 -0700 3/9/03, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > From: "Alan DeKok" > >> > Again, for the umpteenth time, of course there is some header forgery, >> > but is it as much as most people claime? I don't think so. My guess >> > is that perhaps 10% ... > >> My (admittedly unusual) traffic is 90%+ forged. > >How do you determine that a given message has forged headers? > >Again, for the umpteenth time, you cannot compare the reverse DNS >dommain of the STMP client IP address with domains in the envelope or >the headers, with the possible exception of the HELO, to define forgery. >Mail from a Brazilian IP address carrying Hotmail sender is not >necessarily forged in any honest sense. > >If you define a mismatch between reverse DNS and HELO domains as >forgery, you'll say that at least 1% and perhaps more than 10% of >all otherwise completely legitimate mail is "forged." > > >> In my less moral >> moments, I wonder what would happen if I set up the MX to lie, and >> force open relays to send mail in an infinite loop. >> >> A looks up MX, gets B. B looks up MX, gets C. C looks up MX, gets >> A. Happiness and frivolity ensue... > >That's not how MX RRs work. Please read pages 3 and 4 of RFC 974. The >answer to an MX query is a collection of A and CNAME RRs. The value of >an A RR is an IP address and the value a CNAME RR cannot be an MX RR. > > >> ... >> > My jihad in this area is to get people to stop using "forged" to mean >> > "sender domain differs from SMTP client reverse DNS". >> >> I understand. But one of the guidelines I was taught in Physics was >> "If you can't tell the difference between two things, then they're the >> same." > >Did your physics teachers really say that that two things are the same >if you merely don't go to the trouble to distinguish them? You can >often distinguish "header forgery" from "sender domain differs from >SMTP client reverse DNS" by serving checking records. For example, >you could check Hotmail's records to see whether a given spammer ever >owned a Hotmail address. That making such checks can require expensive >legal paperwork does not make them impossible or justify calling >mismatches between envelope or headers and IP address "forgery." > > >> As you said in an earlier message, verifying consent for such header > > re-writing is difficult. So for the recipient, it's almost impossible > > to tell the difference between consentual uses of such header > > rewriting, and non-consentual uses. Since the recipient can't tell >> the difference between the two, he might as well lump them all into >> the same "deceitful sender" bin. > >"Deceitful sender" is not the same as "forgery." >The difference is important because one can carry significant penalites >while the other is merely a reason to reject mail. >See http://news.com.com/2100-1023-249758.html and >http://www.google.com/search?q=%22flowers.%2Bcom%22+spam > > >Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com >_______________________________________________ >Asrg mailing list >Asrg@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 9 12:04:49 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA22426 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 12:04:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h29HHOb24910 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 12:17:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29HHNO24907 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 12:17:23 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA22314 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 12:04:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29HDBO24735; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 12:13:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29HCZO24706 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 12:12:35 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA21426 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 11:59:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h29H1YqT010474 for Asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 10:01:34 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303091701.h29H1YqT010474@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 10:01:34 -0700 (MST) > From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" > > Search news.admin.net-abuse.{sightings,email} and you'll find reports > > about mail that was not forged in any sense and by people who do not > > seem to have a habit of lying. > > No, you made the assertion. It is up to you to supply the evidence. > Go search some mailing list is not a valid means of supporting such > a claim. So I'm required to prove my statements but your false statements not only don't need support but should go unchallenged? Ok, here is a sample report: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=as0jbj%246ot%242%40rainier.uits.indiana.edu > > > on what evidence I have no > > > idea. ALL the spam purporting to come from hotmail that I have > > > checked has been forged. That is 100%, not 10%. Same for yahoo. > > > > How do you check to see that a message with Hotmail or Yahoo envelope > > or header From value is forged? That the IP address of the > > SMTP client > > sending the message is not Yahoo's or Microsoft's does no > > imply anything > > about the question. That the IP address is that of an open relay or > > proxy also does not say whether the headers are forged. > > Ah I get it, you think that Microsoft would engage in an easily > detected criminal activity and nobody would have reported it to > the press by now. That does not seem very likely to me. > > I have seen more plausible stories on alt.conspiracy. That is a gross and knowning misrepresentation. > More likely is that something like what this 419 fraud reporting > site describes is going on: > > [SPAM-FREE SITE > We do NOT spam. Various multi-level marketers and other criminals have > recently sent out spam impersonating us, and having our return e-mail > address, so that people would complain about spam and cause us to be shut > down (a/k/a "joe job"). These multi-level marketers and other criminals have > engaged in this form of cyber-terrorism because our telling the truth about > their fraudulent schemes was hurting their ability to sell to new victims. > Fortunately, our ISP now recognizes that these fake spams are bogus and > ignores them, and additionally we are duplicating this site on numerous > other servers (including "hardened" servers as well as our own proprietary > servers) so that we cannot be harmed by these multi-level marketers and > other criminals. Death to Spammers!] That also happens. That it does happen does not disprove my claim that most so called header forgery is nothing of the sort. > > - "SPEWS recently listed the whole of UUNET." > > Sorry, that did actually happen. One of the servers hit by that blacklisting > was one of our own servers that hosts a bunch of IETF mailing lists out of > VeriSignLabs. People were demanding that we move to an ISP that was not > blacklisted. We sent out messages telling people to stop using a blacklist > run by anonymous cretins. Why should I believe that statement without independent support? You surely know that many Verisign domain names are blacklisted because of Verisign's long history of sending unsolicited commercial advertising bulk email. (I've records of Verisign spam sent to my addresses.) It seems more likely that someone expanded a blacklist of Verisign domains or addresses to cover VeriSignLabs.com. Please note that I do recall hearing that the people running SPEWS have made errors that blacklisted large chunks of the IPv4 address space for hours by getting netmasks wrong. However, because UUNET has so many numerically or netmask-unrelated addresses, I doubt those errors affected "the whole of UUNET." Moreover, they were quite temporary. Note also that I'm not a fan of SPEWS. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 9 12:16:48 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA24639 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 12:16:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h29HTNA25358 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 12:29:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29HTMO25355 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 12:29:22 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA24545 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 12:16:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29HQ2O25249; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 12:26:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29HPSO25210 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 12:25:28 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA23856 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 12:12:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h29HESdR012369 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 10:14:28 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303091714.h29HESdR012369@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists References: <200303091635.h29GZCpQ003627@new.agentzero.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 10:14:28 -0700 (MST) > From: Jim Youll > Can you state concisely in two sentences the purpose of this > particular thread? This appears to be going nowhere and in any case I > cannot see the relevance to the greater discussion. The common claims about header forgery are used to support claims about the practicality of various sorts of evidence of consent. For example, the claims of very common header forgery have been used to support the demonstratably false claim that whitelisting cannot be used to help determine consent to receive mail at the target's MUA or MTAs. Talk of header forgery has also been used to support claims of the necessity of using encryption to prove consent. Another evil of the false claims of forgery is that they are used to support the claim that are no significant legal risks to header forgery, and that implies things about technical spam defenses. If you admit that sending from one ISP with return addresses pointing to another is legitimate, then many anti-spam mechanisms are wrong, others are more difficult, and still other become more interesting. > This may be one > instance where content filters will be useful. Certainly. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 9 12:18:53 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25023 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 12:18:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h29HVS225442 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 12:31:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29HVRO25439 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 12:31:27 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA24914 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 12:18:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29HS4O25315; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 12:28:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29HRwO25297 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 12:27:58 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA24284 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 12:14:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc02.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h29HGv3Z007716; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 09:16:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 09:16:57 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Vernon Schryver'" , Asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 09:16:56 -0800 > So I'm required to prove my statements but your false statements > not only don't need support but should go unchallenged? Ok, here > is a sample report: > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=as0jbj%246ot%242%40rainie > r.uits.indiana.edu That is exactly the he said / she said problem that I referred to earlier. It is impossible to verify the facts in these cases. The author's denials only convince me that he does not remember having subscribed. It happens. And yes companies sometimes send spam to their own customers despite promising not to. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 9 12:27:55 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA26708 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 12:27:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h29HeUq26541 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 12:40:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29HeUO26538 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 12:40:30 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA26594 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 12:27:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29Hd3O26402; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 12:39:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29HcjO26376 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 12:38:45 -0500 Received: from backbone.midwestcs.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA26269 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 12:25:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from footbone.midwestcs.com ([206.222.212.237] helo=midwestcs.com) by backbone.midwestcs.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18s4aL-0003ry-00 for ; Sun, 09 Mar 2003 11:27:41 -0600 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: wayne In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lines: 11 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanner: exiscan *18s4aL-0003ry-00*NUWhwkmlitQ* () Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 09 Mar 2003 11:27:40 -0600 In "Alan DeKok" writes: > My (admittedly unusual) traffic is 90%+ forged. In my less moral > moments, I wonder what would happen if I set up the MX to lie, and > force open relays to send mail in an infinite loop. I don't think setting your MX to open relays is such a hot idea, but I do like the suggestion given previously of setting it to 127.0.0.1. -wayne _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 9 12:53:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA01260 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 12:53:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h29I62727376 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 13:06:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29I62O27373 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 13:06:02 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA01151 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 12:52:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29I17O27200; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 13:01:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29I0fO27152 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 13:00:41 -0500 Received: from backbone.midwestcs.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA00101 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 12:47:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from footbone.midwestcs.com ([206.222.212.237] helo=midwestcs.com) by backbone.midwestcs.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18s4vX-0003ze-00 for ; Sun, 09 Mar 2003 11:49:35 -0600 To: asrg@ietf.org (ietf anti-spam research group) Subject: Re: evaluating proposals against requirements (Re: [Asrg] requirements for a proposed solution + notion of consent) References: <200303071537.KAA14788@raptor.research.att.com> <20030307192548.A4583931@exeter.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: wayne In-Reply-To: <20030307192548.A4583931@exeter.ac.uk> Message-ID: Lines: 54 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanner: exiscan *18s4vX-0003ze-00*UR2NNx2bJow* () Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 09 Mar 2003 11:49:34 -0600 In <20030307192548.A4583931@exeter.ac.uk> Adam Back writes: > Those requirements sound good to me, it may not be possible to satisfy > them all simultaneously but at least they express the problem so > people can measure solutions against them. I've numbered them, let's > measure a few of the current proposals against these: > > a) should minimize spam to some acceptable level I think it is a mistake to only consider proposals that reduce spam to "some acceptable level". For example, the proposal to have MTAs give a temporary delivery failure status the first time it recently has seen a sender-recipient pair may only reduce spam by 20%, but I think that is still useful. If you find 5 independent tests that each reduce the spam by 20%, when combined you will have reduced spam by 99.968%. Granted that most spam tests will not be independent, so in practice you will have to find a lot more than 5 such testes to get that level of spam filtering, but the point is that every little bit *DOES* help. I like the spamassassin approach that uses many different techniques to check for spam. Each test may only filter a small amount of spam, and some things like their checking for forged email from AOL/Hotmail/etc and DNS blacklists can give false positives on that particular test, but over all, it does an excellent job of filtering spam. SpamAssassin is far from a perfect filter, there are lots of things it still does wrong, or could do a lot better, but SpamAssassin is the most effective tool I've found. Bayesian filters work in a similar manor. Each word may not be a reliable test of spam/ham, but when combined with the results from many other words, the overall is effect is quite good. For what it is worth, I would say that SpamAssassin would rate as follows: a, b, c, e, f, g, i, j It currently fails 'd) should be easy to use' if the ISP doesn't do the installation and also provide a nice front end to do blacklisting/whitelisting. (SpamAssassin's automatic blacklists/whitelists are good, but sometimes you need explicit control.) SpamAssassin also requires more CPU power and disk space to hold the per user autowhitelists and bayesian analysis. I personally think this cost is far below the cost of peoples' time, but YMMV. -wayne _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 9 12:57:52 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA02164 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 12:57:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h29IAQt28383 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 13:10:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29IAQO28380 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 13:10:26 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA02048 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 12:57:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29I42O27321; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 13:04:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29I3tO27299 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 13:03:55 -0500 Received: from emu.st (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA00784 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 12:50:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 85895 invoked by uid 1015); 9 Mar 2003 17:52:54 -0000 Delivered-To: qmda-intercept-Asrg@ietf.org@intercept Comments: QMDA 0.1 - see http://www.geocities.com/mark_delany/qmda.html Received: (qmail 50954 invoked from network); 9 Mar 2003 17:52:54 -0000 Received: from prefix-internal.emu.st (HELO emu.st) (10.100.100.36) by f1-external.emu.st with SMTP; 9 Mar 2003 17:52:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 20318 invoked by uid 1001); 9 Mar 2003 17:52:53 -0000 Message-ID: <20030309175253.20317.qmail@prefix.emu.st> From: "Mark Delany" Mail-Followup-To: Asrg@ietf.org To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists References: <200303090118.h291IIKt001663@calcite.rhyolite.com>; <20030309024120.9707.qmail@prefix.emu.st> <3E6A7383.20009.A802581@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E6A7383.20009.A802581@localhost>; from tjacobs@redsword.com on Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 10:49:39PM -0600 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 9 Mar 2003 17:52:53 +0000 On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 10:49:39PM -0600, tjacobs@redsword.com allegedly wrote: > > But, as Vernon says, doing so doesn't need fancy crypto solutions. > > > > This could be as simple as a new header field that tells the MUA to > > generate a unique token - let's call it a confirmation token - as part > > of the confirmation reply. Heck, even the Message-ID might do. > > > > If the mailing list s/w records the confirmation token and then uses > > it in all subsequent outbound email to the subscriber, than the MUA > > can reliably override any bulk detectors/indicators that might be set > > by the ISP/MUA/whatever. > > Short of the protections offered by some "fancy crypto solutions", > what is to keep a spammer from using the public algorithm used in > generating tokens to generate his own? But the public algorithm is merely a variant of rand() The MUA can generate any sort of token it wants. All it has to do is send the token back to the mailing list as part of the confirmation email *and* keep a copy in some local database. To: list-confirm@ietf.org From: joe@example.com Confirmation-Token: 20700621ba1d4f92de29ffce0dc98b0d Henceforth the list/e-commerce site includes that token in all email addressed to joe@example.com The MUA in turn, is told that the mail is bulky by the presence of, eg, a "Precedence: bulk" header, thoughtfully placed their by your bulk-aware inbound MTA. That header triggers the MUA to check that the "Confirmation-Token:" matches an entry in its local database. If there is no match, punt. To accumulate a spammer-load of victims a spammer has to: o guess the address-token combinations on a large scale o break into to MUAs database of a lot of recipients o intercept traffic on a large scale o break into a lot of mailing list databases o acquire them from an unscrupulous mailing list/e-marketer All of these are hard, excepting perhaps the last one, and even then they are a one-time target for the spammer as one can readily imagine an MUA interface that lets the user discard a compromised token. As I said previously, this is not intended as a proposal, rather it's meant to demonstrate that relatively modest changes are possible that reliably disambiguate lists from spam. But, whether our fragmented and fractious industry can even achieve modest changes is possibly the first question this RG needs to answer. Regards. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 9 13:04:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA03477 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 13:04:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h29IHHZ28618 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 13:17:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29IHGO28615 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 13:17:16 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA03386 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 13:04:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29IFeO28561; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 13:15:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29IEeO28513 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 13:14:40 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA02927 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 13:01:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc02.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h29I3e3Z010363; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 10:03:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 10:03:41 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Mark Delany'" , Asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 10:03:39 -0800 > But, whether our fragmented and fractious industry can even achieve > modest changes is possibly the first question this RG needs to answer. Changes to the infrastructure to mitigate spam are inevitable. They are in fact already under way. The question is not whether those changes will take place but which forums will be placed to influence them positively. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 9 13:13:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA05137 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 13:13:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h29IQ7t28890 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 13:26:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29IQ7O28887 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 13:26:07 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA05043 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 13:13:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29IO2O28836; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 13:24:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29INnO28811 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 13:23:49 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA04585 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 13:10:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h29ICnBR029278; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 19:12:49 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h29ICLfF013105 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 9 Mar 2003 19:12:21 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h29ICJJ4013103; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 19:12:19 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: wayne Cc: ietf anti-spam research group Subject: Re: evaluating proposals against requirements (Re: [Asrg] requirements for a proposed solution + notion of consent) Message-ID: <20030309181219.GA13025@danisch.de> References: <200303071537.KAA14788@raptor.research.att.com> <20030307192548.A4583931@exeter.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 19:12:19 +0100 On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 11:49:34AM -0600, wayne wrote: > > If you find 5 independent tests that each reduce the spam by 20%, when > combined you will have reduced spam by 99.968%. If a test blocks 20% of spam, it will let 80% get through. So a pipe of 5 such tests will let 0.8 ^ 5 = 0.32768 = 33% through. That pipe will block only 66%. Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 9 13:20:14 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06356 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 13:20:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h29IWm029069 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 13:32:48 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29IWmO29066 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 13:32:48 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06252 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 13:19:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29IT2O28972; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 13:29:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29ISfO28949 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 13:28:41 -0500 Received: from backbone.midwestcs.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA05505 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 13:15:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from footbone.midwestcs.com ([206.222.212.237] helo=midwestcs.com) by backbone.midwestcs.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18s5Mc-00049I-00 for ; Sun, 09 Mar 2003 12:17:34 -0600 To: ietf anti-spam research group Subject: Re: evaluating proposals against requirements (Re: [Asrg] requirements for a proposed solution + notion of consent) References: <200303071537.KAA14788@raptor.research.att.com> <20030307192548.A4583931@exeter.ac.uk> <20030309181219.GA13025@danisch.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: wayne In-Reply-To: <20030309181219.GA13025@danisch.de> Message-ID: Lines: 16 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanner: exiscan *18s5Mc-00049I-00*dzEL14ufN.6* () Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 09 Mar 2003 12:17:34 -0600 In <20030309181219.GA13025@danisch.de> Hadmut Danisch writes: > So a pipe of 5 such tests will let 0.8 ^ 5 = 0.32768 = 33% > through. That pipe will block only 66%. Urgh. You are right. I used 0.2 ^ 5, which is wrong. Still, my point remains that the combined effect of many "low grade" techniques can yield a "high grade" result. Fortunately, the two examples I gave of SpamAssassin and bayesian filters do a lot more than just 5 tests. ;-> -wayne _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 9 13:25:55 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07418 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 13:25:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h29IcTG30007 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 13:38:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29IcTO30004 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 13:38:29 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07316 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 13:25:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29Ia3O29168; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 13:36:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29IZrO29154 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 13:35:53 -0500 Received: from ares.redsword.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06863 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 13:22:47 -0500 (EST) From: tjacobs@redsword.com Received: from tymdahl (adsl-65-65-78-123.dsl.rcsntx.swbell.net [65.65.78.123]) by ares.redsword.com (Rockliffe SMTPRA 3.4.7) with ESMTP id ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 12:24:52 -0600 Organization: Red Sword Corporation To: Vernon Schryver Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists CC: Asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <3E6B32BC.11355.D6B1A03@localhost> Priority: normal In-reply-to: <200303090750.h297oJel009951@calcite.rhyolite.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v4.02) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 12:25:32 -0600 > > From: tjacobs@redsword.com > > > ... > > Short of the protections offered by some "fancy crypto solutions", > > what is to keep a spammer from using the public algorithm used in > > generating tokens to generate his own? > > I don't think digital signatures involve fancy crypto solutions, > at least not if based on a public key published with the subscription > confirmation. In that case, I'm unsure what you meant by not wanting to use "fancy crypto solutions" (a quote from your earlier post) if this term does not include digital signature algorithms and public keys. Were you just meaning no commercial solutions ("authorities") that involve paying money to maintain the key infrastructure? Or do you not understand that "digital signatures" and "public keys" are applications of cryptography? > > Obviously it would result in > > a huge number of failures, but the fact that spammers now use > > dictionary attacks (and worse) suggests that they would be just as > > willing to try that approach. > > Please read about digital signatures. I already know quite a bit about digital signatures; but your original post (no "fancy crypto solutions") suggested that you were not using them. Apparently you meant something besides what you seemed to mean (not surprising, since it appears that a lot of people can't even agree on the meaning of such terms as "spam"). Clearly, someone needs to start maintaining a glossary on this topic, since if people can't agree to the meanings of terms it is just going to create a lot of disagreements where no fundamental differences exist. > Brute force ictionary attacks involving a few 1000 or 1,000,000 names > are one thing. Brute force attacks on public key signatures that > involve an SMTP transaction per test are something else entirely. You > couldn't begin to start a single attack before the human race has > disappeared. Again, if you're talking about public key signatures, you're talking about crypto (and if you're not, then you're talking about something that can be brute-forced. You can't have it both ways). > > Ideally, what I would like to see is some approach that requires > > large CPU overhead for sending a large number of messages, because > > this should at least throttle the bulk mailers. > > Why penalize legitimate bulk mailers such as the IETF? > The IETF, CERT, and many other outfits are bulk mailers. While the term "legitimate" bulk mailers is often misused (being only a tiny fraction of those that claim that title), such legitimate users could overcome the handicap via whitelisting by their recipient (of course, this brings up the issue of forging, which some ignorant parties believes doesn't happen to any extent). > > There are a couple > > of variations to this approach that I think might be workable, such > > as a mail protocol where the sender first sends a "i'm about to send > > a message" message, and the receiver generates a key pair, sending > > the arbitrary "public" key to the sender, who then uses it to > > encrypt the message,... > > Please read about simple crypo-based authentication. If you had read the rest of the message, you would've realized that those won't work, since they place the calculation burden on the wrong party. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 9 13:47:59 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA11432 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 13:47:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h29J0Yv30631 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 14:00:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29J0YO30628 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 14:00:34 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA11300 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 13:47:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29Iw9O30479; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 13:58:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29Iv8O30452 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 13:57:08 -0500 Received: from avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA10674 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 13:44:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.133.182] helo=cs.utk.edu) by avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18s5oD-00061A-00; Sun, 09 Mar 2003 10:46:06 -0800 Subject: Re: evaluating proposals against requirements (Re: [Asrg] requirements for a proposed solution + notion of consent) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: Keith Moore , asrg@ietf.org (ietf anti-spam research group) To: wayne From: Keith Moore In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <607A8F80-525F-11D7-A014-000393DB5366@cs.utk.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 13:46:02 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I think it is a mistake to only consider proposals that reduce spam to > "some acceptable level". Agreed. And I also agree that what really matters is not the effectiveness of any particular scheme, but the effectiveness of whatever ensemble of schemes is used. However, it wasn't my intention to suggest that we "only consider" proposals meeting these criteria - only that we try to establish criteria that help us understand how to evaluate schemes relative to one another. Actually since this is a research group I don't view it as our job to make any firm selections between the proposals. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 9 13:48:25 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA11514 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 13:48:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h29J10K30670 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 14:01:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29J10O30666 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 14:01:00 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA11407 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 13:47:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29Ix1O30517; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 13:59:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29IwPO30490 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 13:58:25 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA10900 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 13:45:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 30356 invoked from network); 8 Mar 2003 18:45:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.2.100.178?) (10.2.100.178) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 8 Mar 2003 18:45:23 -0000 From: Matt Sergeant X-X-Sender: matt@localhost.localdomain To: Hadmut Danisch cc: wayne , ietf anti-spam research group Subject: Re: evaluating proposals against requirements (Re: [Asrg] requirements for a proposed solution + notion of consent) In-Reply-To: <20030309181219.GA13025@danisch.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 19:01:04 +0000 (GMT) On Sun, 9 Mar 2003, Hadmut Danisch wrote: > On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 11:49:34AM -0600, wayne wrote: > > > > If you find 5 independent tests that each reduce the spam by 20%, when > > combined you will have reduced spam by 99.968%. > > If a test blocks 20% of spam, it will let 80% get through. > So a pipe of 5 such tests will let 0.8 ^ 5 = 0.32768 = 33% > through. That pipe will block only 66%. Lies, damn lies and statistics ;-) If the 5 rules map to a different part of the address space of all spam then the filter is 100% effective. That was the point. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 9 13:58:52 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA13467 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 13:58:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h29JBRZ31843 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 14:11:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29JBRO31840 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 14:11:27 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA13380 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 13:58:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29J93O31744; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 14:09:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29J8LO31707 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 14:08:21 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA12825 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 13:55:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h29IvIak023422 for Asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 11:57:18 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303091857.h29IvIak023422@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists References: <3E6B32BC.11355.D6B1A03@localhost> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 11:57:18 -0700 (MST) > From: tjacobs@redsword.com > ... > In that case, I'm unsure what you meant by not wanting to use "fancy > crypto solutions" (a quote from your earlier post) if this term does > not include digital signature algorithms and public keys. Were you > just meaning no commercial solutions ("authorities") that involve > paying money to maintain the key infrastructure? Or do you not > understand that "digital signatures" and "public keys" are > applications of cryptography? I think signatures using nothing more than secret or public key encryption are not fancy. By "fancy crypto solutions" I mean schemes such as PKI which involve or should involve - networks of key servers or distributed lists of signature authorities, - certificate or key revocation machinery (which perhaps ought to be related to the previous item, but in real life seems to be utterly broken and useless), - private investigators checking claimed identities, - probably unexpired and possibly submarine patents - advertising, propaganda, and other "jockeying in the commercial space." I suspect I'd find anything that relies on DNSSEC "fancy," particularly given the history of DNSSEC. I suspect but don't know that no crypto mechanism can use DNS RRs without also requiring DNSSEC and so "fancy" or even a fraud in real life like commercial PKI. I suspect that some non-fancy crypto spam defenses can be designed and (more important) deployed without global changes to MTAs or MUAs. I think that should be a basic criterion for any recommendation by this group. However, I'm not yet convinced that any given non-fancy crypto spam defense would be sufficient or even worthwhile. > ... > > > There are a couple > > > of variations to this approach that I think might be workable, such > > > as a mail protocol where the sender first sends a "i'm about to send > > > a message" message, and the receiver generates a key pair, sending > > > the arbitrary "public" key to the sender, who then uses it to > > > encrypt the message,... > > > > Please read about simple crypo-based authentication. > > If you had read the rest of the message, you would've realized that > those won't work, since they place the calculation burden on the > wrong party. I tried to read the message, but the sense I got from it conflicted with what I understand of public key encryption and signing. It suggested you knew less than nothing of the subject and I was trying to say as much as politely as possible. If that inference was wrong, I appologize. Unfortunately, rereading your quoted text above several times does not disperse my original inference. For example, I'm troubled by the notion that a stranger could authentiate itself merely by preceding the mail message with a session key exchange. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 9 14:10:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA15630 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 14:10:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h29JNA632205 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 14:23:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29JNAO32202 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 14:23:10 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA15534 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 14:10:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29JLRO32153; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 14:21:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29JKvO32074 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 14:20:57 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA15127 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 14:07:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2092866; Sun, 09 Mar 2003 14:09:56 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: wayne From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 14:05:51 -0500 At 11:27 AM -0600 3/9/03, wayne wrote: >I don't think setting your MX to open relays is such a hot idea, but I >do like the suggestion given previously of setting it to 127.0.0.1. I had to play the 127.0.0.1 game once with a domain. My DNS server was getting slammed because someone sending spam claiming to be from ftp.somewhere.com, which didn't exist. I wasn't getting the bounces. What I was getting were hundreds of DNS lookup requests every second from all the people trying to bounce the email. Since the domain didn't exist nobody was cacheing--which meant that I got *all* of the DNS requests. 127.0.0.1 for ftp.somewhere.com solved that very nicely. But it did make an interesting DoS attack. Incidentally. I've seen stats that indicate that a very large percentage of the lookups going to the root servers are for domains that don't exist. It wouldn't surprise me if this is why. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 9 14:11:12 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA15779 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 14:11:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h29JNmn32261 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 14:23:48 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29JNmO32258 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 14:23:48 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA15661 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 14:10:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29JLQO32137; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 14:21:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29JKuO32070 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 14:20:56 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA15118 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 14:07:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2092877; Sun, 09 Mar 2003 14:09:55 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200303090322.h293MkTv014479@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <20030309024120.9707.qmail@prefix.emu.st> <200303090322.h293MkTv014479@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Vernon Schryver From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 14:01:55 -0500 At 8:22 PM -0700 3/8/03, Vernon Schryver wrote: >If you believe as I do that the reason genuine mail forgery (as opposed >to using a legitimately owned Hotmail dropbox) fell off dramatically >a year or three ago is related to the laws criminalizing header forger, >then you don't need any crypto. Simply have the MTU or MTU choose >and record a suitable RFC 2369 List-whatever header from the confirmation >message. I don't see that forgery itself has fallen off. We detect most of our spam using forgery detection. However it does seem that forgery of random commercial domains has fallen off. I think they tend to use ISP addresses more, but I haven't done a really good analysis. A quick scan of my 20,000 or so spams shows 4000 unique domains in the from lines. The top ones are: +---------------------------------+------+ | domain | cnt | +---------------------------------+------+ | yahoo.com | 1740 | | hotmail.com | 1496 | | aol.com | 973 | | msn.com | 448 | | Mail.com | 214 | | recessionspecials.com | 209 | | lycos.com | 180 | | | 178 | | excite.com | 170 | | free-gift-offers.com | 168 | | juno.com | 148 | | bluelightoffers.COM | 145 | | email.com | 125 | | clickformail.com | 122 | | helpfuloffers.com | 121 | | 163.com | 118 | | GreatDealsDepot.net | 117 | | earthlink.net | 108 | That's all either ISPs or known spam domains. On a personal note, I know that spam using @somewhere.com used to be a major problem (weekly blowbacks), but has now dropped off to almost nothing. On the other hand, that may be because people started blocking the domain. Then too. There were a couple successful lawsuits against spammers by companies whose reputation had been damaged. They may have decided to keep the forgeries to domains where that argument wouldn't result in huge monetary claims. At 8:43 PM -0700 3/8/03, Vernon Schryver wrote: >often using addresses from the target list. However, they're still >not doing blatent forging as they were a few years ago. The forging is there. It's more subtle. At least 90% of the spam we are filtering has something forged in the header, and I don't mean From doesn't match sending IP--we don't count that--that's legit. I don't really want to go into the details on-list. But it is there. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 9 14:11:13 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA15792 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 14:11:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h29JNnf32277 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 14:23:49 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29JNnO32274 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 14:23:49 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA15679 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 14:10:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29JLPO32121; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 14:21:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29JKqO32066 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 14:20:52 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA15112 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 14:07:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2092876; Sun, 09 Mar 2003 14:09:53 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200303090142.h291g5hF003760@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <200303090142.h291g5hF003760@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Vernon Schryver From: Kee Hinckley Subject: RE: [Asrg] PKI and Filters Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 13:35:52 -0500 At 6:42 PM -0700 3/8/03, Vernon Schryver wrote: >commercial cert. No user will spent $50 to buy a cert for a personal >mailbox, which is why no one has a Verisign personal cert. Cert I was. I tried to go from a their free one to a paid one. But Versign told me I had to change my name :-) >At 1:15 PM -0400 5/10/97, ID-Center wrote: > >Dear Kee, > > > >As an evaluation ID, Revocation/Replacement is not available. To obtain > >another ID, simply return to the enrollment pages @ > >http://digitalid.verisign.com/brw_pick.htm Since our systems will not > >process duplicate orders, please add a digit such as the number "1" to the > >end of your last name, to complete a new enrollment. > > > >Thank you for using VeriSign's Digital ID Services. > > > >Customer Support > >VeriSign Digital ID Center Seriously though, you are correct. The cost of true verification is higher than the cost anyone is going to be willing to pay for it--the benefits aren't big enough. On the other hand, the cost of verifying that you really own the email address you say you own is definitely manageable (and could even be done without human intervention). -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 9 14:14:14 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA16332 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 14:14:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h29JQog32378 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 14:26:50 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29JQoO32375 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 14:26:50 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA16249 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 14:13:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29JLDO32098; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 14:21:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29JKqO32062 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 14:20:52 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA15110 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 14:07:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2092867; Sun, 09 Mar 2003 14:09:52 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <3E683148.10306@americasm01.nt.com> <3E6A11F7.6050809@harvee.org> To: abuse From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 13:27:47 -0500 At 6:38 PM -0800 3/8/03, abuse wrote: > what, exactly, are the "fed's" requirements with regard to 'americans >with disabilities' vis-a-vis 'software'. is that an implication, or a >requirement of the statute. Section 508 "requires all Federal agencies to make electronic and information technology accessible to people with disabilities". A number of the challenge/response protocols proposed here (as well as those currently in use at Yahoo and other webmail sites, as well as at search engines like Google) contain tests whereby you look at an image containing non-ocr'able text (typically it's either distressed in some way, or has a weird background) and type in the text of the word you see. This assures the sender/presenter that you are a human and not a robot trying to spam. Those won't work if you are blind. As a result I would assert that any challenge/response system that uses such a test will not be acceptable to the U.S. Government for use in government funded mail software. I don't know if providing both visual and aural tests would be sufficient. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 9 14:49:19 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA22604 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 14:49:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h29K1tq01676 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 15:01:55 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29K1tO01673 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 15:01:55 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA22511 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 14:48:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29K05O01592; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 15:00:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29JxwO01545 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 14:59:58 -0500 Received: from ciphertrust.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA22184 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 14:46:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.com with ESMTP ; Sun, 09 Mar 2003 14:48:23 -0500 (EST) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 14:38:31 -0500 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)'" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Subject: [Asrg] ASRG work items Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 14:38:22 -0500 In this email, I revisit the message that I sent to the group five days ago. While many have continued to "succumb to the temptation to add to the high-volume small-topic flood" (as worded by Liudvikas Bukys), there has been progress in several directions. I summarize that progress below. The purpose of this is twofold: 1) To identify the work items on which the discussions should focus; and 2) To provide a simple outline for list members that have been overwhelmed by the volume and are having difficulty following the big picture. > Milestones/Deliverables: > 1. problem statement/ requirements document Keith Moore and Balachander Krishnamurthy have started a good thread on "requirements for a proposed solution + notion of consent" (also called "evaluating proposals against requirements"). Raymie Stata has started a good thread on "Requirements for source tracking" (turned into "desirable characteristics of source tracking"). > 2. taxonomy of existing approaches > 3. taxonomy of proposed approaches I will send a simple outline for 2 and 3. Keith Moore and Chris Lewis have volunteered to contribute to this. I expect that many others will have feedback as we go through iterations. In addition, a thread has been started on best common practices for filtering. These more immediately useful documents are good contributions. So feel free to continue conversations in this direction. Please do continue to submit new proposed systems. The best way to submit these at this point is as, at least, a rough draft of a paper or internet draft similar to how RMX draft was submitted. However, we will not have the detailed debate about the proposed systems at this point. We spent about 100 messages on this group arguing the pros and cons of that proposal. Clearly, this is not the most productive conversation to have at this point. Similarly, we have seen discussion about 'stamps' or changing the economic model. It would be useful to gather these ideas into a document that proposes approaches to accomplish this. > 4. evaluation of existing and proposed approaches ( to > include usefulness, monetary cost, affect on normal use of > email, legal support of the solution and vice versa) 5. > transfer of technology (possibly through standards proposals > to the IETF) We have not yet reached this phase. I believe much of the 'less productive dialogue' on the group is from persons that are prematurely debating the details of pros and cons of proposed systems. We will enter this phase once steps 1 - 3 are further along. This means that, for now, we should minimize if not eliminate the detailed criticism of proposed systems. As much as possible, gather your thoughts and responses as input for future discussions and documents. > I am seeking comments on the charter. > -does the consent-based communication viewpoint sufficiently > generalizes the problem? There was a thread on this topic that helped to clarify the intended meaning of this definition. Based on that, I suggest that we move forward with this definition of the problem rather than spend more time at this point continuing to debate variations of the traditionally used definitions. Overall, while there is some amount of value in almost every post that has been made, due to the volume of messages on this list, we must focus our dialogue so that everyone can follow the more productive conversations that are taking place. Regards, Paul _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 9 14:56:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23900 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 14:56:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h29K9Mn02579 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 15:09:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29K9MO02576 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 15:09:22 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23789 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 14:56:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29K75O01866; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 15:07:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29K6DO01753 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 15:06:13 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23273 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 14:53:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h29Jt7Hk030832; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:55:07 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h29JoJfF014822 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:50:19 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h29JoIUR014820; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:50:18 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Vernon Schryver Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists Message-ID: <20030309195018.GA14758@danisch.de> References: <3E6ABA14.2050200@americasm01.nt.com> <200303090358.h293wrNk017411@calcite.rhyolite.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200303090358.h293wrNk017411@calcite.rhyolite.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:50:18 +0100 On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 08:58:53PM -0700, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > My jihad in this area is to get people to stop using "forged" to mean > "sender domain differs from SMTP client reverse DNS". That's not "forged". That's "normal". Nobody calls such a case forgery. Maybe your jihad was a bad choice. Wouldn't it be better to choose a target that really exists for jihad? Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 9 15:17:02 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA28346 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 15:17:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h29KTdv03083 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 15:29:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29KTdO03080 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 15:29:39 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA28242 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 15:16:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29KLmO02823; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 15:21:48 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29KJdO02761 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 15:19:39 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA25820 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 15:06:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18s2Im-0000fl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Mar 2003 10:01:24 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists In-Reply-To: Your message of "09 Mar 2003 11:27:40 CST." Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 10:01:24 -0500 wayne wrote: > I don't think setting your MX to open relays is such a hot idea, but I > do like the suggestion given previously of setting it to 127.0.0.1. There's at least one MTA which will happily "deliver" mail to itself 100's of times recursively in such a situation. It will then "discover" that the message has transited more than 20 hops, and bounce the message to itself. Yes, it doesn't notice that it's delivering mail to itself. Yes, it takes 100's of hops before the MTA notices that the hop count has exceeded 20. Yes, people use this garbage software to process mail. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 9 15:30:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA00837 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 15:30:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h29KhF004186 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 15:43:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29KhFO04183 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 15:43:15 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA00706 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 15:30:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29Kf5O04126; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 15:41:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29KeBO04108 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 15:40:11 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA00130 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 15:27:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18s2cb-0000fy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Mar 2003 10:21:53 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 09 Mar 2003 09:28:27 MST." <200303091628.h29GSRFA007254@calcite.rhyolite.com> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 10:21:53 -0500 Vernon Schryver wrote: > How do you determine that a given message has forged headers? I admit it's difficult. > Again, for the umpteenth time, you cannot compare the reverse DNS > dommain of the STMP client IP address with domains in the envelope or > the headers, with the possible exception of the HELO, to define forgery. > Mail from a Brazilian IP address carrying Hotmail sender is not > necessarily forged in any honest sense. No, but I'm getting spam from 1000's of unique IP's across the planet. Each IP is sending spam with many different 'from' lines, some of which are for non-existent domains. Others are for well-known domains. The various 'from' lines overlap among the source IP's. The odds of *all* of these messages being consentual are next to zero. The odds of 90% of them being intentionally forged are pretty good. > If you define a mismatch between reverse DNS and HELO domains as > forgery, you'll say that at least 1% and perhaps more than 10% of > all otherwise completely legitimate mail is "forged." Sure. But the odds are that spam is 90-99% forged in that way. It's not a perfect descriminator, but it's better than chance. > > A looks up MX, gets B. B looks up MX, gets C. C looks up MX, gets > > A. Happiness and frivolity ensue... > > That's not how MX RRs work. Please read pages 3 and 4 of RFC 974. Big deal. Did I say I would use MX RR's? Let me re-phrase my explanation to make it a little simpler: I hack my DNS server so that queries from one open relay get told that my MX is another open relay. The second open relay gets told my MX is the first. They bounce garbage back and forth until they decide they're tired of it. Any protocol can be abused if you lie. DNS & MX records are no exception. > Did your physics teachers really say that that two things are the same > if you merely don't go to the trouble to distinguish them? If the trouble is too expensive to be practical, yes. We can't tell the difference between many theories in high energy particle physics, because we don't have the funds to build a galaxy-sized particle accelerator. Similarly, if a header is "deceitful", and 90% of such traffic is spam, and it's too expensive to verify the other 10%, the most practical thing to do is often to lump it all in the same bin. Why should I pay for verifying that other peoples traffic is not spam, when they've intentionally engaged in many of the same behaviours as the spammers? Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 9 15:44:14 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA01758 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 15:44:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h29Kuqv04612 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 15:56:52 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29KuqO04609 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 15:56:52 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA01753 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 15:43:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29Kt5O04539; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 15:55:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29KsrO04513 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 15:54:53 -0500 Received: from backbone.midwestcs.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA01720 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 15:41:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from footbone.midwestcs.com ([206.222.212.237] helo=midwestcs.com) by backbone.midwestcs.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18s7e4-0004sY-00 for ; Sun, 09 Mar 2003 14:43:44 -0600 to: ietf anti-spam research group Subject: Re: evaluating proposals against requirements (Re: [Asrg] requirements for a proposed solution + notion of consent) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: wayne In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lines: 30 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanner: exiscan *18s7e4-0004sY-00*6BBfRP3yv6c* () Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 09 Mar 2003 14:43:44 -0600 In Matt Sergeant writes: > If the 5 rules map to a different part of the address space of all spam > then the filter is 100% effective. That was the point. Right. And that brings up a related point. If a spam test can be worked around by doing , that is still ok if that moves the spammer into part of the address space that other tests work on. As Damon Sauer says, we need to pen, trap and kill the spammers. (Skinning is preferable to me also.) For example, if you use domain specific DNSBLs or RMX records check the From: header to see if the sending MTA is "authorized" for that domain, you won't have an iron clad detector of spam. You may, however, have a good indicator that will contribute to an overall spam score. Spammers that are trying to fly under these filters may well decided that "forging" the from header isn't worth the cost. This would lead to less confusion by non-geek users and would be a big help. Content filters that check for just the word "Viagra" have caused spammers to munge the word in various ways. More sophisticated filters will detect many of these munged versions also. If we can get spammers to have to talk in 133t 5p34k, we have won. -wayne _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 9 16:00:26 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA05008 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 16:00:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h29LD5X05962 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 16:13:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29LD5O05959 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 16:13:05 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA04881 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 15:59:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29LB3O05912; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 16:11:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29LABO05886 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 16:10:11 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA04239 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 15:57:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h29Kx7rT031795 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 21:59:07 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h29KwYfF016579 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 21:58:34 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h29KwYei016577 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 21:58:34 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <20030309205833.GA16555@danisch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Subject: [Asrg] (Fwd): ADMIN: acm.org subscribers in danger Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 21:58:33 +0100 Just a piece of reality to learn from: ----- Forwarded message from "Perry E. Metzger" ----- > From: "Perry E. Metzger" > To: cryptography@wasabisystems.com > Date: 09 Mar 2003 15:46:58 -0500 > Subject: ADMIN: acm.org subscribers in danger > > > Hi there. > > A large fraction of the messages being sent to acm.org are being > tagged as spam, by some sort of highly over-aggressive anti-spam > filter acm.org has put in. > > I've attempted to contact the postmaster there, but so far I've > failed as my attempt to get in touch get tagged as spam, too. > > If I keep getting torrents of bounces, all the folks using acm.org > mail redirectors (and there are dozens of you) will get removed from > the list in a few days. Very sorry, but I just don't know what else to > do. > > -- > Perry E. Metzger perry@piermont.com > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > The Cryptography Mailing List > Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@wasabisystems.com ----- End forwarded message ----- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 9 16:47:53 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA11403 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 16:47:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h29M0Xu08456 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 17:00:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29M0XO08451 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 17:00:33 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA11298 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 16:47:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29LwAO07941; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 16:58:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29LvlO07904 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 16:57:47 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA11069 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 16:44:36 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h29LkfNO026713 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 16:46:42 -0500 Message-Id: <200303092146.h29LkfNO026713@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.1 02/18/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: asrg@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_-581035987P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Re: Fixing the mailing lists Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 16:46:41 -0500 --==_Exmh_-581035987P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii (Sorry, item I am replying to was before I subscribed, so threading borked) On 9 Mar 2003 17:52:53 +0000, "Mark Delany" said: > But the public algorithm is merely a variant of rand() > The MUA can generate any sort of token it wants. All it has to do is > send the token back to the mailing list as part of the confirmation > email *and* keep a copy in some local database. > To: list-confirm@ietf.org > From: joe@example.com > Confirmation-Token: 20700621ba1d4f92de29ffce0dc98b0d This *does* have the very unfortunate side effect of requiring a separate SMTP DATA step for each of multiple recipients at a host. Given that my Listserv machine *routinely* (sometimes pseudo-hourly) sends 4K-20K recipient messages to our main mail hub, I'd *really* like to avoid having to fork 10K delivery processes if one would have sufficed otherwise. I could probably tolerate it being passed as an ESMTP parm on the RCTP TO:, or an implementation of RFC3229 (which specifies delta encoding for HTTP) - I think there was an I-D on this for SMTP but I can't find it at the moment. Now, assuming we get around the efficiency problem... We can do better - for instance, have the MUA generate a rand() *once*, and then the actually sent token is a keyed MD5 hash or similar of the List: address. This way, the token is tied to the list address, and even if a spammer trawls the token out of an archive or whatever, he can't use it to spam from any other address.... Major drawback? There's a vendor of who I've heard said: "Oh, it's easy to re-install $FOOBAR-OS, I've had to do it dozens of times on my boxes". -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Senior Engineer Virginia Tech --==_Exmh_-581035987P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+a7ZBcC3lWbTT17ARAlGNAJ4g2dcb32iOIVoVx3VySVBUU74rzgCgw6gJ 2k/SSUCOBtsUNgDyLmNijio= =TFAU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_-581035987P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 9 17:28:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA18643 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 17:28:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h29MfNQ11081 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 17:41:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29MfNO11078 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 17:41:23 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA18556 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 17:28:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29Md8O11003; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 17:39:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29McoO10970 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 17:38:50 -0500 Received: from dogma.slashnull.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA18112 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 17:25:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from jm@localhost) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h29MOdJ29669; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 22:24:39 GMT From: Justin Mason To: Vernon Schryver Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists Message-ID: <20030309222439.B29335@dogma> References: <20030309024120.9707.qmail@prefix.emu.st> <200303090322.h293MkTv014479@calcite.rhyolite.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200303090322.h293MkTv014479@calcite.rhyolite.com>; from vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com on Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 08:22:46PM -0700 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 22:24:39 +0000 On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 08:22:46PM -0700, Vernon Schryver wrote: > Consider the common claims about spammers forging headers. When was > the last time you saw spam supposedly from CERT? Don't you think that > if spammers were willing to forge headers to get around simple > whitelists, at least some would use that envelope or header From value? FYI, spammers often forge some addresses that are seen as having "filter evasion" value... for example, Amazon.com is frequently impersonated in the headers, since that's in the default SA whitelist. I haven't seen CERT forgeries yet though. --j. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 9 17:43:24 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21543 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 17:43:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h29Mu5C11822 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 17:56:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29Mu5O11819 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 17:56:05 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21452 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 17:42:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29MseO11633; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 17:54:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29MpLO11332 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 17:51:21 -0500 Received: from dogma.slashnull.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA20339 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 17:38:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from jm@localhost) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h29Mb4O30148; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 22:37:04 GMT From: Justin Mason To: wayne Cc: ietf anti-spam research group Subject: Re: evaluating proposals against requirements (Re: [Asrg] requirements for a proposed solution + notion of consent) Message-ID: <20030309223703.D29335@dogma> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from wayne@midwestcs.com on Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 02:43:44PM -0600 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 22:37:03 +0000 On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 02:43:44PM -0600, wayne wrote: > In Matt Sergeant writes: > > > If the 5 rules map to a different part of the address space of all spam > > then the filter is 100% effective. That was the point. > > Right. And that brings up a related point. If a spam test can be > worked around by doing , that is still ok if that moves the > spammer into part of the address space that other tests work on. As > Damon Sauer says, we need to pen, trap and kill the spammers. > (Skinning is preferable to me also.) Well, that is the whole idea behind SA's use of lots of different test types, after all ;) --j. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 9 18:01:57 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA25013 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 18:01:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h29NEcS13239 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 18:14:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29NEcO13235 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 18:14:38 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA24889 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 18:01:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29NCAO13057; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 18:12:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29NBKO13040 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 18:11:20 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA24239 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 17:58:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h29N07ow001213; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 00:00:07 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h29MuafF018315 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 9 Mar 2003 23:56:36 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h29MuawZ018313; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 23:56:36 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Vernon Schryver Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists Message-ID: <20030309225636.GA18076@danisch.de> References: <20030309024120.9707.qmail@prefix.emu.st> <200303090322.h293MkTv014479@calcite.rhyolite.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200303090322.h293MkTv014479@calcite.rhyolite.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 23:56:36 +0100 On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 08:22:46PM -0700, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > Consider the common claims about spammers forging headers. When was > the last time you saw spam supposedly from CERT? Don't you think that > if spammers were willing to forge headers to get around simple > whitelists, at least some would use that envelope or header From value? > I have tracked back around 150-200 spam mails and not in a single case the header was not forged. This means that I received trustworthy statements from the domain owner, IP owner or ISP that the given sender address never had existed or - in a few cases - that they existed but the user was evidenced innocent. This is not an assumption or conclusion, it is a verified statement of the authorized owners. There are very few cases where the spam is just a bait to verify the recipients address, asking the recipients to "opt out", and thus verify their address and mark them as a "spam reader". From my experience >99% of the spam contains forged sender addresses (and wrong host names in the SMTP helo command, but that doesn't really matter). I definitely can't understand what makes you believe that spam messages do usually not contain forged headers. That's one of the most obvious and easiest to verify facts about spam. Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 9 18:09:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA26766 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 18:09:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h29NMMe13434 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 18:22:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29NMMO13431 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 18:22:22 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA26628 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 18:09:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29NL1O13388; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 18:21:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29NK5O13358 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 18:20:05 -0500 Received: from yossarian.aniota.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA26039 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 18:06:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from yossarian.aniota.com (IDENT:abuse@localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by yossarian.aniota.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h29N8w21019756 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 15:08:58 -0800 Received: from localhost (abuse@localhost) by yossarian.aniota.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) with ESMTP id h29N8v5L019753 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 15:08:57 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: yossarian.aniota.net: abuse owned process doing -bs From: abuse To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <3E683148.10306@americasm01.nt.com> <3E6A11F7.6050809@harvee.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 15:08:57 -0800 (PST) on "3-9-2003" "Kee Hinckley" writ: : acceptable to the U.S. Government for use in government funded mail : software. ... well, that's just too bad. the way i got it figured, imposing standards of the government, to solving a problem, the government itself not serious about solving, counterproductive. given the DCMA, 'the patriot act', and the dod's information gathering activities, government involvement is the last thing i want to see ... _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 9 18:34:52 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA01762 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 18:34:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h29NlYD14860 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 18:47:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29NlYO14857 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 18:47:34 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA01663 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 18:34:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29Nj6O14816; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 18:45:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h29NiPO14794 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 18:44:25 -0500 Received: from filer.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA01106 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 18:31:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from agora.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu (IDENT:ueJTXf2O9JsmsULvROepxknlJQzTtSKE@agora.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu [130.245.126.12]) by filer.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu (8.12.5/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h29NZLsh025572; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 18:35:22 -0500 Received: from agora.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu (IDENT:xktgkQp6STK0QiqIKH4AqcGSJYz24Wmt@localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by agora.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h29NXQb9009894; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 18:33:26 -0500 Received: (from ezk@localhost) by agora.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h29NXQ9g009890; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 18:33:26 -0500 Message-Id: <200303092333.h29NXQ9g009890@agora.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu> From: Erez Zadok To: Hadmut Danisch Cc: Vernon Schryver , Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 09 Mar 2003 23:56:36 +0100." <20030309225636.GA18076@danisch.de> X-MailKey: Erez Zadok Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 18:33:26 -0500 In message <20030309225636.GA18076@danisch.de>, Hadmut Danisch writes: [...] > From my experience >99% of the spam contains forged sender addresses > (and wrong host names in the SMTP helo command, but that doesn't > really matter). My own experience is also that the vast majority of spam comes from forged addresses that don't exist. I personally am using ASK, a challenge-response personal spam filter to be very effective in reducing the rate at which spam sneaks in significantly. ASK works well for me, but it does have scalability problems if deployed widely. Erez. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 9 18:59:48 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA06278 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 18:59:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2A0CVB16387 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 19:12:31 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A0CVO16384 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 19:12:31 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA06199 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 18:59:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A0A5O16321; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 19:10:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A09xO16266 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 19:09:59 -0500 Received: from mailman.aerodyne.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA05705 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 18:56:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from benji.aerodyne.com (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailman.aerodyne.com (8.12.8/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h29NwhlS003497; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 18:58:43 -0500 Received: from shamus.aerodyne.com (shamus.aerodyne.com [198.4.242.243]) by benji.aerodyne.com (8.12.8/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h29Nwgvg030724; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 18:58:43 -0500 Subject: Re: [Asrg] ASRG work items From: Fred Bacon To: Paul Judge Cc: "'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)'" In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-2ZUYAY70MYUlWrfyXstA" X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.8 (1.0.8-10) Message-Id: <1047254337.23557.52.camel@shamus.aerodyne.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Score: No. hits=-6.5 required=5 test=IN_REP_TO,PGP_SIGNATURE_2 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.28 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 09 Mar 2003 18:58:55 -0500 --=-2ZUYAY70MYUlWrfyXstA Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Please forgive me if I restate what has already been discussed. I have spent the afternoon going through the mail archive, but I could not possibly read every message. On Sun, 2003-03-09 at 14:38, Paul Judge wrote: > > Milestones/Deliverables: > > 1. problem statement/ requirements document >=20 > Keith Moore and Balachander Krishnamurthy have started a good thread on > "requirements for a proposed solution + notion of consent" (also called > "evaluating proposals against requirements"). >=20 I would like to comment on the first milestone. It seems to me that there is considerable disagreement on even so simple a matter as the amount of spam with forged addresses. I believe that one of the first items which should be addressed is a quantitative assessment of the methods and varieties of spam. Part of this would be a standard spam corpus against which filters could be tested. But there should be other quantitative activities as well. The spam messages in the corpus are only a part of the data. Log file entries related to those messages should also be recorded and maintained for analysis. For instance, what percentage of spam messages really do come from open relays in this day and age? Can anyone say for certain? Where is the data to determine this? I suggest that an early goal for ASRG should be to develop and distribute a standard set of spam collection and analysis tools. These tools should be suitable for instrumenting servers (either production mail servers or honeypots) and building an extensive database of spam for analysis. No source of information should be ignored. Everything should be recorded, the message, the server logs and all related TCP packets. Of course, great care would need to be taken to protect the privacy of the spam recipients. Honeypots may be the only viable method for this level of data collection. In fact, I would recommend a network of honepots in different TLDs and geographic locations. I hope this suggestion is useful. Fred Bacon Senior Scientist Aerodyne Research, Inc. Billerica, MA 01821 --=-2ZUYAY70MYUlWrfyXstA Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQA+a9U/cJ3mbqRC5aIRAvWIAJ9+YELyqhOzweVYjydsTDz7Hy6HLgCgjE9G i9qngJdajs4htPY5FDsBpQA= =JE5R -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-2ZUYAY70MYUlWrfyXstA-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 9 19:24:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA10682 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 19:24:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2A0bC117297 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 19:37:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A0bBO17294 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 19:37:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA10590 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 19:23:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A0YHO16919; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 19:34:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A0XeO16896 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 19:33:40 -0500 Received: from ares.redsword.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA09961 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 19:20:27 -0500 (EST) From: tjacobs@redsword.com Received: from tymdahl (adsl-65-65-78-123.dsl.rcsntx.swbell.net [65.65.78.123]) by ares.redsword.com (Rockliffe SMTPRA 3.4.7) with ESMTP id ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 18:22:33 -0600 Organization: Red Sword Corporation To: Vernon Schryver Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists CC: Asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <3E6B8690.14084.EB28E8F@localhost> Priority: normal In-reply-to: <200303091857.h29IvIak023422@calcite.rhyolite.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v4.02) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 18:23:12 -0600 > I think signatures using nothing more than secret or public key > encryption are not fancy. By "fancy crypto solutions" I mean schemes > such as PKI which involve or should involve > - networks of key servers or distributed lists of signature > authorities, - certificate or key revocation machinery (which > perhaps ought to be > related to the previous item, but in real life seems to be > utterly broken and useless), > - private investigators checking claimed identities, > - probably unexpired and possibly submarine patents > - advertising, propaganda, and other "jockeying in the commercial > space." Ok; I think I understand what you mean by "fancy", and with that definition I agree with your position. > > > > of variations to this approach that I think might be workable, > > > > such as a mail protocol where the sender first sends a "i'm > > > > about to send a message" message, and the receiver generates a > > > > key pair, sending the arbitrary "public" key to the sender, who > > > > then uses it to encrypt the message,... > > > > > > Please read about simple crypo-based authentication. > > > > If you had read the rest of the message, you would've realized that > > those won't work, since they place the calculation burden on the > > wrong party. > > I tried to read the message, but the sense I got from it conflicted > with what I understand of public key encryption and signing. That's because it didn't have anything to do with encryption / signing. See below. > It > suggested you knew less than nothing of the subject and I was trying > to say as much as politely as possible. If that inference was wrong, > I appologize. Apology accepted. > Unfortunately, rereading your quoted text above several > times does not disperse my original inference. For example, I'm > troubled by the notion that a stranger could authentiate itself merely > by preceding the mail message with a session key exchange. Ah; that's because I suppose I wasn't as clear as I thought I was about the purpose of what was proposed. It has nothing to do with authentication, but instead is merely a mechanism to make the task of sending unsolicited messages very resource (specifically CPU) intensive, such that the current spammer strategy of sending millions or billions of messages is simply not technically viable due to the tremendous amount of resources that would be consumed. Right now, the spammers are essentially parasites, in that the resources they are consuming mostly belong to someone else. The purpose of the proposal was to provide a "minimum cost" to the act of sending the email. In principle (but not quite in practice, for the obvious reasons), it could be as simply as passing the sender a product of primes, etc. and demanding that he factor them before accepting the message. As you (or someone else, sorry; I've lost track) pointed out, this is particularly unfair to legitimate bulk mailers, but I think that problem could be solved by a whitelist approach (which itself implies the need of some authentication and authorization system, which is beyond the scope of what I was proposing). _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 9 19:33:50 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA12257 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 19:33:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2A0kXk17969 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 19:46:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A0kWO17966 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 19:46:32 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA12162 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 19:33:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A0j9O17936; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 19:45:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A0ivO17897 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 19:44:57 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA11905 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 19:31:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2A0XmGP003843 for Asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 17:33:48 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303100033.h2A0XmGP003843@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists References: <200303092333.h29NXQ9g009890@agora.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 17:33:48 -0700 (MST) > From: Erez Zadok > ... > My own experience is also that the vast majority of spam comes from forged > addresses that don't exist. I personally am using ASK, a challenge-response > personal spam filter to be very effective in reducing the rate at which spam > sneaks in significantly. ASK works well for me, but it does have > scalability problems if deployed widely. How do you know that the source addresses don't exist, because your challenge-response system gets a bounce for its challenges? That would at most show that they don't exist when you challenge them, and might in some cases only show that your challenges are unacceptable (e.g. detected by a spam filter) and so rejected from perfectly valid and legitimate addresses. (For example, if your challenges are substantially identical or bulk, then they are likely to be rejected by spam filters like the DCC and Pyzor/Razor.) Assuming that your vast majority of addresses in fact do not exist, how do you know that none of the spammers owned the addresses they are using in the reasonably recent past, perhaps even when they queued the spam on the on the open relay or other SMTP client? For example, how do you distinguish "never existed" from "terminated for spamming"? Do you consider both cases to be "forged?" I hope not. That distinction is significant, because contributors to this mailing list have claimed that some forgeable spam defenses are impossible, because they believe forgery is extremely common. Others have claimed that spam defenses based on validating sources would be sufficent using similar reasoning. Both are reasons are bogus if forged spam is in fact relatively rare, although the claims might still be valid for other reasons. It's also worth quantifying the total from which that or any "vast majority" is drawn. For example, conclusions based on 5000 messages sent toward a handful addresses should convince no one of much of anything. As others have said, numbers with complete disclosure of what they mean would be good. As I keep saying, I agree that plenty of spam has forged sources. The question is whether that "plenty" is 1%, 10%, 50%, or 99%. As I said, my guess is ~10%. Note that I used the word "guess." I wish that everyone else who is guessing would admit as much. As far as I can tell, everyone is guessing. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 9 19:33:59 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA12298 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 19:33:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2A0kfp17987 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 19:46:41 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A0keO17984 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 19:46:40 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA12185 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 19:33:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A0j4O17918; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 19:45:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A0imO17891 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 19:44:48 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA11878 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 19:31:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2A0XafU003839 for Asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 17:33:36 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303100033.h2A0XafU003839@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists References: <3E6B8690.14084.EB28E8F@localhost> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 17:33:36 -0700 (MST) > From: tjacobs@redsword.com > ... > > troubled by the notion that a stranger could authentiate itself merely > > by preceding the mail message with a session key exchange. > > Ah; that's because I suppose I wasn't as clear as I thought I was > about the purpose of what was proposed. It has nothing to do with > authentication, but instead is merely a mechanism to make the task of > sending unsolicited messages very resource (specifically CPU) > intensive, ... That goal and mechanism needs no changes in protocols or MTAs. You need only configure your MTA to refuse all mail except when the SMTP client uses SMTP-TLS. That's easily done with modern sendmail. In many and probably cases your MTA won't have a cert for the SMTP client, and so the two MTAs will exchange session keys and then do the crypto CPU grinding required for confidentiality. If you do have a valid cert for the client, you'll also be able to authenticate the client. This might work your CPU as hard as the spammer's, but that symmetry or worse is unavoidable. The speeds of CPUs running MTAs on the Internet today vary by more than a factor of 200, and probably more than a factor of 10,000 if you include systems with hardware help for encryption. It is impossible to burden the computers of spammers without overtaxing some SMTP servers and some legitimate SMTP clients. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 9 19:44:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA14138 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 19:44:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2A0vE018337 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 19:57:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A0vEO18334 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 19:57:14 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA14036 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 19:44:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A0t3O18203; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 19:55:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A0saO18178 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 19:54:36 -0500 Received: from ciphertrust.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA13595 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 19:41:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.com with ESMTP ; Sun, 09 Mar 2003 19:42:57 -0500 (EST) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 19:33:10 -0500 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)'" Subject: Varieties of spam (was RE: [Asrg] ASRG work items) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 19:33:08 -0500 This is a good point. More quantitative rather than anecdotal data would be useful. We started spamarchive.org a few months ago to provide such a standard and open spam corpus. (The latest archives are not online right now as we are changing hosting facilities, but they are available for those that would like to use them.) Another missing piece is a set of tools for anonymizing, measuring, and analyzing spam data. I mention this and give some examples in my talk at the spam conference (http://www.spamconference.org/proceedings2003.html). Another relevant thread is one started by Kee Hinckley called "Re: [Asrg] Back to the charter". It aims to categorize spam by the technique used to send it. > -----Original Message----- > From: Fred Bacon [mailto:bacon@aerodyne.com] > Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2003 6:59 PM > To: Paul Judge > Cc: 'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)' > Subject: Re: [Asrg] ASRG work items > > > Please forgive me if I restate what has already been > discussed. I have spent the afternoon going through the mail > archive, but I could not possibly read every message. > > On Sun, 2003-03-09 at 14:38, Paul Judge wrote: > > > > Milestones/Deliverables: > > > 1. problem statement/ requirements document > > > > Keith Moore and Balachander Krishnamurthy have started a good thread > on > > "requirements for a proposed solution + notion of consent" (also > called > > "evaluating proposals against requirements"). > > > > I would like to comment on the first milestone. It seems to > me that there is considerable disagreement on even so simple > a matter as the amount of spam with forged addresses. I > believe that one of the first items which should be addressed > is a quantitative assessment of the methods and varieties of > spam. Part of this would be a standard spam corpus against > which filters could be tested. But there should be other > quantitative activities as well. The spam messages in the > corpus are only a part of the data. Log file entries related > to those messages should also be recorded and maintained for > analysis. For instance, what percentage of spam messages > really do come from open relays in this day and age? Can > anyone say for certain? Where is the data to determine this? > > I suggest that an early goal for ASRG should be to develop > and distribute a standard set of spam collection and analysis > tools. These tools should be suitable for instrumenting > servers (either production mail servers or honeypots) and > building an extensive database of spam for analysis. No > source of information should be ignored. Everything should > be recorded, the message, the server logs and all related TCP packets. > > Of course, great care would need to be taken to protect the > privacy of the spam recipients. Honeypots may be the only > viable method for this level of data collection. In fact, I > would recommend a network of honepots in different TLDs and > geographic locations. > > I hope this suggestion is useful. > > > Fred Bacon > Senior Scientist > Aerodyne Research, Inc. > Billerica, MA 01821 > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 9 19:45:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA14395 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 19:45:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2A0wLI18398 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 19:58:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A0wLO18395 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 19:58:21 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA14297 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 19:45:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A0u2O18275; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 19:56:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A0tCO18211 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 19:55:12 -0500 Received: from harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA13662 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 19:41:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.133.182] helo=cs.utk.edu) by harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18sBOY-0003wK-00; Sun, 09 Mar 2003 16:43:58 -0800 Subject: Re: [Asrg] ASRG work items Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: Keith Moore , Paul Judge , "'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)'" To: Fred Bacon From: Keith Moore In-Reply-To: <1047254337.23557.52.camel@shamus.aerodyne.com> Message-Id: <5EB15A9A-5291-11D7-A014-000393DB5366@cs.utk.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 19:43:54 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sunday, March 9, 2003, at 06:58 PM, Fred Bacon wrote: > I would like to comment on the first milestone. It seems to me that > there is considerable disagreement on even so simple a matter as the > amount of spam with forged addresses. As far as I can tell, the nature of the spam received by a recipient can vary considerably from one recipient to another - depending, for instance, on how long the recipient has had that particular email address, what lists the recipient has participated in, which ISP the recipient has, etc. Also, the characteristics of spam change over time. So I'm uncertain of the utility for this group of the kind of assessment you're suggesting. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 9 19:56:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA16387 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 19:56:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2A19RR19520 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:09:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A19RO19517 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:09:27 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA16284 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 19:56:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A186O19472; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:08:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A17HO19242 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:07:17 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA15933 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 19:54:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18s6n2-0000iv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Mar 2003 14:48:56 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 09 Mar 2003 18:33:26 EST." <200303092333.h29NXQ9g009890@agora.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 14:48:56 -0500 Erez Zadok wrote: > My own experience is also that the vast majority of spam comes from forged > addresses that don't exist. Like the 100,000 fake addresses at my domain. The annoying "notifications" to "abuse@" about spam from my domain went away only when I gave up, and firewalled port 25 for everyone but a tiny whitelist. Before that, I had weekly fights with anti-spam people, who didn't want to understand that most headers were forged. Their experience may have been different than mine, but it was a source of great frustration that they refused to believe my experience. It's not just a few domains, either. Look at the reports on this list of people re-activating domains after 3 years, and immediately receiving 10K or 100K spams. There is *no* way that any legitimate business would be sending that much mail to addresses which don't exist, and *never* clean out bounces. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 9 20:09:26 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA18639 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:09:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2A1M9M19920 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:22:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A1M9O19917 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:22:09 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA18564 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:08:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A1K4O19816; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:20:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A1JYO19765 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:19:34 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA18116 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:06:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18s6yr-0000jI-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Mar 2003 15:01:09 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 09 Mar 2003 17:33:48 MST." <200303100033.h2A0XmGP003843@calcite.rhyolite.com> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 15:01:09 -0500 Vernon Schryver wrote: > For example, how do you distinguish "never existed" from "terminated > for spamming"? Do you consider both cases to be "forged?" I hope > not. To get back to the charter, this is an issue of consent. Leaving aside the question of how much of what kind of spam exists, having a consent trail which can be validated helps enormously. For that reason, I'm not as worried about spam from throw-away accounts, as I am about spam from open relays, or willing accomplices hosting the spamming MTA. I believe that the two kinds of UBE are fundamentally different, and that the methods used to deal with them should also be different. > It's also worth quantifying the total from which that or any "vast > majority" is drawn. For example, conclusions based on 5000 messages > sent toward a handful addresses should convince no one of much of > anything. At the minimum, they're a known outlier, and a line drawn in the sand. They serve to give insight into the statistical distributions in a way that the average cases cannot. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 9 20:10:23 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA18802 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:10:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2A1N6L19953 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:23:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A1N6O19950 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:23:06 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA18726 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:09:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A1L1O19872; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:21:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A1KgO19854 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:20:42 -0500 Received: from filer.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA18313 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:07:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from agora.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu (IDENT:kHb1U9NpklPpGBdqIhekYU17mfUHVXd/@agora.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu [130.245.126.12]) by filer.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu (8.12.5/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2A1Bssh001676; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:11:54 -0500 Received: from agora.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu (IDENT:AQwipn7NC3jHC1KL8XQQcvyMnzZLMPXi@localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by agora.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2A19wb9010748; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:09:58 -0500 Received: (from ezk@localhost) by agora.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h2A19wME010744; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:09:58 -0500 Message-Id: <200303100109.h2A19wME010744@agora.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu> From: Erez Zadok To: Vernon Schryver Cc: Asrg@ietf.org, Marco Paganini Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 09 Mar 2003 17:33:48 MST." <200303100033.h2A0XmGP003843@calcite.rhyolite.com> X-MailKey: Erez Zadok Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:09:58 -0500 Vernon, you have a number of good points here. I'm CC'ing Marco Paganini, ASK creator, who is currently running a user study for his upcoming FREENIX paper on ASK. Hopefully, he'll be able to respond much better than I could, and perhaps quantify some of his experiences for this list. Disclaimer: I'm shepherding Marco's paper for FREENIX, so I may be just a tad biased. :-) In message <200303100033.h2A0XmGP003843@calcite.rhyolite.com>, Vernon Schryver writes: > > From: Erez Zadok > > > ... > > My own experience is also that the vast majority of spam comes from forged > > addresses that don't exist. I personally am using ASK, a challenge-response > > personal spam filter to be very effective in reducing the rate at which spam > > sneaks in significantly. ASK works well for me, but it does have > > scalability problems if deployed widely. > > How do you know that the source addresses don't exist, because your > challenge-response system gets a bounce for its challenges? That > would at most show that they don't exist when you challenge them, and > might in some cases only show that your challenges are unacceptable > (e.g. detected by a spam filter) and so rejected from perfectly valid > and legitimate addresses. (For example, if your challenges are > substantially identical or bulk, then they are likely to be rejected > by spam filters like the DCC and Pyzor/Razor.) The challenges are not too similar. They use a checksum to correlate their original message w/ the response to the challenge. A bounce is not used to assume spam; a _lack_ of response to a (signed) challenge (after a period of time), is considered instead. The assumption here is that there are very few cases where there are "real users" behind spam sources, who'd sift through challenges and bother responding to them. (Obviously there's more details here, but I don't want to turn this email into a detailed description of ASK.) > Assuming that your vast majority of addresses in fact do not exist, > how do you know that none of the spammers owned the addresses they > are using in the reasonably recent past, perhaps even when they queued > the spam on the on the open relay or other SMTP client? For example, > how do you distinguish "never existed" from "terminated for spamming"? > Do you consider both cases to be "forged?" I hope not. From my personal perspective as a user, why should I care? If the spammer's account never existed or was turned off due to spamming, in both cases a valid response to my challenge isn't likely to be returned, and so I won't get to see that original spam message. However, I do think that these challenge-response systems can overburden an internet-wide SMTP system with all of these challenges. That's why I said in my original email that I think these systems suffer from scalability problems. I hope this list can come up with good and scalable solutions. > That distinction is significant, because contributors to this mailing > list have claimed that some forgeable spam defenses are impossible, > because they believe forgery is extremely common. Others have claimed > that spam defenses based on validating sources would be sufficent > using similar reasoning. Both are reasons are bogus if forged spam > is in fact relatively rare, although the claims might still be valid > for other reasons. Right. My personal experience is that most (>99%) spam is from forged addresses. Marco is conducting a wider study (than just oh' lonely me :-) and hopefully he can provide more accurate results. > It's also worth quantifying the total from which that or any "vast > majority" is drawn. For example, conclusions based on 5000 messages > sent toward a handful addresses should convince no one of much of > anything. > > As others have said, numbers with complete disclosure of what > they mean would be good. > > As I keep saying, I agree that plenty of spam has forged sources. > The question is whether that "plenty" is 1%, 10%, 50%, or 99%. As I > said, my guess is ~10%. Note that I used the word "guess." I wish > that everyone else who is guessing would admit as much. As far as I > can tell, everyone is guessing. Agreed. I've read some articles in popular media that claim that over 50% of all email is spam. While I believe, from personal experience, that >99% of spam is forged, I don't believe (again from personal experience), that 50% of all email is spam. All these anecdotal or personal results are not enough. Perhaps what this list should do is prepare a Web based survey that interested parties can complete. That is exactly what I suggested that Marco do before his paper is published, and he took on that daunting task of a user survey. I think a carefully designed study with as many possible users filling it, would go a long way toward defining the scope of the spam problem nowadays. Cheers, Erez. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 9 20:17:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA20142 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:17:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2A1UFT20155 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:30:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A1UFO20152 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:30:15 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA20065 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:16:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A1S1O20112; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:28:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A1RVO20091 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:27:31 -0500 Received: from filer.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA19536 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:14:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from agora.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu (IDENT:ToJ7XS+8RjdvV3XmvyaGW/g1IzgpsSMV@agora.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu [130.245.126.12]) by filer.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu (8.12.5/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2A1Ifsh001784; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:18:41 -0500 Received: from agora.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu (IDENT:th4knirgPrKASX1JUsED8UKKrBAPCNws@localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by agora.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2A1Gkb9010854; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:16:46 -0500 Received: (from ezk@localhost) by agora.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h2A1Gkhp010850; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:16:46 -0500 Message-Id: <200303100116.h2A1Gkhp010850@agora.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu> From: Erez Zadok To: Fred Bacon Cc: Paul Judge , "'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] ASRG work items In-reply-to: Your message of "09 Mar 2003 18:58:55 EST." <1047254337.23557.52.camel@shamus.aerodyne.com> X-MailKey: Erez Zadok Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:16:46 -0500 In message <1047254337.23557.52.camel@shamus.aerodyne.com>, Fred Bacon writes: > I would like to comment on the first milestone. It seems to me that > there is considerable disagreement on even so simple a matter as the > amount of spam with forged addresses. I believe that one of the first > items which should be addressed is a quantitative assessment of the [...] Apologies if that's been discussed. But IMHO the first milestone might be to define what spam is, in as precise a terms as possible. Saying that spam is "what I don't want to see" isn't precise enough in my opinion. And I have a feeling that many people have different notions for what they consider spam (UCE, XXX, emails from my ex ...) Depending of what users perceive as spam, different solutions might be devised. Erez. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 9 20:23:51 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA21260 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:23:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2A1aZZ20365 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:36:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A1aZO20358 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:36:35 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA21164 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:23:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A1Y2O20284; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:34:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A1XgO20248 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:33:42 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA20675 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:20:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2A1MXrs009994 for Asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 18:22:33 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303100122.h2A1MXrs009994@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists References: <200303100109.h2A19wME010744@agora.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 18:22:33 -0700 (MST) > From: Erez Zadok > ... > > and legitimate addresses. (For example, if your challenges are > > substantially identical or bulk, then they are likely to be rejected > > by spam filters like the DCC and Pyzor/Razor.) > > The challenges are not too similar. They use a checksum to correlate their > original message w/ the response to the challenge. That sounds "substantially identical" as far as the DCC and presumably Pyzor/Razor see it. Contrast your checksum with the "hashbusters" common in spam. > ... > I've read some articles in popular media that claim that over 50% of all > email is spam. While I believe, from personal experience, that >99% of spam > is forged, I don't believe (again from personal experience), that 50% of all > email is spam. All these anecdotal or personal results are not enough. > ... As I think I've said here before, numbers from some of the servers in the global network of DCC servers say that more than 50% of all email is spam. See http://www.dcc-servers.net/dcc/graphs/?resol=1week and especially http://www.dcc-servers.net/dcc/graphs/comp-rates?resol=1week Notice that those numbers are based on 10 Mmsgs/day. The spam ratio varies from <10% during the week for the surveyed government sites to about 80% on weekends for some U.S. ISPs. See also the charts on http://www.postini.com/ Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 9 20:25:47 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA21635 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:25:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2A1cU821172 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:38:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A1cUO21169 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:38:30 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA21538 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:25:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A1b8O20585; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:37:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A1aZO20360 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:36:35 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA21158 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:23:17 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2A1PEWS002021; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:25:14 -0500 Message-Id: <200303100125.h2A1PEWS002021@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.1 02/18/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: Alan DeKok Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 09 Mar 2003 14:48:56 EST." References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_-406294260P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 20:25:13 -0500 --==_Exmh_-406294260P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Sun, 09 Mar 2003 14:48:56 EST, Alan DeKok said: > It's not just a few domains, either. Look at the reports on this > list of people re-activating domains after 3 years, and immediately > receiving 10K or 100K spams. There is *no* way that any legitimate > business would be sending that much mail to addresses which don't > exist, and *never* clean out bounces. When I decomissioned our bitnet-internet gateway, the Saudi Arabian bitnet nodes had already been off bitnet for close to 18 months, so ALL mail to those nodes got bounced. Some 90% of the traffic still using the gateway at the time was a mailing list sending to 5 Saudi subscribers. The mailing list had been getting back well over 200 bounce messages a *DAY* for a year and a half and not cleaned up. And yes, I tried the list owner and postmaster addresses as well. I didn't even get any joy mailing to the WHOIS contacts for the domain. I won't identify the offending site other than to say that they probably should have known better, as one of their research groups are mentioned in some RFC's with single digits. ;) --==_Exmh_-406294260P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+a+l5cC3lWbTT17ARAko0AJ4nvd57wkS8JXw3reQhKsR3fLWn9gCgvgx2 umkMxCpQrTuBa8BCzVSfVHk= =5iDW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_-406294260P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 9 20:55:00 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA27095 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:55:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2A27iw23060 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 21:07:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A27iO23057 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 21:07:44 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA27005 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:54:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A265O22247; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 21:06:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A253O22203 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 21:05:03 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA26514 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:51:46 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2A1rIWS002224; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:53:18 -0500 Message-Id: <200303100153.h2A1rIWS002224@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.1 02/18/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: Erez Zadok Cc: "'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] ASRG work items In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 09 Mar 2003 20:16:46 EST." <200303100116.h2A1Gkhp010850@agora.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu> References: <200303100116.h2A1Gkhp010850@agora.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_-402492036P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 20:53:17 -0500 --==_Exmh_-402492036P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Sun, 09 Mar 2003 20:16:46 EST, Erez Zadok said: > is "what I don't want to see" isn't precise enough in my opinion. And I > have a feeling that many people have different notions for what they > consider spam (UCE, XXX, emails from my ex ...) Yes, I'd probably be surprised to receive mail from your ex. And if it was UCE XXX mail from your ex, I'd say "joe job". ;) However, that *does* bring up an important - I currently get almost as much "I saw your name on XYZ list and was wondering if you knew..." mail as I do spam. Fortunately for my work load, the vast majority of these are FAQs that I can answer with a canned note - "can I use your NTP server?" and "how do I get LSOFT's code to...." seem to be popular. ;) We need to make sure that we don't make any "prove you're a human" solutions *too* difficult, as the general clue level out there is pretty low. Remember that a solution doesn't have to work just for me, Keith, and Vernon, it has to be something that we can deploy to my mom (who doesn't mind being used as a generic user - she's in her 60s, has had one stroke already, and will NOT be able to manage getting anything fixed if either Earthlink or Hotmail change the way they do things unless either I or my brother stop by to do it for her). --==_Exmh_-402492036P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+a/ANcC3lWbTT17ARAh8FAKDE6NlNvwO1PX87WaV7EhHEwAtn8gCcDKMF zOw8zGLvHQ/phYgHiwWDu2w= =CdMa -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_-402492036P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 9 20:56:54 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA27449 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:56:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2A29cj23124 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 21:09:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A29cO23121 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 21:09:38 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA27350 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:56:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A281O23083; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 21:08:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A27OO22930 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 21:07:24 -0500 Received: from mailman.aerodyne.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA26946 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:54:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from benji.aerodyne.com (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailman.aerodyne.com (8.12.8/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2A1u7lS005056; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:56:07 -0500 Received: from x1-6-00-05-02-0e-35-74 (h0005020e3574.ne.client2.attbi.com [66.30.245.139]) (authenticated bits=0) by benji.aerodyne.com (8.12.8/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2A1u6vg030776; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:56:06 -0500 From: Fred Bacon To: Paul Judge Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: Varieties of spam (was RE: [Asrg] ASRG work items) Message-Id: <20030309210400.1ad8c85d.bacon@aerodyne.com> In-Reply-To: References: Organization: Aerodyne Research, Inc. X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.3 (GTK+ 1.2.10; powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: No. hits=-3.4 required=5 test=IN_REP_TO X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.28 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 21:04:00 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sun, 9 Mar 2003 19:33:08 -0500 Paul Judge wrote: > This is a good point. More quantitative rather than anecdotal data > would be useful. We started spamarchive.org a few months ago to > provide such a standard and open spam corpus. (The latest archives are > not online right now as we are changing hosting facilities, but they > are available for those that would like to use them.) Another missing > piece is a set of tools for anonymizing, measuring, and analyzing spam > data. I mention this and give some examples in my talk at the spam > conference(http://www.spamconference.org/proceedings2003.html). Hmm, it looks as though we're thinking along the same line. As far as anonymizing mail is concerned, it should be possible to write software to replace email addresses, names and IP numbers with MD5 checksums. This would preserve the unique identifiers (more or less) in the data while providing anonymity. The key issue is to identify all data elements that must be sanitized. Also it should be decided at what point in the processing chain the `sanitization' should take place. Information shouldn't be discarded until the last possible moment. Fred Bacon ======================================================================= Aerodyne Research, Inc. Phone: (978) 663-9500 ext. 273 45 Manning Rd. FAX: (978) 663-4918 Billerica, MA 01821-3976 http://www.aerodyne.com ======================================================================= _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 9 20:59:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA27997 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:59:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2A2CTo23210 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 21:12:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A2CTO23207 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 21:12:29 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA27905 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:59:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A2B1O23191; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 21:11:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A2AWO23173 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 21:10:32 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA27531 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:57:16 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2A1xLWS002300 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:59:21 -0500 Message-Id: <200303100159.h2A1xLWS002300@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.1 02/18/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: asrg@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_-401673012P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Stopping new spam methods before they happen... Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 20:59:21 -0500 --==_Exmh_-401673012P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I tuned in late - has anybody thought much about finding ways to stop new and novel spam delivery systems? For example, we've seen DDOS zombie farms of 20K controled hosts, and lots of machines whacked with worm/virus/trojans to set them up as file servers for pirated music/movies. I'm surprised I've seen no references to spammers using these tricks. What would you do to stop them if they did? Remember that the malware has access to any credentials the user may have stashed in order to send their own legitimate e-mail.... --==_Exmh_-401673012P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+a/F5cC3lWbTT17ARAmJnAJ9vq5mz2PzvmI/aLU7byM+KcO0H6wCgk1Ly CiIkhelWvm7ijjHPy6sESCU= =VXIk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_-401673012P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 9 21:27:10 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA03080 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 21:27:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2A2dt224720 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 21:39:55 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A2dtO24717 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 21:39:55 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA02991 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 21:26:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A2a5O23886; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 21:36:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A2ZOO23836 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 21:35:24 -0500 Received: from backbone.midwestcs.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA02214 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 21:22:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from footbone.midwestcs.com ([206.222.212.237] helo=midwestcs.com) by backbone.midwestcs.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18sCxV-0006YW-00 for ; Sun, 09 Mar 2003 20:24:09 -0600 To: asrg@ietf.org (ietf anti-spam research group) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: wayne In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lines: 23 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanner: exiscan *18sCxV-0006YW-00*GeQUOWGEz9Y* () Subject: [Asrg] MIT Spam Conference Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 09 Mar 2003 20:24:06 -0600 In Paul Judge writes: > I mention this and give > some examples in my talk at the spam conference > (http://www.spamconference.org/proceedings2003.html). For those who didn't get a chance to attend the MIT Spam Conference this last January, there are webcasts of the conference available at: http://spamconference.org/webcast.html Since this was an all-day conference, there is around 6 hours of webcast to view. If you don't have time to watch all of it, there is a time index into each session for each speaker, so you can pick and choose. If you want to listen to just one session, I would recommend session #3, although you will miss a lot of good talks from the other sessions. For example, the talk that Paul Judge mentioned above is in session #2. I highly recommend watching these sessions, if you can. -wayne _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 9 22:16:58 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA12171 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 22:16:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2A3TjE27405 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 22:29:45 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A3TiO27400 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 22:29:44 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA12067 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 22:16:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A3RGO27322; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 22:27:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A3QlO27307 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 22:26:47 -0500 Received: from ciphertrust.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11514 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 22:13:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.com with ESMTP ; Sun, 09 Mar 2003 22:14:50 -0500 (EST) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 22:05:04 -0500 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)'" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Subject: [Asrg] Taxonomy of anti-spam systems Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 22:05:03 -0500 Here is a first draft of a taxonomy of anti-spam systems. I've classified the systems into spam prevention, spam deterrence, and spam reduction systems. 1. Spam Prevention Approaches - These systems aim to prevent the spread of spam messages. There are fail-open and fail-closed systems. Fail-open systems aim to detect unwanted messages; just as in intrusion detection, there are signature-based and anomaly detection-based schemes. I've marked them below as either [SB] or [AD]. Another useful view would be whether systems are implemented at the ingress or egress. a) Fail-Open (determine unwanted messages) i) Human Determination (1) Collaborative filtering (i.e., razor) [SB] ii) System Determination (1) Who is it from? (a) Traditional Blacklists [SB] (b) reputation systems [AD] (2) What is in it? (Content Filtering) (a) Static lists [SB] (b) Learning methods [AD] (3) How was it sent? (a) Forged info? (i.e. reverse lookups) [AD] (b) Envelope characteristics; delivery path information [SB/AD] (4) Other properties (a) bulk determination (i.e. DCC) b) Fail-Closed (determine wanted messages) i) Whitelists (1) Basic (2) Verified (a) Authenticated sender identity (b) Token supported (c) Disposable email addresses (3) Used in Fail-open systems (a) normal whitelists (b) Third-party lists (i.e. trusted sender) ii) Challenge/response systems (1) Basic (2) Human verification (i.e. Turing tests) 2) Spam Deterrence Approaches - These systems aim to deter spamming activities. In most areas of life, deterrence is achieved by introducing the ability to identify and track wrongdoers. These systems can provide input to spam prevention systems. Also, these systems are useful with the presence of laws to prosecute the wrongdoers that are identified and tracked. a) Authentication b) Tracking c) Non-repudiation 3) Spam Reduction - These systems aim to reduce the level of spam by making it more costly or timely to have the messages delivered. Independently, this type of system does not aim to identify or block spam, but simply to change the characteristics of the spam to reduce the amount of spam. These systems can be used in conjunction with deterrence or prevention systems. a) Cost-based Systems (increase cost of spamming) b) Proof-of-work (i.e. hashcash) c) Rate limiting i) Ingress ii) egress I'm not fully comfortable with the spam reduction being a third category, but I am currently not sure how to better classify them. What classes of techniques did I miss? Once we add other classes and see if there are better ways to classify these, we will begin to build this out into a survey of the systems in each class. I have a draft of some of this done, but I want to get feedback on the taxonomy before dumping that on the list. Paul _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 9 22:29:57 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA14553 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 22:29:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2A3gh428675 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 22:42:43 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A3ghO28672 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 22:42:43 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA14452 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 22:29:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A3f5O28625; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 22:41:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A3f0O28598 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 22:41:00 -0500 Received: from ciphertrust.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA14148 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 22:27:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.com with ESMTP ; Sun, 09 Mar 2003 22:29:10 -0500 (EST) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 22:19:25 -0500 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'Erez Zadok'" Cc: "'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] ASRG work items MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 22:19:19 -0500 > -----Original Message----- > From: Erez Zadok [mailto:ezk@cs.sunysb.edu] > Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2003 8:17 PM > To: Fred Bacon > Cc: Paul Judge; 'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)' > Subject: Re: [Asrg] ASRG work items > > Apologies if that's been discussed. But IMHO the first > milestone might be to define what spam is, in as precise a > terms as possible. Saying that spam is "what I don't want to > see" isn't precise enough in my opinion. And I have a > feeling that many people have different notions for what they > consider spam (UCE, XXX, emails from my ex ...) > > Depending of what users perceive as spam, different solutions > might be devised. > > Erez. > Yes, this has already been discussed. Please see my email entitled "ASRG next steps" and a resulting thread called "consent expression". _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 9 22:56:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA19375 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 22:56:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2A49XW30114 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 23:09:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A49XO30111 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 23:09:33 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA19261 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 22:56:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A476O29443; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 23:07:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A46GO29241 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 23:06:16 -0500 Received: from imf23bis.bellsouth.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA18639 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 22:52:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from paganini.net ([68.158.163.230]) by imf23bis.bellsouth.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.25 201-253-122-122-125-20020815) with ESMTP id <20030310035703.JPK6779.imf23bis.bellsouth.net@paganini.net>; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 22:57:03 -0500 Received: from paganini by paganini.net with local (Exim 3.22 #1) id 18sENQ-0000XL-00; Sun, 09 Mar 2003 22:55:00 -0500 From: Marco Paganini To: Vernon Schryver Cc: ezk@cs.sunysb.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists Message-ID: <20030309225500.A1378@triton.paganini.net> References: <200303100210.h2A2AYvE015214@calcite.rhyolite.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <200303100210.h2A2AYvE015214@calcite.rhyolite.com>; from vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com on Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 07:10:34PM -0700 X-Watch-Out: Magnus Frater Te Spectat! Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 22:55:00 -0500 > (not to the list since you didn't) I'm sending this one to the list. > > ten or so spammers replying to confirmations. For the paper, I grabbed 500 > > messages from spamarchive.org and sent confirmations to them. 221 bounced > > back immediately (invalid user, account canceled due to abuse, invalid > > domain, etc). 17 had invalid addresses (forged as a local address). 260 > > *never* replied (a possible throw-away account). The remaining two were > > actually "unsubscribe" addresses (someone probably subscribed to one of those > > web-based forums for a game site and forgot to unsubscribe). As you can see, > > the percentage of forged address *is* very high. > > No, I do not see that, unless you think 3.4% is very high. I see no > evidence showing that 96% of those addresses were forged. > > - invalid user > could have been terminated for spam End result: Message not delivered. > - account canceled due to abuse > clearly *NOT* forged End result: Same as above. > - invalid domain > could be forged, but could also be recently expired domains or > temporarily bad DNS server (e.g. Ralsky). I recently ran script over > the ~4000 domains in my blacklist, and found about 10% invalid > according to the DNS roots. However, in rechecking, I find that > perhaps 60% of those NXDOMAIN answers disagree with what crsnic.net > says, which says the domains are valid. That is an unusual situation. In the worst case scenario, the challenge would be lost. This email would sit in my queue where it would be picked up later during my weekly queue maintenance. > - forged as a local address > ok you have evidence that 17 of 500 or 3.4% are forged. Those are definitely forged. > - 260 *never* replied > if an ASK user sends me a challenge, it is likely that I will > never reply. Thus, this is not evidence of forgery. But it is an indication that the sender was not available or willing to confirm delivery of his message. This suggests (in my view) enough evidence to queue the message for later inspection. I believe (from my experience with a challenge-based authentication tool over these years) that someone who goes through the trouble of composing a message will also be willing to reply to a one-time challenge. Note that confirmation messages have been used successfully by mailing-list management software for years (or you're going to tell me that you never replied to the confirmation sent by mailman when you joined this list ;)). > I suspect many of the 96.6% for which you do *NOT* have evidence > of forgery were forged, but you can't conclude the positive from a > lack of evidence of the negative. But the point is: The sender was *not* willing to prove me that he indeed sent me an email. Either he can't (because the email is not valid) or he does not care for any reason. I *do* check my queue weekly and, believe me, finding a false positive is very rare. > Again, "forged" should mean "spammer has no claim on the address," > and not "invalid now but valid before," "doesn't respond to ASK > challenges," or "IP address doesn't match envelope or headers." In ASK's case, forged means "I agree that I sent this email and I want it to be delivered -- I understand that all emails from my address will be automatically delivered without further confirmations from this point forward". > > This seems like an interesting and productive discussion. I'm subscribing to > > the list. I hope I don't get overwhelmed by emails (I already have around 80 > > emails/day to read from lists, office and friends) :) > > I was travelling the first days the list started. That was also the peak > of the usual IETF announce flood of IDs, RFCs, and IESG actions. It was > not fun to deal with 500 msgs/day through the primitive ssh tunnel I use. Eeek!!! Let's see what happens tomorrow! :) Regards, Paga -- Marco Paganini | UNIX / Linux / Networking paganini@paganini.net | PGP: http://www.paganini.net/pgpkey.txt (RSA) http://www.paganini.net | "Magnus Frater te spectat..." _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 9 23:21:22 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA23874 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 23:21:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2A4YAl30782 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 23:34:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A4YAO30779 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 23:34:10 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA23754 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 23:20:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A4SCO30655; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 23:28:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A4RfO30621 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 23:27:41 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA22625 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 23:14:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2A4GOd4027447 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 21:16:24 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303100416.h2A4GOd4027447@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists References: <20030309225500.A1378@triton.paganini.net> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 21:16:24 -0700 (MST) > From: Marco Paganini > ... > > I suspect many of the 96.6% for which you do *NOT* have evidence > > of forgery were forged, but you can't conclude the positive from a > > lack of evidence of the negative. > > But the point is: The sender was *not* willing to prove me that he indeed > sent me an email. Either he can't (because the email is not valid) or he > does not care for any reason. I *do* check my queue weekly and, believe me, > finding a false positive is very rare. Your rules control your mailbox, so the mail you choose to accept is whatever you like. However, I refuse to jump through hoops. If, as was the case tonight, you send me a message, I respond, and your computer responds with a demand that I jump through its hoop to prove I'm not a spam robot, I will silently refuse. If you don't want my mail, it would be wrong for me to whine, beg or jump through hoops. No, the ASK confirmations are not as someone else said, like subcription confirmations. Subscription confirmations say "may I flood your mailbox with my bulk mail." ASK confirmations say "prove to me that you are not a spam robot before I'll deign to read your mail." > > Again, "forged" should mean "spammer has no claim on the address," > > and not "invalid now but valid before," "doesn't respond to ASK > > challenges," or "IP address doesn't match envelope or headers." > > In ASK's case, forged means "I agree that I sent this email and I want > it to be delivered -- I understand that all emails from my address will > be automatically delivered without further confirmations from this point > forward". Fine, but "forged" is wrong. In English "forgery" means "an act of forging; especially the crime of falsely and fraudulently making or altering a document (as a check)" (See http://www.m-w.com/ ) It is wrong to say all 96.6% of those correspondents are guilty of "falsely and fraudulently making or altering" SMTP headers. This matters because people in this mailing list have been saying "because 99% of spam is forged, spam defense X won't work/is required." They are using "forged" to mean "falsely and fraudulently making or altering" SMTP headers, but I suspect that their numbers are less convincing than your's. Your numbers are not guesses or intuition, although they have nothing to do with "falsely and fraudulently making or altering." Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 9 23:48:07 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA28883 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 23:48:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2A50uU32340 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 00:00:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A50uO32337 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 00:00:56 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA28786 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 23:47:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A4x5O32246; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 23:59:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A4w5O32219 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 23:58:05 -0500 Received: from imf38bis.bellsouth.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA28203 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 23:44:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from paganini.net ([68.158.163.230]) by imf38bis.bellsouth.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.25 201-253-122-122-125-20020815) with ESMTP id <20030310044855.EERA16508.imf38bis.bellsouth.net@paganini.net>; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 23:48:55 -0500 Received: from paganini by paganini.net with local (Exim 3.22 #1) id 18sFBc-0000lY-00; Sun, 09 Mar 2003 23:46:52 -0500 From: Marco Paganini To: Vernon Schryver Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists Message-ID: <20030309234652.A2878@triton.paganini.net> References: <20030309225500.A1378@triton.paganini.net> <200303100416.h2A4GOd4027447@calcite.rhyolite.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <200303100416.h2A4GOd4027447@calcite.rhyolite.com>; from vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com on Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 09:16:24PM -0700 X-Watch-Out: Magnus Frater Te Spectat! Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 23:46:52 -0500 Hello Vernon, >> But the point is: The sender was *not* willing to prove me that he indeed >> sent me an email. Either he can't (because the email is not valid) or he >> does not care for any reason. I *do* check my queue weekly and, believe me, >> finding a false positive is very rare. > > Your rules control your mailbox, so the mail you choose to accept is > whatever you like. > > However, I refuse to jump through hoops. If, as was the case tonight, > you send me a message, I respond, and your computer responds with a > demand that I jump through its hoop to prove I'm not a spam robot, I > will silently refuse. If you don't want my mail, it would be wrong > for me to whine, beg or jump through hoops. > > No, the ASK confirmations are not as someone else said, like subcription > confirmations. Subscription confirmations say "may I flood your > mailbox with my bulk mail." ASK confirmations say "prove to me that > you are not a spam robot before I'll deign to read your mail." I'd say that mailing-list confirmations serve two distinct purposes: To warn the user that his mailbox will be flooded with messages and to protect the list from mass-mailers. > > In ASK's case, forged means "I agree that I sent this email and I want > > it to be delivered -- I understand that all emails from my address will > > be automatically delivered without further confirmations from this point > > forward". > > Fine, but "forged" is wrong. In English "forgery" means "an act of > forging; especially the crime of falsely and fraudulently making or > altering a document (as a check)" (See http://www.m-w.com/ ) > It is wrong to say all 96.6% of those correspondents are guilty of > "falsely and fraudulently making or altering" SMTP headers. > This matters because people in this mailing list have been saying > "because 99% of spam is forged, spam defense X won't work/is required." > They are using "forged" to mean "falsely and fraudulently making or > altering" SMTP headers, but I suspect that their numbers are less > convincing than your's. Your numbers are not guesses or intuition, > although they have nothing to do with "falsely and fraudulently making > or altering." OK! Give me another word then and I'll use it! :) Regards, Paga > > > Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > -- Marco Paganini | UNIX / Linux / Networking paganini@paganini.net | PGP: http://www.paganini.net/pgpkey.txt (RSA) http://www.paganini.net | "Magnus Frater te spectat..." _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 00:01:25 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA01268 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 00:01:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2A5EEn01064 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 00:14:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A5EEO01061 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 00:14:14 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA01171 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 00:00:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A5B3O00924; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 00:11:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A5AOO00884 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 00:10:24 -0500 Received: from new.agentzero.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA00462 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 23:57:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.123.193] (h0050e4251179.ne.client2.attbi.com [66.30.24.79]) by new.agentzero.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2A4xMpQ026734; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 23:59:23 -0500 Message-Id: <200303100459.h2A4xMpQ026734@new.agentzero.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200303100416.h2A4GOd4027447@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <20030309225500.A1378@triton.paganini.net> <200303100416.h2A4GOd4027447@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Vernon Schryver , asrg@ietf.org From: Jim Youll Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 23:58:44 -0500 At 21:16 -0700 3/9/03, Vernon Schryver wrote: >Fine, but "forged" is wrong. In English "forgery" means "an act of >forging; especially the crime of falsely and fraudulently making or >altering a document (as a check)" (See http://www.m-w.com/ ) >It is wrong to say all 96.6% of those correspondents are guilty of >"falsely and fraudulently making or altering" SMTP headers. > >This matters because people in this mailing list have been saying >"because 99% of spam is forged, spam defense X won't work/is required." >They are using "forged" to mean "falsely and fraudulently making or >altering" SMTP headers, but I suspect that their numbers are less >convincing than your's. Your numbers are not guesses or intuition, >although they have nothing to do with "falsely and fraudulently making >or altering." So you've finally come around to the point you've apparently been trying to make for these past many days without actually saying so. Can't we just accept that the phrase "forged header" has long been a part of the e-mail vernacular, as a signifier of message metadata whose contents do not point back to the true sender, point of origin, and/or subpath by which the message traveled. Such "forged headers" may point to non-existent senders, non-existent points of origin, and so on. Perhaps the phrase should be "forced header," as the common method of production of such "forgeries" is to impose the inaccurate header data over that which would ordinarily be placed on the message by properly-configured clients and servers. And if we're going to be pedantic about it, it's worth noting that "forge" may also mean "to give form or shape to" so you might say that all e-mail headers are "forged" by server client software. But then I suppose if it's all forged, there's no point in talking about forged messages at all. On the other hand, it does seem that when message headers are _forged_ by spammers, they're often _forced_ to bear information that is not useful in finding the sender or other responsible parties around the sender. I respectfully request that replies be redirected to asrg.linguistics _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 01:55:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA21817 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 01:55:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2A78O311338 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 02:08:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A78NO11330 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 02:08:23 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA21687 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 01:55:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A76PO09636; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 02:06:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A75QO08693 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 02:05:26 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA21121 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 01:52:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2093988; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 01:54:13 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200303100116.h2A1Gkhp010850@agora.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu> References: <200303100116.h2A1Gkhp010850@agora.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu> To: Erez Zadok From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] ASRG work items Cc: Fred Bacon , Paul Judge , "'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)'" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 01:03:24 -0500 At 8:16 PM -0500 3/9/03, Erez Zadok wrote: >Apologies if that's been discussed. But IMHO the first milestone might be >to define what spam is, in as precise a terms as possible. Saying that spam >is "what I don't want to see" isn't precise enough in my opinion. And I >have a feeling that many people have different notions for what they I would actually back up from that. I think it would be valuable to define what behaviors we believe need to be stopped (namely those that create a "tragedy of the commons") and why. This would be useful for outsiders (especially legislative ones) trying to understand why this is different than paper mail/phone/fax. And it might also help define what spam is. I'm going to try and put something together on this Monday. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 01:55:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA21816 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 01:55:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2A78R111360 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 02:08:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A78RO11357 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 02:08:27 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA21706 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 01:55:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A76SO09689; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 02:06:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A75TO08709 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 02:05:29 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA21139 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 01:52:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2093989; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 01:54:16 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200303100122.h2A1MXrs009994@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <200303100109.h2A19wME010744@agora.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu> <200303100122.h2A1MXrs009994@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Vernon Schryver From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 01:30:10 -0500 At 6:22 PM -0700 3/9/03, Vernon Schryver wrote: >As I think I've said here before, numbers from some of the servers in >the global network of DCC servers say that more than 50% of all email >is spam. See http://www.dcc-servers.net/dcc/graphs/?resol=1week and We need to keep in mind that DCC and Postini are using self-selected samples. If you don't have a spam problem you aren't likely to be using them. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 01:55:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA21815 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 01:55:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2A78Og11336 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 02:08:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A78NO11328 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 02:08:23 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA21685 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 01:55:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A76JO09577; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 02:06:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A75PO08656 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 02:05:25 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA21119 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 01:52:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2093978; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 01:54:11 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <3E683148.10306@americasm01.nt.com> <3E6A11F7.6050809@harvee.org> To: abuse From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 00:58:50 -0500 At 3:08 PM -0800 3/9/03, abuse wrote: >on "3-9-2003" "Kee Hinckley" writ: > >: acceptable to the U.S. Government for use in government funded mail >: software. > >... well, that's just too bad. the way i got it figured, imposing >standards of the government, to solving a problem, the government itself >not serious about solving, counterproductive. I'd argue that the problem isn't with the government in this particular case (and that's not an argument I usually make), but with a challenge-response system that assumes that "human == can-see". -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 01:56:06 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA21948 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 01:56:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2A78ua11631 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 02:08:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A78tO11628 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 02:08:55 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA21800 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 01:55:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A76QO09656; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 02:06:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A75SO08705 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 02:05:28 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA21131 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 01:52:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2093983; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 01:54:14 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: "Alan DeKok" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 01:11:37 -0500 At 2:48 PM -0500 3/9/03, Alan DeKok wrote: >There is *no* way that any legitimate >business would be sending that much mail to addresses which don't >exist, and *never* clean out bounces. That much, no. But certainly some don't bother cleaning things out. Here are a sampling of the addresses that were still sending to a former dotcom two years after the domain had been turned off. Return-Path: From: Schwab Alerts Return-Path: Return-Path: Return-Path: Return-Path: From: Adobe Systems Incorporated -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 01:56:06 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA21955 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 01:56:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2A78uh11647 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 02:08:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A78uO11644 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 02:08:56 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA21802 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 01:55:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A76TO09707; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 02:06:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A75UO08713 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 02:05:30 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA21145 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 01:52:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2093987; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 01:54:17 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200303100033.h2A0XmGP003843@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <200303092333.h29NXQ9g009890@agora.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu> <200303100033.h2A0XmGP003843@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Vernon Schryver From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 01:37:02 -0500 At 5:33 PM -0700 3/9/03, Vernon Schryver wrote: >As I keep saying, I agree that plenty of spam has forged sources. >The question is whether that "plenty" is 1%, 10%, 50%, or 99%. As I >said, my guess is ~10%. Note that I used the word "guess." I wish >that everyone else who is guessing would admit as much. As far as I >can tell, everyone is guessing. We filter spam based solely on forged headers and private blacklists plus user preferences. The number of those messages that have something faked is well over 50%. We aren't currently logging all the triggers on every spam message, so I can't give you exact numbers. But it certainly was the case last fall. Remember though that there are lots of headers can you can badly fake in a message--not just the routing ones. We're looking at the entire set of headers. As another data point. 16% of the 100 million messages somewhere.com bounced last year were bounced because they had return-path's that didn't pass basic validation (e.g. no MX, invalid domain...). That's before anything even *got* to the spam filters. Now I will grant that it's possible that the guy who sent email from Russia through a server in Italy in order to spam me in the United States actually *did* have a Hotmail account at the time the first message was sent. I don't know why he would have bothered, but it's possible. Can you explain why you think that person would have set up an account just so that it could get shut down immediately? And why you think this matters? -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 02:17:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA07014 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 02:17:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2A7UOs18737 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 02:30:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A7UNO18734 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 02:30:23 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA06781 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 02:17:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A7S3O18655; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 02:28:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A7RkO18632 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 02:27:46 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA06131 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 02:14:23 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2A7GMWS004470; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 02:16:22 -0500 Message-Id: <200303100716.h2A7GMWS004470@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.1 02/18/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: Marco Paganini Cc: Vernon Schryver , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 09 Mar 2003 23:46:52 EST." <20030309234652.A2878@triton.paganini.net> References: <20030309225500.A1378@triton.paganini.net> <200303100416.h2A4GOd4027447@calcite.rhyolite.com> <20030309234652.A2878@triton.paganini.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_704416188P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 02:16:21 -0500 --==_Exmh_704416188P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Sun, 09 Mar 2003 23:46:52 EST, Marco Paganini said: > I'd say that mailing-list confirmations serve two distinct purposes: To warn > the user that his mailbox will be flooded with messages and to protect the > list from mass-mailers. The original (and still valid) reason for these was to catch people who tried to subscribe using misconfigured MUAs. Many are the times these have kept 'YOURUSER@YOUR-SITE-GOES-HERE.COM' off my lists. ;) /Valdis (who sees at least 4-5 mails from 'YOURPID@vt.edu' a week ;) --==_Exmh_704416188P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+bDvFcC3lWbTT17ARAj6JAJ4vpnWY3GQP0+d/cZQt5CaHozWNWgCgpnLt gZflGvVjr+qHrZQPPaigt00= =CCCj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_704416188P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 02:44:10 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA11825 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 02:44:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2A7v1020408 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 02:57:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A7v1O20405 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 02:57:01 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA11716 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 02:43:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A7t8O20325; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 02:55:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A7sFO20289 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 02:54:15 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA11239 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 02:40:51 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2A7gnWS004714; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 02:42:49 -0500 Message-Id: <200303100742.h2A7gnWS004714@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.1 02/18/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: Kee Hinckley Cc: Vernon Schryver , Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 10 Mar 2003 01:37:02 EST." References: <200303092333.h29NXQ9g009890@agora.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu> <200303100033.h2A0XmGP003843@calcite.rhyolite.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_707979756P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 02:42:49 -0500 --==_Exmh_707979756P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 01:37:02 EST, Kee Hinckley said: > We filter spam based solely on forged headers and private blacklists > plus user preferences. The number of those messages that have > something faked is well over 50%. OK.. it's been 2 decades since I took statisics, and I've *mostly* recovered from being a math/physics major, but... All this says is that if you didn't filter on blacklists and user prefs, that 100% of the mail that you tagged as having forged headers have forged headers. Addition of the other 2 criteria water it down to "over 50%". Problem 1) There's no indication of what percent of mail with forged headers was actually spam - and without your definition of what counts as "forged", it's hard to tell. I know that *this* laptop has sent some rather squirrelly headers when I'm travelling and borrowing some net access. Problem 2) There's no indication of what percent of your total mail volume got tagged as "forged headers". If it's 1% of your total or 40% of your total is important, as they have different implications for what solutions have to be able to do... Problem 3) There's no indication of what sorts of overlaps there are between the forged, blacklist, and preferences. If most of the mail that's forged is *also* being hit by blacklist and/or preferences, then maybe checking for forged headers isn't productive. If it's catching lots of spam that your blacklists and preferences aren't catching, maybe that's indicative of problems with those two schemes... (And no Kee, I'm not picking on you in particular - I didn't accept Vernon's DCC numbers at face value either. Nobody here uses the same methodology, and it's hard to avoid comparing apples to oranges without asking what sort of seeds were planted in both cases.... /Valdis --==_Exmh_707979756P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+bEH5cC3lWbTT17ARAsvFAKDV3Nw7Q4VtrAJjEMvKg+nJX9TCPgCbBP/I l7BYeE21CSaeF5IQ6HA2wJA= =oUZN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_707979756P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 03:20:26 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA18376 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 03:20:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2A8XJ722184 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 03:33:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A8XIO22181 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 03:33:18 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA18294 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 03:19:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A8UNO22045; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 03:30:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A8TNO22002 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 03:29:23 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id DAA17556 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 03:15:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 19524 invoked from network); 9 Mar 2003 08:16:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.2.100.178?) (10.2.100.178) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 9 Mar 2003 08:16:01 -0000 From: Matt Sergeant X-X-Sender: matt@localhost.localdomain To: Paul Judge cc: "'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Taxonomy of anti-spam systems In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 08:31:54 +0000 (GMT) On Sun, 9 Mar 2003, Paul Judge wrote: > I'm not fully comfortable with the spam reduction being a third category, > but I am currently not sure how to better classify them. What classes of > techniques did I miss? Re-writing SMTP (e.g. IM2000). (and no, I'm not advocating that approach). Matt. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 03:35:16 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA21222 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 03:35:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2A8m9d23597 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 03:48:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A8m7O23594 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 03:48:09 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA21129 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 03:34:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A8k6O23494; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 03:46:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A8iFO23422 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 03:44:15 -0500 Received: from yossarian.aniota.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA20383 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 03:30:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from yossarian.aniota.com (IDENT:abuse@localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by yossarian.aniota.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2A8Wr21020660 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 00:32:53 -0800 Received: from localhost (abuse@localhost) by yossarian.aniota.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) with ESMTP id h2A8WrwK020657 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 00:32:53 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: yossarian.aniota.net: abuse owned process doing -bs From: abuse To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <3E683148.10306@americasm01.nt.com> <3E6A11F7.6050809@harvee.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 00:32:53 -0800 (PST) on "3-10-2003" "Kee Hinckley" writ: : a challenge-response system that assumes that "human == can-see". ... that, is a secondary assumption. the primary, is one in which the ability to 'read' made. that sounds perposterous (sp et al), howeever, it offers a fundamental premise. a certain level of 'experience' is required to use the offerings of the internet. those of us with visual 'handicaps' do what has to be done, to get done, what needs doing. others of us, may not have the 'abiilty' or 'willingness' to do that. now, 'mandating' a standards 'change' for the benefit of a miniscule population, who may not even benefit from it, is not a prudent design decision. in my opinion, any change in standards is going to offer minimal long term benefits ... _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 03:39:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA21994 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 03:39:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2A8qWg23808 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 03:52:32 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A8qVO23805 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 03:52:31 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA21892 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 03:39:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A8o3O23704; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 03:50:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A8nHO23664 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 03:49:17 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id DAA21348 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 03:35:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 20735 invoked from network); 9 Mar 2003 08:35:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.2.100.178?) (10.2.100.178) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 9 Mar 2003 08:35:55 -0000 From: Matt Sergeant X-X-Sender: matt@localhost.localdomain To: Marco Paganini cc: Vernon Schryver , "ezk@cs.sunysb.edu" , "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists In-Reply-To: <20030309225500.A1378@triton.paganini.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 08:51:49 +0000 (GMT) On Sun, 9 Mar 2003, Marco Paganini wrote: > But it is an indication that the sender was not available or willing to > confirm delivery of his message. This suggests (in my view) enough evidence > to queue the message for later inspection. I believe (from my experience with > a challenge-based authentication tool over these years) that someone who goes > through the trouble of composing a message will also be willing to reply to a > one-time challenge. On the contrary. If I've spent the time to compose an email to someone the last thing I want is a bounce back of *any* sort - be it a vacation message, an answering machine, or a challenge system. The infuriate me, and I never respond to them. Also witness the SpamArrest situation. I bet that we'll see less and less people responding to challenge systems because they fear they will be spammed at some point in the future by the company running the system. Matt. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 03:50:57 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA24061 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 03:50:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2A93oh24559 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 04:03:50 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A93oO24556 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 04:03:50 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA23952 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 03:50:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A918O24203; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 04:01:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A90rO24163 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 04:00:53 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id DAA23352 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 03:47:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 21442 invoked from network); 9 Mar 2003 08:47:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.2.100.178?) (10.2.100.178) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 9 Mar 2003 08:47:30 -0000 From: Matt Sergeant X-X-Sender: matt@localhost.localdomain To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Asrg] Lame filters at pop.snert.net Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 09:03:24 +0000 (GMT) Whoever is subscribed at pop.snert.net can you please either whitelist this list or turn off your filter? Almost every mail I've posted to this list now has resulted in a response from root@pop.snert.net saying my mail has been detected as spam and discarded. I've blackholed that address now, but it has really gotten on my nerves given the context. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 03:59:18 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA25707 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 03:59:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2A9CB725882 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 04:12:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A9CBO25879 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 04:12:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA25608 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 03:58:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A994O25692; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 04:09:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2A98PO25667 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 04:08:25 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA24911 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 03:54:59 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2A75aTD022161; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 23:05:36 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2A75aJi022157; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 23:05:36 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: Paul Judge cc: "'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Taxonomy of anti-spam systems In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 23:05:35 -0800 (PST) Could add the following into a. ii. 3 .. Callback email address verification (i.e. verify email address is valid on calling server),as in Keith Moor's code or new postfix code Also actual callback pickup (not actually implemented but proposed couple times, including in drafts) might require its own category or go also into "how was it sent" a. ii. 3. Also there several other not-implimented approaches (and you did include hashcash in your list, so I assume its ok) such as message tracking server and similar ideas of having mail servers keep track of what emails came from it and receiving system being able to verify that (also similar to callback but verification is not just based on actual email address but both email address, messageid and date). And its unclear what category below it belongs to (or if it belongs among "spam fighting" at all) is web pickup - i.e. only notification of email is sent and the actual email is hold at particular emailbox. I'll think of some more staff if I go through my notes tomorrow. Oh, almost forgot - I do not see simple catch-spam email accounts (which I use), i.e. special email accounts, not ever used for actual communication but advertised couple times on newsnet and embedded on website and anything coming into it is considered spam and email is then searches in your other accounts and same messages as in catch-spam removed. To be honest I actually use this simple approach and it works fairly well. On Sun, 9 Mar 2003, Paul Judge wrote: > Here is a first draft of a taxonomy of anti-spam systems. I've classified > the systems into spam prevention, spam deterrence, and spam reduction > systems. > > > 1. Spam Prevention Approaches - These systems aim to prevent the > spread of spam messages. There are fail-open and fail-closed systems. > Fail-open systems aim to detect unwanted messages; just as in intrusion > detection, there are signature-based and anomaly detection-based schemes. > I've marked them below as either [SB] or [AD]. Another useful view would be > whether systems are implemented at the ingress or egress. > > a) Fail-Open (determine unwanted messages) > i) Human Determination > (1) Collaborative filtering (i.e., razor) [SB] > ii) System Determination > (1) Who is it from? > (a) Traditional Blacklists [SB] > (b) reputation systems [AD] > (2) What is in it? (Content Filtering) > (a) Static lists [SB] > (b) Learning methods [AD] > (3) How was it sent? > (a) Forged info? (i.e. reverse lookups) > [AD] > (b) Envelope characteristics; delivery > path information [SB/AD] > (4) Other properties > (a) bulk determination (i.e. DCC) > > > b) Fail-Closed (determine wanted messages) > i) Whitelists > (1) Basic > (2) Verified > (a) Authenticated sender identity > (b) Token supported > (c) Disposable email addresses > (3) Used in Fail-open systems > (a) normal whitelists > (b) Third-party lists (i.e. trusted sender) > ii) Challenge/response systems > (1) Basic > (2) Human verification (i.e. Turing tests) > > 2) Spam Deterrence Approaches - These systems aim to deter spamming > activities. In most areas of life, deterrence is achieved by introducing the > ability to identify and track wrongdoers. These systems can provide input to > spam prevention systems. Also, these systems are useful with the presence of > laws to prosecute the wrongdoers that are identified and tracked. > > a) Authentication > b) Tracking > c) Non-repudiation > > 3) Spam Reduction - These systems aim to reduce the level of spam by > making it more costly or timely to have the messages delivered. > Independently, this type of system does not aim to identify or block spam, > but simply to change the characteristics of the spam to reduce the amount of > spam. These systems can be used in conjunction with deterrence or prevention > systems. > > a) Cost-based Systems (increase cost of spamming) > b) Proof-of-work (i.e. hashcash) > c) Rate limiting > i) Ingress > ii) egress > > > > I'm not fully comfortable with the spam reduction being a third category, > but I am currently not sure how to better classify them. What classes of > techniques did I miss? Once we add other classes and see if there are better > ways to classify these, we will begin to build this out into a survey of the > systems in each class. I have a draft of some of this done, but I want to > get feedback on the taxonomy before dumping that on the list. > > Paul > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > --- William Leibzon Elan Communications Inc. william@elan.net _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 05:47:23 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA15340 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 05:47:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AB0J332692 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 06:00:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AB0JO32689 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 06:00:19 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA15245 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 05:46:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AAvTO32585; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 05:57:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AAutO32561 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 05:56:55 -0500 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA14647 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 05:43:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 18sKmk-00009r-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:45:34 +0000 To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.4.8] Message-Id: Subject: [Asrg] What would consent look like? Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:45:34 +0000 I'd be interested to know if anyone thinks this is a stoopid idea - so I don't waste any effort on it. Be warned, there's a fair amount of hand-waving below. Consent might look something like this: applies-to: user@domain.example classes: set of message classifications access: allow | deny scope: local | organisational | global I (or my MUA) compose such a token and the infrastructure propagates it subject to the scope field. i.e. if scope is "local" it probably doesn't propagate beyond my MUA and this is equivalent to setting user preferences for the application. If scope is "organisational" then this consent is propagated only to (or made available to) my organisations mail infrastructure. "global" ... you get the picture I can generate many (or none) such tokens. They can be "folded together" in some way. The applies-to field could be wild-carded (*@domain.example) The token is authenticated by some method. Perhaps by mail-back to (and reply from) the address it applies to. This would only happen once for each token. Or perhaps it's signed. Or perhaps it's authenticated by some local or organisational "special knowledge". Propagation is secure. This would require signing I guess, but would only need to be signed per domain (per organisation?). We don't *need* a key per recipient addresses. The sender need not (if malevolent - won't) consult the consent infrastructure. Intermediate systems (relays) should consult but wouldn't be required to. My organisational mail systems will probably (but can't be required to) consult. My MUA will always consult. Or I get one that does. Any agent that consults must be able to make a classification of the message (or be able to access an acceptable, verified classification). Perhaps a (signed) classification set can be transported with the message? I don't propose an implementation for the consent infrastructure. I believe it's interesting because it doesn't require all the entities to be capable of signing stuff, seems capable of "covering" current systems and something along these lines might be deployed incrementally. "Filtering" on the basis of consent / classification will occur as near source as possible (as far away from me as I allow - via scope). It does, of course, rely on an accepted system of message classification. In the absence of which it's useless. Oh well :-) -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 06:06:57 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA18937 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 06:06:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2ABJrc01955 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 06:19:53 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ABJrO01952 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 06:19:53 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA18831 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 06:06:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ABIKO01819; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 06:18:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ABH0O01641 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 06:17:00 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA18258 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 06:03:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h2AB56EI009876; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:05:06 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h2AB1TnI004791 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:01:29 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h2AB1T0e004789; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:01:29 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Erez Zadok Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists Message-ID: <20030310110129.GA4520@danisch.de> References: <200303100033.h2A0XmGP003843@calcite.rhyolite.com> <200303100109.h2A19wME010744@agora.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200303100109.h2A19wME010744@agora.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:01:29 +0100 On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 08:09:58PM -0500, Erez Zadok wrote: > is forged, I don't believe (again from personal experience), that 50% of all > email is spam. That completely depends on the use of email. I find 5-15 spam mails in my mailbox every day, which is significantly less than 10% of my email traffic (even without the asrg list). On the other hand, I know some people who rarely use e-mail, who don't subscribe to mailing lists, don't use e-mail for professional just for private purposes. Their main use of the internet is webbrowsing. Since they are not experienced and not security aware, they enter their e-mail address just on every web form that asks to do so. They receive tons of spam and very few non-spam. Significantly more than 90% of their incoming mail is spam. Some of them even have capitulated and don't open their mailbox anymore. Another question is: How do you count the fraction of spam? Number of mails or content size? The spam messages I do receive are getting bigger and bigger. Lot's of spam messages come with large pictures, powerpoint presentations, PDF or Word documents. For someone who usually receives just a few simple text messages from friends, a single spam message of that sort could be 98% of the monthly mail traffic. Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 08:13:09 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA12233 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 08:13:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2ADQ6h09864 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 08:26:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ADQ6O09861 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 08:26:06 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA12125 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 08:12:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ADKGO09716; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 08:20:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ADJUO09670 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 08:19:30 -0500 Received: from dogma.slashnull.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA11120 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 08:06:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from jm@localhost) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AD4QI09753; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:04:26 GMT From: Justin Mason To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Cc: Erez Zadok , "'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)'" Message-ID: <20030310130426.E8273@dogma> References: <200303100116.h2A1Gkhp010850@agora.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu> <200303100153.h2A1rIWS002224@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200303100153.h2A1rIWS002224@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>; from Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu on Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 08:53:17PM -0500 Subject: [Asrg] Re: "Prove you're a human" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:04:26 +0000 On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 08:53:17PM -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > We need to make sure that we don't make any "prove you're a human" solutions > *too* difficult, as the general clue level out there is pretty low. Remember > that a solution doesn't have to work just for me, Keith, and Vernon, it has to > be something that we can deploy to my mom (who doesn't mind being used as a > generic user - she's in her 60s, has had one stroke already, and will NOT be > able to manage getting anything fixed if either Earthlink or Hotmail change the > way they do things unless either I or my brother stop by to do it for her). Important point: it also has to work for some automated mail, e.g. dot-com reservation notices, confirmations, and receipts. So "prove you're a human" may be difficult in this case. ;) --j. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 09:13:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA23950 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 09:13:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AEQTs14250 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 09:26:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AEQTO14247 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 09:26:29 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA23841 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 09:12:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AEMQO14099; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 09:22:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AELbO14075 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 09:21:37 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA22921 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 09:08:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h2AEA7e3012608; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:10:07 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h2AE7BnI006936 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:07:11 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h2AE7AN8006934; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:07:10 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Paul Judge Cc: "'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Taxonomy (Four oracles model) Message-ID: <20030310140710.GA6405@danisch.de> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:07:10 +0100 Hi, I'd like to propose a different structure for a taxonomy: Based on the process of receiving a message and filtering out spam, I'd like to use a model of (at least) 4 stages, where every stage is seen as a simple question to an opaque (black box) oracle. The taxonomy would be based on which of these four oracles the method applies to and how it is implemented: - First stage: We receive(d) a message, feed that message and all connection information to the first oracle and ask: "What do we know about the sender/origin/history of that message?" The oracle will tell us any information and whether this is reliable. Example methods: * All we now is the sender address given in the header, but not reliable (simplest case i.e. no implementation) * We know the sender identity reliable (e.g. e-mail was digitally signed) * We had a sender indentity which is doubtable (e.g. digitial signature failed to verify) * We know that the sender's IP address was authorized so send by the domain's administration (RMX alike approach) * We know that the sender replied to a former message or successfully used some secret (cookie, challenge, nonce...) - Second stage: We feed the message and the first oracle's answer to the second oracle and ask: "Is that message spam?" The oracle will tell us "Yes", "No", "I have no idea", maybe a probability. Example methods: * All content analysis methods, pattern matchers, statistical methods * Is Sender/Subject black- and whitelisted? * Do we accept forged/anonymous mail? What about messages with signatures that don't verify? * Has anyone else received a similar message? - Third stage: We feed the message and the answers of the first and second oracle's answers to the third oracle and ask: "What do we do with that particular message?" Example methods: * accept, reject, drop * keep in memory, send a challenge, wait for reply * Add special header information * forward to a random e-mail address or the asrg mailing list - Fourth stage: We feed the message and the former answers to the fourth oracle and ask: "How do we react, what (c|sh)ould we do to prepare for future, to improve the first three oracles, to make the sender stop?" Examples * do nothing * black-/whitelist the sender * black-/whitelist the domain authority or certificate issuer * inform legal authorities/ISP/domain authority * let the spamfilter "learn" (when it's former answer was wrong) * add message to spam database * sue the sender or send him 10 copies of each linux kernel developed so far * send the assassination squad to the sender Every method discussed so far finds it's place somewhere in this model. When we have put all proposed methods and principles into that model, we can discuss implementations. Once we found which methods and implementations are desireable, we then can discuss whether they fit in today's SMTP or whether we need a new transport protocol and how it should look like. And it makes it easier to see that some proposals do not exclude each other or do not compete, since they are located at different stages. They could complement each other. Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 09:30:12 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA25944 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 09:30:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AEhCS15649 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 09:43:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AEhCO15646 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 09:43:12 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA25938 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 09:29:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AEZ3O14583; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 09:35:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AEYRO14529 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 09:34:27 -0500 Received: from backbone.midwestcs.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA25298 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 09:20:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from footbone.midwestcs.com ([206.222.212.237] helo=midwestcs.com) by backbone.midwestcs.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18sOB8-0000ah-00 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 08:22:58 -0600 To: asrg@ietf.org (ietf anti-spam research group) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: wayne In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lines: 33 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanner: exiscan *18sOB8-0000ah-00*n7R/EuULIoA* () Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 10 Mar 2003 08:22:53 -0600 In Matt Sergeant writes: > On Sun, 9 Mar 2003, Marco Paganini wrote: > > > I believe (from my experience with > > a challenge-based authentication tool over these years) that someone who goes > > through the trouble of composing a message will also be willing to reply to a > > one-time challenge. > > On the contrary. If I've spent the time to compose an email to someone the > last thing I want is a bounce back of *any* sort - be it a vacation > message, an answering machine, or a challenge system. > > The infuriate me, and I never respond to them. Two comments on these "prove you are human" type challenge systems: First, spamcop.net used to use this system for their email accounts but dropped it as not being practical. Things may have changed in the couple of years since they were doing this, people may be more understanding about the spam problem and why they are being challenged, but I kind of doubt it. Secondly, my ISP recently started to offer this kind of system for a bargain price of only $1/mo! (sigh) Their argument for it was it is great for people who want zero spam, such as accounts for kids. There *are* people out there that consider a false negative to be as bad, if not worse, than a false positive. -wayne _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 09:55:55 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA27039 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 09:55:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AF8tD17736 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:08:55 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AF8tO17733 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:08:55 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA27026 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 09:55:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AF44O16728; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:04:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AF3LO16673 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:03:21 -0500 Received: from ciphertrust.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA26841 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 09:49:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.com with ESMTP ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 09:51:18 -0500 (EST) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 09:41:34 -0500 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'Hadmut Danisch'" Cc: "'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Taxonomy (Four oracles model) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 09:41:29 -0500 While at first glance, this model sounds interesting, I don't believe that it offers enough structure to allow us to compare anti-spam systems. For example the second stage of your taxonomy asks "is this message spam?". I believe that is a broad bucket and would include the 20 or so subclasses presented in the spam prevention section of my taxonomy. Therefore, I don't see the value of this broad bucket. Also, the first stage of your taxonomy is covered in 1.a.ii.1 and 1.a.ii.3 of the original taxonomy. Also, the last two stages of your taxonomy do not deal with spam identification, but spam response once spam has been identified. Usually, when I think about anti-spam systems, I think that there is an identification component and a response component that deals with that particular message and might perform some passive or even active response. So, I would not move to this four stage model because the first two stages are too broad and do not provide any real classification. However, I will use this note as a reminder that we should also provide a classification of spam response systems. I will follow-up with an outline of such. I would use what you have sent, but it only lists examples and does not classify them. Paul > -----Original Message----- > From: Hadmut Danisch [mailto:hadmut@danisch.de] > Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 9:07 AM > To: Paul Judge > Cc: 'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)' > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Taxonomy (Four oracles model) > > > Hi, > > I'd like to propose a different structure for a taxonomy: > > > Based on the process of receiving a message and filtering out > spam, I'd like to use a model of (at least) 4 stages, where > every stage is seen as a simple question to an opaque (black > box) oracle. The taxonomy would be based on which of these > four oracles the method applies to and how it is implemented: > > > > > - First stage: We receive(d) a message, feed that message and all > connection information to the first oracle and ask: > > "What do we know about the sender/origin/history of that message?" > > The oracle will tell us any information and whether this is > reliable. Example methods: > > > * All we now is the sender address given in the header, > but not reliable (simplest case i.e. no implementation) > > * We know the sender identity reliable (e.g. e-mail was > digitally signed) > > * We had a sender indentity which is doubtable (e.g. > digitial signature failed to verify) > > * We know that the sender's IP address was authorized > so send by the domain's administration (RMX alike approach) > > * We know that the sender replied to a former message or > successfully used some secret (cookie, challenge, nonce...) > > > > > - Second stage: We feed the message and the first oracle's answer to > the second oracle and ask: > > "Is that message spam?" > > The oracle will tell us "Yes", "No", "I have no idea", maybe a > probability. > > Example methods: > > * All content analysis methods, pattern matchers, statistical > methods > > * Is Sender/Subject black- and whitelisted? > > * Do we accept forged/anonymous mail? What about messages with > signatures that don't verify? > > * Has anyone else received a similar message? > > > > - Third stage: We feed the message and the answers of the first and > second oracle's answers to the third oracle and ask: > > "What do we do with that particular message?" > > Example methods: > > * accept, reject, drop > > * keep in memory, send a challenge, wait for reply > > * Add special header information > > * forward to a random e-mail address or the asrg mailing list > > > > > - Fourth stage: We feed the message and the former answers to > the fourth oracle and ask: > > "How do we react, what (c|sh)ould we do to prepare for future, to > improve the first three oracles, to make the sender stop?" > > Examples > > * do nothing > > * black-/whitelist the sender > > * black-/whitelist the domain authority or certificate issuer > > * inform legal authorities/ISP/domain authority > > * let the spamfilter "learn" (when it's former answer was wrong) > > * add message to spam database > > * sue the sender or send him 10 copies of each linux kernel > developed so far > > * send the assassination squad to the sender > > > > > > > Every method discussed so far finds it's place somewhere in > this model. When we have put all proposed methods and principles into > that model, we can discuss implementations. > > Once we found which methods and implementations are desireable, > we then can discuss whether they fit in today's SMTP or > whether we need a new transport protocol and how it should look like. > > And it makes it easier to see that some proposals do not > exclude each other or do not compete, since they are located > at different stages. They could complement each other. > > Hadmut > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 10:03:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA27427 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:03:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AFGUW18125 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:16:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AFGUO18122 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:16:30 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA27358 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:02:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AFB3O17843; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:11:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AFAVO17814 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:10:31 -0500 Received: from falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA27084 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 09:56:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.133.182] helo=envy.indecency.org) by falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18sOk2-0000aW-00; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 06:59:02 -0800 From: Keith Moore To: "Jon Kyme" Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] What would consent look like? Message-Id: <20030310095519.1eeba885.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 09:55:19 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:45:34 +0000 "Jon Kyme" wrote: > I'd be interested to know if anyone thinks this is a stoopid idea > - so I don't waste any effort on it. Be warned, there's a fair > amount of hand-waving below. > > Consent might look something like this: > > applies-to: user@domain.example > classes: set of message classifications > access: allow | deny > scope: local | organisational | global well, my initial reaction is that for 'applies-to' you need to be clear about what this means. is it: a. the address that appears in the From field (regardless of who actually sent the message) b. the address that appears in SMTP MAIL FROM / Return-Path (regardless of who actually sent the message) c. the address that sent the message (assuming some way to identify/authenticate that party) d. some other address e. more than one of a-d here's what I think consent looks like. this would be placed on a net-accessible server in some place where it could be found using the address moore@cs.utk.edu - probably you'd do a dns lookup for {something}.cs.utk.edu and get the address of a server that could answer queries of the form "give me the consent statement for recipient moore@cs.utk.edu". which would return something like the following (in a well-defined, machine-readable format) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- recipient moore@cs.utk.edu consents to having messages matching any of the following criteria not delivered normally, with the following actions taken: a) any message with more than 5 non-ASCII characters in the subject field (action=discard) b) any message with a MAIL FROM address that is invalid (action=discard) c) any message with a From header address that is invalid (illegal syntax, no such domain, or fails SMTP check) (action=bounce) d) any message containing an attachment with a filename attribute ending in .com, .exe, .pif, or .bat (action=discard) e) any message with a From header address or MAIL FROM address matching JimFleming@ameritech.net (action=discard) f) any message containing the regexp /See.http://cr\.yp\.to/docs/copies\.html\./ (action=discard) g) any message which is entirely in some other language besides English (action=bounce) h) any message that SpamAssasin rates higher than 8 (action=bounce) i) any message from a sender-id whose issuer is in my whitelist (action=deliver) j) any message from a sender-id whose ISP has declared to be a spammer (action=bounce) k) any message from a sender-id whose ISP says the sender is a new account (if (text-only and size < 2k) action=delay else action=bounce) l) any message from a sender-id whose ISP hasn't agreed to implement an AUP prohibiting spam and to support the protocol reporting spammers (if (text-only and size < 2k) action=delay else action=bounce) m) any message from a sender-id issued by ISP's A, B, or C (if (text-only and size < 2k) action=delay else action=bounce) n) any message with a From address in my whitelist (action=deliver) o) any message lacking a sender-id tag (if (text-only and size < 2k) action=delay else action=bounce) p) any message which was sent to > 200 recipients and which is not sent from one of the mailing lists in my whitelist (action=bounce) q) any message containing text/html that contains a script (action=bounce) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- and the whole thing could be signed. (granted, details of establishing reasonable trust in the signature could be tricky) this is a deliberately complex example, but I wanted to illustrate several things: 1. a variety of kinds of criteria, some based on content, some based on ability to identify the source, some based on trustworthiness of the source, some based on volume, some based on criteria specified elsewhere 2. a variety of actions: e.g. bounce, delay, discard, deliver, and/or limit the kinds of messages I will accept 3. filtering things that aren't of interest to me, whether or not they meet anyone else's criteria for "spam". (like the annoying message from djb insisting that everyone should adopt his method of composing replies) btw, the sender-id tag is a tag that would be supplied by the sender ISP's MTA that would reliably associate the message with a particular sender (as in, the name/address/billing info that the ISP knows). it would not expose the sender's identity to recipients, but it would allow recipients to make queries to the ISP about the sender. again, this is a complex example. I'd expect the casual user's criteria to be much simpler, for instance: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- a) whatever criteria SpamNukers, Inc. recommends -------------------------------------------------------------------------- now, the purpose in supplying these criteria is to allow filtering of the message *at any point upstream*. essentially it's saying "I'm going to discard these anyway, so there's no point in sending them to me." so one or more MTAs could query a recipient's filtering criteria and then optionally apply whatever criteria they understood and wished to apply - thus saving them bandwidth, etc. (it would be important to specify this carefully -in my example there are criteria for delivery that are meant to pre-empt later criteria for pessimal handling - e.g. if you're on my whitelist I want the message delivered even if your ISP is untrustworthy. it would not be good to have some MTA ignore the whitelist and apply the later criteria.) Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 10:19:21 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA28869 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:19:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AFWLn18823 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:32:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AFWLO18820 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:32:21 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA28813 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:18:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AFQFO18618; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:26:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AFP8O18560 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:25:08 -0500 Received: from aismtp1g.bellsouth.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA28586 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:11:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from 01AL10015010060.ad.bls.com ([90.152.5.135] [90.152.5.135]) by aismtp1g.bellsouth.com with ESMTP; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:13:53 -0500 Received: by 01al10015010060.ad.bls.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:13:43 -0500 Message-Id: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D58E@bremocag> From: "Sauer, Damon" To: "'Keith Moore'" , Chris Lewis Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Nucleus of a draft BCP on filtering Importance: high X-Priority: 1 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:13:41 -0500 -----Original Message----- From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore@cs.utk.edu] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 6:53 PM To: Chris Lewis Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu; asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Nucleus of a draft BCP on filtering > Guiding General Principles: - spam is UBE (unsolicited bulk email) >that way, we wouldn't all have to agree on what spam was. >Keith ----- I finally agree with something Keith said.. hmm. I believe that my previous statement still holds true- Spam is in the eye of the beholder. The system that we may (or may not) eventually come up with should be able to work exactly in reverse- All legitimate mail is blocked and only UCE is received. I think that would be a good test. Then rate the system on how much UCE is inadvertently blocked and how much legitimate mail slips through. I believe that this would satisfy everyone. Regards, Damon ***** "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers." _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 10:29:18 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29125 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:29:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AFgJq20091 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:42:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AFgIO20088 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:42:19 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29117 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:28:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AFb3O19152; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:37:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AFa2O19048 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:36:02 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA28952 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:22:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h2AFOVre014172; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:24:31 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h2AFMqnI009180 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:22:52 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h2AFMq9s009178; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:22:52 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Paul Judge Cc: "'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Taxonomy (Four oracles model) Message-ID: <20030310152252.GA8787@danisch.de> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:22:52 +0100 On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 09:41:29AM -0500, Paul Judge wrote: > > > While at first glance, this model sounds interesting, I don't believe that > it offers enough structure to allow us to compare anti-spam systems. For > example the second stage of your taxonomy asks "is this message > spam?". I've put that question not at the top of the taxonomy but in one of several stages intentionally. Several methods were discussed which don't focus on "Is it spam?" and objections were made because of that. Therefore I came to the conclusion that there should be a layer above that question and to invent additional steps in the process to cover those methods. > So, I would not move to this four stage model because the first two stages > are too broad and do not provide any real classification. However, I will > use this note as a reminder that we should also provide a classification of > spam response systems. I will follow-up with an outline of such. I would use > what you have sent, but it only lists examples and does not classify them. Of course, I didn't want to go too deep into a taxonomy in the very first proposal. I have several layers below that four stages in mind, but that would have been to much for the first proposal and would require further discussion. It is true that my proposal yet lists only examples, that's why I called them "examples". The next step would be to build the subclassification in order to build a taxonomy tree. The reason to propose a different structure was that I see several shortcomings in the original taxonomy design: - Fail-Open/Fail-Close should not be a top-level to Prevention Approaches. That's the wrong level. That's a question of response or implementation, but not a top level principle of prevention. - The question who/what/how are much more important and should be on a higher level than at the fourth level. - The distinction of Human/System Determination is to be put on a lower level, because it is not a principle but an implementation detail in my eyes. - Authentication is not a form of Deterrence. That's just wrong. Threaten spammers with a law-suit after successful authentication is, but not the authentication itself. Authentication is a method to answer "who sent?" - Same with tracking - Non-repudiation is a special form of authentication. Methods like non-repudiation and zero-knowledge-methods are subclasses of authentication. - Spam reduction is a little bit difficult to handle. From a theoretical point of view this is an esoterik method of authentication: Split all possible senders into two groups: Those who are so interested in sending me that particular message that they'd even would pay to do so, and those who don't. The sender is required to authenticate to belong to the first group. Implementations: - Real cash (e.g. any kind of e-commerce/microcash: Sell a real ticket which allows to send a message) - Pseudo cash (e.g. hashcash) In my model, those methods would be subclasses of the first oracle. You said you're uncomfortable with the placement of spam reduction in your model. Maybe that shows that the model is not fully correct. Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 10:30:12 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29217 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:30:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AFhDm20132 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:43:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AFhCO20129 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:43:12 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29140 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:29:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AFbAO19299; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:37:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AFafO19060 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:36:41 -0500 Received: from aismtp3g.bls.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA28960 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:23:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from 01al10015010061.ad.bls.com ([90.152.5.165] [90.152.5.165]) by aismtp3g.bls.com with ESMTP; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:27:41 -0500 Received: by 01al10015010061.ad.bls.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 09:25:16 -0600 Message-Id: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D590@bremocag> From: "Sauer, Damon" To: "'Chris Lewis'" Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] DCC and IP checksums MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 09:25:14 -0600 >Hadmut Danisch wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 06:54:08PM -0500, David F. Skoll wrote: >> >>>I use the following algorithm in CanIt. It is by no means perfect, >>>but it's pretty good: >>> - Skip a line starting "Dear " >>>- Do a SHA1 hash on what's left. >> This won't work. >It works for certain classes of spammer. It can be made significantly >better (eg: stripping HTML tags and comments, stripping >non-alphanumerics, not only collapsing whitespace, but _removing_ it), >but it's still trivially bypassable. I actually wrote a very simple perl script that works perfectly in the way that you want the chksum to work. The problem was that it classified every newsletter, breaking news alert, and weather report as spam. Duplicity checks don't work because there is too much valid duplicity, not because it cannot be accomplished technically. Regards, Damon ***** "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers." _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 10:37:22 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29615 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:37:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AFoOp20508 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:50:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AFoOO20505 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:50:24 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29560 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:36:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AFk3O20332; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:46:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AFjkO20312 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:45:46 -0500 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29401 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:32:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 18sPID-0003sd-00; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:34:21 +0000 In-Reply-To: <20030310095519.1eeba885.moore@cs.utk.edu> Subject: Re: [Asrg] What would consent look like? To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "Keith Moore" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.4.9] Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:34:21 +0000 > well, my initial reaction is that for 'applies-to' you need to be clear > about what this means. is it: > > a. the address that appears in the From field (regardless of who > actually sent the message) > b. the address that appears in SMTP MAIL FROM / Return-Path > (regardless of who actually sent the message) > c. the address that sent the message (assuming some way to > identify/authenticate that party) > d. some other address > e. more than one of a-d > I meant the envelope recipient - the address in the RCTP TO > here's what I think consent looks like. this would be placed on a > net-accessible server in some place where it could be found using > the address moore@cs.utk.edu - probably you'd do a dns lookup I'm keeping away from any implementation details - it's way too early - I think. But yes, something like that, why not. > - > recipient moore@cs.utk.edu consents to having messages matching any > of the following criteria not delivered normally, with the following > actions taken: > > a) any message with more than 5 non-ASCII characters in the subject field > (action=discard) > b) any message with a MAIL FROM address that is invalid (action=discard) > c) any message with a From header address that is invalid These would come under the heading of message classifications. > and the whole thing could be signed. (granted, details of establishing > reasonable trust in the signature could be tricky) I think it's possible to limit the signing requirement. Organisations and local systems have more direct means of authenticating the source of a consent (does it come from one of our subnets, or something). > > this is a deliberately complex example, but I wanted to illustrate > several things: > > 1. a variety of kinds of criteria, some based on content, some based > on ability to identify the source, some based on trustworthiness > of the source, some based on volume, some based on criteria specified > elsewhere all really part of some message classification component > > 2. a variety of actions: e.g. bounce, delay, discard, deliver, > and/or limit the kinds of messages I will accept I only need to (accept | deny) really - the disposition of the offending message is an issue of configuring the consent seeking entity - what it does when a "deny" is obtained - if this entity is my MUA that's covered separately. If I need to control disposition, then I only ever issue consents with local scope. Bingo. > > 3. filtering things that aren't of interest to me, whether or not they > meet anyone else's criteria for "spam". (like the annoying message > from djb insisting that everyone should adopt his method of composing > replies) I can have my MUA (consulting a local consent) filter against local classifications.. as well as more widely scoped ones. > > btw, the sender-id tag is a tag that would be supplied by the sender I have problems with identifying senders (as do others - there's a lot on the list about this) So I'm concentrating on the intended *recipient* > > now, the purpose in supplying these criteria is to allow filtering > of the message *at any point upstream*. essentially it's saying > "I'm going to discard these anyway, so there's no point in sending > them to me." so one or more MTAs could query a recipient's filtering > criteria and then optionally apply whatever criteria they understood > and wished to apply - thus saving them bandwidth, etc. Yes. > > (it would be important to specify this carefully -in my example there > are criteria for delivery that are meant to pre-empt later criteria > for pessimal handling - e.g. if you're on my whitelist I want the message > delivered even if your ISP is untrustworthy. it would not be good to > have some MTA ignore the whitelist and apply the later criteria.) > This just needs "accept" to have higher priority than "deny" - I think? I should have made that clear. I skipped that - it's probably in the "folding" mechanism... Thanks for your feedback. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 10:44:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29840 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:44:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AFvff20897 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:57:41 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AFveO20894 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:57:40 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29823 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:44:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AFu2O20794; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:56:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AFteO20777 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:55:40 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29800 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:42:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.57] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2AFhM3Z014566; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 07:43:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 07:43:22 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: Matt Sergeant , Marco Paganini Cc: Vernon Schryver , ezk@cs.sunysb.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 07:43:14 -0800 > On the contrary. If I've spent the time to compose an email > to someone the > last thing I want is a bounce back of *any* sort - be it a vacation > message, an answering machine, or a challenge system. Yup, it is all spam. Call back systems don't reduce spam, they increase it. If everyone used a callback system and no whitelists 50% of all the email on the internet would instantly become spam. Vacation messages can have their place, if they could be sent in a manner that the MUA could make reasonably transparent to the end user. For example it is quite useful to me to know when I send a message to someone in VeriSign that they are away, I simply select another volunteer to do whatever I had in mind (my initials aren't PHB for nothing). What I find really irritating is out of office vaction notices to mails that I have sent out to hundreds of people. I think there are also problems with the fact that SMTP really was not architected to support the relay sender mode. It is a hack that is not really designed properly. I should never ever have to see an EMAIL giving me a status report. This should be communicated through a separate UI channel, not the data channel. Bounce back schemes on the other hand piss me off completely, as folk will know from my interactions with Dan Bernstein whose obnoxious spambot responds to every message you send to him, telling you that if he thought you were really important he would have whitelisted you. Another problem with bounceback schemes is that a lot of them have privacy issues. One hosted service recently spammed all the recipients of email their customers had posted to through their service. > Also witness the SpamArrest situation. I bet that we'll see > less and less > people responding to challenge systems because they fear they will be > spammed at some point in the future by the company running the system. They will get spammed whether or not they respond. I think that callback loops are acceptable only when the mail is bing sent to a large number of people and it is reasonable to expect senders to take more care. For example I think that it is quite reasonable for IETF mailing lists to require non-subscribers to answer a callback to post. This has an additional advantage of preventing Dan Bernstein from ever posting unless he disables his spambot. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 10:46:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29886 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:46:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AFxVv20960 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:59:31 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AFxVO20957 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:59:31 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29869 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:45:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AFv4O20866; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:57:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AFukO20834 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:56:46 -0500 Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29815 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:43:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h2AFjEA29248; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:45:18 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Moore To: "Jon Kyme" Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] What would consent look like? Message-Id: <20030310104514.364a534a.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: References: <20030310095519.1eeba885.moore@cs.utk.edu> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:45:14 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > 2. a variety of actions: e.g. bounce, delay, discard, deliver, > > and/or limit the kinds of messages I will accept > > I only need to (accept | deny) really - the disposition of the > offending message is an issue of configuring the consent seeking > entity - what it does when a "deny" is obtained I think the middle ground (e.g. accept but only after a delay, accept with small probability, else tempfail, accept only short messages and/or only with a limited set of contents) is very important - if nothing else, during a transition phase. If we have a situation where only X% of the ISPs support mechanisms to allow standardized sender-identification and query of senders to see if they're spammers, we need a way to handle mail that comes from the other 100-X% which isn't as drastic as bouncing/discarding but still penalizes them. > > 3. filtering things that aren't of interest to me, whether or not > > they > > meet anyone else's criteria for "spam". (like the annoying > > message from djb insisting that everyone should adopt his method > > of composing replies) > > I can have my MUA (consulting a local consent) filter against local > classifications.. as well as more widely scoped ones. indeed. what you advertise to the world that you're willing to have filtered on your behalf and what you filter locally can be different. > > btw, the sender-id tag is a tag that would be supplied by the sender > > I have problems with identifying senders (as do others > - there's a lot on the list about this) which is why my sender-id doesn't actually identify senders. (I suppose I need a better name - at one time I was using originator-info, but that's kind of long.) > So I'm concentrating on the intended *recipient* well, of course the recipient specifies the filtering criteria. > > -in my example > > there are criteria for delivery that are meant to pre-empt later > > criteria for pessimal handling - e.g. if you're on my whitelist I > > want the message delivered even if your ISP is untrustworthy. it > > would not be good to have some MTA ignore the whitelist and apply > > the later criteria.) > > > > This just needs "accept" to have higher priority than "deny" - I > think? actually, no. if an MTA doesn't understand how to implement the accept criteria, it must also ignore any of the following deny criteria. either that or we need to specify the criteria in such a way that they're independent of one another, with no ordering. so instead of saying if (x) accept if (y) deny say if (!x && y) deny Keith -- "Of course the people don't want war. But ... it is always a simple matter to drag the people along. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger... It works the same way in any country." - Hermann Goering, 1947. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 10:47:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29958 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:47:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AG0wt21044 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:00:58 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AG0wO21041 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:00:58 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29923 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:47:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AFrWO20669; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:53:32 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AFqWO20582 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:52:32 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29674 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:38:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h2AFf0hP014381; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:41:00 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h2AFeGnI009525 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:40:16 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h2AFeGrS009523; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:40:16 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Paul Judge Cc: "'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Taxonomy (Four oracles model) Message-ID: <20030310154016.GA9320@danisch.de> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:40:16 +0100 Just to give an idea about how I'd subclass the second stage ("Is this message spam?"): - sender rating - sender black/whitelisting - RMX results (possibly with black/whitelisting) - signature verification result (possibly with black/whitelisting) - has sender been authenticated? - does the sender's MX accept messages sent to this address? - context analysis - is this message somehow related to earlier traffic with the other party? (e.g. is a direct reply, did we discuss similar contents with that particular party earlier?) - did the message contain a valid cookie? - mass mail detection - Try to determine whether other recipients received the same mail, e.g. ask databases, hash value methods - content analysis - statistical methods - patterns - blacklisted words ("penis enlargement devices", "money transfer from africa") - size constraints - meta rules combine results of other methods _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 10:48:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA00014 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:48:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AG1gN21143 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:01:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AG1gO21140 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:01:42 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29984 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:48:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AFv1O20850; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:57:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AFuYO20829 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:56:34 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29809 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:43:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h2AFj7qU014502; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:45:07 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h2AFiDnI009610 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:44:13 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h2AFiCFO009608; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:44:12 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: "Sauer, Damon" Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] DCC and IP checksums Message-ID: <20030310154412.GA9555@danisch.de> References: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D58F@bremocag> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D58F@bremocag> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:44:12 +0100 On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 10:18:55AM -0500, Sauer, Damon wrote: > I have actually come up with a way that this works perfectly. > It does not matter what the password is or the dear * line says. In imitation of the coding theory's "hamming distance": What's the maximum "spamming distance" of to messages resulting in the same hash value? In other words: How much can messages differ to still get the same hash and what's the minimum difference that guarantees a different hash? Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 10:54:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA00164 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:54:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AG7gC22281 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:07:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AG7gO22278 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:07:42 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA00149 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:54:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AG43O21312; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:04:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AG3jO21278 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:03:45 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA00068 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:50:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h2AFqJNJ014659 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:52:19 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h2AFq2nI009774 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:52:02 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h2AFq26f009772 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:52:02 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <20030310155202.GA9672@danisch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="45Z9DzgjV8m4Oswq" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Subject: [Asrg] (Fwd): Spam mail warning notification! (Advertisements) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:52:02 +0100 --45Z9DzgjV8m4Oswq Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Is that a bad joke? Satire? Did the evil reality just hit me? See the attached email I just received... Hadmut --45Z9DzgjV8m4Oswq Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h2AFj6nI009641 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:45:06 +0100 Received: from sklave3 (uucp@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h2AFj5IS009639 for hadmut@home.danisch.de; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:45:06 +0100 Received: (from root@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h2AFfBDQ014388 for hadmut@home.danisch.de; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:41:11 +0100 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h2AFfAcY014383 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:41:10 +0100 Received: from localhost (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA29681 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:39:01 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200303101539.KAA29681@ietf.org> From: postmaster@ietf.org To: Subject: Spam mail warning notification! (Advertisements) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:22:56 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_1047309776_B78506032.R82506026" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_1047309776_B78506032.R82506026 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit **************** eManager Notification ***************** The following mail was blocked since it contains sensitive content. Source mailbox: Destination mailbox(es): PaulJudge Policy: Advertisements Action: Archive Content filter has detected an unrequested advertisement e-mail. ******************* End of message ********************* ------=_NextPart_000_1047309776_B78506032.R82506026 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h2AFf0hP014381; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:41:00 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h2AFeGnI009525 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:40:16 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h2AFeGrS009523; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:40:16 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:40:16 +0100 To: Paul Judge Cc: "'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Taxonomy (Four oracles model) Message-ID: <20030310154016.GA9320@danisch.de> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i ------=_NextPart_000_1047309776_B78506032.R82506026-- --45Z9DzgjV8m4Oswq-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 10:55:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA00194 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:55:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AG8aj22360 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:08:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AG8aO22357 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:08:36 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA00185 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:55:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AG52O21377; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:05:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AG4iO21333 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:04:44 -0500 Received: from backbone.midwestcs.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA00092 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:51:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from footbone.midwestcs.com ([206.222.212.237] helo=midwestcs.com) by backbone.midwestcs.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18sPaR-0000wg-00 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 09:53:11 -0600 Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Taxonomy of anti-spam systems References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: wayne In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lines: 102 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanner: exiscan *18sPaR-0000wg-00*sDIzvoHnBxo* () Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 10 Mar 2003 09:53:09 -0600 In Paul Judge writes: > Here is a first draft of a taxonomy of anti-spam systems. I've classified > the systems into spam prevention, spam deterrence, and spam reduction > systems. Maybe it is just me, but these labels seem to be murky. I had to read the definitions to understand which systems belong in which category, and even then, the labels didn't seem clear to me. Hadmut has suggested another taxonomy based on "four oracles", which seems a lot clearer to me. I would like to suggest a third, based off of the natural progression of email through the internet. 1) What things can the sender's MUA do to reduce sending spam? These are mostly things like "don't send vacation notices to mailing lists", and "make it obvious the difference between reply to one person, reply to the mailing list, and reply to everyone involved". A spammer, of course, will not be restrained by these checks. 2) What things can the sender's MTA do to reduce sending spam? These would include rate limiters, authenticating who can send/relay email through the MTA, content checking to see if the sender is sending spam, etc. This can also include things like port 25 filtering to force the "sender's MTA" to be the ISP's MTA. At this point, it is much easier to track down who exactly is sending the email. A spam friendly ISP will not restrain senders. 3) What can the receiver's MTA do before that SMTP DATA statement? This includes firewalling, blacklists, verification of HELO/EHLO, tempfailing, RMX/domain specific DNSBL checks, etc. Part of the goal here is to reduce network bandwidth. 4) What can the receiver's MTA do after the message has been received, but before it has been delivered? This includes header and body checks. At this point, bounces can still be forced to be created by the sender's MTA, preventing bounces from being sent to another victim. It also reduces the bandwidth used because a bounce message isn't sent. 5) What can the receiver's MTA do after the message has been accepted for delivery? While the options are pretty much the same as stage 4), the MTA has to generate a bounce. 6) What can the receiver's MUA do? Some information that was available to the MTA is often lost by the time that the receiver's MUA can do checks. This is the only spot where the end users can give feed back to earlier parts of the system about false positives or false negatives. One important aspect of anti-spam systems is error handling. The sooner that spam is detected, the better. The choices of how to handle errors are also different at each stage. The earlier stages know much more about the sender than the later stages. Once the mail has been delivered by the receiver's MTA, you can't generate a bounce. Either you have to generate a reply email (which can be made to look like a bounce), or you have to drop the email. A false positive may well give no feed back to the sender. On the other hand, the later the stage, the more you know about how the end users values false positives vs false negatives, so the more aggressive you can make the checking. The end user may receive email from several different ISPs, so receiver's MUA has more complete information about the type of email they receive. Also, later stages may benefit from information learned elsewhere. A DCC check at the sender's MTA time (stage 2) may yield no hits while a check at the receiver's MUA (stage 6) may have given spamtraps time to react. Hmmm... I guess that Hadmut's four oracles could be applied to each stage. -wayne _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 10:56:58 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA00256 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:56:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AG9xD22408 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:09:59 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AG9xO22405 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:09:59 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA00240 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:56:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AG51O21360; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:05:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AG4HO21321 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:04:17 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA00083 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:50:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc02.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2AFqp3Z015899; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 07:52:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 07:52:50 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: wayne , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 07:52:46 -0800 > Secondly, my ISP recently started to offer this kind of system for a > bargain price of only $1/mo! (sigh) Their argument for it was it is > great for people who want zero spam, such as accounts for kids. There > *are* people out there that consider a false negative to be as bad, if > not worse, than a false positive. I think there what is needed is a whitelist approach. I only let my 2 year old read mail from myself, his mother and grandparents. He can exchange email with his friends when he is older. He can choose who he gets email from for himself when he is old enough to work out how to disable the security settings. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 11:12:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA00933 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:12:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AGP8q23185 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:25:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AGP7O23182 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:25:07 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA00905 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:11:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AGG3O22676; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:16:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AGFmO22655 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:15:48 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA00444 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:02:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2AG4MBD025087 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:04:22 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20030310160501.21345.65862.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> Message-ID: References: <20030310160501.21345.65862.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Asrg] DCC and IP checksums Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:04:22 -0500 (EST) From: Hadmut Danisch > In other words: How much can messages differ to still get the same > hash and what's the minimum difference that guarantees a different > hash? It doesn't matter. ANY checksum scheme can be defeated, and usually very easily (unless the checksum is useless for practical message distinction.) It's trivial to create N messages with arbitrarily-large Hamming (or "spamming") distance. Even without knowing the details of the checksum algorithm, a few simple black-box experiments will probably reveal its weakness. If you know the algorithm, it's even easier. That doesn't mean checksums are useless; on the contrary. It is a worthwhile cause to block spam from unsophisticated spammers. Just because we know we'll never completely stop determined spammers, it doesn't mean we should give up on the low-hanging fruit. The best we can hope for is to increase the hassle of spamming. Every extra hoop a spammer has to jump through means a certain percentage of spammers will simply give up (or else fail because of lack of hoop-jumping.) -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 11:13:24 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA01007 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:13:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AGQQg23259 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:26:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AGQQO23256 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:26:26 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA00987 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:12:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AGMqO23080; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:22:52 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AGM0O22984 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:22:00 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA00815 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:08:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc02.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2AGAW3Z019137; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 08:10:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 08:10:32 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: wayne Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Taxonomy of anti-spam systems MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 08:10:31 -0800 I would prefer to avoid the term 'oracle' which has a very particular place in cryptographic research as a term of art. I think Hadmut's four stage model is usefull, however I would prefer to avoid getting too far into implementation issues when setting out the taxonomy of approaches. Hadmut's taxonomy is a taxonomy of applications, which is slightly different. Phill > -----Original Message----- > From: wayne [mailto:wayne@midwestcs.com] > Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 10:53 AM > Cc: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Taxonomy of anti-spam systems > > > In > > Paul Judge writes: > > > Here is a first draft of a taxonomy of anti-spam systems. > I've classified > > the systems into spam prevention, spam deterrence, and spam > reduction > > systems. > > Maybe it is just me, but these labels seem to be murky. I had to read > the definitions to understand which systems belong in which category, > and even then, the labels didn't seem clear to me. > > Hadmut has suggested another taxonomy based on "four oracles", which > seems a lot clearer to me. > > I would like to suggest a third, based off of the natural progression > of email through the internet. > > > 1) What things can the sender's MUA do to reduce sending spam? > > These are mostly things like "don't send vacation notices to > mailing lists", and "make it obvious the difference > between reply to > one person, reply to the mailing list, and reply to everyone > involved". > > A spammer, of course, will not be restrained by these checks. > > > 2) What things can the sender's MTA do to reduce sending spam? > > These would include rate limiters, authenticating who can > send/relay email through the MTA, content checking to see if the > sender is sending spam, etc. This can also include things like > port 25 filtering to force the "sender's MTA" to be the ISP's MTA. > > At this point, it is much easier to track down who exactly is > sending the email. > > A spam friendly ISP will not restrain senders. > > > 3) What can the receiver's MTA do before that SMTP DATA statement? > > This includes firewalling, blacklists, verification of HELO/EHLO, > tempfailing, RMX/domain specific DNSBL checks, etc. > > Part of the goal here is to reduce network bandwidth. > > > 4) What can the receiver's MTA do after the message has been received, > but before it has been delivered? > > This includes header and body checks. At this point, bounces can > still be forced to be created by the sender's MTA, preventing > bounces from being sent to another victim. It also reduces the > bandwidth used because a bounce message isn't sent. > > > 5) What can the receiver's MTA do after the message has been > accepted for delivery? > > While the options are pretty much the same as stage 4), the MTA has > to generate a bounce. > > > 6) What can the receiver's MUA do? > > Some information that was available to the MTA is often lost by the > time that the receiver's MUA can do checks. > > This is the only spot where the end users can give feed back to > earlier parts of the system about false positives or false > negatives. > > > One important aspect of anti-spam systems is error handling. The > sooner that spam is detected, the better. The choices of how to > handle errors are also different at each stage. The earlier stages > know much more about the sender than the later stages. > > Once the mail has been delivered by the receiver's MTA, you can't > generate a bounce. Either you have to generate a reply email (which > can be made to look like a bounce), or you have to drop the email. A > false positive may well give no feed back to the sender. > > On the other hand, the later the stage, the more you know about how > the end users values false positives vs false negatives, so the more > aggressive you can make the checking. The end user may receive email > from several different ISPs, so receiver's MUA has more complete > information about the type of email they receive. > > Also, later stages may benefit from information learned elsewhere. A > DCC check at the sender's MTA time (stage 2) may yield no hits while a > check at the receiver's MUA (stage 6) may have given spamtraps time to > react. > > > Hmmm... I guess that Hadmut's four oracles could be applied to each > stage. > > > -wayne > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 11:15:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA01122 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:15:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AGSih23354 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:28:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AGSiO23351 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:28:44 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA01116 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:15:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AGK5O22923; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:20:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AGJgO22856 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:19:42 -0500 Received: from aismtp3g.bls.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA00646 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:06:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from 01al10015010057.ad.bls.com ([90.152.5.141] [90.152.5.141]) by aismtp3g.bls.com with ESMTP; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:10:41 -0500 Received: by 01al10015010057.ad.bls.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:08:16 -0500 Message-Id: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D591@bremocag> From: "Sauer, Damon" To: "'Hadmut Danisch'" , "Sauer, Damon" Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] DCC and IP checksums MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:08:15 -0500 I had the code up and working for about a month. I found that doing an MD5 of the hash result of 5 lines in the middle of the message worked just fine. I only did this to streamline processing. No need to spin extra cycles to process the entire mesage.The hash was not dependent on size of the message but the result of the process and the MD5. The process held the last 10,000 MD5's and popped the top one off as over 10,000 were added. Spammers don't usually pull out old spam to resend in exactly the same form as they sent it a year ago and usually they send the same stuff all at once. Keeping unique MD5's over the lifetime of the system is impractical and will eventually start encroaching on the "hammering distance" issue. But since the sample is relatively small and refreshed over a period of time, I do not worry about the "million monkeys at a million typewriters". It caught the spam cycles very quickly, but again, this is just a duplicity check. The only value that I could get out of it was to "mark" the messages as "possible" spam and make a copy for further investigation. Regards, Damon -----Original Message----- From: Hadmut Danisch [mailto:hadmut@danisch.de] Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 10:44 AM To: Sauer, Damon Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] DCC and IP checksums On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 10:18:55AM -0500, Sauer, Damon wrote: > I have actually come up with a way that this works perfectly. > It does not matter what the password is or the dear * line says. In imitation of the coding theory's "hamming distance": What's the maximum "spamming distance" of to messages resulting in the same hash value? In other words: How much can messages differ to still get the same hash and what's the minimum difference that guarantees a different hash? Hadmut ***** "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers." _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 11:19:57 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA01262 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:19:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AGX0Z23624 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:33:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AGX0O23621 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:33:00 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA01239 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:19:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AGM2O22998; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:22:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AGL2O22959 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:21:02 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA00754 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:07:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2094762; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:09:37 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20030309234652.A2878@triton.paganini.net> References: <20030309225500.A1378@triton.paganini.net> <200303100416.h2A4GOd4027447@calcite.rhyolite.com> <20030309234652.A2878@triton.paganini.net> To: Marco Paganini From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists Cc: Vernon Schryver , asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:42:46 -0500 At 11:46 PM -0500 3/9/03, Marco Paganini wrote: >I'd say that mailing-list confirmations serve two distinct purposes: To warn >the user that his mailbox will be flooded with messages and to protect the >list from mass-mailers. You missed one of the most important ones. To ensure that the email address given to the list actually did ask to subscribe. It's an authentication mechanism, and one I am thankful for everytime some virus tries to subscribe me to a mailing list. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 11:20:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA01277 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:20:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AGX8M23649 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:33:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AGX7O23646 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:33:07 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA01243 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:19:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AGM4O23014; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:22:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AGL5O22963 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:21:05 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA00770 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:07:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2094759; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:09:39 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200303100742.h2A7gnWS004714@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> References: <200303092333.h29NXQ9g009890@agora.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu> <200303100033.h2A0XmGP003843@calcite.rhyolite.com> <200303100742.h2A7gnWS004714@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists Cc: Vernon Schryver , Asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:58:27 -0500 At 2:42 AM -0500 3/10/03, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: >On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 01:37:02 EST, Kee Hinckley said: >> We filter spam based solely on forged headers and private blacklists >> plus user preferences. The number of those messages that have >> something faked is well over 50%. > >OK.. it's been 2 decades since I took statisics, and I've *mostly* >recovered from being a math/physics major, but... > >All this says is that if you didn't filter on blacklists and user prefs, >that 100% of the mail that you tagged as having forged headers have forged >headers. Addition of the other 2 criteria water it down to "over 50%". I was trying not to go into the grody details. Our false negative rate is <1%. Everytime a user adds someone to a blacklist, or reports a problem, that gets recorded as spam we missed. I'm counting that in the numbers. >Problem 1) There's no indication of what percent of mail with forged >headers was actually spam - and without your definition of what counts >as "forged", it's hard to tell. I know that *this* laptop has sent some >rather squirrelly headers when I'm travelling and borrowing some net access. We aren't deleting any of the mail. The users scan the list and mark the false positives. My numbers were based on the results *after* user confirmation. As I said elsewhere, users do get sloppy, but not to an extent that's going to significantly change these numbers. >Problem 2) There's no indication of what percent of your total mail volume >got tagged as "forged headers". If it's 1% of your total or 40% of your >total is important, as they have different implications for what solutions >have to be able to do... We are currently running 26% spam across all users. >Problem 3) There's no indication of what sorts of overlaps there are between >the forged, blacklist, and preferences. If most of the mail that's forged >is *also* being hit by blacklist and/or preferences, then maybe checking for >forged headers isn't productive. If it's catching lots of spam that your >blacklists and preferences aren't catching, maybe that's indicative >of problems >with those two schemes... Right. As I said, we used to log that data, but we simply didn't have time to go over all of it. Once things settle down a bit we'll be doing that sort of analysis to tune our filters. >(And no Kee, I'm not picking on you in particular - I didn't accept Vernon's >DCC numbers at face value either. Nobody here uses the same methodology, >and it's hard to avoid comparing apples to oranges without asking what >sort of seeds were planted in both cases.... No offence taken. Talking about spam with people is very much like talking about user interfaces. Everyone thinks they are an expert, because everyone deals with it every day. In fact it's much more like the blind men and the elephant. I don't claim to be immune to any of that. I have two data samples. One is somewhere.com, which is clearly an anomalous situation. Like striker, it's a harbinger of things to come, but its sample information is wildly biased by mailbombs, forged mailing lists subscriptions and viruses. My other sample is the PureMessaging spam filtering service (soon to be Messagefire... don't ask). It's closer to an end-user analysis, but the sample size is still small and we simply don't have time to turn it into a research project right now. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 11:29:51 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA01833 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:29:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AGgsG25182 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:42:54 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AGgsO25177 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:42:54 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA01805 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:29:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AGWYO23610; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:32:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AGNlO23129 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:23:47 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA00849 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:10:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18sL5f-0000uj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 06:05:07 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Nucleus of a draft BCP on filtering In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:13:41 EST." <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D58E@bremocag> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 06:05:07 -0500 "Sauer, Damon" wrote: > I believe that my previous statement still holds true- Spam is in the eye > of the beholder. That's not all. Spam is also mail that the sender, or the sending network, didn't intend to send. e.g. Viruses. The sender didn't intend to send those messages. e.g. Unintentional open relays. The sending network didn't intend to send that mail. Most of the discussions here are focussed on the recipient. My belief is that by the time the recipient has received the mail, the network has been degraded due to passing traffic which the recipient throws away. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 11:30:00 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA01849 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:30:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AGh3L25208 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:43:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AGh3O25205 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:43:03 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA01810 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:29:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AGXeO23805; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:33:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AGVXO23493 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:31:33 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA01182 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:18:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h2AGK6gs015236; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:20:06 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h2AGGJnI010513 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:16:20 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h2AGGJbe010511; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:16:19 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: "Sauer, Damon" Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] DCC and IP checksums Message-ID: <20030310161619.GA10394@danisch.de> References: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D591@bremocag> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D591@bremocag> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:16:19 +0100 On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 11:08:15AM -0500, Sauer, Damon wrote: > I had the code up and working for about a month. I found that doing an MD5 > of the hash result of 5 lines in the middle of the message worked > just fine. There's exactly one reason why this works: It is your very private and not publicly known method. As soon as spammers get aware of this (and they will since you just revealed it on this list), your method won't work anymore, since it is easy to circumvent once the spammer knows how it works. Such methods violate one of the most important rules: Don't do "security by obscurity". We need to develop methods which can be used by everyone on the world, thus need to remain effective when the spammers learned all details of the method. Your MD5 method fails to do so. BTW: How do you handle attachments? Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 11:40:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29961 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:47:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AG0wR21060 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:00:58 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AG0wO21057 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:00:58 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29925 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:47:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AFt2O20759; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:55:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AFshO20711 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:54:43 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29737 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:41:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc02.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2AFhH3a014537 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 07:43:17 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 07:43:16 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Taxonomy of anti-spam systems MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 07:43:13 -0800 > 1. Spam Prevention Approaches - These systems aim to prevent the > spread of spam messages. There are fail-open and fail-closed systems. With my spokeperson hat on I prefer the terms 'Detect Wanted' and 'Detect Junk'. I am not going to use any term that involves the word 'fail' with a journalist when talking about my work or company products. I think the terms I propose are also easier to communicate. > 2) Spam Deterrence Approaches - These systems aim to deter spamming > a) Authentication > b) Tracking > c) Non-repudiation I place Authentication based approaches with other 'Detect Wanted' schemes. Authentication plus some form of authorization gives access control. I think that legal/legislative approaches should rank a bullet here. We should also mention vigilante actions such as teergrubbing and hackback, I don't approve of these, they create far more problems than people claim. > 3) Spam Reduction - These systems aim to reduce the level > of spam by > making it more costly or timely to have the messages delivered. Actually this is the objective of all security based approaches. The point of security is risk reduction, not risk elimination. Unusually for an Internet application we have an actual economic model here where the attacker is actually a somewhat rational actor so cost approaches can bite. > a) Cost-based Systems (increase cost of spamming) I think the term CHARGE-BASED is better than cost based. > b) Proof-of-work (i.e. hashcash) > c) Rate limiting > i) Ingress > ii) egress > > > > I'm not fully comfortable with the spam reduction being a > third category, I think that it is actualy a branch of the Detect Wanted chain, the proof of work or charge is simply a form of authorization. The detect wanted should thus split into two branches with an authorization and authentication component, you need to use one mechanism from both to address the whole. Another issue to address is spam sender countermeasures and the counter-counter-measures to defeat those. In particular I am interested in schemes where there is an asymmetric work factor, preferably one that means that it is more difficult for the spam sender to catch up than for the good guys to counter. I would also like to suggest that we consider deployment strategy explicitly. I believe that the standard MUA setup will look something like (ignoring subject folders for a moment): Inbox Known Good Not Sure Known Junk I do not see the Detect Wanted and Detect Junk strategies being in opposition. Until people use authentication mechanisms that allow a large fraction of mail to be Known Good most mail is going to be in Not Sure or Known Junk. However it is quite an easy matter to at least achieve 'known good' status for internal mail which in any large or medium sized enterprise is the vast bulk for most people. If we design the strategy carefully we can achieve some viral uptake. Another area where is is comparatively easy to achieve a rough and ready known good status is on mailing lists. Although spam senders do sometimes subscribe to send junk this is relatively rare. Most mailing lists are already applying a lightweight authentication mechanism of their own - restricting posting to list members. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 11:41:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA02334 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:41:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AGsgf26010 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:54:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AGsfO26007 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:54:41 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA02294 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:41:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AGi5O25314; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:44:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AGh5O25221 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:43:05 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA01814 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:29:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc01.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53] (may be forged)) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2AGTLL0019582; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 08:29:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 08:31:36 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "Sauer, Damon" , "'Keith Moore'" , Chris Lewis Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Nucleus of a draft BCP on filtering MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 08:31:27 -0800 I think Keith is wrong here, the objective should be to get rid of unwanted email of any type. Decding what we call spam is beside the point. In particular I really believe that the stuff Bernstein and SpamArrest puke out through their spambots requesting a confirmation of each email you send them IS SPAM. I want to have a definition of spam that makes it very clear that people who reduce the amount of spam they get by increasing the amount of spam I get are not proposing an acceptable solution. Another problem with the UCE moniker is that a huge fraction (60% at least) of the spam I get is not commercial, it is outright fraud. Nigerian letters are not commercial solicitations, they are outright attempts at fraud perpetrated by people who are kidnappers, murderers and theives. Phill > > Guiding General Principles: - spam is UBE (unsolicited bulk email) > > > > > >that way, we wouldn't all have to agree on what spam was. > > >Keith > > ----- I finally agree with something Keith said.. hmm. > > I believe that my previous statement still holds true- Spam > is in the eye > of the beholder. > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 11:44:59 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA02386 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:44:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AGw2426191 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:58:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AGw2O26188 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:58:02 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA02376 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:44:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AGl2O25570; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:47:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AGkYO25525 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:46:34 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA01999 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:33:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h2AGZ7Xh015512; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:35:07 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h2AGY5nI010780 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:34:05 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h2AGY5Bq010778; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:34:05 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: "David F. Skoll" Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] DCC and IP checksums Message-ID: <20030310163404.GA10678@danisch.de> References: <20030310160501.21345.65862.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:34:05 +0100 On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 11:04:22AM -0500, David F. Skoll wrote: > > That doesn't mean checksums are useless; on the contrary. It is a > worthwhile cause to block spam from unsophisticated spammers. Just > because we know we'll never completely stop determined spammers, it > doesn't mean we should give up on the low-hanging fruit. Some years ago, hackers used to be highly sophisticated experts. Meanwhile, the majority of attacks are driven by silly script kiddies using high sophisticated tools without understanding what's going on. Reading some of the spams I receive I found that many of them seem to be sent with the very same software and address list. There are billions of spam, but only a few spamming tools. All it takes is just a simple software upgrade to the next version of the tools to defeat that hash method. Once spammers learn how to do it, all spammers will know how to do it. There is not significant number of "low-hanging fruit". Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 11:47:08 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA02491 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:47:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AH0Br26343 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:00:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AH0BO26340 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:00:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA02459 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:46:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AGpAO25836; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:51:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AGoiO25787 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:50:44 -0500 Received: from emu.st (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA02177 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:37:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 27586 invoked by uid 1015); 10 Mar 2003 16:39:16 -0000 Delivered-To: qmda-intercept-asrg@ietf.org@intercept Comments: QMDA 0.1 - see http://www.geocities.com/mark_delany/qmda.html Received: (qmail 74077 invoked from network); 10 Mar 2003 16:39:16 -0000 Received: from prefix-internal.emu.st (HELO emu.st) (10.100.100.36) by f1-external.emu.st with SMTP; 10 Mar 2003 16:39:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 23995 invoked by uid 1001); 10 Mar 2003 16:39:16 -0000 Message-ID: <20030310163916.23994.qmail@prefix.emu.st> From: "Mark Delany" Mail-Followup-To: asrg@ietf.org To: asrg@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Subject: [Asrg] Should email have semantics? Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 10 Mar 2003 16:39:16 +0000 We pretty much use email as a form of universal transport. While there are mechanisms to express the type of content (such as MIME) no formal mechanisms exist to express actions or consent that are embedded in the email exchanges. As a consequence, we have an unimaginable menagerie of ad hoc expressions of actions and consent. Let me give a concrete example: subscribing to a mailing list. Clearly the exchange between the list manager and the subscriber is a series of actions (please add me to the list, please remove me from the list), confirmations and implicit consent (yes you can now send email to the list and I will forward it to subscribers, yes you can now send list mail to my subscription address). This is an extremely common process, yet we have no formal or consistent methods for expressing these exchanges. Sure, we've invented a few de facto standards that sort-of do the job, but the they are not universally followed - especially when it comes to unsubscribing. In any event, these standards are not part of the email "system" per se, they are functionality we've layered on top of email. It might be argued that if a subscription mechanism were part of the email "system" we could have completely avoid the "super-duper triple opt-in" mess we now have. On a different tangent, a role email address such as postmaster@ could easily be construed to exist solely for the purpose of discussing problems with email at a certain domain. Similarly sales@ could be construed to exist solely for the purpose of requesting information about certain products. Conflictingly, joe-tmda-3mar2003@ expresses semantics that the recipient knows about, but the sender doesn't. Again, the email "system" in general has no knowledge about when these email addresses should be used and what should be sent to them. I'll give one last case of extremely common semantic confusion. When you supply your email address as part of a submission to, eg, this email list. What are you expressing? Are you expressing authorship, are you requesting a copy of all replies? Are you granting permission to people to contact you off-list so long as it's within context? It seems to me that much of the challenge for moving forward with email - in particular spam - might be more tractable by deciding once and for all whether email is a transport layer or an application layer. After all, isn't it the schizophrenic nature of email that leaves us grappling with conflicting heuristics and requirements? Regards. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 12:05:09 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA03285 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:05:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AHICF28885 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:18:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AHICO28882 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:18:12 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA03264 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:04:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AH8IO28135; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:08:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AH19O26487 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:01:09 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA02518 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:47:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc01.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53] (may be forged)) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2AGlML0023081; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 08:47:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 08:49:37 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "Sauer, Damon" , "'Hadmut Danisch'" Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] DCC and IP checksums MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 08:49:32 -0800 > Keeping unique MD5's over the lifetime of the system is > impractical and > will eventually start encroaching on the "hammering distance" > issue. Maybe for some, we have infrastructure that handles 6 billion transactions on data sets of many Gb. So there is an existence proof at least :-) If there is a business model this type of scheme can be deployed, my concern is that I would prefer we looked at mechanisms that did not require such quantities of hardware. Looking at the various spam gangs on the net there are major differences in the level of sophistication. The Nigerian gangs don't appear to have got much beyond working out how to use CAPS LOCK. You can detect a risible proportion of Nigerian letters simply by scanning for 'modalities of the transaction'. Rather than use an MD5 approach I would prefer to use something that was rather more adaptive and reactive. The spam senders can clearly react faster than we can turn out standards. I think this is a case where Java or C# mobile code approaches could have an application. This would allow the fingerprint matching technology to evolve in response to attempts to defeat it. One of the features of the cricumvention technology is that its use can provide some of the best spam indicators. For example any subject line that has a string of whitespace and random non text garbage appended at the end has a huge probability of being spam. If we get to the point where the only spam being sent is being sent by a small number of offshore spam houses using ever more convoluted tactics to defeat spam filtering technology the business will start to shrink very quickly. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 12:16:57 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA04037 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:16:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AHU0530085 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:30:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AHU0O30082 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:30:00 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA04012 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:16:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AHJfO28983; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:19:41 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AHEEO28502 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:14:14 -0500 Received: from backbone.midwestcs.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA02999 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:00:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from footbone.midwestcs.com ([206.222.212.237] helo=midwestcs.com) by backbone.midwestcs.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18sQfh-0001UO-00 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:02:41 -0600 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] DCC and IP checksums References: <20030310160501.21345.65862.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> <20030310163404.GA10678@danisch.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: wayne In-Reply-To: <20030310163404.GA10678@danisch.de> Message-ID: Lines: 11 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanner: exiscan *18sQfh-0001UO-00*4ZMfqi2vkgM* () Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 10 Mar 2003 11:02:40 -0600 In <20030310163404.GA10678@danisch.de> Hadmut Danisch writes: > that hash method. Once spammers learn how to do it, all spammers will > know how to do it. There is not significant number of "low-hanging > fruit". Are spammers really more likely to upgrade software than people who run anti-spam software? -wayne _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 12:19:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA04205 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:19:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AHWXF30274 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:32:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AHWXO30271 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:32:33 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA04157 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:18:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AHH0O28774; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:17:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AHDaO28479 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:13:36 -0500 Received: from aismtp1g.bellsouth.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA02942 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:00:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from 01AL10015010060.ad.bls.com ([90.152.5.135] [90.152.5.135]) by aismtp1g.bellsouth.com with ESMTP; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:02:18 -0500 Received: by 01al10015010060.ad.bls.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:02:08 -0500 Message-Id: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D594@bremocag> From: "Sauer, Damon" To: "'Hadmut Danisch'" , "Sauer, Damon" Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] DCC and IP checksums MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:02:08 -0500 I revealed nothing ;-) It does not matter one bit if a spammer knew exactly what lines I was looking at, that was part of the beauty of the process. Regardless, it did not help my spam situation. I was just stating that chksums do work, however, they are checking for duplicity and duplicity does not equate to spam in all cases. Blocking based on duplicity (lets say over 100 of the same message) would block very valid and valuable email. Regards, Damon -----Original Message----- From: Hadmut Danisch [mailto:hadmut@danisch.de] Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 11:16 AM To: Sauer, Damon Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] DCC and IP checksums On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 11:08:15AM -0500, Sauer, Damon wrote: > I had the code up and working for about a month. I found that doing an MD5 > of the hash result of 5 lines in the middle of the message worked > just fine. There's exactly one reason why this works: It is your very private and not publicly known method. As soon as spammers get aware of this (and they will since you just revealed it on this list), your method won't work anymore, since it is easy to circumvent once the spammer knows how it works. Such methods violate one of the most important rules: Don't do "security by obscurity". We need to develop methods which can be used by everyone on the world, thus need to remain effective when the spammers learned all details of the method. Your MD5 method fails to do so. BTW: How do you handle attachments? Hadmut ***** "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers." _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 12:19:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA04229 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:19:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AHWi330293 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:32:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AHWhO30290 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:32:43 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA04193 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:19:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AHV6O30166; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:31:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AHUdO30125 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:30:39 -0500 Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA04073 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:17:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h2AHJ2A29789; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:19:03 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Moore To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, Damon.Sauer@bellsouth.com, clewis@nortelnetworks.com, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Nucleus of a draft BCP on filtering Message-Id: <20030310121902.06f4ca45.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:19:02 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I think Keith is wrong here, the objective should be to get rid of > unwanted email of any type. Decding what we call spam is beside the > point. actually, I agree with the above statement - so I'm not sure why you think I'm wrong. > In particular I really believe that the stuff Bernstein and SpamArrest > puke out through their spambots requesting a confirmation of each > email you send them IS SPAM. it's fine with me if you declare it spam for your purposes, as long as you don't insist that it be spam for everyone else's purposes. > I want to have a definition of spam that > makes it very clear that people who reduce the amount of spam they get > by increasing the amount of spam I get are not proposing an acceptable > solution. actually I suspect we're better off not trying to define spam at all, because I don't think we're going to all agree on a meaning, and use of the word just seems to promote misunderstanding. instead, let's talk about more precise mail categories that people might choose to permit or discourage without presuming that everyone will pick the same criteria. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 12:23:58 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA04403 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:23:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AHb2B30647 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:37:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AHb2O30644 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:37:02 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA04398 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:23:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AHSGO29964; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:28:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AHRjO29901 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:27:45 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA03919 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:14:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2AHGIBD025585 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:16:18 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] DCC and IP checksums In-Reply-To: <20030310163404.GA10678@danisch.de> Message-ID: References: <20030310160501.21345.65862.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> <20030310163404.GA10678@danisch.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:16:18 -0500 (EST) On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Hadmut Danisch wrote: > Reading some of the spams I receive I found that many of them seem > to be sent with the very same software and address list. There are > billions of spam, but only a few spamming tools. All it takes is just > a simple software upgrade to the next version of the tools to defeat > that hash method. Right; it's an arms race. The ways to fight back are: 1) Change your hash method every so often, as recommended on http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/dcc/ "The fuzzy checksum will need to be changed as spam evolves" 2) Don't all use the same checksum. As Vernon wrote, you can use multiple checksum methods making it more painful to defeat them all. Eventually, you could probably detect efforts at defeating checksums with other, non-checksum rules. This might involve grammar-checking filters that look for anomalous content, or even filters with deeper understanding that can detect non-sequiturs. It's not easy, I grant you. SpamAssassin's local tests are at heart pretty simple -- they (more-or-less) just look for regular expressions in the text. But they remain very effective, and their effectiveness doesn't drop off very rapidly with time. > Once spammers learn how to do it, all spammers will > know how to do it. There is not significant number of "low-hanging > fruit". My experience tells me otherwise. Dozens of CanIt customers and thousands of MIMEDefang/SpamAssassin users still find the old, simple methods quite effective. I also reject the notion that my domain is only 3 years behind striker. Our domains (we have about 10) average a total of around 20 spams a day. If our spam volume tripled each year, it would still take us almost 9 years to reach striker levels. In the mean time, filtering works pretty well, and I hope that within 9 years, this group will have found a better solution. :-) -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 12:32:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA04681 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:32:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AHjXE31831 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:45:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AHjXO31828 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:45:33 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA04663 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:31:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AHd4O31448; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:39:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AHcBO31405 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:38:11 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA04429 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:24:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2AHQcAT015901 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:26:38 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303101726.h2AHQcAT015901@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Nucleus of a draft BCP on filtering References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:26:38 -0700 (MST) > From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" > I think Keith is wrong here, the objective should be to get rid of unwanted > email of any type. Decding what we call spam is beside the point. > ... I strongly disagree. We should not be worrying about all possible notions of unwanted email, but only about email that damages the system, either technically or otherwise, such as by making mail less useful to users. Communications from ex-spouses and creditors is often unwanted, but does not harm the system. Only bulk mail can harm the system. It is not that it is impossible to consider mechanisms to deal with broader classes of unwanted email, but that goals with well defined limits are vital for success in any design effort. Besides, mechanisms to deal with unwanted mail that is not bulk are well established and very widely available. Most of the so called spam filters offered by ISPs are suitable for rejecting mail from creditors and ex-spouses. If the mechanisms for dealing with unwanted bulk mail turn out to also be effective against other kinds of unwanted mail, then fine. Dealing with dumb jokes from your mother-in-law should not be a goal here. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 12:38:27 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA04952 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:38:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AHpVg32094 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:51:31 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AHpVO32091 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:51:31 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA04933 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:37:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AHaFO30544; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:36:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AHZ5O30491 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:35:05 -0500 Received: from chimta04.algx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA04328 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:21:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from JHS ([67.92.23.74]) by chimmx04.algx.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.10 (built Jan 23 2003)) with SMTP id <0HBJ0086VMZD1V@chimmx04.algx.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:23:37 -0600 (CST) From: Jason Hihn To: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] Several Observations and a solution that addresses them all Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:23:37 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Every good scientist makes observations first, forms a hypothesis, and then tests it. It's the scientific method, and I think we should be using it here. Observations: 1) Spam only comes from those we don't know. (If it does come from those we do, then it might not be spam) 2) We trust those that we know. The opposite is also true. 3) Content filters are unacceptable; 99% of the people don't know how to work them, and you CAN'T install them for someone (I.e. Filtering on the mail server by admins is not permissible- both privacy and reliability concerns) 4) Spam pays because it's cheap 5) Spammers don't care who they are, or who you are - BUT the receivers do. 6) Spammers don't play fair, and bend the rules. Social engineering, filter evasion, etc. {Feel free to add some more} Theory: From all the above, but mainly 5, we can get a solution. If we make the spammer at least appear credible, even for a short while, then they can be limited (controlled). Spamming involves sending out junk mail messages at a fast rate. The faster, the better for the spammer. Rate throttling only works until they learn to parallelism their operation(s) However if we make the spammer identify themselves (and appear creditable) we can rope them in and control them. Here's how. Each message must have a valid from address. This address is validated against and ISP's database. If the account exists, then the mail is allowed to be received, otherwise it is thrown in the trash. It's very much like putting a return address on an envelope, but since computers/networks are so fast we can verify in real time that it is fast. Any mail without a return address gets put in the trash (and this is generally the case in real life too) In my previous email, I suggested the idea of a "promoted" and "demoted" char for email addresses to suggest this reverse "authentication" (for lack of a better word) capability. If the promoted char is used, the messages is reverse authenticated, if it passes, it keeps (or if all messages are authenticated) the promoted char is used. Else it gets demoted to '@'. There is no real functional reason aside form sorting that the new char is needed. Indeed prompted char can equal demoted char. Anonymity can still be protected. Anonymity at the very least proves legitimate existence, which is all we need to know. Example: Yahoo.com (or whomever) will be getting all these requests for 32423@yahoo.com and saying 'account does not exist', and the mail will be demoted (with possible deletion) Problem #1: account@yahoo.com is real, but did not send the message (spoofed addr). Solution #1: The outgoing mail server will have to see what addresses account@yahoo.com did send to that haven't been verified ("authenticated") yet. If it gets a request from an account that was not sent to, then it sends an 'account does not exist' message. This will cause the spoofed message to be rejected, while not allowing the existence of an account to be determined by a malicious entity. Problem #2: Spammer sets up a domain (or at least a server) to do his bidding. He sets up 1 to 1000 accounts all to spam, or a rogue server to verify ANY auth attempts. Solution #2: In order for any to get through to the recipient, they have to be "authenticated" (reverse look-up now comes to mind as a better term). If he allows this, then he has identified himself as a source, (he can be traced back) and measures by his ISP can force him off the net. Also note that generally there are a fixed number of ISPs, and they can flag his credit card/account as to not give that card an account. After a while, all the cards will be used, and all the ISPs will know the all the cards/accounts. Problem #3: "Fly by night" or "dump" operations - spam and move Solution #3: The spammer has to be there long enough for the bulk of his messages to get "authenticated". This puts him on the net and ties him down to an address long enough to be caught/blacklisted/whatever. It also means that his machine must be able to handle the stampede of "authentications" that will be coming back. Spammers in this instance may actually throttle themselves back, lest their incoming slow their outgoing. This system seems easily implemented, and will go a long way to eliminate/cut down/make filterable the spam. Note: that once this "authentication" is implemented, it can be extended with full-out crypto (where legal) or other capabilities. Example: undeliverable messages. The advanced server can count the undeliverables coming back for and address and flag the sender as a spammer. You can also limit the number of messages sent or received per account rather easily once this infrastructure is in place. (Note: this is now optional in my head) The one argument against: Resources- email addresses are short, and easily stored for a "short" time (for solution #2). The authentication process need not be long or wordy. It is anticipated that a few spam messages dropped by this scheme will more than make up for hundreds of authentications (characters by volume) One other wary point: A spammer can validate an email address by sending a message and watch for the bounce back authentication request. Therefore all queries must be as anonymous as possible, and preferably proxied outside the recipient's domain. This doesn't "fix" the problem, but it does throttle them back severely. Of course, most forums and newsgroups and email lists already reveal your address... Thoughts/comments welcome. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 12:45:24 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA05191 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:45:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AHwSd32515 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:58:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AHwSO32512 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:58:28 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA05165 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:44:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AHn4O31991; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:49:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AHmYO31967 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:48:34 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA04790 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:34:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2AHb5D5016899 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:37:05 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303101737.h2AHb5D5016899@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] DCC and IP checksums References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:37:05 -0700 (MST) > From: wayne > Are spammers really more likely to upgrade software than people who > run anti-spam software? Based on my experience in the last couple of years with the DCC, the answer to that is "yes, most but not all people who run anti-spam software are less willing to upgrade than spammers." Perhaps that is because when something is working, spammers as well as people running anti-spam software perfer to not distrub it. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 12:46:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA05260 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:46:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AHxYh32600 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:59:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AHxXO32597 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:59:34 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA05235 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:45:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AHv5O32423; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:57:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AHu6O32383 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:56:06 -0500 Received: from pop.snert.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA05090 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:42:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from snert.com (ppp1604-cwdsl.fr.cw.net [62.210.118.73]) (authenticated bits=0) by pop.snert.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2AHia9E027541 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:44:37 +0100 Message-ID: <3E6CCF03.7090105@snert.com> From: Anthony Howe User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4a) Gecko/20030303 X-Accept-Language: en, fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] DCC and IP checksums References: <20030310160501.21345.65862.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:44:35 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit David F. Skoll wrote: > That doesn't mean checksums are useless; on the contrary. It is a > worthwhile cause to block spam from unsophisticated spammers. Just > because we know we'll never completely stop determined spammers, it > doesn't mean we should give up on the low-hanging fruit. Yes. I agree. My recent milter-sender is just this sort of spammer speed-bump, it aims to catch the unsophisticated and clueless spammer early, but fails for the more sophisticated . I would put forward a theory that the majority of spammers are the equivalent of adult script kiddies, using tools written by a smaller group of more determined more and proficient spammers. > The best we can hope for is to increase the hassle of spamming. Every > extra hoop a spammer has to jump through means a certain percentage of > spammers will simply give up (or else fail because of lack of > hoop-jumping.) Yes. I had expressed a similar sentiment on milter.org. -- Anthony C Howe +33 6 11 89 73 78 http://www.snert.com/ ICQ: 7116561 AIM: Sir Wumpus "Will the real email please stand up..." _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 12:58:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA05717 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:58:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AIBoT01508 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:11:50 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AIBoO01505 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:11:50 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA05690 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:58:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AI7iO01216; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:07:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AI4mO00405 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:04:48 -0500 Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA05496 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:51:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h2AHrIA29852; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:53:19 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Moore To: Jason Hihn Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Several Observations and a solution that addresses them all Message-Id: <20030310125318.4337a583.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:53:18 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > 1) Spam only comes from those we don't know. false. sometimes spam comes from people who do know me, but want to annoy me. > 2) We trust those that we know. The opposite is also true. False. knowing someone does not imply trusting him. knowledge can often justify distrust. neither does not knowing someone indicate that they're not trustworthy. > 3) Content filters are unacceptable; false. content filters are ideal for getting rid of certain kinds of content. I can write a filter that reliably recognizes languages that I cannot read, or attachments that I have zero use for (like windows executables) and it's perfectly reasonable for me to discard such things. what's less reasonable is having someone else discard those things for me. > 4) Spam pays because it's cheap not all spam is connercial. and spam would exist even if it were more expensive - it would just be more narrowly targeted. > 5) Spammers don't care who they are, or who you are - BUT the > receivers do. false. some spam is targeted. > 6) Spammers don't play fair, and bend the rules. Social engineering, > filter evasion, etc. spammers don't think there are rules. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 13:01:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA05885 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:01:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AIEmF01705 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:14:48 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AIEmO01702 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:14:48 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA05850 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:01:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AIAgO01441; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:10:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AI6QO00470 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:06:26 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA05535 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:52:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2AHsvDf018577 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:54:57 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303101754.h2AHsvDf018577@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists References: <20030309234652.A2878@triton.paganini.net> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:54:57 -0700 (MST) > From: Marco Paganini > ... > I'd say that mailing-list confirmations serve two distinct purposes: To warn > the user that his mailbox will be flooded with messages and to protect the > list from mass-mailers. No, that last is not a purpose for mailing list confirmations, because subscription confirmations do not and cannot do that. Even lists like this that accept contributions only from subscribers do not depend on the subscription confirmations to defend against spam. Subscription confirmations do just that. They confirm that a subscription for the proposed address is wanted, including the pre-spam purpose of ensuring that the candidate subscriber is using the right address. > ... > > Fine, but "forged" is wrong. In English "forgery" means "an act of > > forging; especially the crime of falsely and fraudulently making or > > altering a document .... > OK! Give me another word then and I'll use it! :) Call it whatever you want, but please stop naming with an intentionally misleading word (albeit probably not by your intention). "Verified" or "checked" seems to me close to what you mean, but please feel free to call it "kumquat" or anything else that is not misleading if that suits. The use of "forged" for "mismatch between IP address and sender domain" and similar things that have nothing to do with "falsely and fraudulently making" is intentionally misleading. People extend "forged" from the cases where it is valid (perhaps as low as 3.6% in your data) to other cases where it is a lie because detecting, discarding, or rejecting "forged" mail is a good thing. As I've said many times in this mailing list, contributions to this list have been rationalizing design requirements by the misleading use of "forged." Even if the world of hobbyist spammer fighters (those who love to count coup on spammers but don't care about reducing spam) insists on saying that any mail they don't like is "spam" and that it's all "forged," our standards must be higher. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 13:12:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06215 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:12:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AIPdW02309 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:25:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AIPdO02306 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:25:39 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06202 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:12:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AIK2O02028; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:20:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AIJAO01979 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:19:10 -0500 Received: from chimta03.algx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06041 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:05:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from JHS ([67.92.23.74]) by chimmx03.algx.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.10 (built Jan 23 2003)) with SMTP id <0HBJ00CAWOTQK5@chimmx03.algx.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:03:27 -0600 (CST) From: Jason Hihn Subject: RE: [Asrg] Several Observations and a solution that addresses them all In-reply-to: <20030310125318.4337a583.moore@cs.utk.edu> To: Keith Moore Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:03:26 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Bah, you're barking up the wrong trees. As I stated, you cannot rely on user filters. There needs to be an infrastructure-level solution. Filters are fine once the user gets the message, the infrastructure should strip out illegitimate messages in the first place. As your comments: 1) The definition may vary. But if you have friends that want to annoy you, get new friends, and filter them out. That is, if you can reliably filter them... (and I challenge you to do so if you can't trust the 'from' address!) 2) You're taking the word trust way too seriously. Think "be willing to accept a message from" 3) Here, you are WAAAAAAAAAAY off, and wrong, wrong, wrong! You cannot assume that what works for you works for others. I'd hate to lose legit mail to me because it worked for some filter of yours. That said, I think there is only one filter that we could ever use, and that is that the From: field must be legit. (minimally not blank) 4) Mute point 5) Whatever. -----Original Message----- From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore@cs.utk.edu] Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 12:53 PM To: Jason Hihn Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu; asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Several Observations and a solution that addresses them all > 1) Spam only comes from those we don't know. false. sometimes spam comes from people who do know me, but want to annoy me. > 2) We trust those that we know. The opposite is also true. False. knowing someone does not imply trusting him. knowledge can often justify distrust. neither does not knowing someone indicate that they're not trustworthy. > 3) Content filters are unacceptable; false. content filters are ideal for getting rid of certain kinds of content. I can write a filter that reliably recognizes languages that I cannot read, or attachments that I have zero use for (like windows executables) and it's perfectly reasonable for me to discard such things. what's less reasonable is having someone else discard those things for me. > 4) Spam pays because it's cheap not all spam is connercial. and spam would exist even if it were more expensive - it would just be more narrowly targeted. > 5) Spammers don't care who they are, or who you are - BUT the > receivers do. false. some spam is targeted. > 6) Spammers don't play fair, and bend the rules. Social engineering, > filter evasion, etc. spammers don't think there are rules. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 13:21:18 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06593 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:21:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AIYNt02639 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:34:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AIYNO02636 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:34:23 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06562 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:20:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AIJ3O01962; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:19:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AII7O01897 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:18:07 -0500 Received: from aismtp1g.bellsouth.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA05970 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:04:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from 01al10015010061.ad.bls.com ([90.152.5.165] [90.152.5.165]) by aismtp1g.bellsouth.com with ESMTP; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:06:49 -0500 Received: by 01al10015010061.ad.bls.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:06:39 -0600 Message-Id: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D598@bremocag> From: "Sauer, Damon" To: "'Hallam-Baker, Phillip'" , "Sauer, Damon" , "'Hadmut Danisch'" Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] DCC and IP checksums MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:06:39 -0600 I think in this thread Phill and Hadmut bring up another very interesting point. The sharing of technology. Some of my dearest and closest friends are other postmasters and system admins. We can talk about pretty much anything until it come to their technology and anti-spam techniques. From there, their eyes get squinty and they start shifting in their seats. I would really like to see a technology that does not have to be based on "My secret anti-spam formula" Will there be a mechanism or could there be one put into place that would allow the sharing of information without it being exploited by spammers? Surely this is a rhetorical question... Regards, Damon -----Original Message----- From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip [mailto:pbaker@verisign.com] Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 11:50 AM To: Sauer, Damon; 'Hadmut Danisch' Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] DCC and IP checksums > Keeping unique MD5's over the lifetime of the system is > impractical and > will eventually start encroaching on the "hammering distance" > issue. Maybe for some, we have infrastructure that handles 6 billion transactions on data sets of many Gb. So there is an existence proof at least :-) If there is a business model this type of scheme can be deployed, my concern is that I would prefer we looked at mechanisms that did not require such quantities of hardware. Looking at the various spam gangs on the net there are major differences in the level of sophistication. The Nigerian gangs don't appear to have got much beyond working out how to use CAPS LOCK. You can detect a risible proportion of Nigerian letters simply by scanning for 'modalities of the transaction'. Rather than use an MD5 approach I would prefer to use something that was rather more adaptive and reactive. The spam senders can clearly react faster than we can turn out standards. I think this is a case where Java or C# mobile code approaches could have an application. This would allow the fingerprint matching technology to evolve in response to attempts to defeat it. One of the features of the cricumvention technology is that its use can provide some of the best spam indicators. For example any subject line that has a string of whitespace and random non text garbage appended at the end has a huge probability of being spam. If we get to the point where the only spam being sent is being sent by a small number of offshore spam houses using ever more convoluted tactics to defeat spam filtering technology the business will start to shrink very quickly. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg ***** "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers." _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 13:33:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06993 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:33:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AIkAQ04083 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:46:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AIkAO04080 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:46:10 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06973 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:32:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AIW2O02529; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:32:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AIVxO02511 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:31:59 -0500 Received: from oe-mp2.bizmailsrvcs.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06496 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:18:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from BrownBruce ([206.35.147.89]) by oe-mp2.bizmailsrvcs.net (InterMail vM.5.01.05.27 201-253-122-126-127-20021220) with SMTP id <20030310182030.SBUI10238.oe-mp2.bizmailsrvcs.net@BrownBruce>; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:20:30 -0600 From: "Bruce Brown" To: "Vernon Schryver" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <200303101805.h2AI53q0020578@calcite.rhyolite.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:20:30 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of > Vernon Schryver > Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 10:05 AM > To: Asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists > > > Other spammers know that their target lists tend to fill with garbage > as addresses are abandoned and as target address harvesting mechanisms > get confused (e.g. by message-IDs). They know that some major ISPs > by rumor including AOL automatically blacklist STMP clients by IP > address after too many bad target addresses. This provides a strong > incentive for spammers to clean their target lists. To do that, they > need drop-boxes get delivery failure notifications. > This seems to argue that there should be no feedback to spammer to allow them easy means to clean their lists, since bad RcptTo may trigger spammer detection. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 13:33:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07014 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:33:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AIkN104100 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:46:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AIkNO04097 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:46:23 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06981 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:32:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AIb9O02993; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:37:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AIaGO02735 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:36:16 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06638 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:22:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc01.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53] (may be forged)) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2AIMVL0009610; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:22:31 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:24:46 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: Hadmut Danisch , "David F. Skoll" Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] DCC and IP checksums MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:24:45 -0800 > Reading some of the spams I receive I found that many of them seem > to be sent with the very same software and address list. There are > billions of spam, but only a few spamming tools. All it takes is just > a simple software upgrade to the next version of the tools to defeat > that hash method. Once spammers learn how to do it, all spammers will > know how to do it. There is not significant number of "low-hanging > fruit". But consider what happens when you use mobile code to describe the hash function. You can respond to the circumvention techniques as the spam senders apply them. This is how satelite TV companies keep card piracy at acceptable levels. PThey don't shut off a pirate card immediately, they let a number of customers develop then they kill it when doing so does maximum damage to the pirate's reputation. Even though the script kiddies do have access to ever better tools the white hats are almost always ahead. The apamware companies have a big problem that script writers do not, they want to make money from their code. So it takes them much longer to react than the opposition. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 13:34:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07095 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:34:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AIlnw04203 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:47:49 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AIlnO04200 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:47:49 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07075 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:34:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AIbKO03315; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:37:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AIaLO02740 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:36:21 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06642 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:22:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.57] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2AIOq3Z014233; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:24:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:24:51 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: Mark Delany , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Should email have semantics? MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:24:44 -0800 Summary - mixing control and data in the same channel causes problems > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Delany [mailto:tcrcn-6ugsc@qmda.emu.st] > Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 11:39 AM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: [Asrg] Should email have semantics? > > > We pretty much use email as a form of universal transport. While there > are mechanisms to express the type of content (such as MIME) no > formal mechanisms exist to express actions or consent that are > embedded in the email exchanges. As a consequence, we have an > unimaginable menagerie of ad hoc expressions of actions and consent. > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 13:35:58 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07164 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:35:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AIn4C04290 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:49:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AIn3O04285 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:49:03 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07129 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:35:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AIc1O03618; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:38:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AIbbO03591 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:37:37 -0500 Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06679 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:24:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h2AIQ6A29911; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:26:06 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Moore To: Jason Hihn Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Several Observations and a solution that addresses them all Message-Id: <20030310132606.3c12adb0.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: References: <20030310125318.4337a583.moore@cs.utk.edu> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:26:06 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > As I stated, you cannot rely on user filters. filters are perfectly reliable for some things. user filters are not ideal because the infrastructure still has to carry the messages, but it's misleading to say that they're not reliable. > There needs to be an infrastructure-level solution. Filters are fine > once the user gets the message, the infrastructure should strip out > illegitimate messages in the first place. who decides what is illegitimate? > As your comments: > 1) The definition may vary. But if you have friends that want to annoy > you, get new friends, and filter them out. That is, if you can > reliably filter them... (and I challenge you to do so if you can't > trust the 'from' address!) filters don't have to be perfectly reliable to be useful. (some people have big enough egos that they won't change their from addresses, so it's still useful to filter on their addresses.) as for your challenge - just as an example, I'm willing to accept a pgp-signed message from someone I trust as long as I can verify the signature, and I don't care what the From address is. > You cannot assume that what works for you works for others. I don't assume that. I agree with you entirely that filters have to be recipient-specific. however that doesn't mean that they have to be implemented at the recipient's end. > That said, I think there is only one filter that we could ever use, > and that is that the From: field must be legit. (minimally not blank) there are probably a few others, but not many. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 13:36:01 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07177 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:36:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AIn7i04309 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:49:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AIn7O04304 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:49:07 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07136 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:35:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AIHNO01843; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:17:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AIGYO01799 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:16:34 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA05910 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:02:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2AI53q0020578 for Asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:05:03 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303101805.h2AI53q0020578@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:05:03 -0700 (MST) > From: Kee Hinckley > ... > Now I will grant that it's possible that the guy who sent email from > Russia through a server in Italy in order to spam me in the United > States actually *did* have a Hotmail account at the time the first > message was sent. I don't know why he would have bothered, but it's > possible. > > Can you explain why you think that person would have set up an > account just so that it could get shut down immediately? And why you > think this matters? I've repeatedly pointed out reasons why that is not just possible but quite likely. Contrary to spammer fighter religious dogma, many (but certainly not all) spammers care very much about receiving "bounces" and "removes." Many spammers honestly think that letting their targets opt-out is the right thing to do. That's why you often seen pleas in spam that you not ask ISPs to cancel "remove" drop-boxes. Other spammers know that their target lists tend to fill with garbage as addresses are abandoned and as target address harvesting mechanisms get confused (e.g. by message-IDs). They know that some major ISPs by rumor including AOL automatically blacklist STMP clients by IP address after too many bad target addresses. This provides a strong incentive for spammers to clean their target lists. To do that, they need drop-boxes get delivery failure notifications. Why do you think Yahoo or Hotmail (I've forgotten which) has deployed mechanisms to prevent robots from creating free drop boxes? Who do you think might needs to create so many free drop boxes that they'd use software? Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 13:36:02 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07190 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:36:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AIn8j04325 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:49:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AIn8O04322 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:49:08 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07139 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:35:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AIP4O02285; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:25:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AIOIO02209 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:24:18 -0500 Received: from smtp.mcn.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06168 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:10:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from [204.189.3.167] (larkam2-39.mcn.org [204.189.3.167]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.mcn.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2AICmWJ014957 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:12:48 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: larkam24@mail.mcn.org Message-Id: To: asrg@ietf.org From: matthew richards Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Subject: [Asrg] email licences Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:12:47 -0800 why not just create a whole new closed email system based on SMTP but not backwards compatible. and then make the sign up for that system VERY comprehensive, like getting a drivers licence (or at least a combination of factors that could not be easily falsified or randomized) and maybe apply real world penalties for abuse of the system. essentially filter out spammers at the root level. email is a very powerful communication tool, maybe the people who are so adverse to spam should take it more seriously. for the shady characters who prefer to remain anonymous they can stay in the old system. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 13:36:04 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07203 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:36:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AInAl04353 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:49:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AInAO04350 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:49:10 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07144 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:35:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AIX3O02565; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:33:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AIWMO02540 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:32:22 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06510 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:18:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2AIKp57022621 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:20:51 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303101820.h2AIKp57022621@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Taxonomy of anti-spam systems References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:20:51 -0700 (MST) > From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" > > 1. Spam Prevention Approaches - These systems aim to prevent the > > spread of spam messages. There are fail-open and fail-closed systems. > > With my spokeperson hat on I prefer the terms 'Detect Wanted' and > 'Detect Junk'. I am not going to use any term that involves the > word 'fail' with a journalist when talking about my work or > company products. > ... That's almost but quite right. Besides using the forbidden word "fail," I needed a few seconds to understand "fail open/closed." "Detect Wanted" is ok, but "Detect Junk" is not for the same reason that "fail something" is not. "Detect Unwanted" would be better. Personally, think "reject by default" and "accept by default" are better still. > ... > I think that legal/legislative approaches should rank a bullet here. We > should also mention vigilante actions such as teergrubbing and hackback, I > don't approve of these, they create far more problems than people claim. Teergrubbing sounds silly to people who know that some spamware uses illegal SMTP command pipelining. Some spammers send send the entire client SMTP transaction including the ending TCP FIN before the STMP server has finished doing the reverse DNS lookup to decide whether to post its banner. Whether the STMP server delays 10 ms or 10 hours is of no concern to them. Yes, not withstanding my recent claim that other spammers want to hear 5yz-no-such-user responses so that they can clean their target lists to avoid AOL's filters. There are currently on a few spammers, but they are incredibly diverse. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 13:37:19 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07279 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:37:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AIoOC04523 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:50:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AIoOO04520 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:50:24 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07254 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:36:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AIf5O03760; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:41:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AIeXO03738 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:40:33 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06794 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:26:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2AIT2j7022802 for Asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:29:02 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303101829.h2AIT2j7022802@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:29:02 -0700 (MST) > From: "Bruce Brown" > ... > > Other spammers know that their target lists tend to fill with garbage > > as addresses are abandoned and as target address harvesting mechanisms > > get confused (e.g. by message-IDs). They know that some major ISPs > > by rumor including AOL automatically blacklist STMP clients by IP > > address after too many bad target addresses. This provides a strong > > incentive for spammers to clean their target lists. To do that, they > > need drop-boxes get delivery failure notifications. > > This seems to argue that there should be no feedback to spammer to > allow them easy means to clean their lists, since bad RcptTo may > trigger spammer detection. Those of us (and there are many) who use "traps" try to keep them popular among spammers. We never report spam received by our traps, because we cannot know whether the address of the trap is hidden in a Message-ID or Received queue-ID, hidden in the pattern of blanks, capitalization, and punctuation in the body, or could be guessed by checking IP addresses and dates in sender logs. On the other hand, it is even more important that every false positive generate an SMTP error response or a "bounce." Every spam defense used on mailboxes intended to receive mail from strangers has some false positives, if you define "false positive" broadly. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 13:42:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07541 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:42:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AItZ104885 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:55:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AItZO04882 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:55:35 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07519 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:41:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AIU4O02449; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:30:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AITxO02425 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:29:59 -0500 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06451 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:16:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 18sRr3-0000l6-00; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:18:29 +0000 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Asrg] Several Observations and a solution that addresses them all To: "Jason Hihn" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.4.9] Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:18:29 +0000 > > Here's how. Each message must have a valid from address. This address is > validated against and ISP's database. If the account exists, then the > mail > is allowed to be received, otherwise it is thrown in the trash. It's very > much like putting a return address on an envelope, but since > computers/networks are so fast we can verify in real time that it is > fast. > Any mail without a return address gets put in the trash (and this is Sadly, the network isn't guaranteed to be either fast or reliable. A system like this has to cope with "TEMPFAIL" type situations. Also this kind of technique imposes a cost on victims of forged from addresses. This has been covered before (so why am I saying it again?) While this isn't a fatal objection - it doesn't seem at all fair. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 13:42:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07558 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:42:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AItew04909 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:55:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AIteO04906 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:55:40 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07529 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:42:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AIhgO03877; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:43:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AIgRO03803 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:42:27 -0500 Received: from gate.cs.rochester.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06846 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:28:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from cycle1.cs.rochester.edu (cycle1.cs.rochester.edu [128.151.67.99]) by gate.cs.rochester.edu (8.11.6+Sun/001) with ESMTP id h2AIUtj04760; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:30:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from bukys@localhost) by cycle1.cs.rochester.edu (8.11.6/Q++) id h2AIUpN08869; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:30:51 -0500 Message-Id: <200303101830.h2AIUpN08869@cycle1.cs.rochester.edu> From: Liudvikas Bukys To: asrg@ietf.org cc: Paul Judge , bukys@cs.rochester.edu Subject: [Asrg] taxonomy of solutions, including some new items Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:30:51 -0500 Here is a taxonomy I did over the weekend. I tried to bend it into a list of additions to Paul Judge's, but I feel that the categories overlap and that both the Paul Judge draft and the Hadmut Danisch draft offer a premature binding to processes or dataflow. For example, many of the classifiers contribute something to both identifying unwanted or identifying unwanted. For ease of use, '+' marks new items that I have not observed on previous lists, but which are already "out there" being implemented by somebody, and '**' marks items that nobody has implemented yet (that I am aware). Taxonomy of solutions - content filtering - heuristics (content, headers, paths, combinations of any feature below) - learning - network-address-indexed blacklists - open relay blacklists - open proxy blacklists + dialup lists - content-indexed blacklists - bulk detectors (DCC) - collaborative filters (Razor, Pyzor) ** URLS and phone numbers - sender whitelists - basic recipient-administered - sender verified as human - challenge/response, Turing test - third-party trust/reputation - recipient whitelists - tagged/disposable addresses - sender accountability - digital signature - non-repudiation + auditing-based (Bonded Sender) - sender pays - proof-of-work/cycles (hashcash) - micropayments - protocol hints or restrictions ** associate permissible (env-sender,src-addr) (RMX, Designated Sender, Vixie MAIL_FROM) - rate limiting (ingress or egress) + teergrube/tarpit + honeypot spam recipients for rapid acquisition/analysis of spam content (MessageLabs commercial service) ** consent verification - legal _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 13:44:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07610 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:44:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AIvms04979 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:57:48 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AIvmO04976 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:57:48 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07586 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:44:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AIk2O04035; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:46:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AIjCO03986 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:45:12 -0500 Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06958 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:31:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h2AIXbA29926; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:33:38 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Moore To: Vernon Schryver Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists Message-Id: <20030310133337.58bd63a6.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <200303101754.h2AHsvDf018577@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <20030309234652.A2878@triton.paganini.net> <200303101754.h2AHsvDf018577@calcite.rhyolite.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:33:37 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Even lists like > this that accept contributions only from subscribers do not depend on > the subscription confirmations to defend against spam. sigh. the list may or may not 'depend' on this, but the combination of subscription confirmations and accepting postings only from confirmed subscribers does catch a lot of spam ... today. it might not work so well once spammers figure out that they can automate sending subscription requests and confirmations - often they can even arrange that they not actually get the mail from the lists at the same time. Keith p.s. seems like we are having a lot of difficulty understanding each other due to a lack of precision in our language. words like "spam", "forgery","legitimate" mean different things to different people. the other source of misunderstanding that I've noticed has to do with assumptions about context. statements of the form "X won't work" often seem to carry an implicit "... for purpose Y", which results in responses of the form "X works just fine" (for purpose Z). _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 13:44:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07623 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:44:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AIvn604995 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:57:49 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AIvnO04992 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:57:49 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07589 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:44:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AIk3O04051; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:46:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AIjFO03990 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:45:15 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06961 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:31:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc01.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53] (may be forged)) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2AIVTL0010880; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:31:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:33:44 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Keith Moore'" , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: Damon.Sauer@bellsouth.com, clewis@nortelnetworks.com, asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Nucleus of a draft BCP on filtering MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:33:39 -0800 > it's fine with me if you declare it spam for your purposes, as long as > you don't insist that it be spam for everyone else's purposes. I think the definition should be 'unwanted by the recipient'. So yes, if you send me a bunch of out of office mails and a bunch of callback loop questions, I will consider it spam. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 13:44:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07637 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:44:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AIvp905011 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:57:51 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AIvpO05008 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:57:51 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07594 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:44:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AIl0O04175; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:47:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AIkXO04119 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:46:34 -0500 Received: from gate.cs.rochester.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06988 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:32:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from cycle1.cs.rochester.edu (cycle1.cs.rochester.edu [128.151.67.99]) by gate.cs.rochester.edu (8.11.6+Sun/001) with ESMTP id h2AIZ4j04816; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:35:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from bukys@localhost) by cycle1.cs.rochester.edu (8.11.6/Q++) id h2AIZ4B09032; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:35:04 -0500 Message-Id: <200303101835.h2AIZ4B09032@cycle1.cs.rochester.edu> From: Liudvikas Bukys To: asrg@ietf.org cc: Paul Judge , bukys@cs.rochester.edu Subject: [Asrg] inventory of problems Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:35:04 -0500 Along the way to writing my inventory of solutions, I wrote up an inventory of problems. I see these as the antecedents of the solutions, and also a useful checklist anticipating the counter-counter-measures of the spammers. Evading accountability - forging envelope sender - forging From header Exploitation of weak systems - exploit open smtp relay - exploit insecure web services (cgi formmail) - exploit open proxies (HTTP CONNECT, HTTP) Aggressive database generation - directory harvesting (web, LDAP) - name guessing & probing - name guessing without probing [selling bogus data to others] - inappropriate database sharing/selling Inadequate opt-in - no actual opt-in - deceptive opt-in - single opt-in without confirmation Inadequate opt-out - opt-out not implemented - opt-out ineffective (pro forma removal from one list not all) - opt-out untimely - opt-out difficult to execute - opt-out hostile (used only for address verification & enrollment in even more databases) Evasion of automated filters - content randomization - eyespace transformation - misspelling - punctuation and spacing - substitution of visually similar characters - html coding tricks - slice&dice tables - javascript-generated content - font size/color/background - mime multipart encoding - inclusion of non-spam chaff (visible or invisible) - content in images, not text - content in other external links Evasion of human caution - fake DSN - fake content resembling common cgi-to-mail - "returned your call", "your account has a credit", etc Not a real business - spam as chain letter/pyramid, selling software and bogus data to the naive - spam as DoS attack, no real solicitation in content False claims - false claims regarding opt-in Fraud & Crime - Nigerian 419 - eBay password/credit card theft - payPal password/credit card theft _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 13:46:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07682 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:46:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AIxlh05102 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:59:47 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AIxkO05099 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:59:46 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07666 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:46:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AIo3O04464; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:50:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AInSO04371 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:49:28 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA07157 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:35:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 25499 invoked from network); 9 Mar 2003 18:35:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO startechgroup.co.uk) (10.2.100.157) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 9 Mar 2003 18:35:51 -0000 Subject: Re: [Asrg] email licences Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: asrg@ietf.org To: matthew richards From: Matt Sergeant In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <69BEEA30-5327-11D7-B831-0003939CB5D8@startechgroup.co.uk> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:37:57 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Monday, Mar 10, 2003, at 18:12 Europe/London, matthew richards wrote: > why not just create a whole new closed email system based on SMTP but > not backwards compatible. and then make the sign up for that system > VERY comprehensive, like getting a drivers licence (or at least a > combination of factors that could not be easily falsified or > randomized) and maybe apply real world penalties for abuse of the > system. essentially filter out spammers at the root level. email is a > very powerful communication tool, maybe the people who are so adverse > to spam should take it more seriously. for the shady characters who > prefer to remain anonymous they can stay in the old system. Who do you trust enough to run this system? Microsoft? Verisign (sorry Phill!)? Your Government? My Government? A completely free and open system run by anonymous hackers? Matt. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 13:48:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07749 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:48:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AJ1B805210 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:01:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AJ1BO05207 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:01:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07727 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:47:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AIn2O04266; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:49:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AImEO04230 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:48:14 -0500 Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07092 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:34:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h2AIafA29933; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:36:41 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Moore To: "Sauer, Damon" Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, pbaker@verisign.com, Damon.Sauer@bellsouth.com, hadmut@danisch.de, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] DCC and IP checksums Message-Id: <20030310133641.55ef4ab2.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D598@bremocag> References: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D598@bremocag> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:36:41 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Some of my dearest and closest friends are other postmasters and > system admins. We can talk about pretty much anything until it come > to their technology and anti-spam techniques. From there, their eyes > get squinty and they start shifting in their seats. I suspect this is because many of us realize that a) currently, our most effective filters are based on content (even acknowledging the problems with this kind of filter) b) most of these filters only work as long as the spammers don't know about them. so the longer we can keep our spam filters secret, the longer they'll work for us. there's also something to be said for diversity. the more uniform our filters become, the easier it will be for spammers to avoid them. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 13:49:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07826 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:49:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AJ2bw05282 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:02:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AJ2bO05279 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:02:37 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07784 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:49:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AIs6O04767; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:54:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AIpkO04633 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:51:46 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07322 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:38:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h2AIe63v018736; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:40:06 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h2AIcGnI012424 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:38:16 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h2AIcGA7012422; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:38:16 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Vernon Schryver Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists Message-ID: <20030310183816.GA12268@danisch.de> References: <200303101805.h2AI53q0020578@calcite.rhyolite.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200303101805.h2AI53q0020578@calcite.rhyolite.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:38:16 +0100 On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 11:05:03AM -0700, Vernon Schryver wrote: > Contrary to spammer fighter religious dogma, many > (but certainly not all) spammers care very much about receiving > "bounces" and "removes." Many spammers honestly think that letting > their targets opt-out is the right thing to do. Hooray! Yippee! We've got it. We have the final and ultimate solution. We can close the group, no need to develop DNS extensions, content filters, and other witchcraft. All we need to do is just send a "remove" reply to opt out. Why didn't you say this earlier, you could have saved me a whole week of following that group. Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 13:49:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07872 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:49:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AJ32u05332 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:03:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AJ32O05329 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:03:02 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07817 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:49:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AIo4O04480; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:50:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AInjO04419 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:49:45 -0500 Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07223 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:36:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h2AIcDA29939; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:38:13 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Moore To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, tcrcn-6ugsc@qmda.emu.st, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Should email have semantics? Message-Id: <20030310133813.768f4bd2.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:38:13 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Summary - mixing control and data in the same channel causes problems nope, you can have the same problem even if the control is out-of-band. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 13:51:09 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07921 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:51:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AJ4Ge05376 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:04:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AJ4GO05373 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:04:16 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07913 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:50:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AIs3O04739; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:54:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AIp8O04606 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:51:08 -0500 Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07298 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:37:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h2AIdXA29946; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:39:33 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Moore To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, pbaker@verisign.com, Damon.Sauer@bellsouth.com, clewis@nortelnetworks.com, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Nucleus of a draft BCP on filtering Message-Id: <20030310133933.677f5e64.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:39:33 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > it's fine with me if you declare it spam for your purposes, as long > > as you don't insist that it be spam for everyone else's purposes. > > I think the definition should be 'unwanted by the recipient'. works for me. but if we can't all agree on this, let's just use more precise terms and get on with more substantive issues... Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 13:56:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA08135 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:56:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AJA0k06424 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:10:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AJA0O06420 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:10:00 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA08097 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:56:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AIx3O05085; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:59:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AIw2O05027 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:58:02 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07601 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:44:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc02.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2AIkV3Z017931; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:46:31 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:46:30 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Vernon Schryver'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Nucleus of a draft BCP on filtering MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:46:30 -0800 > > From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" > > > I think Keith is wrong here, the objective should be to get > rid of unwanted > > email of any type. Decding what we call spam is beside the point. > > ... > > I strongly disagree. We should not be worrying about all possible > notions of unwanted email, but only about email that damages the I think we should accept the fact that there are some types of spam that we are not going to want to address. I will update the definition: "Any email sent indiscriminately that is unwanted by the recipient" So this includes DJBs callback loop, out of office sent to mailing lists, pretty much all UCE. It does not automatically include information that might be indiscriminated but wanted. For example, if there was a major emergency incident in Boston, Cingular might send a warning message to everyone with a RIM to not go there. It would be indiscriminate but in most cases the message would be wanted. Of course these are human judgements and there will be an element of fuzz in whatever comes out. We are not going to create a magic bullet. However we can probably create a system that means that nobody can persist in sending spam for very long. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 13:59:46 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA08248 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:59:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AJCpx06617 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:12:51 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AJCoO06614 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:12:50 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA08221 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:59:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AJ83O06335; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:08:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AJ7VO06199 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:07:31 -0500 Received: from splat.viawest.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07988 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:53:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from splat.viawest.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by splat.viawest.net (8.12.7/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h2AItx7N083379; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:55:59 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from cfedde@splat.viawest.net) Message-Id: <200303101855.h2AItx7N083379@splat.viawest.net> To: Matt Sergeant cc: matthew richards , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] email licences In-Reply-To: <69BEEA30-5327-11D7-B831-0003939CB5D8@startechgroup.co.uk> From: Chris Fedde Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:55:59 -0700 On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:37:57 +0000 Matt Sergeant wrote: +------------------ | On Monday, Mar 10, 2003, at 18:12 Europe/London, matthew richards wrote: | | > why not just create a whole new closed email system based on SMTP but | > not backwards compatible. and then make the sign up for that system | > VERY comprehensive, like getting a drivers licence (or at least a | > combination of factors that could not be easily falsified or | > randomized) and maybe apply real world penalties for abuse of the | > system. essentially filter out spammers at the root level. email is a | > very powerful communication tool, maybe the people who are so adverse | > to spam should take it more seriously. for the shady characters who | > prefer to remain anonymous they can stay in the old system. | | Who do you trust enough to run this system? Microsoft? Verisign (sorry | Phill!)? Your Government? My Government? A completely free and open | system run by anonymous hackers? +------------------ This kind of system has been created with some degree of success for Internet2. 'Course there is a sugar daddy paying for lots of that work. It's unlikely that such a system could have been built from a grass roots effort. Still there is nothing to say that a subscription based SMTP meta-network could not be built on the public Internet based on communities of trust. The big question is wether such a system would be sufficient. -- Chris Fedde _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 14:01:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08360 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:01:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AJEXr06701 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:14:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AJEXO06698 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:14:33 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08339 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:00:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AJC1O06580; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:12:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AJBXO06496 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:11:33 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA08163 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:57:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h2AJ04oB019505; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 20:00:04 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h2AIvlnI012805 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:57:47 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h2AIvlt5012803; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:57:47 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "David F. Skoll" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] DCC and IP checksums Message-ID: <20030310185747.GB12268@danisch.de> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:57:47 +0100 On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 10:24:45AM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > > But consider what happens when you use mobile code to describe the > hash function. You can respond to the circumvention techniques as > the spam senders apply them. > > This is how satelite TV companies keep card piracy at acceptable levels. > PThey don't shut off a pirate card immediately, they let a number > of customers develop then they kill it when doing so does maximum > damage to the pirate's reputation. That's exactly the point why it won't work: TV companies: Many attackers, few defenders only. It's like dogs hunting the rabbit. The rabbit can react on the moves of the dogs and can rapidly change it's way, run zigzag, and so on, because it can immediately change it's running direction without discussion. Spam: Few attackers, many defenders. It's like a shark in a cluster of fishes. The rabbit's defense method will fail for the fishes. That's why adaptive hash techniques requiring the defenders to change their "secret formula" or to upgrade their software continuously are doomed to fail. Sorry. Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 14:01:46 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08389 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:01:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AJEps06722 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:14:51 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AJEpO06719 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:14:51 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08356 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:01:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AJB7O06473; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:11:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AJ8sO06360 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:08:54 -0500 Received: from gate.cs.rochester.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA08042 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:55:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from cycle1.cs.rochester.edu (cycle1.cs.rochester.edu [128.151.67.99]) by gate.cs.rochester.edu (8.11.6+Sun/001) with ESMTP id h2AIvLj05112; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:57:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from bukys@localhost) by cycle1.cs.rochester.edu (8.11.6/Q++) id h2AIvLO09971; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:57:21 -0500 Message-Id: <200303101857.h2AIvLO09971@cycle1.cs.rochester.edu> From: Liudvikas Bukys To: asrg@ietf.org cc: Paul Judge , bukys@cs.rochester.edu Subject: [Asrg] re: taxonomy of solutions, including some new items Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:57:21 -0500 Just a few comments on what I called the unimplemented ideas in my preceding note on taxonomy of solutions: ** consent verification When I saw the ASRG charter, I leaped to the conclusion that a consent model would be useful for two reasons: (1) to contribute to a rigorous careful discussion, and (2) to produce human- and machine-readable representations of consent that would be useful for such things as: - reducing the "I didn't know any better" gray-area excuse of spammers regarding opt-in, opt-out, and database reselling - making life better for users by causing practices to converge on consent that is explicit, self-documenting and user-accessible, establishing standardized representations (similar to DSNs), and offering choices that are "good enough" but much lighter- weight than, say, PKI. Is this what the chair was thinking? [Let me also leap ahead and say that, yes, legitimate large emailers would benefit from explicit consent standards, but, no, I am not a "friend of spammers".] - content-indexed blacklists ** URLS and phone numbers Actually I believe that Paul Graham touched on this, regarding what you do to analyze content when the message body itself is driven by content filters to become innocuous. Presumably all spam other than DoS spam has some ground to the real world in order to make transactions. - protocol hints or restrictions ** associate permissible (env-sender,src-addr) (RMX, Designated Sender, Vixie MAIL_FROM) We've had lots of discussion on this already. Forgive me if I'm wrong in lumping all three proposals into an equivalance class. Although wide adoption would be a significant change of lifestyle for many, it is (as Vixie's document notes) a voluntary effort by domain owners and MTA operators. The benefit of some "joe job" reduction, plus its voluntary adoption, seems like a "do no harm" to me. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 14:05:20 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08471 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:05:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AJIOS06898 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:18:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AJIOO06895 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:18:24 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08450 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:04:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AJF2O06753; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:15:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AJE5O06688 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:14:05 -0500 Received: from aismtp3g.bls.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08301 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:00:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from 01AL10015010060.ad.bls.com ([90.152.5.135] [90.152.5.135]) by aismtp3g.bls.com with ESMTP; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:05:00 -0500 Received: by 01al10015010060.ad.bls.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:02:35 -0500 Message-Id: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D59E@bremocag> From: "Sauer, Damon" To: "'Vernon Schryver'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Nucleus of a draft BCP on filtering MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:02:35 -0500 Protocol vs. Filtering- The distinction is rough vs. fine tuning. There are stages in which anti-spam may be applied and I think that maybe it would be helpful to define at which stage the suggestion is to be implemented or deployed for it to be effective. Rough is to destroy spam en masse. Fine is to filter email from ex-spouse, annoying friends, and the boss. 1) Source: Service providers detecting and eliminating spam before it leaves their network. 2) Receiver: Service providers detecting and eliminating spam before it is delivered to the recipient. 3) Individual: Software that resides on the consumers computing vassal. 1 and 2 can accomplish anti-spam from a protocol based system (rough filtering) 1,2 and 3 can accomplish anti-spam from a filtering based system (rough filtering by 1 and fine filtering accomplished by 2 and 3) I could add: 4) Hybrid: Collaboration between 1 and sending computing vassal. 5) Hybrid: Collaboration between 1 and 2 6) Hybrid: Collaboration between 2 and 3 Fine filtering would be up to 2 and 3 as to how this is going to be accomplished. Corporations would surely be doing more fine filtering than the individual. ISP's would most likely do less, if able to hand software to the individual to do their own fine filtering. Regards, Damon Sauer -----Original Message----- From: Vernon Schryver [mailto:vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com] Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 12:27 PM To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Nucleus of a draft BCP on filtering > From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" > I think Keith is wrong here, the objective should be to get rid of unwanted > email of any type. Decding what we call spam is beside the point. > ... I strongly disagree. We should not be worrying about all possible notions of unwanted email, but only about email that damages the system, either technically or otherwise, such as by making mail less useful to users. Communications from ex-spouses and creditors is often unwanted, but does not harm the system. Only bulk mail can harm the system. It is not that it is impossible to consider mechanisms to deal with broader classes of unwanted email, but that goals with well defined limits are vital for success in any design effort. Besides, mechanisms to deal with unwanted mail that is not bulk are well established and very widely available. Most of the so called spam filters offered by ISPs are suitable for rejecting mail from creditors and ex-spouses. If the mechanisms for dealing with unwanted bulk mail turn out to also be effective against other kinds of unwanted mail, then fine. Dealing with dumb jokes from your mother-in-law should not be a goal here. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg ***** "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers." _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 14:06:12 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08517 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:06:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AJJH006994 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:19:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AJJHO06991 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:19:17 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08492 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:05:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AJH1O06819; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:17:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AJGQO06792 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:16:26 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08415 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:02:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2AJ4vBD026342 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:04:57 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] DCC and IP checksums In-Reply-To: <20030310185747.GB12268@danisch.de> Message-ID: References: <20030310185747.GB12268@danisch.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:04:57 -0500 (EST) On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Hadmut Danisch wrote: > Spam: > Few attackers, many defenders. It's like a shark in a cluster > of fishes. The rabbit's defense method will fail for the fishes. No, not at all. It works for *most* of the fish. > That's why adaptive hash techniques requiring the defenders to > change their "secret formula" or to upgrade their software > continuously are doomed to fail. Sorry. It depends what you mean by "fail". If you mean "never stop much spam", then I think you're wrong. If you mean "become ineffective after a certain period of time", then you're right. I haven't seen an anti-spam tool or proposal that's (a) practical and (b) will retain its effectiveness for a long time (let's say more than a year) without updates, and I'm not holding my breath. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 14:07:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08569 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:07:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AJKWF07093 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:20:32 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AJKWO07090 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:20:32 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08542 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:06:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AJI1O06879; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:18:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AJHBO06838 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:17:12 -0500 Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08428 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:03:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h2AJ5cA29991; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:05:38 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Moore To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Nucleus of a draft BCP on filtering Message-Id: <20030310140537.0b4f2a4e.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:05:37 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I think we should accept the fact that there are some types of spam > that we are not going to want to address. I think it's premature to start trying to prune the problem. Our job for now is to try to understand what is feasible. If we find out that it's infeasible to address all types of unwanted mail, so be it - but let's not presume that (much less accept it as "the fact") Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 14:13:57 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08874 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:13:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AJR2V07286 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:27:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AJR2O07283 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:27:02 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08847 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:13:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AJJ2O06966; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:19:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AJIeO06913 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:18:40 -0500 Received: from chiark.greenend.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08465 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:05:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from fanf by chiark.greenend.org.uk with local (Exim 3.12 #1) id 18sScA-0006SG-00 (Debian); Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:07:10 +0000 To: jhihn@paytimepayroll.com From: Tony Finch Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Several Observations and a solution that addresses them all In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:07:10 +0000 Jason Hihn wrote: > >Observations: >1) Spam only comes from those we don't know. Not if it's forged, Outlook worms being the most common example. >This system seems easily implemented, and will go a long way to >eliminate/cut down/make filterable the spam. SMTP callout address verification is already in use, although it isn't a complete solution owing to the number of servers out there that do recipient address checking very late. It also causes problems because of the number of servers that do not accept email with a null reverse path, and the number of users that want to receive email from people with broken setups. It relies on SMTP servers leaking information about valid addresses, which some don't like from a privacy point of view, and others don't like because it makes dictionary attacks easier. Your scheme implies (somewhat unclearly) a per-message component to the checking, which would require me to tell all my MXs (or some other authoritative entity in my domain) about all the email I send so that the recipients can check it. Tony. -- f.a.n.finch http://dotat.at/ CAPE WRATH TO RATTRAY HEAD INCLUDING ORKNEY: SOUTHWEST 6 OR 7, EASING 4 OR 5, THEN VEERING NORTH OR NORTHEAST 7 OR GALE 8. SHOWERS. MODERATE OR GOOD. ROUGH, LOCALLY VERY ROUGH OR HIGH LATER. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 14:39:15 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09925 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:39:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AJqL109129 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:52:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AJqLO09126 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:52:21 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09883 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:38:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AJndO09025; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:49:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AJmpO08948 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:48:51 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09773 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:35:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2AJbI6o029973 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:37:18 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303101937.h2AJbI6o029973@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Several Observations and a solution that addresses them all References: <20030310132606.3c12adb0.moore@cs.utk.edu> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:37:18 -0700 (MST) > From: Keith Moore > ... > I don't assume that. I agree with you entirely that filters have to be > recipient-specific. however that doesn't mean that they have to be > implemented at the recipient's end. > ... Ok, but another of your messages seemed to be trying to define "consent" in terms of individual filters. I think that is a bad idea. "Consent" should not include notions such as "has a From header value that is valid according to RFC 2822 and a body no larger than 10 KBytes." The mail that you consent to must to be tied to its sender more than to its superficial technical characteristics. It would be nice to be able to consent to some messages smaller than 10 KBytes from a sender but not to larger messages, but that sort of thing is an infinite rat hole. A problem with the technical characteristics definition of consent is exemplified by one of your examples. Consent needs to be something that can be easily communicated with the message itself (perhaps by reference) and checked potentially checked earlier than the target's user interface. Your example of the more than dozen technical characteristics fails this criterion so badly I first thought it was a joke. An expression of "consent" must not require a MByte in a Turing-complete language. Even a statement in a first-order predicate calculus is too complex. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 14:39:18 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09938 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:39:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AJqOs09145 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:52:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AJqOO09142 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:52:24 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09898 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:38:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AJnJO08983; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:49:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AJmbO08924 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:48:37 -0500 Received: from chimta01.algx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09738 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:35:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from JHS ([67.92.23.74]) by chimmx01.algx.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.10 (built Jan 23 2003)) with SMTP id <0HBJ004GTT5BIB@chimmx01.algx.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:36:47 -0600 (CST) From: Jason Hihn Subject: RE: [Asrg] Several Observations and a solution that addresses them all In-reply-to: Cc: ASRG Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:36:47 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT I'm not concerned. Get the spam off the net, and watch reliability go up. ;-) I don't think the resources required to implement temp fail to be that substantial. Furthermore, currently victims of forged addresses have to face the wrath of the receivers of the forged email. This way, the email would be rejected. Once this solution was in wide-enough adoption, forged addresses would be useless and pointless anyway, thereby making it a mute point. -----Original Message----- From: Jon Kyme [mailto:jrk@merseymail.com] Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 1:18 PM To: Jason Hihn Cc: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] Several Observations and a solution that addresses them all > > Here's how. Each message must have a valid from address. This address is > validated against and ISP's database. If the account exists, then the > mail > is allowed to be received, otherwise it is thrown in the trash. It's very > much like putting a return address on an envelope, but since > computers/networks are so fast we can verify in real time that it is > fast. > Any mail without a return address gets put in the trash (and this is Sadly, the network isn't guaranteed to be either fast or reliable. A system like this has to cope with "TEMPFAIL" type situations. Also this kind of technique imposes a cost on victims of forged from addresses. This has been covered before (so why am I saying it again?) While this isn't a fatal objection - it doesn't seem at all fair. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 14:39:59 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09967 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:39:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AJr5e09205 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:53:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AJr5O09202 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:53:05 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09952 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:39:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AJo1O09053; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:50:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AJn8O08973 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:49:08 -0500 Received: from chimta03.algx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09795 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:35:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from JHS ([67.92.23.74]) by chimmx03.algx.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.10 (built Jan 23 2003)) with SMTP id <0HBJ0026ET6QOC@chimmx03.algx.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:37:38 -0600 (CST) From: Jason Hihn Subject: RE: [Asrg] Several Observations and a solution that addresses them all In-reply-to: <20030310132606.3c12adb0.moore@cs.utk.edu> Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:37:38 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Your filter tactics are insufficient. They bury your head in the sand. Spam is increasing on the network. It carries a cost, and therefore it increases costs. To filter it at an end-point does nothing to deliver us from the costs of delivering it. It must be a network-centric method and not an end point method that is used to reduce spam. By using filters, (lets say) 1/4 of all traffic being email and 80% of email traffic ends up in the filter's trash can. That's convertible to a dollar figure. And that is waste. Filters do nothing to reduce the costs and wastes. You can try ignoring spam, but it keeps coming. I'd support filters if they only did the tar-pit type of thing. Because there no one loses a message, it just takes forever if the filter is wrong. But I digress... -----Original Message----- From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore@cs.utk.edu] Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 1:26 PM To: Jason Hihn Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu; asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Several Observations and a solution that addresses them all > As I stated, you cannot rely on user filters. filters are perfectly reliable for some things. user filters are not ideal because the infrastructure still has to carry the messages, but it's misleading to say that they're not reliable. > There needs to be an infrastructure-level solution. Filters are fine > once the user gets the message, the infrastructure should strip out > illegitimate messages in the first place. who decides what is illegitimate? > As your comments: > 1) The definition may vary. But if you have friends that want to annoy > you, get new friends, and filter them out. That is, if you can > reliably filter them... (and I challenge you to do so if you can't > trust the 'from' address!) filters don't have to be perfectly reliable to be useful. (some people have big enough egos that they won't change their from addresses, so it's still useful to filter on their addresses.) as for your challenge - just as an example, I'm willing to accept a pgp-signed message from someone I trust as long as I can verify the signature, and I don't care what the From address is. > You cannot assume that what works for you works for others. I don't assume that. I agree with you entirely that filters have to be recipient-specific. however that doesn't mean that they have to be implemented at the recipient's end. > That said, I think there is only one filter that we could ever use, > and that is that the From: field must be legit. (minimally not blank) there are probably a few others, but not many. Keith _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 14:42:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10075 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:42:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AJtoV09398 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:55:50 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AJtoO09395 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:55:50 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10057 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:42:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AJr8O09236; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:53:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AJqhO09174 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:52:43 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09909 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:39:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc02.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2AJfB3Z027441; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:41:11 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:41:10 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Vernon Schryver'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Taxonomy of anti-spam systems MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:41:11 -0800 > Teergrubbing sounds silly to people who know that some spamware uses > illegal SMTP command pipelining. Some spammers send send the entire > client SMTP transaction including the ending TCP FIN before the STMP > server has finished doing the reverse DNS lookup to decide whether to > post its banner. Whether the STMP server delays 10 ms or 10 hours is > of no concern to them. Ah but you don't understand, 182% of spam is sent through open relays. So the teergrubbing encourages people to close the open relays - NOT. The teergrubbing idea sounds to me to be clueless, particularly if let loose on the general population where we will see folk using it on the most flimsy of pretexts. There are people who are aggressively pushing these ideas and we should address them for that reason alone, even if it is highly unlikely we would ever endorse them. I don't think that any of the bulk sender stuff would be caught by teergrubbing, they must have checks in there to stop them being held up by slow sites. Heck you have that in most mailing list software. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 14:43:24 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10110 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:43:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AJuUT09459 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:56:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AJuUO09456 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:56:30 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10091 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:42:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AJnaO09007; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:49:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AJmeO08929 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:48:40 -0500 Received: from chimta03.algx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09747 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:35:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from JHS ([67.92.23.74]) by chimmx03.algx.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.10 (built Jan 23 2003)) with SMTP id <0HBJ00JP6T5YW8@chimmx03.algx.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:37:10 -0600 (CST) From: Jason Hihn Subject: RE: [Asrg] Several Observations and a solution that addresses them all In-reply-to: Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:37:10 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Absolutely. This is the only way it could work. It costs money & resources to fight a war. I firmly believe that the costs of fighting this war outweigh the expenses of not fighting it. Yes, there is some leakage, but no more than can be found by going through newsgroups, BBSs, mailing list archives and the like... -----Original Message----- From: Tony Finch [mailto:fanf@chiark.greenend.org.uk]On Behalf Of Tony Finch Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 2:07 PM To: jhihn@paytimepayroll.com Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Several Observations and a solution that addresses them all Jason Hihn wrote: > >Observations: >1) Spam only comes from those we don't know. Not if it's forged, Outlook worms being the most common example. >This system seems easily implemented, and will go a long way to >eliminate/cut down/make filterable the spam. SMTP callout address verification is already in use, although it isn't a complete solution owing to the number of servers out there that do recipient address checking very late. It also causes problems because of the number of servers that do not accept email with a null reverse path, and the number of users that want to receive email from people with broken setups. It relies on SMTP servers leaking information about valid addresses, which some don't like from a privacy point of view, and others don't like because it makes dictionary attacks easier. Your scheme implies (somewhat unclearly) a per-message component to the checking, which would require me to tell all my MXs (or some other authoritative entity in my domain) about all the email I send so that the recipients can check it. Tony. -- f.a.n.finch http://dotat.at/ CAPE WRATH TO RATTRAY HEAD INCLUDING ORKNEY: SOUTHWEST 6 OR 7, EASING 4 OR 5, THEN VEERING NORTH OR NORTHEAST 7 OR GALE 8. SHOWERS. MODERATE OR GOOD. ROUGH, LOCALLY VERY ROUGH OR HIGH LATER. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 14:49:15 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10299 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:49:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AK2L409759 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:02:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AK2LO09756 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:02:21 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10261 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:48:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AJv2O09502; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:57:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AJuJO09445 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:56:19 -0500 Received: from dogma.slashnull.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10072 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:42:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from jm@localhost) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AJflX29723; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:41:47 GMT From: Justin Mason To: Vernon Schryver Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists Message-ID: <20030310194147.D28304@dogma> References: <200303101805.h2AI53q0020578@calcite.rhyolite.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200303101805.h2AI53q0020578@calcite.rhyolite.com>; from vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com on Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 11:05:03AM -0700 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:41:47 +0000 On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 11:05:03AM -0700, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > From: Kee Hinckley > I've repeatedly pointed out reasons why that is not just possible but > quite likely. Contrary to spammer fighter religious dogma, many > (but certainly not all) spammers care very much about receiving > "bounces" and "removes." Many spammers honestly think that letting > their targets opt-out is the right thing to do. In that case, things have changed a lot since April 2002. http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2002/04/spam.htm: In another initiative, Netforce partners tested whether "remove me" or "unsubscribe" options in spam were being honored. From e-mail forwarded to the FTC's database, the agencies culled more than 200 e-mails that purported to allow recipients to remove their name from a spam list. The agencies set up dummy e-mail accounts to test the pledges, but discovered that the vast majority of addresses to which they sent the requests were invalid. Most of the "remove me" requests did not get through. Based on information gathered by the Netforce, the FTC has sent more than 75 letters warning spammers that deceptive "removal" claims in unsolicited e-mail are illegal. --j. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 14:49:52 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10332 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:49:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AK2wC09810 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:02:58 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AK2wO09807 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:02:58 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10313 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:49:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AK0iO09659; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:00:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AJwrO09553 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:58:53 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10151 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:45:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2AJlLan001139 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:47:21 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303101947.h2AJlLan001139@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] inventory of problems References: <200303101835.h2AIZ4B09032@cycle1.cs.rochester.edu> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:47:21 -0700 (MST) > From: Liudvikas Bukys > Along the way to writing my inventory of solutions, > I wrote up an inventory of problems. I see these as > the antecedents of the solutions, and also a useful > checklist anticipating the counter-counter-measures > of the spammers. > ... Such checklists are invaluable resources to spammers. Most spammers are not technically proficient, and judging from the spam I've seen, no significant spammer is technically competent enough to produce that checklist. If this mailing list were shut down today, it would have proven quite harmful to the good guys because of that checklist. I don't intend to say that it should not have been posted, but to urge caution. This is a public list whose archives will soon be indexed by the search engines. It would be a shame if the only results from this effort are a lot of noise and some cookbooks and checklists for spammers. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 15:02:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA10765 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:02:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AKFcu11096 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:15:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AKFcO11093 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:15:38 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA10743 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:02:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AK9pO10839; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:09:51 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AK8oO10755 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:08:50 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10500 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:55:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.57] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2AJvJ3Z029807 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:57:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:57:18 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: asrg@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [Asrg] Measurements on spam Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:57:14 -0800 All, It would be usefull to see some empirical info that measures the following: 1) Spam transport mechanisms Percentage of spam sent through open relays Percentage of spam that has a bogus from address Percentage of spam that does not comply with RFC 822 2) Spam subject matter Section 419 Fraud Pornography Consumer scams Spm to sell spam 3) Evidence of anti-spam techniques Mutating subject lines It would be good if some of the people with access to large spam corpuses could take a look at these. Although I don't think that we necessarily need to know much more than you would get from lumping stuff into buckets of 0-5%, 5-10%, 10-50%, 50%-90%, 90-95% and 95-100%. Either something is common or it is not. In addition there are a bunch of phenomena that I think deserve a bit more investigation. One of these is bogus spam. There is an advert for septic tank fluid going round that is clearly not sent to send septic tank fluid. I think that it is being sent to try to sell spam, legitimizing the concept, leading idiots to think it must work etc. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 15:03:21 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA10815 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:03:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AKGR411131 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:16:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AKGRO11128 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:16:27 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA10785 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:02:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AK72O10015; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:07:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AK6bO09945 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:06:37 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10435 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:53:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h2AJt66Z020592 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 20:55:06 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h2AJsYnI013727 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 20:54:34 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h2AJsYL6013725 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 20:54:34 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <20030310195433.GA13705@danisch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Subject: [Asrg] (Fwd): Unsolicited bulk email discarded. Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 20:54:34 +0100 Another one of these false positives. Any idea how I triggered that ? Hadmut ----- Forwarded message from Root ----- > From: Root > To: hadmut@danisch.de > Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 20:22:14 +0100 > Subject: Unsolicited bulk email discarded. > > Your message: > > Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists > > has been identified as unsolicited bulk email (SPAM) and discarded. > > Thank you, > > SPAM Counter Measures ----- End forwarded message ----- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 15:09:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11569 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:09:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AKMdU11501 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:22:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AKMdO11498 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:22:39 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11509 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:09:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AKJgO11303; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:19:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AKFDO11081 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:15:13 -0500 Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA10712 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:01:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with SMTP id h2AK3fA00171; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:03:41 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Moore To: asrg@ietf.org Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu Message-Id: <20030310150341.0e65a7c1.moore@cs.utk.edu> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] yet another taxonomy Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:03:41 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit here's an expanded version of one I posted earlier: I. ways to classify messages i.e. what are the things about a message that might cause it to be handled differently from other messages? note: this is independent of where the classification is done - it could be done at any or all of: sender UA, sender MTA, relaying MTA, recipient's MTA, recipient's message store, recipient's UA. - content analysis - looking at characteristcs of messages, using either static or dynamic criteria. - originator identification/authentication/tracing (e.g. if you can reliably tell whether a message is coming from a known spammer, or merely someone of unknown reputation, or someone you know. this happens at various levels of granularity - you might know the ISP that is originating the mail, or you might know what business has that IP address block, or you might know the specific MTA, or you might be able to identify the sender via some kind of authentication, either in the message or out-of-band (say SMTP authentication).) examples: - digital signatures (e.g. S/MIME, PGP) - checking source IP address/port against domain - using source IP address/port/time to identify sender - sender identity field added by source ISP - RMX ?? - trustworthiness indication (see below) - validity checking, e.g - is the From address valid? - are the received fields plausible? - sender-specific recipient addresses - used to enable different filters to be used for different senders - tools for looking at message delivery path/characteristics example: # of total recipients, # of invalid recipients II. ways to handle messages of different classifications i.e. given that you can separate messages into different categories, what different kinds of things can you do with them? (again, this is independent of where the action is taken) - relay/deliver - bounce - discard - filter (e.g. removal of viruses, annoying HTML, whatever) - delay (teergrube does something like this) - accept with low probability III. recipient feedback mechanisms (ways to allow recipient to indicate what he/she doesn't want) - aggregated - automated complaint handling, blacklists - collaborative filtering - per-recipient - per-recipient blacklists, whitelists, filters (recipient says "I don't want messages sent to > 1000 recipients" or "I can't read Korean") - opt-in, opt-out VI. mechanisms to increase the burden of sending mail (and thus increase the burden on spammers) - increase the monetary cost (e-postage) - require sender to incur computational overhead - challenge/response (require sender to reply to an automatic response) - rate limiting VII. mechanisms to establish sender trustworthiness - authentication - recipient can verify who the sender is - vouching - recipient is told that a third-party vouches for the sender to not send spam (e.g. Habeas) - bonded sender - recipient can collect money if the message turns out to be spam. VIII. social mechanisms (not under our control, but part of the picture) - anti-spam laws - boycotts of spammers and those who harbor them IX. means of identifying sources of spam - fake addresses that don't correspond to real people designed to attract spam. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 15:20:48 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12104 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:20:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AKXt512963 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:33:55 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AKXsO12958 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:33:54 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12073 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:20:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AKU7O12005; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:30:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AKTNO11941 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:29:23 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11968 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:15:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2AKHpTm004839 for Asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:17:51 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303102017.h2AKHpTm004839@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists References: <20030310194147.D28304@dogma> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:17:51 -0700 (MST) > From: Justin Mason > > quite likely. Contrary to spammer fighter religious dogma, many > > (but certainly not all) spammers care very much about receiving > > "bounces" and "removes." Many spammers honestly think that letting > > their targets opt-out is the right thing to do. > > In that case, things have changed a lot since April 2002. > > http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2002/04/spam.htm: > In another initiative, Netforce partners tested whether "remove > me" or "unsubscribe" options in spam were being honored. From > e-mail forwarded to the FTC's database, the agencies culled > more than 200 e-mails that purported to allow recipients to > remove their name from a spam list. The agencies set up dummy > e-mail accounts to test the pledges, but discovered that the > vast majority of addresses to which they sent the requests > were invalid. Most of the "remove me" requests did not get > through. Based on information gathered by the Netforce, the FTC > has sent more than 75 letters warning spammers that deceptive > "removal" claims in unsolicited e-mail are illegal. Those who bother to read mine the FTC's words will see there is little or no contradiction. Furthermore, consider the implications on spammer behavior of news of those 75 letters warning that bogus removal addresses are illegal. If you think that the FTC is smart enough to distinguish dropboxes that are invalid because they've been terminated by Hotmail etc. for being advertised in spam from dropboxes that were never valid, then I have a deal on the profits from a bridge in Nigeria that will interest you. Or maybe the FTC is that smart but their PR flaks have odd uses of English. Do you think 75 out of 200 is "the vast majority?" If not, why didn't the FTC send letters to the vast majority? Could it be that most of the other 125 remove addresses were typical free provider drop-boxes that had been terminated by the free providers? Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 15:26:20 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12426 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:26:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AKdRI14795 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:39:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AKdRO14792 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:39:27 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12414 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:25:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AKY3O13000; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:34:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AKXmO12951 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:33:48 -0500 Received: from nber13.nber.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12059 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:20:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from nber13.nber.org (localhost.nber.org [127.0.0.1]) by nber13.nber.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h2AKMHrb095582 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:22:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by nber13.nber.org (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id h2AKMH7Z095581 for asrg@ietf.org.KAV; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:22:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from nber5.nber.org (nber5.nber.org [207.113.108.99]) by nber13.nber.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h2AKMGrc095564; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:22:17 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Feenberg To: Vernon Schryver cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Taxonomy of anti-spam systems In-Reply-To: <200303101820.h2AIKp57022621@calcite.rhyolite.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:04:11 -0500 (EST) On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > Teergrubbing sounds silly to people who know that some spamware uses > illegal SMTP command pipelining. Some spammers send send the entire > client SMTP transaction including the ending TCP FIN before the STMP > server has finished doing the reverse DNS lookup to decide whether to > post its banner. Whether the STMP server delays 10 ms or 10 hours is > of no concern to them. > Yes, but some spammers do not control the relevant MTA, as for example if it is an open relay. Teergrubing must have very strong incentive effects on open relays if it becomes reasonably widespread. And this incentive applies even if the relay has no legitimate mail to transfer to the victim. Daniel Feenberg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 15:35:13 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12825 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:35:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AKmKg15280 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:48:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AKmJO15277 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:48:19 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12819 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:34:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AKj2O15098; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:45:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AKi4O15061 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:44:04 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12597 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:30:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2AKWVIS006546 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:32:31 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303102032.h2AKWVIS006546@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Taxonomy of anti-spam systems References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:32:31 -0700 (MST) > From: Daniel Feenberg > .... > Yes, but some spammers do not control the relevant MTA, as for example if > it is an open relay. Teergrubing must have very strong incentive effects > on open relays if it becomes reasonably widespread. And this incentive > applies even if the relay has no legitimate mail to transfer to the > victim. I'm sorry but that's standard anti-spammer self-contradictory wishful thinking. Open relays are ill maintained machines. Well maintained machines don't need any incentives from teergrubers to be fixed after being attacked by spammers as open relays. Badly maintained machines don't have anyone who might notice the effects of teergrubing. The biggest reason that teergrubing is silly is that there always have been and always will be more unintentional teergrubing machines than can ever be installed intentionally. Anyone who runs a non-trivial bulk mail operation such as a mailing list knows too well that a significant fraction of legitimate SMTP servers stall for longer than typically recommended teergrubing durations. It doesn't matter whether they stall because the 3 or more DNS lookups required by an SMTP server to receive a message can teach take 90 seconds or a total of more than 5 minutes, because some spam filters need 5 minutes to get an answer, or the many other reasons that can stall STMP. Whatever the reason, they look the same to all bulk mailers as the trivial number of intentional teergrubers. That's why all useful MTA client code has timeouts to defeat teergrubers. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 16:01:02 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA14129 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:01:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2ALEAf19236 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:14:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ALE9O19233 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:14:09 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA14091 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:00:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AL8GO19007; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:08:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AL7fO18960 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:07:41 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA13887 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:54:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.57] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2AKu8Cb010277 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:56:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:56:08 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: Asrg@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [Asrg] Opt-out lists and legislation Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:56:05 -0800 This is one of the issues that I think needs to be addressed if legislation against spam is enacted. A review of the Nixon vs Blastfax decision suggests that even the current anti-junk-fax laws might not survive supreme court review (particularly with this shower). In particular there is an argument to be made that a blanket ban on unsolicited faxes is not the most narrowly tailored remedy. I consider the court's other opinions to be spurious but I suspect that even if the narrowness issue works for junk fax it is unlikely to work for junk email. There are currently two camps, anti-spam campaigners wanting a blanket ban with no opt-out list and the DMA which wants to kill the competition from spam but not by setting a precedent that could affect their members. The problem with opt-in for anti-spam campaigners is that the spam senders get a ready made list of people to spam. So the legislative trick to finesse this is to have an opt-out list that can be used to check to see if someone has opted out but not to see how to email them. This requirement is met by a one-way function, as I have previously observed (and published in a very prior-art sense) in 1995 or so. There are a bunk of tweaks that can be applied to make processing more efficient but the upshot is that anyone can check against the list without the list being a source of spam addresses. My view on the legislative issue is like the view of everyone else on this list, completely irrelevant. If congress decides to take the issue up they will. There are very good law enforcement reasons for taking action on spam, precisely because the activity it is supporting is already largely illegal. It makes sense to criminalize their accomplices too. Another effect that legislation can have is to provide safe harbor against vexatious injunctions intended to keep a spamhaus in business a few weeks longer while they try to get a new feed. One side effect of a canonical opt-out list would be that it would expose the false nature of the click here to opt out links. Phill > -----Original Message----- > From: Justin Mason [mailto:jm@jmason.org] > Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 2:42 PM > To: Vernon Schryver > Cc: Asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists > > > On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 11:05:03AM -0700, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > > From: Kee Hinckley > > I've repeatedly pointed out reasons why that is not just > possible but > > quite likely. Contrary to spammer fighter religious dogma, many > > (but certainly not all) spammers care very much about receiving > > "bounces" and "removes." Many spammers honestly think that letting > > their targets opt-out is the right thing to do. > > In that case, things have changed a lot since April 2002. > > http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2002/04/spam.htm: > In another initiative, Netforce partners tested whether "remove > me" or "unsubscribe" options in spam were being honored. From > e-mail forwarded to the FTC's database, the agencies culled > more than 200 e-mails that purported to allow recipients to > remove their name from a spam list. The agencies set up dummy > e-mail accounts to test the pledges, but discovered that the > vast majority of addresses to which they sent the requests > were invalid. Most of the "remove me" requests did not get > through. Based on information gathered by the Netforce, the FTC > has sent more than 75 letters warning spammers that deceptive > "removal" claims in unsolicited e-mail are illegal. > > --j. > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 16:14:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA14541 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:14:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2ALRj619872 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:27:45 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ALRiO19869 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:27:44 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA14520 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:14:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ALK4O19528; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:20:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ALJYO19472 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:19:34 -0500 Received: from chimta02.algx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA14268 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:05:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from JHS ([67.92.23.74]) by chimmx02.algx.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.10 (built Jan 23 2003)) with SMTP id <0HBJ00807XDEV4@chimmx02.algx.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:08:03 -0600 (CST) From: Jason Hihn Subject: RE: [Asrg] Measurements on spam In-reply-to: To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:08:02 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT It doesn't matter. The nature is transient. If you make spam improbable in one category, it'll get flooded because it's improbable. If you try to base your anti-spam tactics on the statistics of today, tomorrow it'll be different. -----Original Message----- From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Hallam-Baker, Phillip Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 2:57 PM To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] Measurements on spam All, It would be usefull to see some empirical info that measures the following: 1) Spam transport mechanisms Percentage of spam sent through open relays Percentage of spam that has a bogus from address Percentage of spam that does not comply with RFC 822 2) Spam subject matter Section 419 Fraud Pornography Consumer scams Spm to sell spam 3) Evidence of anti-spam techniques Mutating subject lines It would be good if some of the people with access to large spam corpuses could take a look at these. Although I don't think that we necessarily need to know much more than you would get from lumping stuff into buckets of 0-5%, 5-10%, 10-50%, 50%-90%, 90-95% and 95-100%. Either something is common or it is not. In addition there are a bunch of phenomena that I think deserve a bit more investigation. One of these is bogus spam. There is an advert for septic tank fluid going round that is clearly not sent to send septic tank fluid. I think that it is being sent to try to sell spam, legitimizing the concept, leading idiots to think it must work etc. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 16:16:14 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA14713 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:16:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2ALTMe20045 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:29:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ALTMO20042 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:29:22 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA14662 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:15:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ALQ3O19775; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:26:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ALPHO19744 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:25:17 -0500 Received: from chimta05.algx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA14392 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:11:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from JHS ([67.92.23.74]) by chimmx05.algx.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.10 (built Jan 23 2003)) with SMTP id <0HBJ0040KXMB7L@chimmx05.algx.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:13:26 -0600 (CST) From: Jason Hihn Subject: RE: [Asrg] inventory of problems In-reply-to: <200303101947.h2AJlLan001139@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Vernon Schryver Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:13:42 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Any real solution would work regardless of the attackers knowledge of the system. Remember security class? We have to make them play by our rules - completely plausible and doable. Then when they do, we can fight them there. That's what my previous thread was about. In order for a message to be delivered, it has to abide by our rules, and pass our checks. Those rules require them to give up/modify/announce their true behavior. -----Original Message----- From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Vernon Schryver Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 2:47 PM To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] inventory of problems > From: Liudvikas Bukys > Along the way to writing my inventory of solutions, > I wrote up an inventory of problems. I see these as > the antecedents of the solutions, and also a useful > checklist anticipating the counter-counter-measures > of the spammers. > ... Such checklists are invaluable resources to spammers. Most spammers are not technically proficient, and judging from the spam I've seen, no significant spammer is technically competent enough to produce that checklist. If this mailing list were shut down today, it would have proven quite harmful to the good guys because of that checklist. I don't intend to say that it should not have been posted, but to urge caution. This is a public list whose archives will soon be indexed by the search engines. It would be a shame if the only results from this effort are a lot of noise and some cookbooks and checklists for spammers. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 16:48:15 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA16006 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:48:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AM1Ob23038 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:01:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AM1OO23035 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:01:24 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA15975 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:47:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ALpBO21885; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:51:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ALo7O21831 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:50:07 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA15445 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:36:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.57] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2ALcYCb018196; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:38:34 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:38:34 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Jason Hihn'" , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Measurements on spam MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:38:29 -0800 I was hoping we could use the figures to get away from discussions like 'that does not work 99% of spam comes through open relays'. Evidence that 20% or more of spams already have countermeasures against a technique is pretty useful. Phill > -----Original Message----- > From: Jason Hihn [mailto:jhihn@paytimepayroll.com] > Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 4:08 PM > To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip > Cc: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Asrg] Measurements on spam > > > It doesn't matter. The nature is transient. If you make spam > improbable in > one category, it'll get flooded because it's improbable. If > you try to base > your anti-spam tactics on the statistics of today, tomorrow it'll be > different. > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 16:50:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA16154 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:50:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AM45b23174 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:04:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AM45O23171 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:04:05 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA16135 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:50:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AM04O22430; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:00:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ALweO22210 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:58:40 -0500 Received: from chiark.greenend.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA15752 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:45:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from fanf by chiark.greenend.org.uk with local (Exim 3.12 #1) id 18sV6u-0005Kb-00 (Debian); Mon, 10 Mar 2003 21:47:04 +0000 From: Tony Finch To: "David F. Skoll" Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] filtering at connect time Message-ID: <20030310214704.D3537@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 21:47:04 +0000 "David F. Skoll" wrote: > > I would really like to see other MTA software (qmail, Postfix, Exim) > implement "real-time" filtering during the SMTP conversation. As far > as I know, Sendmail is the only MTA that does this currently. Exim allows you to control the SMTP conversation by configuring its Access Control Lists, which allow you to make a variety of responses to a given command based on almost any criteria you can think of. It's a sysadmin-level configuration, not programmer-level, though there are of course hooks of several kinds for when you need to drop into code. Exim also has an API for content filtering between the . and the response, and there are plugins for SpamAssassin and virus scanners. Tony. -- f.a.n.finch http://dotat.at/ VIKING NORTH UTSIRE: SOUTHWESTERLY VEERING NORTHERLY 5 TO 7, PERHAPS GALE 8 LATER. RAIN OR SHOWERS. MODERATE OR GOOD. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 16:52:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA16210 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:52:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AM5p023238 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:05:51 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AM5pO23235 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:05:51 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA16187 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:52:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AM23O23074; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:02:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AM14O22882 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:01:04 -0500 Received: from chimta05.algx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA15952 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:47:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from JHS ([67.92.23.74]) by chimmx05.algx.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.10 (built Jan 23 2003)) with SMTP id <0HBJ00005ZA1NF@chimmx05.algx.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:49:13 -0600 (CST) From: Jason Hihn Subject: RE: [Asrg] Measurements on spam In-reply-to: To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:49:31 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sadly, still, it's a moving target. If one does, then they all can. Spam is like life. It evolves to fit a niche, and it evolves to survive. Fortunately, spam differs in that people propagate it, it doesn't propagate itself. (Excluding of course the MS Outlook fiasco, but that will only exist until a viable OSS groupware component emerges. A change of client is easy...) 20% is irrelevant. If it can be circumvented, it will be. Spammers are very much like script kiddies. If there is an exploit for a system, you have to patch it because the exploit is a nice and easily packaged implementation fit for general consumption. -----Original Message----- From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip [mailto:pbaker@verisign.com] Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 4:38 PM To: 'Jason Hihn'; Hallam-Baker, Phillip Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Measurements on spam I was hoping we could use the figures to get away from discussions like 'that does not work 99% of spam comes through open relays'. Evidence that 20% or more of spams already have countermeasures against a technique is pretty useful. Phill > -----Original Message----- > From: Jason Hihn [mailto:jhihn@paytimepayroll.com] > Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 4:08 PM > To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip > Cc: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Asrg] Measurements on spam > > > It doesn't matter. The nature is transient. If you make spam > improbable in > one category, it'll get flooded because it's improbable. If > you try to base > your anti-spam tactics on the statistics of today, tomorrow it'll be > different. > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 17:10:23 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA16669 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:10:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AMNWa24713 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:23:32 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AMNWO24710 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:23:32 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA16624 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:09:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AMIrO24484; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:18:53 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AMFJO24376 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:15:19 -0500 Received: from chimta03.algx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA16431 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:01:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from JHS ([67.92.23.74]) by chimmx03.algx.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.10 (built Jan 23 2003)) with SMTP id <0HBJ006GBZY74G@chimmx03.algx.net> for Asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:03:45 -0600 (CST) From: Jason Hihn Subject: RE: [Asrg] Opt-out lists and legislation In-reply-to: To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:03:43 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Legislation is futile. The spammers will go off-shore if not already. The only solution is a technical one that crosses political borders. You're thinking to highly of spammers. But I would feel more confident giving my email to a US based company. Unfortunately, most of my spam seems to be from self-promoters. -----Original Message----- From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Hallam-Baker, Phillip Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 3:56 PM Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] Opt-out lists and legislation This is one of the issues that I think needs to be addressed if legislation against spam is enacted. A review of the Nixon vs Blastfax decision suggests that even the current anti-junk-fax laws might not survive supreme court review (particularly with this shower). In particular there is an argument to be made that a blanket ban on unsolicited faxes is not the most narrowly tailored remedy. I consider the court's other opinions to be spurious but I suspect that even if the narrowness issue works for junk fax it is unlikely to work for junk email. There are currently two camps, anti-spam campaigners wanting a blanket ban with no opt-out list and the DMA which wants to kill the competition from spam but not by setting a precedent that could affect their members. The problem with opt-in for anti-spam campaigners is that the spam senders get a ready made list of people to spam. So the legislative trick to finesse this is to have an opt-out list that can be used to check to see if someone has opted out but not to see how to email them. This requirement is met by a one-way function, as I have previously observed (and published in a very prior-art sense) in 1995 or so. There are a bunk of tweaks that can be applied to make processing more efficient but the upshot is that anyone can check against the list without the list being a source of spam addresses. My view on the legislative issue is like the view of everyone else on this list, completely irrelevant. If congress decides to take the issue up they will. There are very good law enforcement reasons for taking action on spam, precisely because the activity it is supporting is already largely illegal. It makes sense to criminalize their accomplices too. Another effect that legislation can have is to provide safe harbor against vexatious injunctions intended to keep a spamhaus in business a few weeks longer while they try to get a new feed. One side effect of a canonical opt-out list would be that it would expose the false nature of the click here to opt out links. Phill > -----Original Message----- > From: Justin Mason [mailto:jm@jmason.org] > Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 2:42 PM > To: Vernon Schryver > Cc: Asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists > > > On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 11:05:03AM -0700, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > > From: Kee Hinckley > > I've repeatedly pointed out reasons why that is not just > possible but > > quite likely. Contrary to spammer fighter religious dogma, many > > (but certainly not all) spammers care very much about receiving > > "bounces" and "removes." Many spammers honestly think that letting > > their targets opt-out is the right thing to do. > > In that case, things have changed a lot since April 2002. > > http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2002/04/spam.htm: > In another initiative, Netforce partners tested whether "remove > me" or "unsubscribe" options in spam were being honored. From > e-mail forwarded to the FTC's database, the agencies culled > more than 200 e-mails that purported to allow recipients to > remove their name from a spam list. The agencies set up dummy > e-mail accounts to test the pledges, but discovered that the > vast majority of addresses to which they sent the requests > were invalid. Most of the "remove me" requests did not get > through. Based on information gathered by the Netforce, the FTC > has sent more than 75 letters warning spammers that deceptive > "removal" claims in unsolicited e-mail are illegal. > > --j. > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 17:16:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA16980 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:16:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AMTcc25251 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:29:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AMTcO25248 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:29:38 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA16966 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:15:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AMQFO24896; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:26:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AMIDO24430 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:18:13 -0500 Received: from smtp011.mail.yahoo.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id RAA16469 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:04:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from customer254-217.iplannetworks.net (HELO AGAMENON) (baldusi@200.69.254.217 with plain) by smtp.mail.vip.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Mar 2003 22:06:38 -0000 From: "Alejandro G. Belluscio" X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.60q) Personal Reply-To: "Alejandro G. Belluscio" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <582470855.20030310190632@uol.com.ar> To: asrg@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Email Certification Path Proposal Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:06:32 -0300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello list, I have this proposal. I can re send it in PDF if you don't like the text edition. I know it's too early to send this kind of proposal, but please keep in mind the idea that, if signature is required, use the existing business relationships instead of making the Verisign mistake again. ------------------------------------ Email Certification Path Proposal. Author: Alejandro G. Belluscio IIGECI Argentina Sending Account (SA): refers to the Legal Entity or person identified by a given user and password within an SMTP authorized users domain that originates an email. Recieving Account (RA): refers to the Legal Entity or person identified by a given user and password within an SMTP authorized users domain that recieves an email. SMTP Manager (SM): The legal entity managing a SMTP server. Unsolicited Mail Claims Account (UMCA): an email account set up by each SMTP. Manager to exlusively recieve signed emails sent by a Sending Account of his domain that are claimed to be Unsolicited Email. This account should discard any email not signed by his own certificate or a certificate directly signed by himself. Unsolicited Mail (UM): I will not define unsolicited mail, because this is a consensus definition. But I'm trying to make this proposal so anyone in this system thinks that in good faith he's not really bothering recipients when sending mail. Offending Mail (OM): Mail that's percieved by the reciever as "not wanted to be recieved". Note that this definition is flawed too, but its not the core of the proposal. Sender of Unsolicited Mail (SUM): Self explanatory given the undefinition of UM Unsolicited Mail Claim (UMC): A signal from a reciever of an email that certain email was not solicited and clasifies it as "spam". Please note that this is subject to change and open to discussions. Objectives -To have a certified sender in the sense of a legal entity . -Keep the privacy of the sender and reciever when necesary. -Minimize the cost of entity certification. Description 1. Each SMTP has to enable SMTP-AUTH. This enables the server uniquely identify the Sending Account sending such mail. 2. Using that information the header is then added a signature using a certificate of the SM plus a code that let's said SM to uniquely identify the Sending Account. This code should be chosen so as to be non descriptive of said account for a third party, even if he recieves multiple emails. 3. An UMCA belonging to the SM and one belonging to the direct signer if his own certificate is added to the header signature. 4. (to discuss or optional) On a recieving SMTP if the email has a valid signature path, it's signed by himself and given a code that let's the SM uniquely identify the RA. 5. (from now on I'm over extending a bit) Should a user regard an email as unsolicited he should: a. If his MUA supports this system, the OM should be sent (verbatrim?) as a UMC to both the SM's and it's immediate certificate signer's UMCA. b. If his MUA doesn't support this system, the RU should forward it to a given account by his own SM that automates the point 5.a task. Benefits -This system allow a positive identification of the offending SA. -It automates most of the task of identification of SUM while keeping a certain degree of privacy to both SA and RA. -It also minimizes the cost of certification authorities by using existing business relationships. -This system can be rolled with no intervention of the end users save configuring SMTP-Auth (which many ISP force anyway). Some work on MUA might be necessary but only to automate further the task. -It significantly reduces the cost of processing UM by automating the processing of emails that complies with this standard. -It keeps the authority of ISPs intact. -We don't create some artificial new authority. -There's no reason fees should levied for the signature since it should be just a simple more step in the setup of an account in an ISP, backbone provider, etc. -The incidence on existing protocols is nil. -MTA should need a rewrite, but may use the signature infrastructure of SSL, so the effort should not be too high. Bad -Increase in the size of every email by a fixed amount. So if email's keep getting biggers this cost as a proportion decreases. -MTA will need to be rewritten. -The cost of resources for the SMTP. The ongoing trends of speed increase and encryption acceleration in the mainstream CPU may offset part of this cost in with time, but for high volume servers custom hardware acceleration of the signature might be necessary. -It's pure network economics. It might be very difficult to apply at first since there's little benefit unless "everybody" is in the system. -The absolute usefullness of the system can only be achieved with a change in the MUA. Unless the system is so successful that the SM can "reasonable" configure it's server to deny any non-signed message. Rationale The idea of sending the UMC back to the SM is to send a certain "evidence" of the action and to allow the SM to keep a statistic regarding any given SA and UM. The idea of sending the UMC back to the SM's certificate's signer is to allow him to keep statistics and a certain degree of control that the SM is making his job. In a sence it's a tool to keep his own signature as good. Certification Authority Path. Root Certificate Authorities The upper certification authority should be the RIR or IANA. Since they have actually make the effort to positively identify the organization to whom they have given IP numbers, the cost of certifying it's true identity it's already made. It also mreduces the number of CA to a small stable number. They must provide certificates with the possibility of making further signatures. Second Level Certificate Authorities The following level should be the backbone providers who sell bandwith and connection services to ISP. Again, their customers are known and providing a signature should be a minimum cost. They must provide certificates with the possibility of making further signatures. For its final clientes they should make an third level certificate and sign with such certificate non signing certificate. Third Level Certificate Authorities The ISP should implement part of the SMTP protocol for the small clients and may sign the certificate for well known, big customers. The certificates thus signed should not be able sign further certificates. Fourth Level Certificate Authorities. Customers who want to have their own SMTP server should have them signed by their respective ISP. TODO: Policy for revocationg signatures. When do we consider that some ISP hasn't made his work? The specifics of the PKI. Some of the PGP standard might be applied here. My take is to use the SSL ceritfication part, without the encryption. Common registry of revocated Legal Entities. So known spammers can't sign up an ISP that wants to be in this system. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 17:16:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA16993 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:16:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AMTg425267 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:29:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AMTgO25264 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:29:42 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA16970 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:16:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AMQHO24912; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:26:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AMIDO24435 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:18:13 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA16472 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:04:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc01.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53] (may be forged)) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2AM4P5B013187; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:04:25 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:06:40 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Jason Hihn'" , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Opt-out lists and legislation MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:06:40 -0800 > Legislation is futile. The spammers will go off-shore if not already. > The only solution is a technical one that crosses political borders. Going offshore significantly increases costs and creates a major barrier to entry. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 17:17:19 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA17058 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:17:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AMUTx25339 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:30:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AMUTO25336 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:30:29 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA17045 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:16:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AMRrO25060; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:27:53 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AMOcO24764 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:24:38 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA16726 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:10:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2095749; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:13:06 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: RE: [Asrg] DCC and IP checksums Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:23:26 -0500 At 8:49 AM -0800 3/10/03, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >Looking at the various spam gangs on the net there are >major differences in the level of sophistication. The >Nigerian gangs don't appear to have got much beyond working >out how to use CAPS LOCK. You can detect a risible proportion >of Nigerian letters simply by scanning for 'modalities of the >transaction'. In the end, "content filtering" is another word for "natural language processing". And while I know several NLP folks looking for jobs, I don't really think that's a good long term direction. I see a few uses for content filtering. 1. Short term limitation of the spam problem. 2. Aid in forcing spammers into areas where simple authentication works, while we transition to a more complex authentication system. 3. Content filtering. Cases where your goal is actually to filter content, not eliminate spam. E.g. to ensure that Ashcroft doesn't get any mail with the word "chicken breast" in it. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 17:20:16 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA17182 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:20:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AMXQh25562 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:33:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AMXQO25559 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:33:26 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA17161 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:19:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AMRvO25116; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:27:57 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AMOiO24780 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:24:44 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA16750 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:11:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2095755; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:13:12 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200303102017.h2AKHpTm004839@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <20030310194147.D28304@dogma> <200303102017.h2AKHpTm004839@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Vernon Schryver From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:12:52 -0500 At 1:17 PM -0700 3/10/03, Vernon Schryver wrote: >that are invalid because they've been terminated by Hotmail etc. for >being advertised in spam from dropboxes that were never valid, then Look. Could we stop arguing about something that actually can be determined quite easily? Could someone please contact Yahoo and Hotmail and ask them two very simple questions. "Of the local email addresses at which you have seen excessively heavy bounces, what percentage used to exist and what percentage never existed? And of those that used to exist, what percentage were closed do to spamming?" Someone here must have a contact there? -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 17:20:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA17186 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:20:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AMXQu25578 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:33:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AMXQO25575 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:33:26 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA17163 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:19:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AMRuO25096; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:27:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AMOgO24776 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:24:42 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA16741 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:11:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2095754; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:13:09 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200303101805.h2AI53q0020578@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <200303101805.h2AI53q0020578@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Vernon Schryver From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:06:59 -0500 At 11:05 AM -0700 3/10/03, Vernon Schryver wrote: >(but certainly not all) spammers care very much about receiving >"bounces" and "removes." Many spammers honestly think that letting >their targets opt-out is the right thing to do. That's why you often >seen pleas in spam that you not ask ISPs to cancel "remove" drop-boxes. Alternatively they are lying through their teeth. What I do know is that my bounce rate is doubling every year. My correspondence with some ISPs indicates that theirs is also drastically increasing. I can get numbers from one if you like. So, we know the number of messages sent to never-existent and non-existent accounts is increasing. This could of course, just be an indication that the number of spammers is increasing. (Note, that's number of spammers, not amount of spam. If you are correct, then old spammers would stop targeting addresses after bounces.) As I've mentioned before, somewhere.com is a weird case. But if I look at the top 30% of my bouncers by IP address, they seem pretty stable. That is the amount of bounces they are sending doesn't change much over time. But that could be different spammers using the same IPs (and some aren't spammers, just idiots--if anyone has a contact at dvr1.suomen4g.fi please let me know--half a million bounces is ridiculous). >Other spammers know that their target lists tend to fill with garbage >as addresses are abandoned and as target address harvesting mechanisms >get confused (e.g. by message-IDs). They know that some major ISPs >by rumor including AOL automatically blacklist STMP clients by IP >address after too many bad target addresses. This provides a strong >incentive for spammers to clean their target lists. To do that, they >need drop-boxes get delivery failure notifications. So long as their is a plentiful list of open relays, open proxies, and spam friendly relays, why bother with the hassle of setting up a drop box that will be closed in just a few hours? The number of bounces you'll get before it's closed is a tiny portion of the total. On top of it. We've heard from many people (and again, I've gotten this direct from ISPs) that blocking by IP address based on bounces does not have a significant impact on spam delivery--there are too many senders. Finally. I know for a fact that many major commercial mailers consider cleaning their lists too much of a hassle. If they don't bother, why would the spammers? >Why do you think Yahoo or Hotmail (I've forgotten which) has deployed >mechanisms to prevent robots from creating free drop boxes? Who do >you think might needs to create so many free drop boxes that they'd >use software? Because you aren't completely wrong. BCC spam is definitely on the rise, especially with the Spanish Prisoner scams (give the Nigerian's a break, that's what it originally was). In fact any significantly illegal scam needs an electronic drop box. But they also need a much smaller response rate, so they can afford to get just a few responses before they are shut down. But the fact that this is on the rise does not necessarily mean that the percentage of forged from addresses (and I mean "forged" as in never existed, or belonged to someone else) is significantly dropping. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 17:21:12 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA17222 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:21:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AMYMx25644 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:34:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AMYMO25641 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:34:22 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA17212 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:20:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AMRtO25076; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:27:55 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AMOdO24768 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:24:39 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA16731 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:10:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2095745; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:13:07 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: Jason Hihn From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Several Observations and a solution that addresses them all Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:39:26 -0500 At 12:23 PM -0500 3/10/03, Jason Hihn wrote: >The outgoing mail server will have to see what addresses account@yahoo.com >did send to that haven't been verified ("authenticated") yet. If it gets a >request from an account that was not sent to, then it sends an 'account does >not exist' message. This will cause the spoofed message to be rejected, >while not allowing the existence of an account to be determined by a >malicious entity. This assumes a pretty complex infrastructure mapping between all possible sending servers and receiving servers for the same domain. And until everyone has updated their mail servers, the false positive rate is going to be huge, so you don't dare block on it. So once again you have a system which nobody has an incentive to move to until it's been deployed by the majority of users. Let me propose a rule for proposals. No proposal without an explanation of the incentives for the senders and receivers to adopt the system at three stages: 10%, 50% and 90% deployed. And at each stage, explain what actions the spammers are being forced to take. I would argue that a system that offers no benefits until you've passed the 50% point is never going to be adopted. On the other hand. A system which is virtually guaranteed to fail at the 90% point (challenge/response, possibly content filters) can demonstrably shown to have early adopters because, while it may fail when scaled, it works now. Let's try and leverage those social forces. (My anthro advisor would be proud :-) -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 17:29:23 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA17443 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:29:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AMgXc26807 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:42:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AMgXO26804 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:42:33 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA17432 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:28:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AMd6O26640; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:39:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AMc5O26587 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:38:05 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA17343 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:24:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2AMQUNx007721 for Asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:26:30 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303102226.h2AMQUNx007721@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:26:30 -0700 (MST) > From: Kee Hinckley > ... > Look. Could we stop arguing about something that actually can be > determined quite easily? > > Could someone please contact Yahoo and Hotmail and ask them two very > simple questions. > > "Of the local email addresses at which you have seen excessively > heavy bounces, what percentage used to exist and what percentage > never existed? And of those that used to exist, what percentage were > closed do to spamming?" > > Someone here must have a contact there? Many times over the last several years people known to be working there have been asked in public for that information. The response has been so deafeningly silent that I assume that it reflects corporate policy. I theorize is that if the public knew that a significant number of what Hotmail calls "forged" addresses were not in any honest sense forged, then even more people would refuse all mail from the free providers and fewer people would sell their "eyeballs" for "free" mailboxes. This theory works whether you think (as I do) that most envelope or header From values pointing to free providers are valid at the start of a spew or if you think only 3% are valid. In either case there is so much spam with perfectly legitimate free provider return addresses that anyone with any sense avoids the free providers as sender or recipient. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 17:40:03 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA17796 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:40:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AMrDr27307 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:53:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AMrDO27304 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:53:13 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA17790 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:39:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AMm5O27033; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:48:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AMlKO27001 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:47:20 -0500 Received: from dogma.slashnull.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA17554 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:33:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from jm@localhost) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AMWbS06181; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 22:32:37 GMT From: Justin Mason To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'Jason Hihn'" , Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Opt-out lists and legislation Message-ID: <20030310223236.A6105@dogma> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from pbaker@verisign.com on Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 02:06:40PM -0800 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 22:32:36 +0000 On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 02:06:40PM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > > Legislation is futile. The spammers will go off-shore if not already. > > The only solution is a technical one that crosses political borders. > > Going offshore significantly increases costs and creates a major barrier > to entry. Using offshore contractors -- or USian contractors with offshore sending hosts -- to send your spam, however, does not. And that's already the case in many of the big spamhaus cases (e.g. Alan Ralsky). --j. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 17:44:02 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA17937 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:44:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AMvCP27540 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:57:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AMvCO27537 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:57:12 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA17929 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:43:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AMo4O27124; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:50:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AMnhO27084 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:49:43 -0500 Received: from dogma.slashnull.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA17625 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:36:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from jm@localhost) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2AMZ6H06224; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 22:35:06 GMT From: Justin Mason To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'Jason Hihn'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Measurements on spam Message-ID: <20030310223506.B6105@dogma> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from pbaker@verisign.com on Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 01:38:29PM -0800 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 22:35:06 +0000 On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 01:38:29PM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > I was hoping we could use the figures to get away from discussions like > 'that does not work 99% of spam comes through open relays'. > > Evidence that 20% or more of spams already have countermeasures against a > technique is pretty useful. Based on my spamtraps, and the figures we get back for rule effectiveness across the SpamAssassin developers' corpora, I can tell you that each technique varies massively. On some people's mail, a given technique could yield 50% effectiveness; on others, < 1%. I reckon this is because there's a high degree of locality between (a) a list of addresses and (b) the spammer (or spamming contractor) in question. This also indicates that some of the bigger spam outfits write (or pay to have written) their own spamware. --j. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 18:00:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA18576 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:00:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2ANDon29165 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:13:50 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ANDoO29162 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:13:50 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA18563 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:00:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AN82O28879; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:08:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AN5nO28008 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:05:49 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA18258 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:52:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc02.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2AMsFCb000273; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:54:15 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:54:15 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Justin Mason'" , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'Jason Hihn'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Measurements on spam MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:54:13 -0800 > Based on my spamtraps, and the figures we get back for rule > effectiveness > across the SpamAssassin developers' corpora, I can tell you that each > technique varies massively. On some people's mail, a given technique > could yield 50% effectiveness; on others, < 1%. What I am interested in is the types of countermeasures that are being used and the frequency. I know the effectiveness of the techniques will change from user to user. > I reckon this is because there's a high degree of locality between > (a) a list of addresses and (b) the spammer (or spamming contractor) > in question. > > This also indicates that some of the bigger spam outfits write (or > pay to have written) their own spamware. That is interesting. Note that we have major advantages over the script kiddie problem. The Spam hauses do not want to share their techiniques. These are their competative advantage. They know that the more people who use them, the more counter measures will appear. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 18:01:23 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA18625 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:01:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2ANEYR29200 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:14:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ANEYO29197 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:14:34 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA18596 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:00:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AN7rO28833; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:07:53 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2AN0UO27815 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:00:30 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA18089 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:46:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.57] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2AMmtCb029300 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:48:55 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:48:55 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Opt-out lists and legislation MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:48:46 -0800 > Using offshore contractors -- or USian contractors with offshore > sending hosts -- to send your spam, however, does not. And that's > already the case in many of the big spamhaus cases (e.g. Alan Ralsky). Ralsky does not appear to want to live offshore himself. And AOL seem to have had no problem getting the US courts to enforce actions and injunctions against Ralsky in person. The more pressure put on the spam senders from all directions at once the better. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 18:11:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA19829 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:11:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2ANOka29604 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:24:46 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ANOjO29601 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:24:45 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA19778 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:11:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ANMAO29538; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:22:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ANLlO29516 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:21:47 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA19296 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:08:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h2ANA64V024005; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 00:10:06 +0100 Received: from sodom.home.danisch.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with ESMTP id h2AN65nI016343 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 11 Mar 2003 00:06:05 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) id h2AN652h016341; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 00:06:05 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Vernon Schryver Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists Message-ID: <20030310230605.GA16257@danisch.de> References: <200303102226.h2AMQUNx007721@calcite.rhyolite.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200303102226.h2AMQUNx007721@calcite.rhyolite.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 00:06:05 +0100 On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 03:26:30PM -0700, Vernon Schryver wrote: > there is so much spam with perfectly legitimate free provider > return addresses Isn't that a contradiction in terms? Free providers do not enjoy wasting money. They do provide services for private persons, not spammers. Even if the given address was real and the spammer would even read all replies coming in, it would still be far from "perfectly legitimate". That's "abuse". Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 18:36:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA20851 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:36:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2ANnhB31403 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:49:43 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ANnhO31400 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:49:43 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA20826 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:36:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ANk9O31255; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:46:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ANjoO31239 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:45:50 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA20757 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:32:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2ANY9YJ014866 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:34:09 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303102334.h2ANY9YJ014866@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Several Observations and a solution that addresses them all References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:34:09 -0700 (MST) > From: Kee Hinckley > ... > Let me propose a rule for proposals. > > No proposal without an explanation of the incentives for the senders > and receivers to adopt the system at three stages: 10%, 50% and 90% > deployed. And at each stage, explain what actions the spammers are > being forced to take. That omits the most important stages at 0.01%, 0.1%, and 1% measured in target mailboxes protected or total mail scanned. 0.01% is 50,000 mailboxes, which the size of a modest regional ISP or a large company. It's not easy to convince the people responsible at such outfits to risk wasting their time and effort on something that turns out to be like almost all anti-spam solutions, either not worth the effort (<80% effective) or fine if you don't care about false positives or scaling. It's not easy even to get the first 0.0001% or 500 mailboxes protected by months of flogging a solution in slashdot, freshmeat, spam-l, and news.admin.net-abuse.email, but it is possible. It turns out that people in those forums are more interested in talking about spam solutions than installing them. It is quite difficult to reach 0.1% or 500,000 mailboxes, because you must convince more than the handful of anti-spam and anti-spammer hobbyists who can choose their own mail software. > I would argue that a system that offers no benefits until you've > passed the 50% point is never going to be adopted. That's optimistic by more than a factor of 10. Even 1% is probably too high a threshold. Something that is useless until 5% has no hope unless you do the impossible and convince an AOL to use a solution invented outside. Even an AOL is only about 5%. > On the other hand. A system which is virtually guaranteed to fail at > the 90% point (challenge/response, possibly content filters) can > demonstrably shown to have early adopters because, while it may fail > when scaled, it works now. That's 1000X optimistic. As far as I can tell, one body checksum scheme has failed or been retired. There may have been other reasons, but it was having scaling problems at 0.09% despite getting a lot of attention from early adopter hobbyists. > Let's try and leverage those social forces. (My anthro advisor would > be proud :-) Or at least admit they exist and be realistic about them. Note that these claims are based not only on my prejudices but also my experiencd with the DCC for the last two years. I figure the DCC has reached 0.5% or conceivably a little more. How many contributors to this list have any experience pushing spam solutions at or above the 0.01% deployed level? What about 0.1%? I don't want to offend, but to emphasize what I understand as part of Kee Hinckley's point, that spam suffers from the talk-is-cheap syndrome in more than one way. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 18:38:08 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA20963 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:38:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2ANpKa31479 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:51:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ANpKO31476 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:51:20 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA20928 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:37:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ANm2O31336; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:48:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ANlnO31297 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:47:49 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA20792 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:34:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc02.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2ANaDCb006194 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:36:13 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:36:13 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:36:08 -0800 > I theorize is that if the public knew that a significant number of > what Hotmail calls "forged" addresses were not in any honest sense > forged, I think it is legitimate in a very honest sense to consider email forged if the manner in which it is sent is not approved by the owner of the DNS zone. Yeah yeah, I know some folk like the fact they can send their email from anywhere they choose without relaying, and if you happen to own the zone that is fine too - especially if you put a notice in your zone to say that is what you do. However mail claiming to come from hotmail that does not come through their servers can be honestly and legitimately considered forged, or to coin a phrase 'Notmail'. I think this is a better idea than deciding that we are going to rule all freemail to be illegitimate because we don't use it and so think that the 50 million odd who do are less important than the right to send email any way we chose. Lots of our consultants use hotmail because they can't access the corporate mail systems while on customer's premises (I know, Rim pagers...) This would be further improved if the email clients would tell the user trying to enter a fake email address 'hey dude, you know that some spam filters might consider your configuration invalid'. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 18:45:23 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA21143 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:45:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2ANwZP31774 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:58:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ANwZO31771 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:58:35 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA21140 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:44:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ANt3O31653; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:55:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ANs1O31602 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:54:01 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA21005 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:40:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2ANgPu4015886 for Asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:42:25 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303102342.h2ANgPu4015886@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Opt-out lists and legislation References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:42:25 -0700 (MST) > From: Jason Hihn > ... > Legislation is futile. The spammers will go off-shore if not already. > The only solution is a technical one that crosses political borders. > ... If that were true, the people who make Rolex watches and print CDROMs software or DVDs with movies would have no hope fighting offshore pirates. In fact, contrary to the hoary old chestnut about legistation being useless because of offshore spam, laws including trade agreements and sanctions are reasonably effective. They don't and can't stop all spam, knock-off Rolexes, or pirate CDROMS or DVDs, but they can stop enough of it to be worthwhile. Besides, in the long run the real offshore spammers (no matter which are your shores) will largely stop spamming you, just to save their own bandwidth, time, and effort. Most spam is domestic, even if it happens to use offshore relays or ISPs. Almost all spam includes contact information for domestic outfits that can be whacked by domestic legislation. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 19:05:58 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA21639 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:05:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2B0JAE00640 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:19:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B0JAO00637 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:19:10 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA21631 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:05:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B0F3O00529; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:15:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B0EBO00490 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:14:11 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA21470 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:00:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2096079; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:02:37 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: RE: [Asrg] Opt-out lists and legislation Cc: "'Jason Hihn'" , Asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:39:57 -0500 At 2:06 PM -0800 3/10/03, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > > Legislation is futile. The spammers will go off-shore if not already. >> The only solution is a technical one that crosses political borders. > >Going offshore significantly increases costs and creates a major barrier >to entry. That depends on whether the company that runs it is offshore. Although if it isn't, that offers no legal protections. And of course that also assumes that the majority of U.S. spam is generated by U.S. people. Certainly even if the spam is originating here, people are using offshore machines (willing or not) to send spam. And for once I can provide numbers :-). We do path analysis on the messages we filter, and we keep a database of what IP ranges match what countries. We default users to a limited set of countries and we flag as spam anything that comes from, or passes through, anything out of that set. (We do let through some messages that we consider completely "clean", even if from out of country, but that's a different matter.) There's significant checking of the Received: chain, well beyond the "does the input of one match the output of the other" which isn't always reliable. I currently have a sample database 22,000 confirmed spam messages sent to roughly 200 real email accounts. 40% blocked by the country restriction. 4% blocked due to obvious viruses. 14% blocked due to system blacklist. <1% blocked by user blacklists. There's less than three percent overlap between those factors. The rest are blocked solely on problems we saw with the headers. There's certainly overlap between that and the other factors, but we don't currently log it specifically, so I don't know how much. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 19:27:04 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA22066 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:27:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2B0eHM02290 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:40:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B0eGO02287 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:40:16 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA22060 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:26:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B0bGO01834; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:37:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B0aoO01357 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:36:50 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA21981 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:23:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2096140 for Asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:25:16 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20030310223236.A6105@dogma> References: <20030310223236.A6105@dogma> To: Asrg@ietf.org From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Opt-out lists and legislation Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:22:32 -0500 At 10:32 PM +0000 3/10/03, Justin Mason wrote: >On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 02:06:40PM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >> > Legislation is futile. The spammers will go off-shore if not already. >> > The only solution is a technical one that crosses political borders. >> >> Going offshore significantly increases costs and creates a major barrier >> to entry. > >Using offshore contractors -- or USian contractors with offshore >sending hosts -- to send your spam, however, does not. And that's >already the case in many of the big spamhaus cases (e.g. Alan Ralsky). Although it makes prosecution more difficult, the recent cases against off-shore casinos run by U.S. citizens seems to indicate that it doesn't provide any legal protection, even if the company is incorporated offshore, they still go after the principals. Of course the government has a lot more drive to go after illegal casinos than illegal spammers--the legal casinos are pushing hard and they have big bucks. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 19:33:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA22237 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:33:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2B0kfR02613 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:46:41 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B0keO02610 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:46:40 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA22234 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:32:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B0g2O02360; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:42:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B0fWO02340 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:41:32 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA22105 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:27:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2B0TsNr021219 for Asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:29:54 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303110029.h2B0TsNr021219@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:29:54 -0700 (MST) > From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" > ... > I think it is legitimate in a very honest sense to consider email > forged if the manner in which it is sent is not approved by the > owner of the DNS zone. > ... > However mail claiming to come from hotmail that does not come through > their servers can be honestly and legitimately considered forged, or > to coin a phrase 'Notmail'. Please show evidence other than your personal assurance that Hotmail does not knowingly and intentionally sanction the very common practice of using Hotmail addresses as legitimate, non-commercial drop-boxes. WIthout such evidence, it is at best disingenuous to say that mail with Hotmail return addresses from non-Hotmail IP addresses is forged or falsely and fraudulently marked. > I think this is a better idea than deciding that we are going to > rule all freemail to be illegitimate because we don't use it and > so think that the 50 million odd who do are less important than > the right to send email any way we chose. Please stop your habit of intentionally misrepresenting my words. I said nothing about ruling free mail to be illegitimate. I did say that if the public understood how much free mail is illegitimate, less of the public would want to have anything to do with free providers. > Lots of our consultants use hotmail because they can't access the > corporate mail systems while on customer's premises (I know, Rim > pagers...) > > This would be further improved if the email clients would tell the > user trying to enter a fake email address 'hey dude, you know that > some spam filters might consider your configuration invalid'. Such a warning should also say "Hey dude, many spam filters reject all mail apparently from free providers because so much of it is spam." The number of outfits and individuals that reject all mail nominally from Hotmail or Yahoo except for a few whitelist entries is large and suprisingly large. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 19:53:06 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA22641 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:53:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2B16KQ03216 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 20:06:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B16JO03213 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 20:06:20 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA22611 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:52:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B0s3O02803; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:54:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B0r9O02766 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:53:09 -0500 Received: from ciphertrust.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA22331 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:39:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.com with ESMTP ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:40:43 -0500 (EST) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:31:08 -0500 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'Asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:31:07 -0500 This is not in response to just the last message, but to the set of recent messages on this thread. I believe that this thread has run out of usefulness. While the original thoughts were well-intentioned, we are now in a state of subjective arguments. If anyone would like to continue this conversation, please do so only with objective quantitative data. A more productive thread that was started from this conversation is "Measurements on spam". Many of the things that are being debated on this thread could be answered with such data. > -----Original Message----- > From: Vernon Schryver [mailto:vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com] > Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 7:30 PM > To: Asrg@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists > > > > From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" > > > ... > > I think it is legitimate in a very honest sense to consider email > > forged if the manner in which it is sent is not approved by the > > owner of the DNS zone. > > > ... > > However mail claiming to come from hotmail that does not > come through > > their servers can be honestly and legitimately considered > forged, or > > to coin a phrase 'Notmail'. > > Please show evidence other than your personal assurance that > Hotmail does not knowingly and intentionally sanction the > very common practice of using Hotmail addresses as > legitimate, non-commercial drop-boxes. WIthout such evidence, > it is at best disingenuous to say that mail with Hotmail > return addresses from non-Hotmail IP addresses is forged or > falsely and fraudulently marked. > > > > I think this is a better idea than deciding that we are going to > > rule all freemail to be illegitimate because we don't use it and > > so think that the 50 million odd who do are less important than > > the right to send email any way we chose. > > Please stop your habit of intentionally misrepresenting my words. > I said nothing about ruling free mail to be illegitimate. I > did say that if the public understood how much free mail is > illegitimate, less of the public would want to have anything > to do with free providers. > > > > Lots of our consultants use hotmail because they can't access the > > corporate mail systems while on customer's premises (I know, Rim > > pagers...) > > > > This would be further improved if the email clients would tell the > > user trying to enter a fake email address 'hey dude, you know that > > some spam filters might consider your configuration invalid'. > > Such a warning should also say "Hey dude, many spam filters > reject all mail apparently from free providers because so > much of it is spam." > > The number of outfits and individuals that reject all mail > nominally from Hotmail or Yahoo except for a few whitelist > entries is large and suprisingly large. > > > Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 19:59:08 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA22745 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:59:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2B1CMq04232 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 20:12:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B1CMO04229 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 20:12:22 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA22741 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:58:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B1A5O04132; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 20:10:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B19YO04084 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 20:09:34 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA22703 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:55:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.57] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2B0vtCb015698; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:57:55 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:57:55 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Vernon Schryver'" , Asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Opt-out lists and legislation MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:57:47 -0800 > If that were true, the people who make Rolex watches and print CDROMs > software or DVDs with movies would have no hope fighting offshore > pirates. In fact, contrary to the hoary old chestnut about > legistation > being useless because of offshore spam, laws including trade > agreements > and sanctions are reasonably effective. They don't and can't stop > all spam, knock-off Rolexes, or pirate CDROMS or DVDs, but they can > stop enough of it to be worthwhile. The only cases where trade agreements are likely to have no effect is places like Nigeria where the government is either ineffective or bought off. But US spam senders are unlikely to uproot themselves and go to places where there is no effective government. If they tried the bribes that they would have to pay to operate would quickly erase their profits. Just think how easy it would be to switch IP addresses to launder your connection in a country where the power only works 4 days out of 5. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 20:07:55 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA22968 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 20:07:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2B1L9404461 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 20:21:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B1L9O04458 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 20:21:09 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA22965 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 20:07:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B1J2O04378; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 20:19:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B1INO04352 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 20:18:23 -0500 Received: from ciphertrust.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA22928 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 20:04:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.com with ESMTP ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 20:06:02 -0500 (EST) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:56:27 -0500 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)'" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Subject: [Asrg] Call for agenda items for ASRG meeting at IETF-56 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:56:26 -0500 At the upcoming IETF, the ASRG will meet Thursday, March 20 at 0900 - 1130. Please send proposals for agenda items to me at paul.judge@ciphertrust.com. (Proposals need not be limited to these topics, but I am seeking presenters for at least these three topics: 1. If there is someone from an ISP that would be willing to speak, please let me know. 2. There will be some time for a few presentations of new anti-spam proposals. If you have a system or approach that you have proposed and would like to give an overview, let me know. 3. If anyone has good spam measurements (size, stats, cost, etc.) that can be presented, please let me know.) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 20:19:24 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA23131 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 20:19:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2B1WbV04776 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 20:32:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B1WaO04773 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 20:32:36 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA23127 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 20:18:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B1T3O04696; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 20:29:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B1SKO04661 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 20:28:20 -0500 Received: from mail2.microsoft.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA23075 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 20:14:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from INET-VRS-02.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.8.110]) by mail2.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6624); Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:16:42 -0800 Received: from 157.54.8.155 by INET-VRS-02.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:16:42 -0800 Received: from RED-MSG-06.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.12.198]) by INET-HUB-04.redmond.corp.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6624); Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:16:42 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.6851.8 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Opt-out lists and legislation Message-ID: <7695E2F6903F7A41961F8CF888D87EA809FB5A09@red-msg-06.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> Thread-Topic: [Asrg] Opt-out lists and legislation thread-index: AcLnZKTibq9mIyf5RFmo6buHajdbvwABsqQQ From: "Jonathan Wilkins" To: "Vernon Schryver" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Mar 2003 01:16:42.0480 (UTC) FILETIME=[DFF6B700:01C2E76B] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h2B1SKO04662 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:16:43 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I think that this is a false analogy. Legislation has been somewhat effective against pirated PHYSICAL media. One would be hard pressed to argue that it was effective against purely digital piracy. All that's happened from the various RIAA cases is to push the pirates to different networks. If anything's slowing the distribution of pirated physical media it's the easy availability of that data on online networks. -----Original Message----- From: Vernon Schryver [mailto:vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com] Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 3:42 PM To: Asrg@ietf.org > From: Jason Hihn > ... > Legislation is futile. The spammers will go off-shore if not already. > The only solution is a technical one that crosses political borders. > ... If that were true, the people who make Rolex watches and print CDROMs software or DVDs with movies would have no hope fighting offshore pirates. In fact, contrary to the hoary old chestnut about legistation being useless because of offshore spam, laws including trade agreements and sanctions are reasonably effective. They don't and can't stop all spam, knock-off Rolexes, or pirate CDROMS or DVDs, but they can stop enough of it to be worthwhile. Besides, in the long run the real offshore spammers (no matter which are your shores) will largely stop spamming you, just to save their own bandwidth, time, and effort. Most spam is domestic, even if it happens to use offshore relays or ISPs. Almost all spam includes contact information for domestic outfits that can be whacked by domestic legislation. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 20:37:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA23491 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 20:37:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2B1of506154 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 20:50:41 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B1oeO06151 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 20:50:40 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA23482 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 20:36:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B1jAO05965; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 20:45:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B1iSO05920 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 20:44:28 -0500 Received: from jaguar.icir.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA23286 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 20:30:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from jaguar.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jaguar.icir.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h2B1WSQa008854; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:32:29 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from vern@jaguar.icir.org) Message-Id: <200303110132.h2B1WSQa008854@jaguar.icir.org> To: Liudvikas Bukys Cc: asrg@ietf.org, Paul Judge Subject: "Consent" and the charter (Re: [Asrg] re: taxonomy of solutions, including some new items) In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:57:21 EST. From: Vern Paxson Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:32:28 -0800 > ** consent verification > > When I saw the ASRG charter, I leaped to the conclusion that a > consent model would be useful for two reasons: (1) to contribute > to a rigorous careful discussion, and (2) to produce human- and > machine-readable representations of consent that would be useful > for such things as: > - reducing the "I didn't know any better" gray-area excuse of > spammers regarding opt-in, opt-out, and database reselling > - making life better for users by causing practices to converge on > consent that is explicit, self-documenting and user-accessible, > establishing standardized representations (similar to DSNs), > and offering choices that are "good enough" but much lighter- > weight than, say, PKI. > > Is this what the chair was thinking? If by chair you mean the IRTF chair, then somewhat. The emphasis on consent in the charter was an attempt to frame the effort in terms of high-level goals rather than particular mechanisms. The notion of producing human/ machine-readable representations of consent is certainly within scope, but so are schemes that incorporate consent without such representations. Vern (speaking as IRTF chair) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 20:54:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA23946 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 20:54:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2B27m107508 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 21:07:48 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B27mO07505 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 21:07:48 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA23943 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 20:54:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B257O06656; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 21:05:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B24kO06631 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 21:04:46 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA23876 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 20:51:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.57] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2B1r7Cb022668; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:53:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:53:07 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Paul Judge'" , "'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Call for agenda items for ASRG meeting at IETF-56 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:52:59 -0800 I would like to make a short presentation on the security policy via DNS idea, it is an idea that is broader than just the spam area but it is likely that spam will be one of the first applications. I believe it will be joint work by that time, I may not be able to reveal my collaborators though :-) Phill > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Judge [mailto:paul.judge@ciphertrust.com] > Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 7:56 PM > To: 'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)' > Subject: [Asrg] Call for agenda items for ASRG meeting at IETF-56 > > > > At the upcoming IETF, the ASRG will meet Thursday, March 20 > at 0900 - 1130. > > Please send proposals for agenda items to me at > paul.judge@ciphertrust.com. > > > (Proposals need not be limited to these topics, but I am > seeking presenters > for at least these three topics: > 1. If there is someone from an ISP that would be willing to > speak, please > let me know. > 2. There will be some time for a few presentations of new anti-spam > proposals. If you have a system or approach that you have > proposed and would > like to give an overview, let me know. > 3. If anyone has good spam measurements (size, stats, cost, > etc.) that can > be presented, please let me know.) > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 20:59:10 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA24046 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 20:59:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2B2CNU07686 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 21:12:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B2CNO07683 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 21:12:23 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA24025 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 20:58:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B2A2O07588; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 21:10:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B29SO07555 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 21:09:28 -0500 Received: from m1.imap-partners.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA23967 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 20:55:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from 128.114.63.158 (dhcp-63-158.cse.ucsc.edu [128.114.63.158]) by m1.imap-partners.net (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id ABJ48443; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:57:48 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200303110157.ABJ48443@m1.imap-partners.net> To: "Paul Judge" , "'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Taxonomy of anti-spam systems From: "Raymie Stata" Reply-To: "Raymie Stata" X-Priority: 3 (normal) X-Mailer: Bloomba 1.0 PR4-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:56:41 -0800 Initially my goal was to offer a few small suggestions for improving your taxonomy. However, the suggestions snowballed, and the result is a rather drastic set of suggestions. In short, I think we should be looking for sets of "orthogonal dimensions" along which to measure anti-spam systems rather than a "taxonomy" in the traditional sense of that word (a tree of mutually-exclusive, jointly-exhaustive categories). Consider the following example: an ISP that uses white- and blacklists plus content-filtering to detect spam, but simply puts special headers in the messages, leaving it to specially-configured MUAs to either (at the user's discretion) quarantine spam or to bounce back a challenge. The point here is to illustrate how anti-spam system are probably best understood as mixing together choices from a few dimensions rather than as belonging to a single-rooted hierarchy. Here are the main dimensions of my anti-spam-system classification scheme: How is spam detected? What is the response to spam? Where does the detection and response take place? Let's look at each: 1) Where (for both detection and response): (a) sending MTA, (b) receiving MTA, (c) receiving MUA If detection and response happen in different places, we assume some form of message tagging is needed -- a good place to plug in the thread about standardizing spam headers. 2) Response: (a) Throw in bit-bucket (b) Quarantine (giving recipient ability to review) (c) Rate limit (obviously not appropriate at MUAs) (d) Issue challenge/collect response (e) Demand real-world payment/punishment (e) Deserves a little explanation. This is meant to capture the idea of collecting payments under the Bonded-Sender/Templeton-Postage approaches, or suing for copyright infringement under the Habeas approach, or suing for violation of ISP user agreements, or suing for misappropriation of one's identity (forgery). Obviously, most of these require some type of hard-to-repudiate authentication of real-world entities to be effective. Another point about (e) versus the others. ALL of a-e are there, at least in part, as a deterrence -- to make it painful/expensive/less-useful to send spam. In this regard, (e) is a little different from the rest because it probably makes sense ONLY as a deterrence. I'm not sure if this point deserves more than a footnote. 3) Detection Here again, I'm inclined to create a space of "orthogonal dimensions" rather than a strict taxonomy: 3.1) Features considered (a) Sender (i) Untracked sender (ii) "Tracked" sender ...lots of futher classification for "tracked" senders (c) Message content (including headers) (d) "Permission to send" tokens (I like to call this "Postage") (i) A priori (payment made for this message) (I) Real money (lots of subcategories) (II) Evidence of money spent (lots of these too, e.g., hashcash) (ii) A posteriori (payment promised upon misbehavior) ...lots of these, e.g., Habeas, Bonded Sender, Templeton Postage 3.2) Determination mechanism (a) Human (i) White/black/reputation lists for senders ...Such lists can be further classified according to how they are maintained (ii) Collaborative filtering for bodies (iii) Hand-crafted rules for senders, headers and/or bodies ...includes such things as "Postfix" and checkings "envelope characteristics" as well as "Dear friend"-like body rules (b) System (i) Learning based on human spam/ham tagging ...much sub-classification is possible (ii) Bulk detection (DCC) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 21:05:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA24143 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 21:05:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2B2IIV07847 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 21:18:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B2IIO07844 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 21:18:18 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA24138 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 21:04:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B2G5O07801; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 21:16:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B2FeO07782 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 21:15:40 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA24118 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 21:01:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2B242BD028690 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 21:04:02 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20030311021001.7576.2325.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> Message-ID: References: <20030311021001.7576.2325.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Asrg] Checklist and full disclosure Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 21:04:02 -0500 (EST) Vernon Schryver wrote: > I don't intend to say that it should not have been posted, but to urge > caution. This is a public list whose archives will soon be indexed > by the search engines. It would be a shame if the only results from > this effort are a lot of noise and some cookbooks and checklists for > spammers. Well, this is a research group, and I think we need full disclosure. Security through obscurity is not a good anti-spam policy. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 21:27:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA24491 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 21:27:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2B2ela09321 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 21:40:47 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B2elO09318 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 21:40:47 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA24485 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 21:27:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B2c5O09236; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 21:38:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B2bOO09099 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 21:37:24 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA24450 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 21:23:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18sUfH-000173-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:18:31 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Taxonomy of anti-spam systems In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:56:41 PST." <200303110157.ABJ48443@m1.imap-partners.net> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:18:31 -0500 "Raymie Stata" wrote: > In short, I think we should be looking for sets of "orthogonal dimensions" > along which to measure anti-spam systems rather than a "taxonomy" > in the traditional sense of that word (a tree of mutually-exclusive, > jointly-exhaustive categories). I would prefer to start off with a good consent model. Once we have that, we can vary the model parameters to address the possible variations of consent, and therefore of anti-spam measures. (Who, where, why, instead of how.) If we have such a model, anti-spam systems can be described by what problems they solve. Until then, all of the proposed solutions are qualitative statements of the form "well, I think this should help..." Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 10 21:52:57 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA24934 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 21:52:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2B36B110396 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 22:06:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B36BO10393 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 22:06:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA24931 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 21:52:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B31FO10164; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 22:01:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B307O10046 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 22:00:07 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA24823 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 21:46:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc02.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2B2mSc3029181 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:48:28 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:48:28 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: "Consent" and the charter (Re: [Asrg] re: taxonomy of solutio ns, including some new items) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:48:27 -0800 I think Vern's point can be generalized. If only 20% of the spam being generated is being generated by people who should know better and are likely to respond to best practices type approaches then it is a worthwhile exercise to address that 20%. There is certainly a hard core of thugs and murderers who use spam as part of their 419 extortion rackets that are not going to listen, but the spam from those quarters already has a very distinct signal. What we need to avoid at all costs is a situation where people start to believe the propaganda from the spam senders, that it is alright to do this stuff and that pretty soon every F500 will act that way. I strongly suspect that the biggest spam scam is when the spam hauses take money from their customers claiming that spam works. Phill > -----Original Message----- > From: Vern Paxson [mailto:vern@icir.org] > Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 8:32 PM > To: Liudvikas Bukys > Cc: asrg@ietf.org; Paul Judge > Subject: "Consent" and the charter (Re: [Asrg] re: taxonomy of > solutions, including some new items) > > > > ** consent verification > > > > When I saw the ASRG charter, I leaped to the conclusion that a > > consent model would be useful for two reasons: (1) to > contribute > > to a rigorous careful discussion, and (2) to produce human- and > > machine-readable representations of consent that would be useful > > for such things as: > > - reducing the "I didn't know any better" gray-area excuse of > > spammers regarding opt-in, opt-out, and database reselling > > - making life better for users by causing practices to > converge on > > consent that is explicit, self-documenting and > user-accessible, > > establishing standardized representations (similar to DSNs), > > and offering choices that are "good enough" but much lighter- > > weight than, say, PKI. > > > > Is this what the chair was thinking? > > If by chair you mean the IRTF chair, then somewhat. The > emphasis on consent > in the charter was an attempt to frame the effort in terms of > high-level > goals rather than particular mechanisms. The notion of > producing human/ > machine-readable representations of consent is certainly > within scope, but > so are schemes that incorporate consent without such representations. > > Vern (speaking as IRTF chair) > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 02:10:04 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA09899 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 02:10:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2B7NPl04333 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 02:23:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B7NOO04330 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 02:23:24 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA09365 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 02:09:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B7IMO03704; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 02:18:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B7HXO03680 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 02:17:33 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA03389 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 02:03:39 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2B75k5s002559; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 02:05:46 -0500 Message-Id: <200303110705.h2B75k5s002559@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.1 02/18/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: "Alejandro G. Belluscio" Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Email Certification Path Proposal In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:06:32 -0300." <582470855.20030310190632@uol.com.ar> References: <582470855.20030310190632@uol.com.ar> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_265653551P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 02:05:45 -0500 --==_Exmh_265653551P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:06:32 -0300, "Alejandro G. Belluscio" said: > I know it's too early to send this kind of proposal, but please keep in > mind the idea that, if signature is required, use the existing business > relationships instead of making the Verisign mistake again. And my business relationship to you is what, exactly? This isn't a rhetorical question. There's only a few basic trust models: 1) Our respective cert authorities negotiate a private cross-cert agreement. This works well for 2 businesses that want to verify each other's signatures, but doesn't scale to the open internet. 2) a Verisign/X.509 model where somebody runs a central set of servers. Nobody is going to do one of these that scales to Internet size for free either (hint - what percent of domains have their own CA that can sign certs for their users?) 3) A PGP web-of-trust model. Works great once both correspondents are in the same web, but has some major bootstrapping issues... The "Verisign mistake" happened because there aren't a lot of other things that *could* have happened. > (lots of definitions skipped) > Objectives > -To have a certified sender in the sense of a legal entity . > -Keep the privacy of the sender and reciever when necesary. > -Minimize the cost of entity certification. Reasonable goals.. > Description > > 1. Each SMTP has to enable SMTP-AUTH. This enables the server uniquely > identify the Sending Account sending such mail. Nice hand-waving. How do you ensure that the *REMOTE* end actually enforces it? This isn't as easy as it looks - *my* mail systems may do SMTP AUTH, and I may even pass a cookie to you so if there's a problem with one of my users, you can give me the cookie and I'll hopefully know who to call in and beat the snot out of them (which was the *original* purpose of RFC1413 IDENT, incidentally). Of course, a spamhaus already knows who's using their server, and has no need of running SMTP AUTH to verify that they themselves are the ones sending the mail.... > 2. Using that information the header is then added a signature using a > certificate of the SM plus a code that let's said SM to uniquely > identify the Sending Account. This code should be chosen so as to be non > desiptive of said account for a third party, even if he recieves > multiple emails. Read RFC1413, section 6 (Security Considerations) You're trusting the remote site to give you information. > 4. (to discuss or optional) On a recieving SMTP if the email has a valid > signature path, it's signed by himself and given a code that let's the > SM uniquely identify the RA. Signed how? and what makes this more trusted than the set of Received: headers? There's two cases to consider: 1) There exists a PKI. In this case, the sender just uses S/MIME or PGP or whatever, and all the intermediaries need do *NOTHING*. This message is PGP signed - if you want you can validate it via the PGP web-of-trust. And my mail server, your mail server, and the IETF mail server need not get involved at all. If I sign it with an X.509-style cert, the mail server STILL doesn't have to get involved, because the cert chain on my signature already identifies me. 2) There isn't a PKI. If so, then everybody is basically just using self-signed certificates, which prove approximately nothing... Note that doing crypto on a hop-by-hop basis will get *expensive* - the note that I'm replying to had 8 Received: headers, and 15-20 is not at all uncommon. By the 10th or 12th hop, that's a *LOT* of cert chains you have to walk through to verify (and remember that *each* cert chain is going to take a chunk of resources).... -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Senior Engineer Virginia Tech --==_Exmh_265653551P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+bYrJcC3lWbTT17ARAqSUAJ9ywIgKoBOiMktz7RPDGpKEDS6x2wCePVSE El+83n9Kcqel4IWKXOcoyY4= =sYkh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_265653551P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 02:50:22 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA12153 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 02:50:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2B83h707254 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 03:03:43 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B83gO07251 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 03:03:42 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA12136 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 02:49:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B81DO07179; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 03:01:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B80vO07145 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 03:00:57 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA12101 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 02:47:04 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2B7n65s002890; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 02:49:06 -0500 Message-Id: <200303110749.h2B7n65s002890@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.1 02/18/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: Kee Hinckley Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Opt-out lists and legislation In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:39:57 EST." References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_272555431P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 02:49:05 -0500 --==_Exmh_272555431P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:39:57 EST, Kee Hinckley said: > I currently have a sample database 22,000 confirmed spam messages > sent to roughly 200 real email accounts. > > 40% blocked by the country restriction. > 4% blocked due to obvious viruses. > 14% blocked due to system blacklist. > <1% blocked by user blacklists. > > There's less than three percent overlap between those factors. The Actually, there's a hidden assumption here that means that there's a lot MORE than 3% overlap. Your 14% system blacklist refers to a blacklist that was tailored thinking "and this list doesn't include anything from .XY because we country-restrict them already". What's *really* there is a system blacklist that accounts for 54% of catches, where 70% of the rules are country-based and the other 30% are rules to catch stuff the country rules dont.... Pick a country .XY and analyze it carefully - it's fairly likely that if you didn't filter the country, you'd blacklist 3-4 spamhauses that are 95% of the problem in that country. The important question of course becomes whether or not the *rest* of that country's population will start using e-mail enough to increase the risk of false positives and skew your stats... ;) > rest are blocked solely on problems we saw with the headers. There's > certainly overlap between that and the other factors, but we don't > currently log it specifically, so I don't know how much. It would be interesting and informative to have some other numbers. What percent of mail was tagged with the country restriction but *NOT* tagged as spam by users? (For instance, it would be quite easy to flag all mail from .CN as spam - and although my users would probably tag back 100% of the spam from .CN, they'd not tag 100% of the mail from .CN, as many have relatives there.. The fact that 40% of spam fails the country test is not at all a reliable predictor unless there is a near-zero rate of non-spam that fails the country test. Is the "user blacklist" number the percentage caught by pre-established user filters, or is that saying that your other checks were 99% effective in identifying spam and only 1% got through to users for them to report? Do you have any guesstimates of how much *unreported* spam got through to the 200 accounts? Or to turn up the satire, and point out the problem with the analysis: 40% of spammers drank milk at breakfast the day they spammed I saw an amusing statistic once that 99.97% of all felonies are committed while breathing air.... ;) --==_Exmh_272555431P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+bZTxcC3lWbTT17ARArZ5AKCPrKgufC8Lw7/MWqeNRYCv//rzcgCeMyC5 QJjl5sJAnoSlR99lOxdXFEg= =PBCA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_272555431P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 03:09:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA12603 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 03:09:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2B8N3G08947 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 03:23:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B8N3O08944 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 03:23:03 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA12587 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 03:09:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B8KBO08757; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 03:20:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B8K0O08701 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 03:20:00 -0500 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA12442 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 03:06:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 18seny-0001n8-00; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:08:10 +0000 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: RE: [Asrg] Several Observations and a solution that addresses them all To: "Jason Hihn" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.4.9] Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:08:10 +0000 > I'm not concerned. Get the spam off the net, and watch reliability go up. > ;-) > You're not concerned that your proposal would impose a cost (any cost) on innocent systems which haven't subscribed to it? You're not concerned that validating a "from address" is a non-trivial problem? Fine. However, that doesn't stop these being "concerns" in a non-personal sense. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 03:17:16 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA12845 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 03:17:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2B8Ubg09335 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 03:30:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B8UbO09332 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 03:30:37 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA12824 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 03:16:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B8S2O09229; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 03:28:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B8RtO09215 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 03:27:55 -0500 Received: from rad.ig.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA12760 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 03:14:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from spike (spike.ig.co.uk [193.32.60.32]) by mail.ig.co.uk with SMTP id h2B8G5D21585 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:16:05 GMT Message-Id: <200303110816.h2B8G5D21585@rad.ig.co.uk> From: "Jacqui Caren" To: "asrg@ietf.org" Reply-To: "Jacqui Caren" Priority: Normal X-Mailer: PMMail 98 Standard (2.01.1600) For Windows NT (5.0.2195;3) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] Email Certification Path Proposal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:16:04 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 02:05:45 -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > 2) a Verisign/X.509 model where somebody runs a central set of servers. > Nobody is going to do one of these that scales to Internet size for free > either (hint - what percent of domains have their own CA that can sign > certs for their users?) [thinking aloud] Hmm - If we followed a hierachical (heterachic would probably be better) model of CA's then someone would run a secure central responsitory for certifying CA's who would then certify the rest of the world. The technology is not expensive or complex - and apart from security issues (which are not too be sneezed at) the technical resource implications are very similar to running an mid range ISP news or web server pool. If we could find some sucker^Wkind-person who would host the initial central CA for free and we could then find say a few dozen companies who would offer free public CA's we could have an infrastructure in place with little or no cost to the public. Seriously... Yes, the internet is very commercial these days however it should be remembered that what we are talking about is a way to save ISP's significant sums of money by being able to more effectively block spam/UCE in some manner. The projected savings should be enough to convince many of the larger ISPs that a small investment in becoming a public CA will result in savings beyond the original cost. After all if what we propose does not save more than it costs why are we doing it anyway? - at least thats the view many businesses will have to take... In the same way that ISps block external access to news servers we will have a number of ISps that ill want to offer CA services to thier own customer base only. How we avoid this happening is a question I have no answer to... Demon internet tried the large private new pool + small slow public news pool and this model failed for some reason - the public pool was withdrawn after a few years with no stated reasons etc. I suppose contracts could force CAs to remain public however we all know force does not work... :-) My last coment is that no matter what solution or technology is selected we should aim for incremental implementation - "big bang" solutions almost always fail (IMHO). Anyway back to lurking ;-) Jacqui Jacqui Caren, Ingram Group Ltd. jacqui@ig.co.uk ph: +44 (0) 1483 8628xx main=00 fax=01 ddi=65 http://www.ig.co.uk/ http://www.sitedirector.org/ http://www.perl.co.uk/ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 03:17:24 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA12858 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 03:17:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2B8UjE09351 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 03:30:45 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B8UjO09348 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 03:30:45 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA12828 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 03:16:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B8O2O09056; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 03:24:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B8NfO09014 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 03:23:41 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA12637 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 03:09:48 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2B8Bl5s003116; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 03:11:47 -0500 Message-Id: <200303110811.h2B8Bl5s003116@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.1 02/18/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: Hadmut Danisch Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] DCC and IP checksums In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:34:05 +0100." <20030310163404.GA10678@danisch.de> References: <20030310160501.21345.65862.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> <20030310163404.GA10678@danisch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_282434934P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 03:11:46 -0500 --==_Exmh_282434934P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:34:05 +0100, Hadmut Danisch said: > Some years ago, hackers used to be highly sophisticated experts. > Meanwhile, the majority of attacks are driven by silly script kiddies > using high sophisticated tools without understanding what's going on. As I said on another list recently: "Sometimes, the data makes a lot more sense if you analyze it thinking 'What if the Three Stooges were hackers?'" > Reading some of the spams I receive I found that many of them seem > to be sent with the very same software and address list. There are I've certainly seen my share of Three Stooges spammers... One particularly bad day, I had one spammer send me: CLICK HERE TO VISIT OUR SITE In a text/plain. No HTML. No anchors. No http:. Nothing. Quite obviously slice-and-miced from another spam and all the anchors lost. Whoops. About 15 minutes later, I had some spam land in the Listserv postmaster's mailbox because it was sent to an invalid userid. The part that made it pathetic-to-the-point-I-hope-they-dont-reproduce was that they were marketing a CD with 400 million allegedly verified email addresses.... --==_Exmh_282434934P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+bZpCcC3lWbTT17ARAueHAKDhGQjinbt3kWgmds3mtn0h7WEIawCfZclG hUow+XzSiA8SCYGXLbwQgtE= =t8pL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_282434934P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 03:51:13 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA13440 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 03:51:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2B94Za11936 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 04:04:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B94YO11933 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 04:04:34 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA13431 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 03:50:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B906O11471; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 04:00:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B8xCO11407 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 03:59:12 -0500 Received: from rad.ig.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA13345 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 03:45:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from spike (spike.ig.co.uk [193.32.60.32]) by mail.ig.co.uk with SMTP id h2B8lOD21836 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:47:24 GMT Message-Id: <200303110847.h2B8lOD21836@rad.ig.co.uk> From: "Jacqui Caren" To: "Asrg@ietf.org" Reply-To: "Jacqui Caren" Priority: Normal X-Mailer: PMMail 98 Standard (2.01.1600) For Windows NT (5.0.2195;3) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:47:24 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:01:29 +0100, Hadmut Danisch wrote: > On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 08:09:58PM -0500, Erez Zadok wrote: > > is forged, I don't believe (again from personal experience), that 50% of all > > email is spam. > > That completely depends on the use of email. > > I find 5-15 spam mails in my mailbox every day, which is significantly > less than 10% of my email traffic (even without the asrg list). > I use email (from here only for work). I get approx ~10 messages a day (say 100 peak) from work and customers. Email averages at say 2Kb/msg with peaks of say 20Meg zip attachments ;-) Spam without our inhouse filtering it averages at around 300 messages per desktop with messages getting bigger (as you say). I get approx 40 spam messages per day on my desktop of which at least half are duplicates - I get at least two and often three of each mainly due to allowed variations in my email address. Jacqui J.caren Jacqui.caren etc. Spam is an irritant and eats time however reading the asrg mlist takes even more time than keeping up with newsgroups of interest... FYI: When I post (very rarely these days) to a public NG new (unfiltered) spam goes through the roof until the filters catch up. Jacqui p.s. I read this mlist mainly as a developer of opt in email broadcast systems for people who want to send out personalised data (news, vacancies, product pricelists to resellers, stock price data to paying customers, personalised stock analysis reports etc. We actively avoid working for people who may even consider 'spamming' the world. Regarding earlier discussions of the cost of initial infrastructure I know some companies in the (opt-in) EMBC field who would consider funding the initial infratsructure of a technically and commercially viable solution. Not everyone in the EMBC field are evil doers and ogres - some are not only good guys but want to be seen to be so :-) Jacqui Caren, Ingram Group Ltd. jacqui@ig.co.uk ph: +44 (0) 1483 8628xx main=00 fax=01 ddi=65 http://www.ig.co.uk/ http://www.sitedirector.org/ http://www.perl.co.uk/ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 03:57:07 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA13555 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 03:57:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2B9AT713062 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 04:10:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B9ASO13059 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 04:10:28 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA13542 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 03:56:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B96CO12086; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 04:06:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B923O11609 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 04:02:03 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA13390 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 03:48:08 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2B8o75s003358; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 03:50:07 -0500 Message-Id: <200303110850.h2B8o75s003358@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.1 02/18/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: Jacqui Caren Cc: "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Email Certification Path Proposal In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:16:04 GMT." <200303110816.h2B8G5D21585@rad.ig.co.uk> References: <200303110816.h2B8G5D21585@rad.ig.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_288545314P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 03:50:07 -0500 --==_Exmh_288545314P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:16:04 GMT, Jacqui Caren said: > If we could find some sucker^Wkind-person who would host the initial > central CA for free and we could then find say a few dozen companies > who would offer free public CA's we could have an infrastructure in place > with little or no cost to the public. And said certificates would be worth what they cost. Little to nothing. Running a CA is easy. Certifying that the users are who they say they are is *HARD*. Let's say the actual server, software, install, bandwidth, etc, costs $20K. Let's say we've also decided to charge $5 per certificate. Now you need an office where 4,000 people can come in and show ID to prove they are themselves so you can create a certificate for them. Now you have to pay for office rent and a clerical worker to do that work, so your break-even point just went to 10K people. Hopefully you're in a city, so you don't have to open multiple offices all over the place... Work out the business model for 500K certificates. Remember to include in the price tag the private investigator doing background checks on the people who run the CA's to make sure they don't have any ties to spammers or organized crime.... If you don't think the background check isn't needed, you need to think about it some more.... Here's what happens when it isn't done right: http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2001-04.html --==_Exmh_288545314P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+baM+cC3lWbTT17ARAh3NAJ0Vg6JbQFFJuZUWPYAim/x9Vy9MwgCfebBc rlquv5rT9nd2o174xTeWyfs= =nSCj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_288545314P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 04:11:00 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA13787 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 04:11:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2B9OMP13583 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 04:24:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B9OMO13580 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 04:24:22 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA13779 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 04:10:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B9I5O13334; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 04:18:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B9HMO13289 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 04:17:22 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA13687 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 04:03:28 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2B95T5s003727; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 04:05:29 -0500 Message-Id: <200303110905.h2B95T5s003727@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.1 02/18/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: matthew richards Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] email licences In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:12:47 PST." References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_297288223P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 04:05:29 -0500 --==_Exmh_297288223P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:12:47 PST, matthew richards said: > why not just create a whole new closed email system based on SMTP but > not backwards compatible. and then make the sign up for that system > VERY comprehensive, like getting a drivers licence (or at least a > combination of factors that could not be easily falsified or > randomized) and maybe apply real world penalties for abuse of the Hmm.. You don't live in a college town, do you? ;) If you did, you could ask around - there's *always* somebody who can make an ID that says you're 21 so you can go drinking. The only reason that a driver's license works as ID This is just the same old "If we had a PKI, we could digitally sign everything" argument. The problem is that we don't have a working PKI. Find out how many driver's licenses your state Dept of Motor Vehicles has issued. Find out how much they charge per license. Multiply the two numbers - that's revenue. Now find out if DMV puts money into the state or if it needs more funding. What does your answer say about the financial feasibility of your idea? --==_Exmh_297288223P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+babZcC3lWbTT17ARAuvZAJ9EntAzlIzKw/5aXA9vFHgfmjFxjACeLwfv MZ7JbxQSHA0lN/gIcNdENIw= =d7LW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_297288223P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 04:21:04 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA13965 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 04:21:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2B9YQk13939 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 04:34:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B9YQO13936 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 04:34:26 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA13953 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 04:20:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B9TaO13777; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 04:29:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B9RvO13726 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 04:27:57 -0500 Received: from rad.ig.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA13823 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 04:14:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from spike (spike.ig.co.uk [193.32.60.32]) by mail.ig.co.uk with SMTP id h2B9GAD21997 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 09:16:10 GMT Message-Id: <200303110916.h2B9GAD21997@rad.ig.co.uk> From: "Jacqui Caren" To: "asrg@ietf.org" Reply-To: "Jacqui Caren" Priority: Normal X-Mailer: PMMail 98 Standard (2.01.1600) For Windows NT (5.0.2195;3) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] Email Certification Path Proposal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 09:16:10 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 03:50:07 -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:16:04 GMT, Jacqui Caren said: > > > If we could find some sucker^Wkind-person who would host the initial > > central CA for free and we could then find say a few dozen companies > > who would offer free public CA's we could have an infrastructure in place > > with little or no cost to the public. > > And said certificates would be worth what they cost. Little to nothing. > > Running a CA is easy. Certifying that the users are who they say they > are is *HARD*. [ **very** good points snipped ] > If you don't think the background check isn't needed, you need to think > about it some more.... It is even worse in that in the UK, the legal requirements make being a CA **seriously** expensive. Every company that has moved into the UK ecommerce/etrust market has now dropped out of the market. I did not even consider the need for background checks etc - even though many people I know do at least credit checks before accepting a customer - in the UK the number of cases discussed where prospects are actually broke at the point of contract is getting scary! Perhaps I should stick to lurking :-) Jacqui Jacqui Caren, Ingram Group Ltd. jacqui@ig.co.uk ph: +44 (0) 1483 8628xx main=00 fax=01 ddi=65 http://www.ig.co.uk/ http://www.sitedirector.org/ http://www.perl.co.uk/ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 04:31:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA14208 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 04:31:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2B9iqB15184 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 04:44:52 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B9iqO15181 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 04:44:52 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA14192 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 04:30:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B9g6O15052; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 04:42:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2B9fIO15013 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 04:41:18 -0500 Received: from pop.snert.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA14086 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 04:27:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from snert.com ([193.41.72.237]) (authenticated bits=0) by pop.snert.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2B9Sx9E012064 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 10:29:30 +0100 Message-ID: <3E6DAC56.9060404@snert.com> From: Anthony Howe User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4a) Gecko/20030303 X-Accept-Language: en, fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Need for a Glossary (Was: Taxonomy of anti-spam systems) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 10:28:54 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > With my spokeperson hat on I prefer the terms 'Detect Wanted' and > 'Detect Junk'. I am not going to use any term that involves the > word 'fail' with a journalist when talking about my work or > company products. I like these terms, they are far more clear and don't carry any negative conitations. > should also mention vigilante actions such as teergrubbing and hackback, I I've not heard these terms before "teergrubbing" "hackback" Maybe part of this should create a "glossary" web page, because some people like myself might not be "au courant" and since you are already talking about journalists, will find it useful if some terms and concepts are predefined (or in the course of being defined). I've found that alot of the arguments being carried on in other threads revolve around semantics and meaning and really start to grow tiring after so many posts. I can't believe that it takes people so long to actually come to some concensis on what SPAM is and what to call / classify the assorted abuses of SMTP, RFC 2822, MIME, and the like, let alone even start coming up with ideas, data gathering, experiments, and maybe even some possible solutions. I think the choice of words and their semantics are important, but I also think that they shouldn't be the focus of overlong continued discussions, which is why I'd think some sort of open community glossary might be a better place to define and isolate such long term discussions of this nature. -- Anthony C Howe +33 6 11 89 73 78 http://www.snert.com/ ICQ: 7116561 AIM: Sir Wumpus "Will the real email please stand up..." _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 07:24:13 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA17172 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 07:24:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BCbeb25945 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 07:37:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BCbeO25942 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 07:37:40 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA17168 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 07:23:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BCYJO25054; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 07:34:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BCXqO25030 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 07:33:52 -0500 Received: from dogma.slashnull.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA17121 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 07:19:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from jm@localhost) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BCIj414165; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:18:45 GMT From: Justin Mason To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'Vernon Schryver'" , Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Opt-out lists and legislation Message-ID: <20030311121844.E12341@dogma> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from pbaker@verisign.com on Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 04:57:47PM -0800 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:18:44 +0000 On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 04:57:47PM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > But US spam senders are unlikely to uproot themselves and go to > places where there is no effective government. If they tried the > bribes that they would have to pay to operate would quickly erase > their profits. I'm not convinced at all. Consider the current situation with trade agreements w.r.t. software and VCD piracy; the biggest offenders are in East Asia, and have been for decades. So obviously US-led trade agreements are taking a long time to have an appreciable effect over there. At the same time, some of the highest broadband rollout to date is in East Asian countries (Korea for example), so there is a lot of tech savvy and bandwidth to be used. That's a spammer's dream -- lots of bandwidth, and little influence of US law. In other words, there's a good reason why some of the big spamhauses have sited their server infrastructure over there. PS: also, I don't know for sure, but from what I've heard I'd reckon power cuts are more common in Silicon Valley, than Beijing's server farms ;) --j. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 07:29:26 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA17343 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 07:29:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BCgsj26170 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 07:42:54 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BCgrO26167 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 07:42:53 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA17327 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 07:28:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BCc1O25980; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 07:38:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BCbeO25938 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 07:37:40 -0500 Received: from dogma.slashnull.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA17166 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 07:23:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from jm@localhost) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BCMjg14367; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:22:45 GMT From: Justin Mason To: Jonathan Wilkins Cc: Vernon Schryver , Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Opt-out lists and legislation Message-ID: <20030311122245.F12341@dogma> References: <7695E2F6903F7A41961F8CF888D87EA809FB5A09@red-msg-06.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <7695E2F6903F7A41961F8CF888D87EA809FB5A09@red-msg-06.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>; from jwilkins@microsoft.com on Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 05:16:43PM -0800 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:22:45 +0000 On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 05:16:43PM -0800, Jonathan Wilkins wrote: > I think that this is a false analogy. Legislation has been somewhat > effective against pirated PHYSICAL media. One would be hard pressed > to argue that it was effective against purely digital piracy. > All that's happened from the various RIAA cases is to push the > pirates to different networks. Hmm, I missed this thread in my last reply. Also, physical pirate copies are easier to stop *entering* the US. That's why you haven't seen them. A visit to the biggest mall in Bangkok last year illustrated this graphically to me; I was surrounded by about 1000 sq.ft. of racks of pirate CD-ROMs. And that's nice, clean, shiny mainstream Bangkok shopping, not some kind of pirate flea market. ;) The piracy's all still there, it's just not getting into your hands as easily as it used to... --j. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 07:48:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA17689 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 07:48:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BD1XS26977 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:01:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BD1XO26974 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:01:33 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA17684 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 07:47:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BCx3O26872; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 07:59:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BCwMO26842 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 07:58:22 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA17603 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 07:44:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc01.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53] (may be forged)) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2BCiFfK003062 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 04:44:15 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 04:46:31 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Opt-out lists and legislation MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 04:46:22 -0800 > On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 04:57:47PM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > > But US spam senders are unlikely to uproot themselves and go to > > places where there is no effective government. If they tried the > > bribes that they would have to pay to operate would quickly erase > > their profits. > > I'm not convinced at all. Consider the current situation with trade > agreements w.r.t. software and VCD piracy; the biggest offenders > are in East Asia, and have been for decades. So obviously US-led > trade agreements are taking a long time to have an appreciable > effect over there. What an amazingly parochial view. It is unlikely that we are going to see any US led trade agreements for many years. Why do you assume that your country is the only super-national actor? Korea is looking to adopt anti-spam legislation unilaterally. Their people have the same complaints as everyone else. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 08:01:53 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA17953 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:01:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BDFLM28264 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:15:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BDFLO28261 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:15:21 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA17946 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:01:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BD84O28038; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:08:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BD7pO28020 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:07:51 -0500 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA17832 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 07:53:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 18sjIT-0003xp-00; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:55:57 +0000 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: RE: [Asrg] Opt-out lists and legislation To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.4.10] Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:55:57 +0000 > > Korea is looking to adopt anti-spam legislation unilaterally. Their > people have the same complaints as everyone else. > That's most terrifically good news. Do you have a reference for that? (in English) -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 08:25:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA18707 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:25:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BDd7W30493 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:39:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BDd7O30490 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:39:07 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA18699 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:25:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BDV5O29355; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:31:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BDU2O29301 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:30:02 -0500 Received: from mail.neosinteractive.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA18474 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:16:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from tthompson ([217.35.105.172] unverified) by mail.neosinteractive.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:23:01 +0000 From: "Tom Thomson" To: Subject: RE: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20030309030507.25756.97454.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Mar 2003 13:23:01.0634 (UTC) FILETIME=[5729E620:01C2E7D1] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:17:30 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Henrik Levkowetz wrote: On 9 Mar 2003 02:41:20 "Mark Delany" wrote: > The one down side is that all mailing lists have to send individual > mails to each recipient and we all know what sort of red flag that is > to some bulls. That sounds as if you think the confirmation token needs to be handled at RFC2822 level rather than at RFC2821 level. Since the mailbox to which the message is to be delivered is identified only at RFC2821 level, that seems a little odd to say the least. Surely the token should be handled at the envelope level, just as a matter of principal (the tokken expresses consent relating to an envelope - RCPT_TO - destination, not to anything specified in the content, in the context of the envelope sender (mailing list) not in respect to anything specified in the content). And putting it at the level it belongs at would avoid waving that red flag to those bulls. As well as elimintatinmg the red flag, putting the token in the appropriate level of protocl eliminates another problem that would arrive from putting it in the wrong place. Email sent through RFC821 systems does not have to conform to RFC2822 (see first two paragraphs of section 2.1 of that RFC, which list some mail content RFCs which use octets not permitted in RFC2822 conformant mail). There is no requirement on MTAs to understand RFC2822 or any other standard that might be used to encode a mail body - they only have to understand RFC2821. I think that the volume of RFC2822 non-conformant email is now greater than the body of RFC2822 conformant email (it certainly is in terms of mail I receive, one reason being that a lot of it uses the ISO western European character set rather than USASCII). So putting the solution in a replacement for RFC2822 instead of in a replacement for RFC2821 will just not work for most mail transferred through RFC2821 conformant MTAs unless we put it also into every other content encoding standard (and it would require MTAs to have to mess about in stuff that is essentially none of their business). Tom Thomson _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 09:56:07 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA21203 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 09:56:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BF9aJ04378 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 10:09:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BF9aO04375 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 10:09:36 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA21188 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 09:55:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BEmIO02611; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 09:48:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BElYO02583 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 09:47:34 -0500 Received: from chimta04.algx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA20661 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 09:33:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from JHS ([67.92.23.74]) by chimmx04.algx.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.10 (built Jan 23 2003)) with SMTP id <0HBL002759VHLA@chimmx04.algx.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:35:42 -0600 (CST) From: Jason Hihn Subject: RE: RE: [Asrg] Several Observations and a solution that addresses them all In-reply-to: To: Jon Kyme Cc: ASRG Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 09:35:41 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT You have to break eggs to make an omelet. There is no solution to spam that will not wind up costing the same as or being cheaper than current email. What we can do is create a system where the cost of email+spamproofness < cost of email+spam. I believe that is a good technical definition of success in this task. Validating a from address is trivial. And don't understand your last statement. -----Original Message----- From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Jon Kyme Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 3:08 AM To: Jason Hihn Cc: ASRG Subject: Re: RE: [Asrg] Several Observations and a solution that addresses them all > I'm not concerned. Get the spam off the net, and watch reliability go up. > ;-) > You're not concerned that your proposal would impose a cost (any cost) on innocent systems which haven't subscribed to it? You're not concerned that validating a "from address" is a non-trivial problem? Fine. However, that doesn't stop these being "concerns" in a non-personal sense. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 10:01:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA21497 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 10:01:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BFFQi04706 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 10:15:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BFFPO04703 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 10:15:25 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA21465 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 10:01:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BFB7O04456; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 10:11:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BFAEO04418 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 10:10:14 -0500 Received: from chimta03.algx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA21218 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 09:56:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from JHS ([67.92.23.74]) by chimmx03.algx.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.10 (built Jan 23 2003)) with SMTP id <0HBL000MHAWVKL@chimmx03.algx.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:58:08 -0600 (CST) From: Jason Hihn Subject: RE: [Asrg] Several Observations and a solution that addresses them all In-reply-to: To: Kee Hinckley Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 09:58:07 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Combine this with my first thread, the alternate character thread, and you have something for your 10, 50, and 90 percent deployment. You also have an easy way for anyone to adopt the new system and interact with legacy systems. At any percentage the emails you get are known non-spam. There is one goal: to eliminate spam. If you want social implications at 10, 50 and 90 percent then you are missing the point. Social implications are irrelevant. Economic ones are the only ones that drive anything. I don't care if Joe Blow wants a new spam proof email system - he doesn't control his mail servers. His ISP does. And his ISP doesn't want to pay for spam. Even if it costs him 15% more than non-spam email (assuming 80% of email is spam) that's still significant cost reduction. Or you can look at it this way: Once widely adopted and spam eliminated, if you were to downgrade to the old system, you'd incur more cost (though the cost per email is less) due to your permitting of spam. Ask anyone if they'd like to do that, and they'll ask you "are you crazy?" Am I making any kind of sense? -----Original Message----- From: Kee Hinckley [mailto:nazgul@somewhere.com] Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 4:39 PM To: Jason Hihn Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Several Observations and a solution that addresses them all At 12:23 PM -0500 3/10/03, Jason Hihn wrote: >The outgoing mail server will have to see what addresses account@yahoo.com >did send to that haven't been verified ("authenticated") yet. If it gets a >request from an account that was not sent to, then it sends an 'account does >not exist' message. This will cause the spoofed message to be rejected, >while not allowing the existence of an account to be determined by a >malicious entity. This assumes a pretty complex infrastructure mapping between all possible sending servers and receiving servers for the same domain. And until everyone has updated their mail servers, the false positive rate is going to be huge, so you don't dare block on it. So once again you have a system which nobody has an incentive to move to until it's been deployed by the majority of users. Let me propose a rule for proposals. No proposal without an explanation of the incentives for the senders and receivers to adopt the system at three stages: 10%, 50% and 90% deployed. And at each stage, explain what actions the spammers are being forced to take. I would argue that a system that offers no benefits until you've passed the 50% point is never going to be adopted. On the other hand. A system which is virtually guaranteed to fail at the 90% point (challenge/response, possibly content filters) can demonstrably shown to have early adopters because, while it may fail when scaled, it works now. Let's try and leverage those social forces. (My anthro advisor would be proud :-) -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 10:25:52 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA23521 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 10:25:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BFdMv06539 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 10:39:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BFdMO06536 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 10:39:22 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA23495 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 10:25:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BFZ6O05537; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 10:35:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BFW2O05386 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 10:32:02 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA23253 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 10:18:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2BFK5fI025484 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:20:05 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303111520.h2BFK5fI025484@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Email Certification Path Proposal References: <200303110705.h2B75k5s002559@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:20:05 -0700 (MST) > From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu > ... > The "Verisign mistake" happened because there aren't a lot of other things > that *could* have happened. Yes, but that is only because the PKI notion was based on authenticating strangers despite men-in-the-middle and all other attacks. To deal with spam, a DNS TXT RR with a public key would be strong enough. > > -To have a certified sender in the sense of a legal entity . > > -Keep the privacy of the sender and reciever when necesary. > > -Minimize the cost of entity certification. > ... > Nice hand-waving. How do you ensure that the *REMOTE* end actually enforces > it? Strangers can't be trusted to not be spammers. Authentication can at most prove identity. Contrary to the Verisign PKI whitepapers, the Microsoft ActiveX promises, and and standard authentication spam defense claims, authentication says nothing about authorization. > my users, you can give me the cookie and I'll hopefully know who to call > in and beat the snot out of them (which was the *original* purpose of > RFC1413 IDENT, incidentally). No, my recollection of the original, announced purpose of IDENT/TAP was to prove that the other guy was not a nasty bad guy. It was only well into the TAP/IDENT nastiness that silliness was stomped out. I remember arguing for what seemed like eons with people that the IDENT/TAP token was useless for proving virtue. > Of course, a spamhaus already knows who's using their server, and has no > need of running SMTP AUTH to verify that they themselves are the ones > sending the mail.... Yes, authentication is not authorization. We will always need white- or blacklists, which are nothing more than authorization mechanisms go to with authentication mechanisms. These key/token/signing schemes can only address the sender information that has been "forged" in the sense of willful misrepresentation of identity. (I'm sorry Paul, but stopping the thread does not resolve the issue.) > 1) There exists a PKI. In this case, the sender just uses S/MIME or PGP > or whatever, and all the intermediaries need do *NOTHING*. This message is > PGP signed - if you want you can validate it via the PGP web-of-trust.... If there is a PKI, you've still got nothing. Spammers can and must be allowed to buy certs too. Authentication is not authorization. Remember that PGP mantra that the web-of-trust only proves a key is good and does imply anything about the virtue of the key owner. > 2) There isn't a PKI. If so, then everybody is basically just using self-signed > certificates, which prove approximately nothing... Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 10:33:11 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA23875 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 10:33:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BFkfc07127 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 10:46:41 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BFkfO07124 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 10:46:41 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA23855 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 10:32:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BFh1O06742; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 10:43:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BFgkO06724 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 10:42:46 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA23609 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 10:28:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2BFUpqc027059 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:30:51 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303111530.h2BFUpqc027059@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Email Certification Path Proposal References: <200303110850.h2B8o75s003358@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:30:51 -0700 (MST) > From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu > ... > Running a CA is easy. Certifying that the users are who they say they > are is *HARD*. > > Let's say the actual server, software, install, bandwidth, etc, costs $20K. > Let's say we've also decided to charge $5 per certificate. > > Now you need an office where 4,000 people can come in and show ID to prove > they are themselves so you can create a certificate for them. > ... Say you do all of that. What keeps Ralsky from hiring people off the street to go into the office, get a certificate, and give it to Ralsky who uses it for the next 20 spews of spam? Authentication is not authorization. The only thing that certs, keys, and so forth can do is reduce genuine forgery of sender information. If I'm right that the reason that almost all spam with what some claim is "forged" sender information involves free mail provider domains from a few 100 domains instead the other 50,000,000 domains is that it is not really "forged," then all of the cert-ing in the universe will have no effect on spam. When you sign up for a Yahoo mailbox, you'll simply get a cert in addition to a username and a password. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 10:59:18 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA24623 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 10:59:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BGCnG09067 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:12:49 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BGCnO09064 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:12:49 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA24599 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 10:58:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BG6CO08076; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:06:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BG51O08044 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:05:01 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA24456 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 10:50:59 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2BFr6Rj003089; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 10:53:06 -0500 Message-Id: <200303111553.h2BFr6Rj003089@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.1 02/18/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Opt-out lists and legislation In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 11 Mar 2003 04:46:22 PST." References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_55565728P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 10:53:06 -0500 --==_Exmh_55565728P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 04:46:22 PST, "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" said: > What an amazingly parochial view. It is unlikely that we are going > to see any US led trade agreements for many years. Why do you assume > that your country is the only super-national actor? That was his point - the US, even as the most obvious super-national, is having a hard time convincing other countries to do what we want. We can't even convince the rest of the US Security Council of such blazingly obvious "facts" as "madmen must be disarmed". ;) > Korea is looking to adopt anti-spam legislation unilaterally. Their > people have the same complaints as everyone else. Right - the point is that they're doing it because THEIR citizens are asking, not because some other country is. --==_Exmh_55565728P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+bgZicC3lWbTT17ARAif3AJ4iB6H9ziCFiAA0HVPSulp6p31jGACdEzps ujrb+31Oi/GqNl7Bz37weak= =EevO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_55565728P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 11:28:03 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA26126 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:28:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BGfZM11413 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:41:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BGfZO11410 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:41:35 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA26083 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:27:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BGX5O10214; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:33:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BGWjO10176 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:32:45 -0500 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25596 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:18:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 18smUj-0002i3-00; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:20:49 +0000 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: RE: RE: RE: [Asrg] Several Observations and a solution that addresses them all To: "Jason Hihn" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.4.11] Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:20:49 +0000 > > Oh. I have not seen it. But if we can put a man on the moon, 50 years > ago, I > hope we can validate an email address! http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/apollo.html -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 11:31:52 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA26254 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:31:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BGjOV11583 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:45:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BGjNO11580 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:45:23 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA26242 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:31:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BGe3O11306; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:40:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BGdKO11240 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:39:20 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25865 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:25:17 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2BGRPRj003429; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:27:25 -0500 Message-Id: <200303111627.h2BGRPRj003429@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.1 02/18/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: Jacqui Caren Cc: "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Email Certification Path Proposal In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 11 Mar 2003 09:16:10 GMT." <200303110916.h2B9GAD21997@rad.ig.co.uk> References: <200303110916.h2B9GAD21997@rad.ig.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_67080016P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:27:25 -0500 --==_Exmh_67080016P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 09:16:10 GMT, Jacqui Caren said: > Perhaps I should stick to lurking :-) No, that's OK... keep commenting. ;) If you hadn't said it, I'd not have commented on the cost of running a CA, and it wouldn't be in the archives. ;) --==_Exmh_67080016P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+bg5tcC3lWbTT17ARAuusAJ95uCrzP3vaiJCiaHgaoeYnqWCREQCdFfcp JYX8cN6FtmS2xo7ZLOnrjhw= =ok1P -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_67080016P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 11:49:07 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA27072 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:49:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BH2dp12727 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:02:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BH2dO12724 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:02:39 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA27046 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:48:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BH01O12345; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:00:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BGxjO12301 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:59:45 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA26897 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:45:42 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2BGloRj003728; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:47:50 -0500 Message-Id: <200303111647.h2BGloRj003728@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.1 02/18/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: Jason Hihn Cc: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] Several Observations and a solution that addresses them all In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 11 Mar 2003 09:35:41 EST." References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_70222816P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:47:50 -0500 --==_Exmh_70222816P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 09:35:41 EST, Jason Hihn said: > Validating a from address is trivial. OK. It's trivial? Validate the From address on this mail. Explain in detail what you did, and what steps you took to make sure that the data you used wasn't faked. Sure- those Recieved: headers *LOOK* like they're correct, but *are* they? Now repeat your analysis, but this time for the following headers: Received: from gwyn.tux.org (gwyn.tux.org [207.96.122.8]) by steiner.cc.vt.edu (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.1.0.54-GA) with ESMTP id ALY11182; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 12:57:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from gwyn.tux.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gwyn.tux.org (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA04906; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 12:55:01 -0400 Received: (from turnbull@localhost) by gwyn.tux.org (8.9.3/8.9.1) id MAA04868 for xemacs-design-mailman@xemacs.org; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 12:54:38 -0400 Received: (from mail@localhost) by gwyn.tux.org (8.9.3/8.9.1) id MAA04864 for turnbull@tux.org; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 12:54:38 -0400 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (natted.Sendmail.COM [63.211.143.38]) by gwyn.tux.org (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA04854; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 12:54:30 -0400 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g79D8j58001879; Fri, 09 Aug 2002 09:08:45 -0400 X-URL: http://black-ice.cc.vt.edu/~valdis/ Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 09:08:45 -0400 From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Subject: Re: TeXinfo 4.2 - We *SHOULD* Be Using It. In-reply-to: "Your message of Fri, 09 Aug 2002 12:31:16 +0900." <87k7n0r9mj.fsf@tleepslib.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> Sender: xemacs-design-admin@xemacs.org To: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Cc: XEmacs Design Errors-to: xemacs-design-admin@xemacs.org Message-id: <200208091308.g79D8j58001879@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4+dev Content-type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_-1612254088P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk X-Face-Viewer: See ftp://cs.indiana.edu/pub/faces/index.html to decode picture X-Face: 34C9$Ewd2zeX+\!i1BA\j{ex+$/V'JBG#;3_noWWYPa"|,I#`R"{n@w>#:{)FXyiAS7(8t( ^*w5O*!8O9YTe[r{e%7(yVRb|qxsRYw`7J!`AM}m_SHaj}f8eb@d^L>BrX7iO[ List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of design and features for XEmacs. List-Unsubscribe: , References: <200208052308.g75N8XPl023203@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <1028833151.14162.526.camel@bobcat.ods.org> <87k7n0r9mj.fsf@tleepslib.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> How validated are you feeling now? Incidentally, your validator *should* have validated the above headers, as that's the looped-back headers from an item I actually posted while travelling... /Valdis --==_Exmh_70222816P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+bhM2cC3lWbTT17ARAmy9AJ97QAUQx1OI/n+8va+9WJpl93ZU9ACgylSX vvAJYbGJgDc8worRwGhPFYk= =9MXa -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_70222816P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 11:49:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA27096 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:49:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BH31912792 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:03:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BH30O12789 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:03:00 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA27068 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:48:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BGx0O12251; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:59:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BGvgO12141 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:57:42 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA26787 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:43:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 9211 invoked from network); 10 Mar 2003 16:43:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO startechgroup.co.uk) (10.2.100.157) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 10 Mar 2003 16:43:36 -0000 Subject: Re: [Asrg] Email Certification Path Proposal Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: asrg@ietf.org To: Vernon Schryver From: Matt Sergeant In-Reply-To: <200303111520.h2BFK5fI025484@calcite.rhyolite.com> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:45:48 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tuesday, Mar 11, 2003, at 15:20 Europe/London, Vernon Schryver wrote: >> 1) There exists a PKI. In this case, the sender just uses S/MIME or >> PGP >> or whatever, and all the intermediaries need do *NOTHING*. This >> message is >> PGP signed - if you want you can validate it via the PGP >> web-of-trust.... > > If there is a PKI, you've still got nothing. Spammers can and must > be allowed to buy certs too. Authentication is not authorization. With authentication you've got something though - a much stronger ability to blacklist. Matt. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 12:04:15 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA27929 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:04:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BHHlW14644 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:17:47 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BHHlO14641 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:17:47 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA27919 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:03:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BHFHO14433; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:15:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BHEMO14321 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:14:22 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA27706 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:00:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2097875; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:02:26 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200303110749.h2B7n65s002890@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> References: <200303110749.h2B7n65s002890@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Opt-out lists and legislation Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:56:36 -0500 At 2:49 AM -0500 3/11/03, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: >On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:39:57 EST, Kee Hinckley said: > >> I currently have a sample database 22,000 confirmed spam messages >> sent to roughly 200 real email accounts. >> >> 40% blocked by the country restriction. >> 4% blocked due to obvious viruses. >> 14% blocked due to system blacklist. >> <1% blocked by user blacklists. >> >> There's less than three percent overlap between those factors. The > >Actually, there's a hidden assumption here that means that there's >a lot MORE than 3% overlap. Your 14% system blacklist refers to a >blacklist that was tailored thinking "and this list doesn't include >anything from .XY because we country-restrict them already". Yes and no. Country restrictions are per-user, so the blacklist needs to be multi-national. On the other hand, it's generated primarily based on spotting spam that is getting through from fixed sources, and that comes from user feedback. So there is a bias towards countries that people usually receive email from. >What percent of mail was tagged with the country restriction but *NOT* >tagged as spam by users? (For instance, it would be quite easy to flag Initially the false positive rate starts a little high until the user tunes their filters by specifying which countries they regularly get email from. They can also approve a sender even if we are blocking the sender system wide--user rules win. >all mail from .CN as spam - and although my users would probably tag back >100% of the spam from .CN, they'd not tag 100% of the mail from .CN, as They'd okay mail from China, and then possibly have to okay senders from some Chinese ISPs on a per-user basis. (E.g. I'm not sure, but I suspect that 163.net is on our blacklist, even though they are legit ISP.) >Is the "user blacklist" number the percentage caught by pre-established >user filters, or is that saying that your other checks were 99% effective >in identifying spam and only 1% got through to users for them to report? Although users can pre-establish a blacklist, they tend not to. Instead we let them blacklist a sender at the time they report a false negative (spam got through). 1% is the number of subsequent messages blocked by those blacklists. I've just spent a week or so changing the interface to that part of the system. The previous interface pretty much set up blocking the sender as the default when you reported spam. Now it's a secondary choice, because the fact of the matter is that blacklisting the sending address almost never works. The next email from the spammer uses a different address. So there's no point in filling your blacklist with fake addresses. (Or is it "might have existed by don't exist now" addresses :-). Instead we want to reserve blacklists for blocking email from real people (or domains) that you *really* don't want. So the primary action now is to report the problem so that we can look at it and figure out why we didn't block it. We've also added "unsubscribe" detection. If the message looks clean, but you think it's spam, we'll try unsubscribing you from it. A lot of the non-technical folks can't tell a commercial list that they accidentally subscribed to, from a spam message pretending to be a list. If we can get them off the list, we've done everyone a favor. We'll track responses to those of course--if they keep getting mail from the mailing list then we can put them on the blacklist. >Do you have any guesstimates of how much *unreported* spam got through >to the 200 accounts? This gets back to the problem I mentioned earlier on the list. You can't trust users to check the email sitting in their blocked queue. Because we are in (public) beta, our customers have been pretty good about trying to report everything, and we try and make reporting real easy (click on a URL in the message header). My (non-scientific) observation is that if they let all mail go through to their MUA, and filter there, they are better at reporting false negatives (spam in their inbox) than false positives (good stuff in their spam box). If they leave the spam on the server then we get the false positive report automatically because they can either "send" or "approve" the message. "Sending" it doesn't notify us, and it doesn't change their rules. "Approving" whitelists the sender and sends all messages currently held that are from that sender. *That* we get notification of. Basically, I feel pretty good about our current stats because we know most of the beta testers and they know that they are providing us with useful information in exchange for free spam blocking. As we get into real users I expect that we'll see the accuracy drop off, especially after they've used the system for a while. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 12:04:48 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA27965 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:04:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BHIKO14680 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:18:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BHIKO14677 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:18:20 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA27943 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:04:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BHFCO14410; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:15:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BHEKO14317 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:14:20 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA27704 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:00:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2097874; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:02:25 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200303110916.h2B9GAD21997@rad.ig.co.uk> References: <200303110916.h2B9GAD21997@rad.ig.co.uk> To: "Jacqui Caren" From: Kee Hinckley Cc: "asrg@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Subject: [Asrg] What would authentication authenticate? Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:26:53 -0500 At 9:16 AM -0500 3/11/03, Jacqui Caren wrote: >I did not even consider the need for background checks etc - even though >many people I know do at least credit checks before accepting a customer > - in the UK the number of cases discussed where prospects are actually >broke at the point of contract is getting scary! > >Perhaps I should stick to lurking :-) I wouldn't go that far. Let's backup a moment and ask what level of certification we are looking for. Current web site certificates are (moderately) expensive because their point is to ensure not only that your domain is secure, but that it belongs to the company you claim it belongs too. As has been pointed out on this list, $99 US (that's what I pay for certs semi-wholesale right now, want to buy one? :-) is not enough to ensure that. Practically speaking an SSL certificate is probably an assurance that the site you are connecting to is managed by the owner of the domain, but not much more. And besides, nobody looks at the cert info to see if the company information corresponds anyway. In the email space we have seen several types of authentication discussed. I may have the details wrong here as I haven't had time to do more than skim the domain proposals. 1. Domain Determines that a user is allowed to send email from a domain. This assumes that the domain itself has determined the user to be valid (which may or may not be a valid assumption). This can be done non-cryptographically (comparing the sending IP to a convention for DNS lookup) or cryptographically (comparing a token in the message/transport to something you lookup somewhere). 2. Sender (sometimes envelope-from, sometimes From header) This determines that the sender is who they say they are. Non-cryptographic methods simply check to see if the account exists, which really doesn't protect against forgery, just (possibly) keeps out fake addresses. They can't check against the sending IP since mail senders are not always mail receivers. Cryptographic methods ensure that the sender is actually the owner of the email address via some server lookup. I don't see that domain authentication requires externally provided certificates. Insofar as the check is done using the DNS system, that provides some degree of assurance (modulo cache poisoning). All that's needed is a simple way of generating public/private keys. Of course you could have external authorities if people wanted to certify the behavior of the sender. That would enable you to not only know what domain truly sent it--but whether you thought you could trust them to be good. Sender authentication *does* need a central authority. However there are three levels at which it could be done. 1. The sending domain could be the authority. In other words, just as with domain authentication we trusted the domain to only allow valid from addresses, we could also use the sending domain to authenticate the sending key. It's a weak level of trust, but as good as the domain authentication. It does require more infrastructure on the part of sending domain. 2. The central authority could be automated. In this model we are ensuring only that the sending person is in fact the owner of the email address. This is the old First Virtual model of authentication. It's primary vulnerability is at the mail server, and from viruses. But all in all it's a pretty good model. In particular, it can be run very cheaply. You send a request for certificate, you get back a receipt, you forward the receipt, you get the certificate. (And somewhere in there you pay $5 or whatever.) The interface could easily be managed by plugins to existing MUAs. 3. The central authority could actually guarantee you are who you say you are. This is the expensive case. But it's not clear to me that it is truly necessary. It's also not clear to me that there is anyone I would trust to run it. I've bypassed Network Solutions' "you must provide proof" mechanisms so many times that I just don't believe anyone would run this one safely. Maybe the government could do it, but only because they have enough offices that people could show up in person with a passport and birth certificate and a print out of the confirming email. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 12:06:23 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA28075 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:06:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BHJtI14770 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:19:55 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BHJtO14767 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:19:55 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA28052 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:05:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BHFIO14449; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:15:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BHEMO14325 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:14:22 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA27709 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:00:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2097867 for Asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:02:28 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200303110749.h2B7n65s002890@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> References: <200303110749.h2B7n65s002890@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> To: Asrg@ietf.org From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Opt-out lists and legislation Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:41:41 -0500 At 2:49 AM -0500 3/11/03, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: >Actually, there's a hidden assumption here that means that there's >a lot MORE than 3% overlap. Your 14% system blacklist refers to a >blacklist that was tailored thinking "and this list doesn't include >anything from .XY because we country-restrict them already". Not quite, because country blocking is per user. But I'll take the rest of my response off list, since it's really a discussion of our system (which makes it more of an ad than anything relevant to this). If anyone else wants it, let me know. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 12:09:46 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA28180 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:09:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BHNIl14901 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:23:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BHNIO14898 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:23:18 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA28153 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:09:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BHL1O14847; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:21:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BHKDO14822 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:20:13 -0500 Received: from chimta04.algx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA28060 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:06:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from JHS ([67.92.23.74]) by chimmx04.algx.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.10 (built Jan 23 2003)) with SMTP id <0HBL00BSRGXRFW@chimmx04.algx.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:08:16 -0600 (CST) From: Jason Hihn Subject: RE: [Asrg] Several Observations and a solution that addresses them all In-reply-to: <200303111647.h2BGloRj003728@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Cc: ASRG Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:08:15 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT PSEUDO CODE: user=left_of('@', email_addr) domain=right_of('@', email_addr) server=find_mx(domain) socket=open(server, some_std_port) write(socket, "VALIDATE user\n") read(socket, response) if (find(response, "USER UNKOWN")) valid=false; else valid=true; DONE You can't EVER use headers because they are forgeable. You have to go right to the source. Incendentally, the other server's code is like: bind() while (con=accept()) { read(req) result=dispatch(req, con) write(result) } Dispatch is the heart of it all. It will pass on the request to sub mail servers if it cannot be determined on this one. It also makes sure that the connection comes from a recenelty sent-to domain to keep spammers from asking for validations of email addrs out of the blue. > -----Original Message----- > From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu [mailto:Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu] > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 11:48 AM > To: Jason Hihn > Cc: ASRG > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Several Observations and a solution that addresses > them all > > > On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 09:35:41 EST, Jason Hihn said: > > > Validating a from address is trivial. > > OK. It's trivial? Validate the From address on this mail. Explain in > detail what you did, and what steps you took to make sure that the > data you used wasn't faked. Sure- those Recieved: headers *LOOK* like > they're correct, but *are* they? > > Now repeat your analysis, but this time for the following headers: > > Received: from gwyn.tux.org (gwyn.tux.org [207.96.122.8]) by > steiner.cc.vt.edu (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.1.0.54-GA) > with ESMTP id ALY11182; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 12:57:12 -0400 (EDT) > Received: from gwyn.tux.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) > by gwyn.tux.org (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA04906; Mon, 12 > Aug 2002 12:55:01 -0400 > Received: (from turnbull@localhost) by gwyn.tux.org (8.9.3/8.9.1) > id MAA04868 for xemacs-design-mailman@xemacs.org; Mon, 12 Aug > 2002 12:54:38 -0400 > Received: (from mail@localhost) by gwyn.tux.org (8.9.3/8.9.1) id > MAA04864 for turnbull@tux.org; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 12:54:38 -0400 > Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (natted.Sendmail.COM > [63.211.143.38]) by gwyn.tux.org (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id > MAA04854; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 12:54:30 -0400 > Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by > turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id > g79D8j58001879; Fri, 09 Aug 2002 09:08:45 -0400 > X-URL: http://black-ice.cc.vt.edu/~valdis/ > Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 09:08:45 -0400 > From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu > Subject: Re: TeXinfo 4.2 - We *SHOULD* Be Using It. > In-reply-to: "Your message of Fri, 09 Aug 2002 12:31:16 +0900." > <87k7n0r9mj.fsf@tleepslib.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> > Sender: xemacs-design-admin@xemacs.org > To: "Stephen J. Turnbull" > Cc: XEmacs Design > Errors-to: xemacs-design-admin@xemacs.org > Message-id: <200208091308.g79D8j58001879@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> > MIME-version: 1.0 > X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4+dev > Content-type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_-1612254088P"; > micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" > Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit > Precedence: bulk > X-Face-Viewer: See ftp://cs.indiana.edu/pub/faces/index.html to > decode picture > X-Face: > 34C9$Ewd2zeX+\!i1BA\j{ex+$/V'JBG#;3_noWWYPa"|,I#`R"{n@w>#:{)FXyiAS > 7(8t( > ^*w5O*!8O9YTe[r{e%7(yVRb|qxsRYw`7J!`AM}m_SHaj}f8eb@d^L>BrX7iO[ -0bVIpaxF#-) > %9#a9h6JXI|T|8o6t\V?kGl]Q!1V]GtNliUtz:3},0"hkPeBuu%E,j(:\iOX-P,t7lRR# > X-XEmacs-List: design > X-BeenThere: xemacs-design@xemacs.org > X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.1 > List-Help: > List-Post: > List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of design and features for XEmacs. List-Unsubscribe: , References: <200208052308.g75N8XPl023203@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <1028833151.14162.526.camel@bobcat.ods.org> <87k7n0r9mj.fsf@tleepslib.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> How validated are you feeling now? Incidentally, your validator *should* have validated the above headers, as that's the looped-back headers from an item I actually posted while travelling... /Valdis _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 12:43:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA29262 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:43:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BHv6O17191 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:57:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BHv6O17188 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:57:06 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA29251 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:43:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BHr6O16999; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:53:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BHqSO16955 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:52:28 -0500 Received: from harvee.billerica.ma.us (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA29102 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:38:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from harvee.org (rufus.billerica.ma.us [192.168.0.10]) by harvee.billerica.ma.us (8.12.8/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2BHoEd6007513; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:50:15 -0500 Message-ID: <3E6E1F7F.9080803@harvee.org> From: "Eric S. Johansson" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Chris Lewis CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) References: <3E683148.10306@americasm01.nt.com> <3E6A11F7.6050809@harvee.org> <3E6A1C25.20300@americasm01.nt.com> In-Reply-To: <3E6A1C25.20300@americasm01.nt.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:40:15 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Chris Lewis wrote: > Who said anything about "you" (the recipient)? > > Let's say that you purchase something on the web, the robot generates > the invoice, and the robot sees a challenge (or a reject). first off, the robot would generate a stamp when it sent the invoice. That would prevent it from getting a challenge. > What would intelligent engineering of a system that deals with money > suggest? What would due diligence suggest in the face of the user > typing their email address wrong? Or the recipient mail server being > offline for a bit too long? good question. I would talk to some of my financial cryptography contacts on this topic. My gut senses that if you are using a stamp that is equivalent to cash, the money is lost. Any future communication would require new stamps. This is why I like CPU cycles stamps. As for the other items, you would not get a postage do or challenge message. You would get the classic "mail failed" message. Now it would be nice if we could make these messages more understandable by robots so they can handle errors better but that is a whole different conversation. > > > it's a fundamental axiom of animal training that rewarding good behavior > > extremely quickly produces much more rapid change than punishing. See: > > "don't shoot the dog" by Karen Pryor. If we can give a legitimate > > outlet for e-mail advertising, a lot of the incentive to spam will be > > reduced. Those that remain can be punished through negative > > reinforcement techniques like connection grabbing and postage stamps. > > This only works when having the dog behave good is the desirable > outcome. I would suggest that, with Stubberfield [*] for example, the > only desirable outcome is an "ex-dog" in Monty Python terminology ;-). > > The only way to make Ralsky "behave" is to _promise_ to deliver what he > sends. Do we really want that? I don't think so. those are wonderful examples. However, they aren't the people we're trying to reach. They are the people we're trying to stop. I do get lots of "legitimate advertising" that I am interested in sometimes. I just want to manage it better. Those of the people we want to reach and I believe those of the people we can influence. If we raise the various high enough, a bunch of the spammers will go away. The truly hard-core ones will remain and can be targeted because the field will be smaller and less noisy. It's my opinion, it's worth what you pay for it. ;-) ---eric _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 12:57:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA29729 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:57:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BIBFu18554 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:11:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BIBFO18551 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:11:15 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA29719 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:57:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BI68O17597; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:06:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BI5nO17581 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:05:49 -0500 Received: from mail01.stbernard.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA29650 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:51:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from salty.rapid.stbernard.com ([192.168.4.61]) by mail01.stbernard.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Tue, 11 Mar 2003 09:53:51 -0800 From: Wes Peters Organization: St. Bernard Software To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Let's try something different User-Agent: KMail/1.5 References: In-Reply-To: X-Habeas-SWE-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-SWE-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-SWE-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-SWE-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-SWE-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-SWE-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-SWE-9: mark in spam to . MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200303110942.24950.wpeters@stbernard.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Mar 2003 17:53:51.0952 (UTC) FILETIME=[2D1BA500:01C2E7F7] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 09:52:54 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Friday 07 March 2003 13:49, Jed Margolin wrote: > Brad Davis wrote: Hi Brad, glad to see you've joined us. ;^) > Why would someone leave their SMTP relay open? a) they don't care b) they don't know c) they don't know how to fix it d) internal mail to the uk office isn't working and open relaying seems to fix it (ouch!) e) they've forgotten the machine is there (this happened to an ex-employer in a merger, the open relay was there for years until a spammer found it and began abusing it and someone complained about it) etc... > Traffic from ISPs who refuse to play by the rules will be refused by > the Internet Community. > > In other words, they will be excommunicated. No, they won't be. The commercial world isn't willing to miss a single email to 'sales@bigcomany.com' even if they have to pay some poor slob to sift through all the spam, delivering the valid requests to the sales staff. ISPs in the real world make their living by providing connectivity to these companies. -- "Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?" Wes Peters Sr. Software Engineer wpeters@stbernard.com St. Bernard Software _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 13:03:12 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA29863 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:03:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BIGkQ18801 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:16:46 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BIGkO18798 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:16:46 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA29854 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:02:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BIA2O18503; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:10:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BI9iO18477 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:09:44 -0500 Received: from emu.st (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA29681 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:55:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 70082 invoked by uid 1015); 11 Mar 2003 17:57:46 -0000 Delivered-To: qmda-intercept-asrg@ietf.org@intercept Comments: QMDA 0.1 - see http://www.geocities.com/mark_delany/qmda.html Received: (qmail 29187 invoked from network); 11 Mar 2003 17:57:45 -0000 Received: from prefix-internal.emu.st (HELO emu.st) (10.100.100.36) by f1-external.emu.st with SMTP; 11 Mar 2003 17:57:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 29614 invoked by uid 1001); 11 Mar 2003 17:57:45 -0000 Message-ID: <20030311175745.29613.qmail@prefix.emu.st> From: "Mark Delany" Mail-Followup-To: asrg@ietf.org To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists References: <20030309030507.25756.97454.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: ; from tthomson@neosinteractive.com on Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 01:17:30PM -0000 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 11 Mar 2003 17:57:45 +0000 On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 01:17:30PM -0000, Tom Thomson allegedly wrote: > Henrik Levkowetz wrote: > On 9 Mar 2003 02:41:20 "Mark Delany" wrote: > > > The one down side is that all mailing lists have to send individual > > mails to each recipient and we all know what sort of red flag that is > > to some bulls. > > That sounds as if you think the confirmation token needs to be handled at > RFC2822 level rather than at RFC2821 level. Someone else said much the same thing. I agree with you both that having it as a "rcpt-parameter" is more optimal than embedding it in a header. I have no particular attachment to either method as the purpose here is to demonstrate our incredible inertia even in the face of obvious and simple ideas. This particular idea requires no more than a private token database along with a bit of protocol support and we instantly eliminate the need for all bulk whitelist management systems and henceforth have unequivocal proof of opt-in by the subscriber. Yet we've let the absence of such a mechanism plague us for over a decade! Depressing. Btw, the idea trivially extends to person-to-person email too. With the same sort of "relationship proving token exchange" you instantly and reliably corner spammers into what I call the "introduction problem". The beauty of the "introduction problem" is that, in the absence of getting a token from their victims - something most victims won't do, spammers are forced to re-introduce themselves to their millions of victims each and every day. The fact the spammers confront the "introduction problem" millions of times each day is an unavoidable, many-orders-of-magnitude differentiator that we can take advantage of, if we can overcome our inertia. Regards. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 13:05:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA29922 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:05:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BIJHq18953 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:19:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BIJHO18950 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:19:17 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA29915 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:05:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BIHaO18860; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:17:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BIGXO18784 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:16:33 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA29848 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:02:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2098083; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:04:37 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: Jason Hihn From: Kee Hinckley Subject: RE: [Asrg] Several Observations and a solution that addresses them all Cc: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, ASRG Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:04:13 -0500 At 12:08 PM -0500 3/11/03, Jason Hihn wrote: >Dispatch is the heart of it all. It will pass on the request to sub mail >servers if it cannot be determined on this one. It also makes sure that the >connection comes from a recenelty sent-to domain to keep spammers from >asking for validations of email addrs out of the blue. What you said was that it was "trivial". What you have described requires that the primary and secondary MXs for a domain all run custom software which connects to the centralized server that sends all email for a domain, and that that server keep track of all outbound mail, who it came from and where it went. And it assumes by convention that nobody from that domain is allowed to send email via any other server. There's also another little problem. MAIL FROM: RCPT TO: Now I go back to your server and say, "is jhihn@paytimepayroll.com a valid address" and your server says, "what the hell are you talking about, I've gotten hundreds of queries about this person, but they did not send mail to nazgul@somewhere.com, they only sent email to asrg@ietf.org. Must be a spammer. Not valid." So if you want this to work you need to extend the SMTP protocol. There isn't enough information in the transport to uniquely identify a message. But in any case, it's clear that the operative word is *not* "trivial". -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 13:06:25 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA29961 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:06:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BIJxf18998 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:19:59 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BIJxO18995 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:19:59 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA29951 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:05:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BIHAO18832; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:17:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BIGWO18780 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:16:32 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA29846 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:02:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2098087; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:04:36 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: Jason Hihn From: Kee Hinckley Subject: RE: [Asrg] Several Observations and a solution that addresses them all Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:50:31 -0500 At 9:58 AM -0500 3/11/03, Jason Hihn wrote: >There is one goal: to eliminate spam. If you want social implications at 10, >50 and 90 percent then you are missing the point. Social implications are >irrelevant. Economic ones are the only ones that drive anything. I don't >care if Joe Blow wants a new spam proof email system - he doesn't control >his mail servers. His ISP does. And his ISP doesn't want to pay for spam. >Even if it costs him 15% more than non-spam email (assuming 80% of email is >spam) that's still significant cost reduction. Call it social or economic, it's the same thing. So, let's look at the incentives to the ISP. The ISP installs a system that keeps track of all outbound messages and who they went to (is that legal in the EU?) and sets up code to respond to verifications. It then also sets up code to verify all incoming mail against the sender's database. When this is the only ISP to have implemented this service, how many spam messages do they block? Zero. When 10% of the ISPs have implemented this system, how many spam messages do they block? Far less than 10%. Because of course, most spammers aren't sending from these ISPs in the first place--and they certainly aren't sending from these ISPs once they've implemented the system. So. You are asking the ISP to gamble that this technology is the one that will be deployed world-wide. And you are further asking them to make this outlay with the full knowledge that the system will not be useful until the majority of the world is using it. Because until that time, it is not practical to block messages that don't verify. It's not going to happen. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 13:09:50 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00051 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:09:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BINOJ19171 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:23:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BINOO19168 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:23:24 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00033 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:09:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BIL4O19083; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:21:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BIKRO19048 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:20:27 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA29958 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:06:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2BI8SJG013458 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:08:28 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303111808.h2BI8SJG013458@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Email Certification Path Proposal References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:08:28 -0700 (MST) > From: Matt Sergeant > ... > > If there is a PKI, you've still got nothing. Spammers can and must > > be allowed to buy certs too. Authentication is not authorization. > > With authentication you've got something though - a much stronger > ability to blacklist. That's wrong, even if you tie email addresses to official government identities such as U.S. social security numbers. As I said, Ralsky and other spammers would never run out of social security numbers with which to authenticate his spam. He could pay a "homeless person" to use certificates based on the person's social security numbers for 2 or 3 weeks of spam. At the end of 2 or 3 weeks when that certificate is widely blacklisted, he could hire another "homeless person." The only thing that authentication can do is prevent genuine "forgery." Only if those who claim that the the vast amount of spam that carries Hotmail, Yahoo, and other free provider sender addresses in http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/freemail.html is really forged would authentication by itself have any effect on spam. Not even if you replace the Internet with a bunch of BBSs by forcing everyone to send mail from the same domain where they read it would authentication affect spam. Have you not noticed that many of the big spammers have no shortage of officially registers DNS domains with which they in effect sign all of their spam? Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 13:11:06 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00128 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:11:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BIOec19232 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:24:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BIOeO19229 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:24:40 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00082 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:10:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BIN3O19153; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:23:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BIMeO19129 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:22:40 -0500 Received: from chimta03.algx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00016 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:08:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from JHS ([67.92.23.74]) by chimmx03.algx.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.10 (built Jan 23 2003)) with SMTP id <0HBL002KCJTV5Q@chimmx03.algx.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:10:43 -0600 (CST) From: Jason Hihn Subject: RE: [Asrg] Several Observations and a solution that addresses them all In-reply-to: To: Kee Hinckley Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:10:43 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT I don't share in your pessimism. If we can make reasonable assurances that in 5 years spam is a thing of the past, then I think we'll hop on board. According to your logic, we should never buy houses because it will never pay off. We should just stick to renting, because it's cheap and it works well enough. Yeah, right. > -----Original Message----- > From: Kee Hinckley [mailto:nazgul@somewhere.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 12:51 PM > To: Jason Hihn > Cc: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Asrg] Several Observations and a solution that addresses > them all > > > At 9:58 AM -0500 3/11/03, Jason Hihn wrote: > >There is one goal: to eliminate spam. If you want social > implications at 10, > >50 and 90 percent then you are missing the point. Social implications are > >irrelevant. Economic ones are the only ones that drive anything. I don't > >care if Joe Blow wants a new spam proof email system - he doesn't control > >his mail servers. His ISP does. And his ISP doesn't want to pay for spam. > >Even if it costs him 15% more than non-spam email (assuming 80% > of email is > >spam) that's still significant cost reduction. > > Call it social or economic, it's the same thing. So, let's look at > the incentives to the ISP. > > The ISP installs a system that keeps track of all outbound messages > and who they went to (is that legal in the EU?) and sets up code to > respond to verifications. It then also sets up code to verify all > incoming mail against the sender's database. > > When this is the only ISP to have implemented this service, how many > spam messages do they block? Zero. > > When 10% of the ISPs have implemented this system, how many spam > messages do they block? Far less than 10%. Because of course, most > spammers aren't sending from these ISPs in the first place--and they > certainly aren't sending from these ISPs once they've implemented the > system. > > So. You are asking the ISP to gamble that this technology is the one > that will be deployed world-wide. And you are further asking them to > make this outlay with the full knowledge that the system will not be > useful until the majority of the world is using it. Because until > that time, it is not practical to block messages that don't verify. > > It's not going to happen. > -- > Kee Hinckley > http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering > http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society > > I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept > responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager > to regulate > everyone else's. > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 13:11:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00163 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:11:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BIP7c19277 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:25:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BIP7O19274 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:25:07 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00120 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:11:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BIJ1O18915; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:19:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BIIZO18887 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:18:35 -0500 Received: from harvee.billerica.ma.us (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA29886 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:04:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from harvee.org (rufus.billerica.ma.us [192.168.0.10]) by harvee.billerica.ma.us (8.12.8/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2BIGPd6007747; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:16:25 -0500 Message-ID: <3E6E25A1.1030102@harvee.org> From: "Eric S. Johansson" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kee Hinckley , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Economic model is borken. (sic.) Let's fix it References: <3E69F90C.804@harvee.org> <3E6A1A1A.5040601@harvee.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:06:25 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kee Hinckley wrote: > At 11:28 AM -0500 3/8/03, Eric S. Johansson wrote: > >> 1) the incentive is to make sure their messages delivered. In the >> physical world, if I call them up on the telephone and order a >> catalog, they have an incentive to add postage to make sure I get but >> I asked for otherwise they risk me taking my business elsewhere. so, >> why should not be the same electronically. > > > That incentive does not exist until a significant percentage of systems > block non-stamped email. Until then the only person suffering is the > one who installed a non-stamp-blocking system, not the vendor. agreed. Every single solution I've seen here on this mailing list has a major problem getting away from T0. Solution I'm proposing as implemented by camram is a filter chain that allows messages to escape the filter by either stamp or white list. The last stage is a classic Bayesian filter for message sourcing into Spam/good mail/indeterminate. This model of filter gives you benefits from day one even if a small number of users adopt the filter. It lets senders validate themselves if their message is categorized wrong and most Spam is still filtered. > >> 2) increasingly, antispam filters are taking out legitimate >> communications from businesses. The use of a stamp would allow them >> to bypass the filters without requiring the recipient to do anything >> special (i.e. white list, filter exception). > > > This logic works better. But of course any standard authorization > mechanism can provide this benefit, not just stamps. yes but the other authorization mechanisms are frequent more clumsy and or fail because of centralized infrastructure requirements. Proof of work stamps such as hashcash work extremely well in this setting. >> I accepted this is a weak spot but I believe it can be solved. Using >> techniques such as address probes (i.e. does this domain/user exist) >> and rate analysis (normal vs. abnormal levels of traffic) can help >> minimize the impact. > > > Yow. That's a pretty heavy bit of infrastructure for doing nothing but > set up a mailing list. Granted, one could hammer the subscription side of the house but it's a fairly low risk target. In any case, it clearly need more thinking to solve the problem. > Something to remember when thinking about fraud, spam, and attacks on > the internet--especially when comparing to that in real life. There are > lots of things that people would never do in real life that they will do > online. Furthermore, do to the point to point nature of the internet, > every single lowlife in the world has a direct connection to you. So, > multiple decreased inhibitions by increased access and you've got to be > a lot more careful. very good point. I've been thinking about this for quite a while and have closed most of the holes. > The other thing that really concerns me about spam fighting is the cost > of unintended consequences. Stamps are one type of solution that is > very prone to this, as are many of the legal solutions people have > proposed. > > These solutions don't try to stop spam. They try and set rules for > spamming. "You may spam if you pay postage." "You may spam if you > provide an unsubscribe address." These solutions legitimize spam. They > open up the door for lawsuits against ISPs who block email that meets > the rules. They send a message to every company in the world that it's > okay to send email to people who didn't give consent, so long as they > follow the rules. A postage-paid system that doesn't put a company like > ZDNet out of business (what, a million messages a day or something like > that?) is *not* going to be a barrier to entry for most companies. > Instead of having a thousand or so spammers running around hitting you > every day, you're going to have tens of thousands of companies sending > you email every month saying, "If you don't want to be on this list, > please follow these arcane unsubscribe directions." This will *not* be > an improvement. I agree it's a concern. And I will argue two points. First, stamps will drive off most spammers. Second, even if it does create one million legitimate e-mail advertisers, that is an improvement. Like it or not e-mail advertising is not going to go away. The best we can hope for is raising the costs so it's minimized and use this opportunity to create the right cultural rules which are often stronger than legal rules. At the end of the day, the unintended side effects will be something that neither of us considered. And we will go around and try and solve that problem as well. ---eric _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 13:15:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00301 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:15:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BITG319424 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:29:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BITGO19421 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:29:16 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00275 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:15:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BIS8O19396; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:28:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BIRaO19377 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:27:36 -0500 Received: from harvee.billerica.ma.us (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00239 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:13:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from harvee.org (rufus.billerica.ma.us [192.168.0.10]) by harvee.billerica.ma.us (8.12.8/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2BIPPd6007866; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:25:25 -0500 Message-ID: <3E6E27BD.2060102@harvee.org> From: "Eric S. Johansson" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vernon Schryver CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Economic model is borken. (sic.) Let's fix it References: <3E69FBD8.7010406@harvee.org> <200303081559.h28FxiNs029451@calcite.rhyolite.com> In-Reply-To: <200303081559.h28FxiNs029451@calcite.rhyolite.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:15:25 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Vernon Schryver wrote: >>From: "Eric S. Johansson" >>A stamp model simplifies the entire process because it is done >>without requiring any human interaction. > > The first part of that is right, but the second part is wrong. You > require her to sign up for stamps, to agree to require them on her > incoming bulk-looking mail. That won't happen. She can see the > benefit of using email and google, but the benefit of receiving somewhat > less spam is too theoretical. When you tell her that signing up will > block a lot of spam, but not all, she unconsciously think you're > exaggerating and never get around to it. sorry. Stamps are generated automatically through the outbound e-mail filter. see: http://www.camram.org/camram_engine.html section "Outbound messages" No purchases necessary, no human interaction provides better user experience. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 13:19:57 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00403 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:19:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BIXVD19630 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:33:31 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BIXVO19627 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:33:31 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00394 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:19:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BIW2O19593; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:32:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BIV1O19537 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:31:01 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00345 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:16:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2BIJ36Z014182 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:19:03 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303111819.h2BIJ36Z014182@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Several Observations and a solution that addresses them all References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:19:03 -0700 (MST) > From: Jason Hihn > I don't share in your pessimism. If we can make reasonable assurances that > in 5 years spam is a thing of the past, then I think we'll hop on board. If that were true, we would all be using IPv6. More than 5 years ago we all agreed that IPv6 was a good thing and that we all may as well get on with the transition. The optimists said that the transition would happen by either 2005 or 2013, I don't remember now which. If it was 2005, they were clearly wrong. > According to your logic, we should never buy houses because it will never > pay off. We should just stick to renting, because it's cheap and it works > well enough. That is nonsense, because the benefits of buying a house are almost but not entirely independent of how many other people also buy houses. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 13:21:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00472 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:21:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BIZ2T19743 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:35:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BIZ2O19740 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:35:02 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00462 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:20:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BIO1O19206; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:24:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BIN1O19143 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:23:01 -0500 Received: from harvee.billerica.ma.us (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00023 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:08:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from harvee.org (rufus.billerica.ma.us [192.168.0.10]) by harvee.billerica.ma.us (8.12.8/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2BIKRd6007794; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:20:27 -0500 Message-ID: <3E6E2693.9040204@harvee.org> From: "Eric S. Johansson" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vernon Schryver CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Economic model is borken. (sic.) Let's fix it References: <3E69F90C.804@harvee.org> <200303081554.h28Fs36X029130@calcite.rhyolite.com> In-Reply-To: <200303081554.h28Fs36X029130@calcite.rhyolite.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:10:27 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Vernon Schryver wrote: > No, that is not a solution, because it is based on the engineering of > wishful thinking. So is absolutely any other idea related to the > Internet that begins with "Install X at most Internet X" when X is a > kind of hardware or software operated by 1,000 or more people. as I have already explained in another post, I'm building something that will work even if only a single person uses it. Obviously, full effectiveness isn't reached into you have a significantly higher number but it will be effective. It's a transitional tool. > Charging for email is an exceptionally hopeless idea, because it starts > with "first a large minority of users install email stamp software > and buy stamps." Until at least 10,000,000 people regularly stamp > their messages and require stamps on incoming mail, stamps are only > overhead that will merely cause legitimate mail to be lost. if you had read the document I had been pointing people to, we're not talking about purchasing stamps. Stamps are generated through a proof of work puzzle known as hashcash. > In the real world, if the first "early adopter" users don't find it > useful (whatever it is), you will never have a second batch of users, > and the early adopters will soon drop it. yup. I agree. ---eric _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 13:22:15 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00527 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:22:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BIZnN19773 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:35:49 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BIZnO19770 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:35:49 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00488 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:21:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BIU2O19499; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:30:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BITOO19441 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:29:24 -0500 Received: from qadgop.stewart.org (pool-141-154-57-117.bos.east.verizon.net [141.154.57.117]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00285 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:15:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from qadgop.stewart.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by qadgop.stewart.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2BIHbOl027847 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:18:08 -0500 Received: from qadgop.stewart.org (stewart@localhost) by qadgop.stewart.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) with ESMTP id h2BIH726027843 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:17:37 -0500 Message-Id: <200303111817.h2BIH726027843@qadgop.stewart.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.4 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.4 To: asrg@ietf.org from: lstewart@acm.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Measurements on spam In-Reply-To: Message from "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" of "Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:57:14 PST." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:17:07 -0500 Phillip Hallam-Baker asks for impirical information on, among other things: > 1) Spam transport mechanisms > Percentage of spam sent through open relays > Percentage of spam that has a bogus from address > Percentage of spam that does not comply with RFC 822 I'm quite interested in the transport side of things as part of a thought experiment I'm running about how effective throttling could be. I'd like statistics generally on where spam comes from when it gets to a legitimate SMTP server. Open relays Spammer servers Legitimate outbound SMTP servers through which "work at home" minions are spamming Directly from "work at home" machines Further, when spam arrives, is it bursty? Does it arrive in clumps from small numbers of sources or is it buried uniformly among legitimate traffic from all sources? I know there are some spam archives, and it is worth looking at all the headers there, but I think the sampling would be quite thin. Alternatively, if a few largish ISPs would be willing to make data files available containing tuples available for a week or so worth of traffic, then it would be quite interesting. The spam flag could come from, say, spamassassin, and wouldn't have to be all that accurate to get some useful data. An analysis of such data files, augmented with guesses made from reverse dns lookups, might classify the sources of spam and their time-domain characteristics. Aside from spam, it would be mighty fun to know about the worldwide source destination traffic matrix for email. -Larry _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 13:24:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00635 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:24:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BIc6b20659 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:38:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BIc6O20656 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:38:06 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00612 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:24:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BIbHO20192; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:37:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BIauO19831 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:36:56 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00570 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:22:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2BIOwol014811 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:24:58 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303111824.h2BIOwol014811@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Economic model is borken. (sic.) Let's fix it References: <3E6E2693.9040204@harvee.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:24:58 -0700 (MST) > From: "Eric S. Johansson" > ... > as I have already explained in another post, I'm building something that will > work even if only a single person uses it. ... > if you had read the document I had been pointing people to, we're not talking > about purchasing stamps. ... You need to include a URL every time, because I don't recall anything I'd call "hashcash" that is of any use against spam for its first 50,000,000 users. > Stamps are generated through a proof of work puzzle > known as hashcash. The things I've seen described named as hashcash are hopeless for many reasons but most obviously because the speeds of computers on the net span a performance range of more than a factor of 1000. Systems that spammers can use are more than 1000 times faster than systems used by non-spammers who need to send and receive bulk mail (albeit not as bulky as most spam). It's probably far too early discuss any particular solution. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 13:25:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00710 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:25:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BIdCA20689 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:39:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BIdBO20686 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:39:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00671 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:25:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BIb2O19906; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:37:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BIaPO19817 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:36:25 -0500 Received: from harvee.billerica.ma.us (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00544 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:22:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from harvee.org (rufus.billerica.ma.us [192.168.0.10]) by harvee.billerica.ma.us (8.12.8/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2BIYGd6007974; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:34:16 -0500 Message-ID: <3E6E29D0.7090606@harvee.org> From: "Eric S. Johansson" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Economic model is borken. (sic.) Let's fix it References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:24:16 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >>by using stamps, you will eliminate any need for special >>white listing, domain >>authentication, complicated dns reverse lookup rules and can >>be implemented >>quickly and easily without major changes to infrastructure. > > > Changing from a model in which email is free to one where there > is a per message charge *IS* a major change to the infrastructure. maybe it's a perspective difference. Adding postage to e-mail is no more difficult than adding some headers and having filters to operate on those headers. It's something that is an end client change. It does not require any changes to SMTP, mail servers, dns, or the legal system. It is well bounded/localized in terms of what must be changed. It can be implemented as an add-on proxy or a plug-in. > This is like saying that its a long way to go down the street > to the convenience store so lets climb Mount Everest instead. well that all depends on where you are, how high you climb Mount Everest, and where the convenience store is. > Instead of taking infrastructure change as an impossible task > lets look at the reasons why. this is a really good description and I appreciate you taking the time to write it. This is one of the reasons why I think changes to SMTP are doomed to failure. > I do > not believe that moving from a free mail system to a pay per > message system is viable. obviously, I differ. Also remember that payment is not in terms of money but in terms of cycles which most people have an abundance of. One question I have for you is: would you be willing to try an experiment with sender pays? ---eric _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 13:27:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00774 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:27:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BIfBj20845 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:41:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BIfBO20842 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:41:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00770 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:27:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BIe4O20792; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:40:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BIdZO20717 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:39:35 -0500 Received: from chimta05.algx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00703 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:25:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from JHS ([67.92.23.74]) by chimmx05.algx.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.10 (built Jan 23 2003)) with SMTP id <0HBL005AIKLH46@chimmx05.algx.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:27:18 -0600 (CST) From: Jason Hihn Subject: RE: [Asrg] Several Observations and a solution that addresses them all In-reply-to: To: Kee Hinckley Cc: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, ASRG Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:27:37 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT > -----Original Message----- > From: Kee Hinckley [mailto:nazgul@somewhere.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 1:04 PM > To: Jason Hihn > Cc: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu; ASRG > Subject: RE: [Asrg] Several Observations and a solution that addresses > them all > > > At 12:08 PM -0500 3/11/03, Jason Hihn wrote: > >Dispatch is the heart of it all. It will pass on the request to sub mail > >servers if it cannot be determined on this one. It also makes > sure that the > >connection comes from a recenelty sent-to domain to keep spammers from > >asking for validations of email addrs out of the blue. > > What you said was that it was "trivial". Indeed. If you don't consider that trivial... ;-) > > What you have described requires that the primary and secondary MXs > for a domain all run custom software which connects to the > centralized server that sends all email for a domain, and that that > server keep track of all outbound mail, who it came from and where it > went. And it assumes by convention that nobody from that domain is > allowed to send email via any other server. You need not track from who to who, just from where to where. Or better yet, make it configurable. Let the UE suffer higher spam rates because of their privacy laws.. (Ironic don't you think?) > There's also another little problem. > > MAIL FROM: > RCPT TO: > > Now I go back to your server and say, "is jhihn@paytimepayroll.com a > valid address" and your server says, "what the hell are you talking > about, I've gotten hundreds of queries about this person, but they > did not send mail to nazgul@somewhere.com, they only sent email to > asrg@ietf.org. Must be a spammer. Not valid." Exactly. You have no rights to my info if I did not send to you. Don't speak until spoken to. If I sent you mail then that means I don't mind you knowing who I am. I don't see how this is incorrect or undesired behavior. > So if you want this to work you need to extend the SMTP protocol. Yes. > There isn't enough information in the transport to uniquely identify > a message. Nor would I want there to be. Assume that we do have spammers in the new system. I'd still like to remain at large to them. By saying "I got this message from you, addressed to me" allows covert software to log the unique validation request. Assuming we only validate emails we get (as opposed to those we don't get) we'd expose our email address. Where as if you say this is "yahoo.com(by reverse lookup), I want to verify blackrider@yourdomain" the spammer has to slow things down to the point that there is only one outstanding address to his request, per domain. It gets even hairer for the spammer if yahoo.com and another domain cooperate, and the requests can come from earthlink.net too. Get enough cooperation and any lonk od overlap really does a number on the spammer. Then there can ever only be one outstanding address at once. This would require the validation server to be able to ask yahoo.com who are you cooperating with (or present it at validation request time) > But in any case, it's clear that the operative word is *not* "trivial". Lets define trival. Anything that can be solved in polynomial time is trivial. Our techniques are lexography and syntax and some elemenaty structure navigation. All polynomially complete, and therefor trivial ;-) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 13:37:55 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01080 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:37:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BIpUW21327 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:51:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BIpUO21324 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:51:30 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01068 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:37:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BIn7O21161; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:49:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BImrO21093 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:48:53 -0500 Received: from centipaid.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00961 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:34:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from centipaid.com ([216.177.8.126]) by centipaid.com ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:45:12 -500 From: "adonis@centipaid.com" Reply-to: adonis@centipaid.com To: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailer: Quality Web Email v3.0p, http://netwinsite.com/refw.htm Priority: normal Message-id: <3e6e2eb8.7a3b.1551492847@centipaid.com> X-Server: High Performance Mail Server - http://surgemail.com Subject: [Asrg] Hello and intro Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 18:45:12 GMT Hi, I just wanted to say hello to the member of the list, and introduce myself. My name is Adonis El Fakih, my background is very diverse includes nuclear piping engineering to software development and consulting :) I worked with Oracle at the Advanced Technology Solutions for sometime, and been acitvely working on alternate email solutions to combat spam. I hope to be able to contrinute to this forum in a positive way. Best regards, Adonis Adonis El Fakih, President Centipaid Corporation m: +1 508.801.0273 f: +1 603.386.6026 http://www.centipaid.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 13:39:23 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01186 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:39:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BIqwk21421 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:52:58 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BIqwO21418 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:52:58 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01164 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:38:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BIn2O21129; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:49:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BIm5O21071 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:48:05 -0500 Received: from harvee.billerica.ma.us (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00943 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:33:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from harvee.org (rufus.billerica.ma.us [192.168.0.10]) by harvee.billerica.ma.us (8.12.8/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2BIjud6008114; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:45:56 -0500 Message-ID: <3E6E2C8B.4010907@harvee.org> From: "Eric S. Johansson" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Economic model is borken. (sic.) Let's fix it References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:35:55 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > The same argument holds for authentication based approaches that > do not involve a per message charge. > > If C|Net has a certificate that proves that they sent an outgoing > message their subscribers know it came from them and is not spam. > > > This mail has an S/MIME signature, you can tell it came from me. big problem. Authentication based approaches are subject to problems of monopolization, centralization, and fraud. monopolization is easy to understand. The only company really distributing certificates on any scale is VeriSign. They've purchased their closest competitor. Expect similar behavior if authentication based e-mail becomes accepted. Centralization speaks to the infrastructure. Imagine the number of servers and bandwidth you would need if every e-mail client checked the CRL every time they received a piece of e-mail. Now imagine what happens when the net breaks. If you don't hold e-mail until you can verify the certificate, then a spammer can create a DOS against the CRL servers and let their Spam go through. Additionally, this raises the specter of control in terms of who can and cannot send e-mail. No certificate, no e-mail privileges. Fraud: What's going to stop the spammer from buying certificate after certificate after certificate and spamming. Additionally, if there is no monopoly on CA's, how do you deal with a rogue CA? you know, one that has a large number of legitimate users but refuses to revoke spammer certificates? and last, what about anonymous e-mail? Authentication based systems prevent that from happening and this is a bad thing. properly designed stamp based systems suffer from none of these flaws. Granted, they have some of their own but in the end, you have a completely decentralized system that can function no matter what is happening on the net or in goverment. ---eric _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 13:41:06 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01296 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:41:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BIsfD21533 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:54:41 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BIsfO21530 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:54:41 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01263 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:40:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BIs8O21489; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:54:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BIrVO21450 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:53:31 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01201 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:39:25 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2BIfXRj005379; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:41:33 -0500 Message-Id: <200303111841.h2BIfXRj005379@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.1 02/18/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: Jason Hihn Cc: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] Several Observations and a solution that addresses them all In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:08:15 EST." References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_100305232P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:41:33 -0500 --==_Exmh_100305232P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:08:15 EST, Jason Hihn said: > write(socket, "VALIDATE user\n") > read(socket, response) > if (find(response, "USER UNKOWN") Spammer code: open(socket); while (accept(socket)) { write(socket,"USER IS A GOOD GUY NOT A SPAMMER"); } You were expecting anything different when you do a callback to an address provided by the spammer? --==_Exmh_100305232P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+bi3dcC3lWbTT17ARAhf2AKCwxmKkCH2rQgKPzwxFWx2ffyiu1ACgrcbo jjRMJnRdM2L9o6tfNkG1o0Q= =7P24 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_100305232P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 13:43:21 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01401 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:43:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BIuuF21645 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:56:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BIuuO21642 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:56:56 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01391 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:42:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BIo1O21212; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:50:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BInYO21175 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:49:34 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00987 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:35:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2BIbZ9A015511 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:37:35 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303111837.h2BIbZ9A015511@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Economic model is borken. (sic.) Let's fix it References: <3E6E29D0.7090606@harvee.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:37:35 -0700 (MST) > From: "Eric S. Johansson" > ... > > Changing from a model in which email is free to one where there > > is a per message charge *IS* a major change to the infrastructure. > > maybe it's a perspective difference. Adding postage to e-mail is no more > difficult than adding some headers and having filters to operate on those > headers. It's something that is an end client change. ... If adding some headers and having filters operate on those is so trivial, then why is it that most legitimate bulk mail still does not contain RFC 2919 and RFC 2369 headers? RFC 2369 is 5 years old. The most reliable RFC 2822 header indication of bulk mail is the absense of a Message-ID header. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 13:46:21 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01511 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:46:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BIxuD21782 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:59:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BIxuO21779 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:59:56 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01490 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:45:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BIi3O20962; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:44:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BIhYO20944 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:43:34 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00864 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:29:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2BIVa6o015436 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:31:36 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303111831.h2BIVa6o015436@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Measurements on spam References: <200303111817.h2BIH726027843@qadgop.stewart.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:31:36 -0700 (MST) > from: lstewart@acm.org > ... > Further, when spam arrives, is it bursty? Does it arrive in clumps from > small numbers of sources or is it buried uniformly among legitimate traffic > from all sources? ... http://www.dcc-servers.net/dcc/graphs/ says that the flow of spam is remarkably smooth. It's the legitimate traffic that is not. On the other (albeit anecdotal) hand, my traps get mostly Eastern Hemisphere spam when the Western Hemisphere is asleep and vice versa. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 13:49:20 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01612 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:49:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BJ2tV21925 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:02:55 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BJ2tO21921 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:02:55 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01587 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:48:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BJ06O21847; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:00:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BIwwO21716 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:58:58 -0500 Received: from harvee.billerica.ma.us (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01439 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:44:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from harvee.org (rufus.billerica.ma.us [192.168.0.10]) by harvee.billerica.ma.us (8.12.8/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2BIumd6008252; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:56:49 -0500 Message-ID: <3E6E2F18.2000004@harvee.org> From: "Eric S. Johansson" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Matt Sergeant CC: "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Sender pays vs the third world References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:46:48 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Matt Sergeant wrote: > On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Eric S. Johansson wrote: >>not true. If you design the sender pays system correctly, even weak machines >>can participate. In the camram model, only the first couple of messages have >>"high-cost" Stamps. Every other message to a known recipient or from a known >>recipient comes at a much lower cost. > > > The latter part does not make my statement false. There are lots of > systems where the majority of email recipients are first-timers. I stand corrected. Let me rephrase my comment them. The cost of sending e-mail on a low-end machine will probably the only about 30 or 40 seconds per address[1]. This charge will occur in background and not impact the user experience. Obviously if someone sends a message to a large number of people, then it will take quite a while before the message will be delivered. Assuming they are willing to or able to (because of power issues) keep the machine running long enough to generate enough stamps, but it shouldn't be a problem. Additionally, it is possible for folks to offer to volunteer to generate stamps for these people if you should so wish. ---eric [1] the reason for a per address stamp is that it keeps spammers from recycling stamps on multiple clients. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 14:08:08 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03850 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:08:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BJLhA23931 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:21:43 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BJLhO23928 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:21:43 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03760 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:07:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BJE6O23368; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:14:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BJDTO23313 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:13:29 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA02857 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:59:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 17490 invoked from network); 10 Mar 2003 18:59:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO startechgroup.co.uk) (10.2.100.157) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 10 Mar 2003 18:59:17 -0000 Subject: Re: [Asrg] Email Certification Path Proposal Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: asrg@ietf.org To: Vernon Schryver From: Matt Sergeant In-Reply-To: <200303111808.h2BI8SJG013458@calcite.rhyolite.com> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 19:01:29 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tuesday, Mar 11, 2003, at 18:08 Europe/London, Vernon Schryver wrote: >>> If there is a PKI, you've still got nothing. Spammers can and must >>> be allowed to buy certs too. Authentication is not authorization. >> >> With authentication you've got something though - a much stronger >> ability to blacklist. > > That's wrong, even if you tie email addresses to official government > identities such as U.S. social security numbers. As I said, Ralsky > and other spammers would never run out of social security numbers with > which to authenticate his spam. He could pay a "homeless person" to > use certificates based on the person's social security numbers for 2 > or 3 weeks of spam. At the end of 2 or 3 weeks when that certificate > is widely blacklisted, he could hire another "homeless person." You're focusing far too much on the perfect here. I said "stronger ability to blacklist". Not perfect, but stronger. Plus I think the above pushes Ralsky (or whoever) into a whole other legal bracket than spamming, and thus gives the FTC the teeth they need to go after him for federal crime. But IANAL so this may be false. Matt. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 14:09:52 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA04063 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:09:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BJNS224017 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:23:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BJNSO24014 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:23:28 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA04011 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:09:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BJM9O23964; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:22:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BJLsO23946 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:21:54 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03782 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:07:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2BJ9peH019359 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:09:51 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303111909.h2BJ9peH019359@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Email Certification Path Proposal References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:09:51 -0700 (MST) > From: Matt Sergeant > > That's wrong, even if you tie email addresses to official government > > identities such as U.S. social security numbers. As I said, Ralsky > > and other spammers would never run out of social security numbers with > > which to authenticate his spam. He could pay a "homeless person" to > > use certificates based on the person's social security numbers for 2 > > or 3 weeks of spam. At the end of 2 or 3 weeks when that certificate > > is widely blacklisted, he could hire another "homeless person." > > You're focusing far too much on the perfect here. I said "stronger > ability to blacklist". Not perfect, but stronger. How does authentication give stronger blacklisting? Blacklisting by domain name and IP address works pretty well today. > Plus I think the above pushes Ralsky (or whoever) into a whole other > legal bracket than spamming, and thus gives the FTC the teeth they need > to go after him for federal crime. But IANAL so this may be false. Where's the crime, false advertising, or other naughtiness, besides wrecking the hopes of people who think authentication is magic pixie dust? Ralsky would be hiring temporary employees to act as official representatives of his organization. I assume he would pay all appropriate taxes, check citizenship papers, compy with the INS shoudl during raids, keep records for the FBI and Homeland security, tell the people he hires the gig is short term, including on his web pages a description of his operation, and even including in his spam words like "this message was sent by John Smythe who is Spam-Al's temporary representative this week." Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 14:24:18 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA05973 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:24:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BJbsw25627 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:37:54 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BJbsO25624 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:37:54 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA05855 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:23:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BJY4O24678; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:34:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BJX9O24620 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:33:09 -0500 Received: from chimta01.algx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA05322 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:19:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from JHS ([67.92.23.74]) by chimmx01.algx.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.10 (built Jan 23 2003)) with SMTP id <0HBL008NDN3AUO@chimmx01.algx.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:21:10 -0600 (CST) From: Jason Hihn Subject: RE: [Asrg] Several Observations and a solution that addresses them all In-reply-to: <200303111841.h2BIfXRj005379@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Cc: ASRG Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:21:10 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT That is *exactly* what I expect to see happen. This is where the nuances of the system really start to show/work. Realize this: 1) The spammer owns a domain. 2) The spammer has provided a return address accurate up to at least the domain (which they own, or the compromised someone else's server, but that is highly illegal, not to mention 'hard') There is absolute certainty that the email came from this domain. Therefore, it can easily be black-listed. There's also no reason why you can't first check for a query for a black listed domain and return INVALID USER for them regardless of user. If you are using the promoted/demoted chars I speak of frequently, then you can safely demote the email so the message will get through. Else if you're taking a hard-line stance, you can just reject the email. We now have a traceable route back to the spammer. At there very least, we have their MX IP, which can be traced to their ISP and so on. > -----Original Message----- > From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu [mailto:Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu] > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 1:42 PM > To: Jason Hihn > Cc: ASRG > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Several Observations and a solution that addresses > them all > > > On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:08:15 EST, Jason Hihn said: > > > write(socket, "VALIDATE user\n") > > read(socket, response) > > if (find(response, "USER UNKOWN") > > Spammer code: > > open(socket); > while (accept(socket)) { > write(socket,"USER IS A GOOD GUY NOT A SPAMMER"); > } > > You were expecting anything different when you do a callback to an > address provided by the spammer? > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 14:35:27 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06852 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:35:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BJn3F26554 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:49:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BJn3O26551 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:49:03 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06760 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:34:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BJj5O26337; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:45:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BJiIO26288 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:44:18 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06398 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:30:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2098402; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:32:20 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: Jason Hihn From: Kee Hinckley Subject: RE: [Asrg] Several Observations and a solution that addresses them all Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:16:57 -0500 At 1:10 PM -0500 3/11/03, Jason Hihn wrote: >I don't share in your pessimism. If we can make reasonable assurances that >in 5 years spam is a thing of the past, then I think we'll hop on board. > >According to your logic, we should never buy houses because it will never >pay off. We should just stick to renting, because it's cheap and it works >well enough. I'll try one more time. 1. The benefits of buying a house are immediate. 2. The benefits of buying a house do not depend on everyone else buying a house. 3. The buyer of a house is not faced with a choice of multiple houses, only one of which will be liveable in five years. If those were not the case--people would rent. I think maybe you're thinking that it isn't a gamble, because all the ISPs will get together and agree to do something. But that won't happen, because there are plenty of ISPs who aren't going to play the game. If we could rely on all the ISPs to agree on something, we wouldn't have a problem right now, because they would have agreed not to allow spammers on their networks. However there are clearly ISPs, and entire countries, who have decided that it is to their benefit to spam. Other's are caught in unfortunately legal agreements. Still others simply don't know they are being taken advantage of. Your proposal is not going to change any of that, and it won't be effective until the number of authenticated messages so overwhelms the non-authenticated that we can afford to block them. Read what people have said about acceptable false-positive rates. Alternatively, you believe that if we make it a standard, they will come. There are lots of standards out there. Lots of RFCs. Which one will be implemented is a completely different question. Back in 1989 I co-founded a company that made a multimedia email client and server that ran on Unix. There was a Unix desktop standard. RFC1154 gave us a standard for multimedia attachments. And for those people who were going to use the new international standard for email, X.400, we supported that as well. Everyone agreed that Unix on the desktop was going to take off and the standards organizations were all pointing at X.400 as the future. We made that gamble because we were three guys working out of our living rooms. Established companies don't take that kind of risk. The payoff is not worth it. And in that case they would have been right. MIME replaced RFC1154. Unix *still* isn't a desktop operating system. And X.400 died a well-deserved death. I think authentication is the way to go as well. But we have to find a method that has immediate benefits to the people who have to do the work and pay the cost. That's why I'm focused on the idea of requiring authentication only for bulk mailers, and using existing tools to identify what messages are bulk. I'm not convinced that it will work. But I am convinced that it applies the changes in the places where people are incented to make them. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 14:47:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07575 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:47:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BK18327176 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:01:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BK17O27173 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:01:07 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07541 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:47:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BJo1O26607; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:50:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BJnJO26571 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:49:19 -0500 Received: from centipaid.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06808 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:35:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from centipaid.com ([216.177.8.126]) by centipaid.com ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:45:36 -500 From: "ietf@centipaid.com" Reply-to: ietf@centipaid.com To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Measurements on spam X-Mailer: Quality Web Email v3.0p, http://netwinsite.com/refw.htm Priority: normal Message-id: <3e6e3ce0.343.2128445981@centipaid.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Server: High Performance Mail Server - http://surgemail.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h2BJnJO26572 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 19:45:36 GMT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi, In my experience, with spam arriving to a single domain. They do arrive in surges and last for few minutes/hours depending on the spammer, but generally they occur close to each other. It depends on the spam list being used. The domain in question ayna.com receives over 400k messages a day, and most of it is spam. And regardless of what filters are installed, junk will go through it. Many times it bottles up and no mail gets through until the spammer attacks slow down. As a mail provider I am more inclined to use stamps as a way to filter out spam. If the spammer wants to get to the network and pays, that is fine with me, as long as I recoup the cost of running the server. thanks Adonis ----- Original Message Follows ----- >   >   > ----- Message Forwarded on Tue, 11 Mar 2003 19:37:35 GMT > ----- > From: Vernon Schryver > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Measurements on spam > Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:31:36 -0700 (MST) > > from: lstewart@acm.org > > > ... > > Further, when spam arrives, is it bursty? Does it arrive > in clumps from > small numbers of sources or is it buried > uniformly among legitimate traffic > from all sources? ... > > http://www.dcc-servers.net/dcc/graphs/ says that the flow > of spam is remarkably smooth. It's the legitimate traffic > that is not. > On the other (albeit anecdotal) hand, my traps get mostly > Eastern Hemisphere spam when the Western Hemisphere is > asleep and vice versa. > > Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > Adonis El Fakih, President > Centipaid Corporation > m: +1 508.801.0273 > f: +1 603.386.6026 > http://www.centipaid.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 14:49:24 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07660 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:49:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BK31D27289 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:03:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BK31O27286 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:03:01 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07637 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:48:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BJu5O26937; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:56:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BJttO26901 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:55:55 -0500 Received: from zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07338 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:41:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h2BJhnA26946 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:43:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF4VYPK; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:43:49 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBF0VQ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:43:49 -0500 Message-ID: <3E6E3D35.4080504@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists References: <200303101805.h2AI53q0020578@calcite.rhyolite.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:47:01 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kee Hinckley wrote: > So, we know the number of messages sent to never-existent and > non-existent accounts is increasing. This could of course, just be an > indication that the number of spammers is increasing. (Note, that's > number of spammers, not amount of spam. If you are correct, then old > spammers would stop targeting addresses after bounces.) Some numbers: when we shut down some of our legacy domain names (removed them from DNS), they were getting 50K spams/day, peaking at 140K. Two years later we resurrected the domains to see what was going on - 500-800K/day continuous. If spammers were cleaning lists, the number would have been _well_ below 50K/day. Instead, it was way above. Spammers do not prune their lists. Neither do some mailing lists houses who should know better. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 14:53:57 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07979 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:53:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BK7Ym28238 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:07:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BK7YO28235 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:07:34 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07947 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:53:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BK21O27245; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:02:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BK05O27097 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:00:05 -0500 Received: from zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07511 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:45:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (zcard307.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h2BJm5O05816 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:48:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDFBP6T7; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:48:05 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBF0V4; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:48:04 -0500 Message-ID: <3E6E3E34.7030002@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Opt-out lists and legislation References: <20030310223236.A6105@dogma> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:51:16 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Justin Mason wrote: > On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 02:06:40PM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >>>Legislation is futile. The spammers will go off-shore if not already. >>>The only solution is a technical one that crosses political borders. >>Going offshore significantly increases costs and creates a major barrier >>to entry. > Using offshore contractors -- or USian contractors with offshore > sending hosts -- to send your spam, however, does not. And that's > already the case in many of the big spamhaus cases (e.g. Alan Ralsky). Ralsky is inside US jurisdiction, right? It would be particularly difficult to craft legislation that _didn't_ cover everyone involved in a spam, whether the spammer itself, or the spammed-for person or... If only by invoking "conspiracy to commit"... _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 14:58:48 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08160 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:58:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BKCPC28508 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:12:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BKCOO28505 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:12:24 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08148 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:58:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BK94O28345; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:09:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BK8YO28329 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:08:34 -0500 Received: from chimta04.algx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08021 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:54:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from JHS ([67.92.23.74]) by chimmx04.algx.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.10 (built Jan 23 2003)) with SMTP id <0HBL00ADXOM2T3@chimmx04.algx.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:54:02 -0600 (CST) From: Jason Hihn Subject: RE: [Asrg] Several Observations and a solution that addresses them all In-reply-to: To: Kee Hinckley Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:54:02 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT > -----Original Message----- > From: Kee Hinckley [mailto:nazgul@somewhere.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 2:17 PM > To: Jason Hihn > Cc: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Asrg] Several Observations and a solution that addresses > them all I think we've killed the own/rent annalogy.. moving on... > > I think maybe you're thinking that it isn't a gamble, because all the > ISPs will get together and agree to do something. But that won't > happen, because there are plenty of ISPs who aren't going to play the > game. If we could rely on all the ISPs to agree on something, we > wouldn't have a problem right now, because they would have agreed not > to allow spammers on their networks. However there are clearly ISPs, > and entire countries, who have decided that it is to their benefit to > spam. Other's are caught in unfortunately legal agreements. Still > others simply don't know they are being taken advantage of. Your > proposal is not going to change any of that, and it won't be > effective until the number of authenticated messages so overwhelms > the non-authenticated that we can afford to block them. Read what > people have said about acceptable false-positive rates. I don't need or care that 90% (by domain? by email addr?) haven't deployed it. If Yahoo!, aol, MSN, hotmail, and comcast were to implement it, 90% of whom I correspond with would be covered, excluding my mailing list buddies of course! Also, there would be no messages from fake yahoo.com addresses littering my mail box. ... > I think authentication is the way to go as well. But we have to find > a method that has immediate benefits to the people who have to do the > work and pay the cost. That's why I'm focused on the idea of > requiring authentication only for bulk mailers, and using existing > tools to identify what messages are bulk. I'm not convinced that it > will work. But I am convinced that it applies the changes in the > places where people are incented to make them. The problem is, who is a bulk mailer? I can change my identity. What messages are bulk? There are a lot more holes in that tin can than my idea. I can vary the message a little for each destination. I can inter-twine several different messages (porn, penis enlargement, fat reduction, repeat) to throw off your detection. How are you going to force me to play by your rules? Why should I care to play by them in the first place if my messages end up in the trash can? My method answers that last one nicely. If you don't play by my rules, I WON'T ever see it. If you do play, you at least have some chance that I might see it, but it's still not likely. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 15:10:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09446 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:10:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BKOV629116 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:24:31 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BKOVO29113 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:24:31 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09352 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:10:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BKFrO28716; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:15:53 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BKDbO28593 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:13:37 -0500 Received: from centipaid.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08185 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:59:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from centipaid.com ([216.177.8.126]) by centipaid.com ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:09:54 -500 From: "ietf@centipaid.com" Reply-to: ietf@centipaid.com To: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailer: Quality Web Email v3.0p, http://netwinsite.com/refw.htm Priority: normal Message-id: <3e6e4292.5f8.25118398@centipaid.com> X-Server: High Performance Mail Server - http://surgemail.com Subject: [Asrg] camram engine Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 20:09:54 GMT Hi I have read the comments made to the camram engine, and I favor an approach that relies on stamps. I like the idea of peer-to-peer CPU cycle based stamps, and have the same concerns expressed in the list in regards to the implementation. For example what happens when you initiate a first contact? or emailing someone new. I think using camram in conjunction with a paid stamp system will make it a much more stronger solution. Once a relationship is created between two email using a paid stamp, the system can use the camram system to sync stamps on both ends, and no further use of paid stamps is necessary. However when in doubt refer the sender to pay for the stamp, to initiate or resync the relationship. We just finished releasing a perl module for an email postage system using real money Mail::Audit::Centipaid, and we chose one of our worst email account (created in '97) it gets over 200 spam messages a day :( since we installed the paid stamp filter, we do not receive any messages except from people interested in doing business with us, who pay for the stamp cost of $0.001. From a user point of view a solution that provides the lowest cost is what I shoot for, while maintaining a zero spam tolerance for certain email addresses. That is why I like the idea of using a combined solution as long as the technical requierments are easy to the sender and receiver. I am also very interested in exploring how camram fits in the AMDP model http://www.amdpmail.com/mod/fileman/files/draft-amdp-00.txt, where the sender and receiver orders are reversed. Thanks Adonis _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 15:40:49 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11309 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:40:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BKsPb31059 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:54:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BKsPO31056 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:54:25 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11265 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:40:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BKpOO30921; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:51:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BKnRO30825 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:49:27 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11141 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:35:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (zcard307.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h2BKbQN19993 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:37:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDFBQBLS; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:37:26 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBF0WW; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:37:26 -0500 Message-ID: <3E6E49C5.4040300@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] Several Observations and a solution that addresses them all References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:40:37 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jason Hihn wrote: >>Now I go back to your server and say, "is jhihn@paytimepayroll.com a >>valid address" and your server says, "what the hell are you talking >>about, I've gotten hundreds of queries about this person, but they >>did not send mail to nazgul@somewhere.com, they only sent email to >>asrg@ietf.org. Must be a spammer. Not valid." > Exactly. You have no rights to my info if I did not send to you. Don't speak > until spoken to. But you _did_ send email to him. Via _this_ mailing list. How was your mail server supposed to know that the IETF mailing server forwarded it to him? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 15:50:04 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11650 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:50:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BL3eR31591 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:03:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BL3eO31588 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:03:40 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11639 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:49:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BL16O31382; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:01:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BKwcO31254 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:58:38 -0500 Received: from mail-out1.apple.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11444 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:44:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailgate1.apple.com (A17-128-100-225.apple.com [17.128.100.225]) by mail-out1.apple.com (8.12.7/8.12.7) with ESMTP id h2BKkcYv018971 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:46:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from scv1.apple.com (scv1.apple.com) by mailgate1.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:46:29 -0800 Received: from plaidworks.com (vg0602e-dhcp175.apple.com [17.216.21.175]) by scv1.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h2BKkXs04236; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:46:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Several Observations and a solution that addresses them all Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: ASRG To: "Chris Lewis" From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <3E6E49C5.4040300@americasm01.nt.com> Message-Id: <8BBDA9DF-5402-11D7-8FBA-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:46:34 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tuesday, March 11, 2003, at 12:40 PM, Chris Lewis wrote: >> Exactly. You have no rights to my info if I did not send to you. >> Don't speak >> until spoken to. > > But you _did_ send email to him. Via _this_ mailing list. How was > your mail server supposed to know that the IETF mailing server > forwarded it to him? > I'd argue that the relationship is between the subscriber and the mailing list, and that's what ought to be validated. It's up to the mailing list to validate what can be sent by it, but the user's relationship is with the list, not with all of the users on the list. -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/ No! No! Dead girl, OFF the table! -- Shrek _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 15:50:11 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11665 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:50:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BL3mF31611 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:03:48 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BL3lO31608 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:03:47 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11643 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:49:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BKs2O31029; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:54:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BKreO30993 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:53:40 -0500 Received: from toad.date.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11243 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:39:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from date.com (unknown [216.130.219.81]) by toad.date.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A9C51C35DA for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:41:39 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3E6E4A03.92D3ED3F@date.com> From: Michael Ellis X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Opt-out lists and legislation References: <20030310223236.A6105@dogma> <3E6E3E34.7030002@americasm01.nt.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:41:39 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > Using offshore contractors -- or USian contractors with offshore > > sending hosts -- to send your spam, however, does not. And that's > > already the case in many of the big spamhaus cases (e.g. Alan Ralsky). > > Ralsky is inside US jurisdiction, right? > > It would be particularly difficult to craft legislation that _didn't_ > cover everyone involved in a spam, whether the spammer itself, or the > spammed-for person or... If only by invoking "conspiracy to commit"... It would be my opinion that any legislation broad enough to cover everyone even with 'conspiracy to commit' would then be struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S. supreme Court just like COPA just died -- Michael Ellis Privacy Manager Date.com Phone (416) 306-0022 ext 620 Fax (416) 306-0023 Date.com - "The New Way To Date" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 16:01:26 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12104 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:01:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BLF3800448 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:15:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BLF2O00445 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:15:02 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12080 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:00:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BL94O32586; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:09:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BL6oO31754 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:06:50 -0500 Received: from chimta03.algx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11763 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:52:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from JHS ([67.92.23.74]) by chimmx03.algx.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.10 (built Jan 23 2003)) with SMTP id <0HBL00EJ5RFEDC@chimmx03.algx.net> for Asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:54:50 -0600 (CST) From: Jason Hihn Subject: RE: [Asrg] Opt-out lists and legislation In-reply-to: <3E6E3E34.7030002@americasm01.nt.com> To: Chris Lewis , Asrg@ietf.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:54:50 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Chris > Lewis > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 2:51 PM > To: Asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Opt-out lists and legislation > > > Justin Mason wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 02:06:40PM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > > >>>Legislation is futile. The spammers will go off-shore if not already. > >>>The only solution is a technical one that crosses political borders. > > >>Going offshore significantly increases costs and creates a major barrier > >>to entry. > > > Using offshore contractors -- or USian contractors with offshore > > sending hosts -- to send your spam, however, does not. And that's > > already the case in many of the big spamhaus cases (e.g. Alan Ralsky). > > Ralsky is inside US jurisdiction, right? > > It would be particularly difficult to craft legislation that _didn't_ > cover everyone involved in a spam, whether the spammer itself, or the > spammed-for person or... If only by invoking "conspiracy to commit"... He is, but his operations need not be. I can pay a New Guinea man to do my spam for me. Or I can buy a whole internet site outside the U.S. and run my operations from there and get disbursements. Still, he is but one man. If he can no longer do it, someone who can will step up to the plate. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 16:05:53 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12227 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:05:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BLJUF00696 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:19:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BLJUO00693 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:19:30 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12212 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:05:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BLA2O32652; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:10:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BL99O32596 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:09:09 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11813 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:55:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (zcard307.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h2BKv7N21698 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:57:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDFBQDPP; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:57:07 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBF0XG; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:57:07 -0500 Message-ID: <3E6E4E61.3080703@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] Several Observations and a solution that addresses them all References: <8BBDA9DF-5402-11D7-8FBA-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:00:17 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > > On Tuesday, March 11, 2003, at 12:40 PM, Chris Lewis wrote: > >>> Exactly. You have no rights to my info if I did not send to you. >>> Don't speak >>> until spoken to. >> But you _did_ send email to him. Via _this_ mailing list. How was >> your mail server supposed to know that the IETF mailing server >> forwarded it to him? > I'd argue that the relationship is between the subscriber and the > mailing list, and that's what ought to be validated. It's up to the > mailing list to validate what can be sent by it, but the user's > relationship is with the list, not with all of the users on the list. True, but you'd not only have to get mailing lists "fixed" first, you'd have to change the mailing list standards and the MTAs so that the receiving MTA could figure that out... Given how easy this is to circumvent (plus the difficulties of handling TEMPFAIL, and services that simply aren't reachable directly by TCP/IP at the best of times), I don't think it's worth going down this hole. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 16:07:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12365 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:07:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BLL9T00800 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:21:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BLL9O00797 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:21:09 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12308 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:07:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BLG3O00497; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:16:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BLFXO00472 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:15:33 -0500 Received: from smtp015.mail.yahoo.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id QAA12098 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:01:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from customer254-217.iplannetworks.net (HELO AGAMENON) (baldusi@200.69.254.217 with plain) by smtp.mail.vip.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 11 Mar 2003 21:03:28 -0000 From: "Alejandro G. Belluscio" X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.60q) Personal Reply-To: "Alejandro G. Belluscio" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <3624028456.20030311180321@uol.com.ar> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Email Certification Path Proposal MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 18:03:21 -0300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:06:32 -0300, "Alejandro G. Belluscio" said: > >> I know it's too early to send this kind of proposal, but please keep in >> mind the idea that, if signature is required, use the existing business >> relationships instead of making the Verisign mistake again. > > And my business relationship to you is what, exactly? Don't mix up things. The business relationships are from a RIR to a backbone provider, from a backbone provider to an ISP. From an ISP to a client. The idea is to use this structure. The price of a Verisign certificate is a pure monopoly price. Just look at Thawte (50% cheaper) before it got bought up. Besides, the true cost of emiting a certificate is a notary problem. So you have to check the documentation (big expense), certifing the the guy asking you to sign the certificate is actually entitled by the domain owner to do so (another big expense), watch the whois database (something like 10 seconds) and pass it through your CA software (in openssl is about another 10 seconds, with a script it can be everything atomated). Then you have to run the server, but I think it's actually much cheaper than what they make you believe. Just look at the DNS, $35 for years and they have the wholeprice set at $6 by ICANN. And yet is such a good business that they want to keep it at any cost. So if your already checked your customer (you're investing thousands in equipment just to give him service, so you better do it) your cost of passing through a script his cert is practically nil. Please note that the SMTP only certifies that the email came from a given account in his system. So he can take measures against customers who spam or had their accounts hacked. Now let's get to the core technicalities because I think I didn't expressed myself well enough. The RIR are the CA. Those public keys are to be put into every MTA and MUA that supports this system. Are to be hosted also by the backbone providers if necessary (little expense relativelly speaking for eliminating spam). RIRs are notorious for leving huge fees, so they should be able to host them themselves. So they sign the backbones providers certificate (which might also put them on the Internet for checking). Note that the one recieving side might have to check a revocation list on the RIRs once in a while, but most clients don't actually check revocations lists. And those backbone providers keys could be put into the client software too. So the backbone providers signs the ISP certificate and he uses it to sign the SMTP certificate. Don't think PGP. Think SSL, but only that if you trust the first CA then you trust the rest of the chain. Note that all we want is to know from where this email came. With a certain degree of security. We are not worried about men-in-the-middle attacks. The idea is just to be able to know which ISP is not checking well enough the sending side of spammers. And the backbone provider will have the same information as the ISP, so if he's not doing his job he can revocate the certificate. You can also make a blacklist of ISPs if necesary. > This isn't a rhetorical question. There's only a few basic trust models: > > 1) Our respective cert authorities negotiate a private cross-cert > agreement. This works well for 2 businesses that want to verify each > other's signatures, but doesn't scale to the open internet. > > 2) a Verisign/X.509 model where somebody runs a central set of servers. > Nobody is going to do one of these that scales to Internet size for free > either (hint - what percent of domains have their own CA that can sign > certs for their users?) Have you noted that the ones actually running the servers are the one running the internet? It could be a small cost for backbone providers if it resulted in the elimination of spam. Besides most of the certificates would be embedded into the software (and checked once in a while). > 3) A PGP web-of-trust model. Works great once both correspondents are in > the same web, but has some major bootstrapping issues... > > The "Verisign mistake" happened because there aren't a lot of other things > that *could* have happened. Do you think so? How is that thawte got bought for ridiculous amounts of money just to kill the possibility of a true competitor? Why wasn't this task apointed to the backbone providers so they could charge a fee when hosting a site? They have all the information about the domain and company at hand for setting up the account. Besides, the security requirements are totally different. We want to be able to know from where the spammers are comming and see if the ISP makes something about it. If not he'll be punished. You could also make a blacklist of customers so if you got tagged as spammer with an ISP you won't get SMTP access with any other ISP. >> (lots of definitions skipped) > >> Objectives >> -To have a certified sender in the sense of a legal entity . >> -Keep the privacy of the sender and reciever when necesary. >> -Minimize the cost of entity certification. > > Reasonable goals.. > >> Description >> >> 1. Each SMTP has to enable SMTP-AUTH. This enables the server uniquely >> identify the Sending Account sending such mail. > > Nice hand-waving. How do you ensure that the *REMOTE* end actually enforces > it? This isn't as easy as it looks - *my* mail systems may do SMTP AUTH, > and I may even pass a cookie to you so if there's a problem with one of > my users, you can give me the cookie and I'll hopefully know who to call > in and beat the snot out of them (which was the *original* purpose of > RFC1413 IDENT, incidentally). > > Of course, a spamhaus already knows who's using their server, and has no > need of running SMTP AUTH to verify that they themselves are the ones > sending the mail.... This system is opt-in. You want your SMTP server to be in it you have to enable SMTP-AUTH, get the certificate from your ISP or backbone provider and make the SMTP sign the headers of outgoing mails. If you just sign without SMTP-AUTH and you get a spammer, you're toast, your certificate will be revocated and the emails of your other client won't go throu. So you're either a pure spam SMTP (in which case you won't get certificated) or have an active policy agains it. >> 2. Using that information the header is then added a signature using a >> certificate of the SM plus a code that let's said SM to uniquely >> identify the Sending Account. This code should be chosen so as to be non >> desiptive of said account for a third party, even if he recieves >> multiple emails. > > Read RFC1413, section 6 (Security Considerations) > > You're trusting the remote site to give you information. Yes. Because the the SMTP manager is the one who has to deal with the spammer. If he doesn't he'll have his certificate revocated. A spamhause won't get a certificate, or get revoked quite quickly. That's also in part why we send the the Spam Claim to the signer of the certificate. >> 4. (to discuss or optional) On a recieving SMTP if the email has a valid >> signature path, it's signed by himself and given a code that let's the >> SM uniquely identify the RA. > Signed how? and what makes this more trusted than the set of Received: > headers? I've refrained from making specifics about the technical details because I'm getting input in the idea. But I guess I'll have to be more specific. The SMTP that actually has the email account (the last SMTP) add a field to the header with a signature of the the whole mail without this field. Since his public key is certified by know authority (first discussion on certificates) then we have a certain degree of confidence that he actually recieved such email. It can easily be checked if it originated from the said SMTP by checking his signature. This are signatures of the whole message and by a checkeable certification path. Besides, the only idea is to have reasonable reasurance that siad message was sent by such SMTP and actually recieved by such other. > There's two cases to consider: > > 1) There exists a PKI. In this case, the sender just uses S/MIME or PGP > or whatever, and all the intermediaries need do *NOTHING*. This message is > PGP signed - if you want you can validate it via the PGP web-of-trust. And > my mail server, your mail server, and the IETF mail server need not get > involved at all. If I sign it with an X.509-style cert, the mail server > STILL doesn't have to get involved, because the cert chain on my signature > already identifies me. > > 2) There isn't a PKI. If so, then everybody is basically just using self-signed > certificates, which prove approximately nothing... > > Note that doing crypto on a hop-by-hop basis will get *expensive* - the note > that I'm replying to had 8 Received: headers, and 15-20 is not at all > uncommon. By the 10th or 12th hop, that's a *LOT* of cert chains you have > to walk through to verify (and remember that *each* cert chain is going > to take a chunk of resources).... I'm not sure the proposed system was explained well enough. The *sender* SMTP signs the message once. It's certificates is signed by a checkeable certification path with a to well know authority (the RIRs). Then the reciever _might_ sign it, too. So what happens in the middle is not problem. A spammer might try to send an email from a free email provider. But since the signature includes the To: field he couldn't resend it from somewhere else make him look like a hop because the signature wouldn't match the To: field. Regards, Alejandro Belluscio _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 16:10:07 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12510 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:10:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BLNi700923 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:23:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BLNiO00920 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:23:44 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12499 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:09:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BLHFO00558; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:17:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BLGfO00516 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:16:41 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12139 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:02:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2098653; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:04:40 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: Jason Hihn From: Kee Hinckley Subject: RE: [Asrg] Several Observations and a solution that addresses them all Cc: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, ASRG Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:04:15 -0500 At 2:21 PM -0500 3/11/03, Jason Hihn wrote: >We now have a traceable route back to the spammer. At there very least, we >have their MX IP, which can be traced to their ISP and so on. As I have said before on this list. There are spammers out there who are registering new domains every week. They don't forge their domains, and you can't blacklist them based on the domain because it keeps changing. If we require domain authentication, then all spammers will move towards this model. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but it argues for a level of authentication that comes with certificates and certificate revocation. As for "nailing" the spammer... He sets up an authentication server on a dialup connection. He uses a free dynamic dns system to point his mx at the dialup. And then he sends spam from all over the world using proxies and relays. Anyone who gets email checks the mx, that sends them to his dialup machine, and it says the mail is valid. What happens if you report him to his ISP? He loses his dialup connection. Just like now. So then I suppose the ISPs block inbound connections to your authentication port. And then once that happens someone starts up a server offshore selling authentication services for domains. And they keep moving the IP address around using different relays at different offshore machines. In other words--we are fighting the same battle then as now, just in a different space. Just as content filtering doesn't detect spam, it detects content. Domain authentication doesn't identify spammers, it identifies domains. Both are very useful. I'd love a mechanism that kept people from forging my domain name. But it won't stop spam. Nor (as described) will it drive the spammers into a small enough box that we can stop them. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 16:15:53 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12647 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:15:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BLTUP01172 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:29:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BLTTO01169 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:29:30 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12629 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:15:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BLP5O01034; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:25:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BLORO00976 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:24:27 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12543 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:10:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2BLCQBD001797 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:12:26 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] DCC and IP checksums In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:12:26 -0500 (EST) On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > But consider what happens when you use mobile code to describe the > hash function. Oh, yes, let's consider that. You have enormous security violations all over the Internet. "Mobile Code" is a non-starter from a security standpoint. I don't trust sandboxes, and I don't think most SMTP server owners do either. > This is how satelite TV companies keep card piracy at acceptable levels. > PThey don't shut off a pirate card immediately, they let a number > of customers develop then they kill it when doing so does maximum > damage to the pirate's reputation. They have a closed system and can trust their own mobile code. > The apamware companies have a big problem that script writers do not, > they want to make money from their code. So it takes them much longer > to react than the opposition. From my observations, a lot of simple anti-spam tricks that worked a year ago (and are even widely-known, e.g., as part of SpamAssassin), still work pretty well. So I think you have a point about the reaction time. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 16:30:25 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13006 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:30:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BLi2q02557 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:44:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BLi2O02554 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:44:02 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12958 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:29:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BLb3O01515; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:37:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BLaIO01446 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:36:18 -0500 Received: from chimta02.algx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12756 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:22:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from JHS ([67.92.23.74]) by chimmx02.algx.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.10 (built Jan 23 2003)) with SMTP id <0HBL00KARSSI9Y@chimmx02.algx.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:24:18 -0600 (CST) From: Jason Hihn Subject: RE: [Asrg] Several Observations and a solution that addresses them all In-reply-to: To: Kee Hinckley Cc: ASRG Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:24:18 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT > So then I suppose the ISPs block inbound connections to your > authentication port. And then once that happens someone starts up a > server offshore selling authentication services for domains. And > they keep moving the IP address around using different relays at > different offshore machines. By detecting a burst of auth requests for this user, we can make sure he gets limited to 50 or 100 messages - far less than the 1000s he could send before he can show up on any kind of spam list. This greatly effects his delivery rate and makes it hard for him to make any kind of money. (Assuming he gets paid by address, or if he buys by the address, it turns most of his list into junk.) It also makes it a lot more hassle to spam. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 16:30:26 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13019 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:30:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BLi3r02573 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:44:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BLi3O02570 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:44:03 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12961 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:29:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BLd5O02333; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:39:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BLcQO02282 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:38:26 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12791 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:24:18 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2BLQQr6002143; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:26:26 -0500 Message-Id: <200303112126.h2BLQQr6002143@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.1 02/18/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: "Alejandro G. Belluscio" Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Email Certification Path Proposal In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 11 Mar 2003 18:03:21 -0300." <3624028456.20030311180321@uol.com.ar> References: <3624028456.20030311180321@uol.com.ar> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_-650663792P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:26:26 -0500 --==_Exmh_-650663792P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 18:03:21 -0300, "Alejandro G. Belluscio" said: > Yes. Because the the SMTP manager is the one who has to deal with the > spammer. If he doesn't he'll have his certificate revocated. A spamhause > won't get a certificate, or get revoked quite quickly. That's also in > part why we send the the Spam Claim to the signer of the certificate. Of course, if the SMTP manager is on the payroll of the spammer, and is the signer of the certificate, they can just drop the Spam Claim on the floor. "A spamhaus won't get a certificate or get revoked quite quickly". Why is there a spam problem, when spamming is against the official AUP at most ISPs? After all - nobody would sell bandwidth to a spammer, or if they did, they'd revoke it quickly, right? So let's see - there exist shady ISPs that will sell bandwidth to spammers, even though other sites may blackhole their entire AS (remember - the MAPS RBL is available as a BGP feed, and used at some sites). But you don't expect there to be any shady certificate issuers that will issue certs to spammers, even though other sites may refuse to honor anything signed by them. All you're doing is changing the problem from whack-a-mole bandwidth to whack-a-mole certs. And that's even worse - the telco can take weeks to deliver a DSL or T-1 to a new base of operations, but a new cert can be delivered in minutes. Of course, the really serious spammers are either not worried because they've paid off the ISP, or they've already got replacement lines/certs/whatever already in process for the next spamming run.... --==_Exmh_-650663792P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+blSCcC3lWbTT17ARAg0FAJ9gv91m8wIICqLnHLjVfD6Ze/B8IACgpTDP zBJcF1LQWnmeqXE4Oa3InjY= =W6IK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_-650663792P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 16:30:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13036 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:30:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BLi9q02599 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:44:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BLi9O02596 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:44:09 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12970 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:30:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BLd2O02315; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:39:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BLcFO02278 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:38:15 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12788 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:24:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h2BLQCN24120 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:26:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF4V592; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:26:12 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBF0X6; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:26:12 -0500 Message-ID: <3E6E5533.1020601@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Opt-out lists and legislation References: <20030310223236.A6105@dogma> <3E6E3E34.7030002@americasm01.nt.com> <3E6E4A03.92D3ED3F@date.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:29:23 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Michael Ellis wrote: >>It would be particularly difficult to craft legislation that _didn't_ >>cover everyone involved in a spam, whether the spammer itself, or the >>spammed-for person or... If only by invoking "conspiracy to commit"... > It would be my opinion that any legislation broad enough to cover everyone > even with 'conspiracy to commit' would then be struck down as unconstitutional > by the U.S. supreme Court just like COPA just died You're thinking way too complicated... If you pay someone to commit a crime, then you're guilty of that crime too. If spamming US citizens is a crime, then the person in the US who paid the, say, Taiwanese bulker, to spam US citizens, is guilty of it too. Given that something like 80% of spam is flogging US-based services in one way or another, that's a huge bite. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 16:35:26 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13170 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:35:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BLn3L02849 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:49:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BLn3O02846 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:49:03 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13138 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:34:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BLi2O02552; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:44:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BLhSO02529 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:43:28 -0500 Received: from chimta04.algx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12944 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:29:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from JHS ([67.92.23.74]) by chimmx04.algx.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.10 (built Jan 23 2003)) with SMTP id <0HBL00I08T4GAI@chimmx04.algx.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:31:28 -0600 (CST) From: Jason Hihn In-reply-to: <3E6E49C5.4040300@americasm01.nt.com> To: Chris Lewis Cc: ASRG Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] RE: [Sag] Several Observations and a solution that addresses them all Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:31:28 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Chris > Lewis > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 3:41 PM > Cc: ASRG > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Several Observations and a solution that addresses > them all > > > Jason Hihn wrote: > >>Now I go back to your server and say, "is jhihn@paytimepayroll.com a > >>valid address" and your server says, "what the hell are you talking > >>about, I've gotten hundreds of queries about this person, but they > >>did not send mail to nazgul@somewhere.com, they only sent email to > >>asrg@ietf.org. Must be a spammer. Not valid." > > > Exactly. You have no rights to my info if I did not send to > you. Don't speak > > until spoken to. > > But you _did_ send email to him. Via _this_ mailing list. How was your > mail server supposed to know that the IETF mailing server forwarded it > to him? I did not send to him, I sent to the list. The list then sent it out. The list would be authenticated by his server, and pass. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 16:40:11 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13285 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:40:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BLrmx03007 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:53:48 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BLrmO03004 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:53:48 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13275 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:39:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BLl2O02800; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:47:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BLkxO02786 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:46:59 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13080 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:32:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2BLYvhK006402 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:34:57 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303112134.h2BLYvhK006402@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Sender pays vs the third world References: <3E6E2F18.2000004@harvee.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:34:57 -0700 (MST) > From: "Eric S. Johansson" > ... The cost of sending e-mail on a low-end > machine will probably the only about 30 or 40 seconds per address ... If a 25 MHz 80486 needs 30 seconds to compute a number, then a 3 GHz P4 should need at most 150 milliseconds to compute the same value, and probably less than 75 milliseconds. The ratio of clock speeds is only 120X but has lots of other fancy stuff to make computations to faster, particularly when all of the values can fit in the P4's (or P-III's) vastly larger caches. (Never mind that the 486 had only the off-chip caches). 150 ms, not to mention 75 ms is less than a single typical round trip through the Internet. Getting the banner from a target SMTP server needs 2 round trips. However, a serious bulk mailer will surely overlap SMTP sessions. A computer that is limited to sending 1 message every 150 ms will send 576,000 mail messages/day. Such computers cost less than $600 in single quantities from retail stores, and a fraction of that if you are willing to build your own "blade-like" servers. (Ok, you might have to settle for 1 or 2 GHz CPUs that are only 90 times as fast as low-end systems.) One 5 KByte mail message in 150 ms needs about 40 KByte/sec of bandwidth after you add SMTP, TCP, IP, and link-layer overhead. Six of those $600 computers from CircuitCity will saturate a T1 and pump 3 Mmsgs/day. So where is the major cost of schemes like hashcash to spammers? Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 16:46:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13554 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:46:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BM0H603610 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:00:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BM0HO03600 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:00:17 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13471 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:46:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BLuDO03113; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:56:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BLttO03077 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:55:55 -0500 Received: from chimta04.algx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13327 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:41:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from JHS ([67.92.23.74]) by chimmx04.algx.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.10 (built Jan 23 2003)) with SMTP id <0HBL00JOOTP5NO@chimmx04.algx.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:43:53 -0600 (CST) From: Jason Hihn Subject: RE: [Asrg] Several Observations and a solution that addresses them all In-reply-to: To: Kee Hinckley Cc: ASRG Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:43:53 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Addendum. See below. > -----Original Message----- > From: Jason Hihn [mailto:jhihn@paytimepayroll.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 4:24 PM > To: Kee Hinckley > Cc: ASRG > Subject: RE: [Asrg] Several Observations and a solution that addresses > them all > > > > So then I suppose the ISPs block inbound connections to your > > authentication port. And then once that happens someone starts up a > > server offshore selling authentication services for domains. And > > they keep moving the IP address around using different relays at > > different offshore machines. > > By detecting a burst of auth requests for this user, we can make > sure he gets limited to 50 or 100 messages - far less than the > 1000s he could send before he can show up on any kind of spam > list. This greatly effects his delivery rate and makes it hard > for him to make any kind of money. (Assuming he gets paid by > address, or if he buys by the address, it turns most of his list > into junk.) It also makes it a lot more hassle to spam. In the even that a spammer who does not own his domain abuses and account (by tripping a validation/sec limit) we can pro-actively black list this person. I don't think it will technically work due to timing, but it is entirely possible that the server can get the user's address on the black list and get it propagated out so that the server can save itself from the stampede (and save users from receiving spam) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 16:49:52 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13794 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:49:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BM3Us04115 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:03:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BM3UO04112 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:03:30 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13740 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:49:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BLx1O03257; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:59:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BLw8O03206 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:58:08 -0500 Received: from chimta04.algx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13363 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:43:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from JHS ([67.92.23.74]) by chimmx04.algx.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.10 (built Jan 23 2003)) with SMTP id <0HBL00F3ETSVR3@chimmx04.algx.net> for Asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:46:07 -0600 (CST) From: Jason Hihn To: Asrg@ietf.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] Anyone find this funny? Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:46:07 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Your message: RE: [Asrg] Opt-out lists and legislation has been identified as unsolicited bulk email (SPAM) and discarded. Thank you, SPAM Counter Measures Who's the culprit that is on this list that is generating this message? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 16:55:52 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12100 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:01:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BLF2w00432 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:15:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BLF2O00429 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:15:02 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12078 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:00:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BLC1O32739; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:12:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BLBpO32725 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:11:51 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11929 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:57:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2BKxoPq001967 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:59:50 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303112059.h2BKxoPq001967@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Need for a Glossary (Was: Taxonomy of anti-spam systems) References: <3E6DAC56.9060404@snert.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:59:50 -0700 (MST) > From: Anthony Howe > ... > I've not heard these terms before > > "teergrubbing" Ignore the fact that normal SMTP servers often spend many minutes accepting incoming mail because of DNS lookups, spam filtering, and other slow processes, assume that spamware does not have short timeouts to deal with slow SMTP servers, and slow down your SMTP server by a few minutes in the foolish hope of hurting spammers. Well, those are not exactly the words you'll find on the net in pages like http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/t/teergrube.html > "hackback" As far as I can tell from poking around search engines, that means what it sounds like, generally illegal retaliatory "hacking" or "cracking." Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 16:57:11 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA14049 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:57:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BMAnr05307 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:10:49 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BMAnO05304 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:10:49 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA14017 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:56:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BM85O05102; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:08:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BM7OO04805 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:07:24 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13879 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:53:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2098806; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:55:23 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: Jason Hihn From: Kee Hinckley Subject: RE: [Asrg] Several Observations and a solution that addresses them all Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:52:27 -0500 At 2:54 PM -0500 3/11/03, Jason Hihn wrote: >I don't need or care that 90% (by domain? by email addr?) haven't deployed >it. By whichever the proposal needs to be deployed. >If Yahoo!, aol, MSN, hotmail, and comcast were to implement it, 90% of whom >I correspond with would be covered, excluding my mailing list buddies of >course! Also, there would be no messages from fake yahoo.com addresses >littering my mail box. If you authenticate on envelope from there'd be no email messages with a fake yahoo.com email address in the envelope. What goes in the Return-Path: and From: is an entirely different matter. If you authenticate on the headers you've got a major problem with acceptance. I suspect Hotmail and Yahoo would actually fight the system, since a large percentage of their users are probably sending from their ISP, but using the web mail address as the return address. But the fact that majority of your correspondents would be covered does not mean that any of those sites can stop blocking email from anyone who doesn't respond. So the spammers just use different addresses. Furthermore, even you can't block based on non-authentication--because those few emails you get from outside of those systems are probably from ecommerce sites. You've got to get them on board as well. > > > work and pay the cost. That's why I'm focused on the idea of >> requiring authentication only for bulk mailers, and using existing >> tools to identify what messages are bulk. I'm not convinced that it >> will work. But I am convinced that it applies the changes in the >> places where people are incented to make them. > >The problem is, who is a bulk mailer? I can change my identity. What >messages are bulk? There are a lot more holes in that tin can than my idea. >I can vary the message a little for each destination. I can inter-twine >several different messages (porn, penis enlargement, fat reduction, repeat) >to throw off your detection. How are you going to force me to play by your >rules? Why should I care to play by them in the first place if my messages >end up in the trash can? The mechanism assumes that we can successfully defeat checksum breakers for long enough to bring more complete authentication on board. I'm not sure if that is true or not. >My method answers that last one nicely. If you don't play by my rules, I >WON'T ever see it. If you do play, you at least have some chance that I >might see it, but it's still not likely. That's correct. Or to put it another way. Your system penalizes the early adopters, because they will miss lots of important email. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 17:03:15 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA14335 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:03:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BMGrA05541 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:16:53 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BMGrO05538 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:16:53 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA14323 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:02:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BM89O05123; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:08:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BM7PO04822 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:07:25 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13881 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:53:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2098800; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:55:24 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <8BBDA9DF-5402-11D7-8FBA-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> References: <8BBDA9DF-5402-11D7-8FBA-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> To: Chuq Von Rospach From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Several Observations and a solution that addresses them all Cc: ASRG Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:54:53 -0500 At 12:46 PM -0800 3/11/03, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: >I'd argue that the relationship is between the subscriber and the >mailing list, and that's what ought to be validated. It's up to the >mailing list to validate what can be sent by it, but the user's >relationship is with the list, not with all of the users on the list. And in fairness to Jason, that would work properly in his system. Because the mailing list changes the envelope from. It would, however break with forwarders and more simplistic lists. That assumes we are validating the return-path though. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 17:06:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA14475 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:06:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BMKG805660 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:20:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BMKFO05657 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:20:15 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA14462 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:06:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BME7O05458; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:14:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BMDWO05418 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:13:32 -0500 Received: from smtp013.mail.yahoo.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id QAA14165 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:59:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from customer254-217.iplannetworks.net (HELO AGAMENON) (baldusi@200.69.254.217 with plain) by smtp.mail.vip.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 11 Mar 2003 22:01:29 -0000 From: "Alejandro G. Belluscio" X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.60q) Personal Reply-To: "Alejandro G. Belluscio" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <13827508831.20030311190121@uol.com.ar> To: asrg-admin@ietf.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re[2]: [Asrg] Email Certification Path Proposal In-Reply-To: <200303112126.h2BLQQr6002143@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> References: <3624028456.20030311180321@uol.com.ar> <200303112126.h2BLQQr6002143@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 19:01:21 -0300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Valdis, Tuesday, March 11, 2003, 6:26:26 PM, you wrote: VKve> On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 18:03:21 -0300, "Alejandro G. Belluscio" said: >> Yes. Because the the SMTP manager is the one who has to deal with the >> spammer. If he doesn't he'll have his certificate revocated. A >> spamhause won't get a certificate, or get revoked quite quickly. >> That's also in part why we send the the Spam Claim to the signer of >> the certificate. VKve> Of course, if the SMTP manager is on the payroll of the spammer, VKve> and is the signer of the certificate, they can just drop the Spam VKve> Claim on the floor. The signer should be a backbone provider. If we can't count on them for stopping spam, then we will need a huge different an quite more complicated solution. Anyway, loosing the possibility of offering SMTP for a backbone provider and of signing its the certs of its ISP customers is a huge economical detterrent. Unless a backbone provider is dedicated entirely to spam. In which case chould be easy to block :-) VKve> "A spamhaus won't get a certificate or get revoked quite quickly". VKve> Why is there a spam problem, when spamming is against the official VKve> AUP at most ISPs? After all - nobody would sell bandwidth to a VKve> spammer, or if they did, they'd revoke it quickly, right? That's why this is a multitiered architecture. With backbone providers having their a very strong business incentive not to let it's own certificate get revocated. Besides, even though is against AUP most of the administrators are too lazy or unskilled to handle the spam problem. Just watch how man MS SQL got owned monthes after the patch was issued. Or how many unpatched Apaches are out there. You have to admit that you have to change the incentive of the ISP so the actually block spam. This is a way. VKve> So let's see - there exist shady ISPs that will sell bandwidth to VKve> spammers, even though other sites may blackhole their entire AS VKve> (remember - the MAPS RBL is available as a BGP feed, and used at VKve> some sites). But you don't expect there to be any shady VKve> certificate issuers that will issue certs to spammers, even though VKve> other sites may refuse to honor anything signed by them. MAPS its not a semicompulsory standard. I stated very clearly that this system needs to be implemented "pervasivly" to be truly useful. Besides, remember that there are at least three signers plus the SMTP user. And it gets up to the RIRs. So if you have a shady RIR that goes along with spammers... then you have a different set of problems since I hardly believe there's a solution that doesn't depends on some authority doing its job well enough. VKve> All you're doing is changing the problem from whack-a-mole VKve> bandwidth to whack-a-mole certs. And that's even worse - the telco VKve> can take weeks to deliver a DSL or T-1 to a new base of VKve> operations, but a new cert can be delivered in minutes. Of course, VKve> the really serious spammers are either not worried because they've VKve> paid off the ISP, or they've already got replacement VKve> lines/certs/whatever already in process for the next spamming VKve> run.... If this system is universal (a big if, I've admited), then paying off it's not so easy. Specially because if some ISP gets shady they get revoked. So the should base their whole business on spamming. If you make some compulsory rules to backbone providers to be able to provide ISPs service, like giving a 30 day certificate for the first six months and watching very carfully if they accept spam, then making a new ISP each time they get whacked is real expensive. I know, you'll say that backbone providers will be bought off. Let the competence accuse them and have its cert revoked. I don't think any backbone provider will want that. And we are depending on the greed of the competition to tip them off. So the more cutthroat competition between backbone providers, the better. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 17:07:57 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA14590 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:07:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BMLZV05712 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:21:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BMLZO05709 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:21:35 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA14531 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:07:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BMD2O05401; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:13:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BMCVO05371 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:12:31 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id QAA14140 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:58:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 28383 invoked from network); 10 Mar 2003 21:58:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.2.100.178?) (10.2.100.178) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 10 Mar 2003 21:58:18 -0000 From: Matt Sergeant X-X-Sender: matt@localhost.localdomain To: Wes Peters cc: Matt Sergeant , Chris Lewis , "Asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Let's try something different In-Reply-To: <200303110950.14136.wes@softweyr.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:14:43 +0000 (GMT) On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Wes Peters wrote: > On Saturday 08 March 2003 08:18, Matt Sergeant wrote: > > > > I like DNS blacklists, I really do. I think they're the right thing > > to do most of the time, when they are sane lists. My one big problem > > with them is bounce messages - they suck. We need a friendlier bounce > > message system than "MAILER-DAEMON" messages so my mum can understand > > why her email didn't get through. > > DNS blacklists suck because they punish relays, not spam or spammers. > Newbie admins are victims too. Designing a protocol that allows the > net to return to open relays would be an admirable accomplishment. There was a time when people thought that penet.fi was a great idea too. Thankfully that time has passed. Matt. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 17:14:09 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA14993 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:14:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BMRlG06061 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:27:47 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BMRlO06058 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:27:47 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA14977 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:13:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BMH2O05564; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:17:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BMGWO05532 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:16:32 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA14304 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:02:23 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2BM4Vr6002609; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:04:31 -0500 Message-Id: <200303112204.h2BM4Vr6002609@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.1 02/18/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: Kee Hinckley Cc: Chuq Von Rospach , ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] Several Observations and a solution that addresses them all In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:54:53 EST." References: <8BBDA9DF-5402-11D7-8FBA-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_-642109512P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:04:31 -0500 --==_Exmh_-642109512P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:54:53 EST, Kee Hinckley said: > That assumes we are validating the return-path though. MAIL FROM:<> What do you do there? You can't even say "anything sent with this must be a multipart/report" - I know for a fact that LSoft's Listserv package sends out the "your subscription request must be confirmed" messages with MAIL FROM:<> specifically so it doesn't get back bounces for non-existent users.... --==_Exmh_-642109512P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+bl1vcC3lWbTT17ARAihpAJ0Qc7niNbVfT5OFTtiBR3aXUNAASgCfZA+p 5IgNRfsMa1dh5Il2xL5JwT8= =GCBX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_-642109512P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 17:14:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15023 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:14:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BMSKY06088 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:28:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BMSKO06085 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:28:20 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15007 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:14:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BMJ2O05607; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:19:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BMI3O05585 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:18:03 -0500 Received: from chimta04.algx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA14364 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:03:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from JHS ([67.92.23.74]) by chimmx04.algx.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.10 (built Jan 23 2003)) with SMTP id <0HBL00G4HUP4LW@chimmx04.algx.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:05:28 -0600 (CST) From: Jason Hihn Subject: RE: [Asrg] Several Observations and a solution that addresses them all In-reply-to: <3E6E4E61.3080703@americasm01.nt.com> To: Chris Lewis , ASRG Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:05:27 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Chris > Lewis > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 4:00 PM > To: ASRG > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Several Observations and a solution that addresses > them all > > > Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, March 11, 2003, at 12:40 PM, Chris Lewis wrote: > > > >>> Exactly. You have no rights to my info if I did not send to you. > >>> Don't speak > >>> until spoken to. > > >> But you _did_ send email to him. Via _this_ mailing list. How was > >> your mail server supposed to know that the IETF mailing server > >> forwarded it to him? > > > I'd argue that the relationship is between the subscriber and the > > mailing list, and that's what ought to be validated. It's up to the > > mailing list to validate what can be sent by it, but the user's > > relationship is with the list, not with all of the users on the list. > > True, but you'd not only have to get mailing lists "fixed" first, you'd > have to change the mailing list standards and the MTAs so that the > receiving MTA could figure that out... I think they are already 'fixed' unless they are already broken ;-) (="bad implementation") > Given how easy this is to circumvent (plus the difficulties of handling > TEMPFAIL, and services that simply aren't reachable directly by TCP/IP > at the best of times), I don't think it's worth going down this hole. This may be a bit cavalier, but if you're having connection problems then I think your spam/email would be having problems too... _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 17:16:10 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15108 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:16:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BMTms06185 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:29:48 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BMTmO06182 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:29:48 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15083 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:15:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BMP2O05927; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:25:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BMO9O05884 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:24:09 -0500 Received: from toad.date.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA14697 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:10:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from date.com (unknown [216.130.219.81]) by toad.date.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C5E11C3884 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:12:07 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3E6E5F37.D42CA298@date.com> From: Michael Ellis X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Opt-out lists and legislation References: <20030310223236.A6105@dogma> <3E6E3E34.7030002@americasm01.nt.com> <3E6E4A03.92D3ED3F@date.com> <3E6E5533.1020601@americasm01.nt.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:12:07 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > > It would be my opinion that any legislation broad enough to cover everyone > > even with 'conspiracy to commit' would then be struck down as unconstitutional > > by the U.S. supreme Court just like COPA just died > > You're thinking way too complicated... > > If you pay someone to commit a crime, then you're guilty of that crime too. > > If spamming US citizens is a crime, then the person in the US who paid > the, say, Taiwanese bulker, to spam US citizens, is guilty of it too. > > Given that something like 80% of spam is flogging US-based services in > one way or another, that's a huge bite. Its not that IM thinking too complicated, Im just thinking like a lawyer (IANAL but work with one now) and if its strict enough to close the loopholes then its likely to be unconstitutional (like COPA) and if its too broad then there are loopholes that spammers will exploit. Far easier to get a regulatory type of legislation. -- Michael Ellis Privacy Manager Date.com Phone (416) 306-0022 ext 620 Fax (416) 306-0023 Date.com - "The New Way To Date" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 17:22:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15282 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:22:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BMa8A06486 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:36:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BMa8O06483 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:36:08 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15274 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:21:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BMX7O06378; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:33:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BMWwO06359 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:32:58 -0500 Received: from chimta02.algx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15189 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:18:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from JHS ([67.92.23.74]) by chimmx02.algx.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.10 (built Jan 23 2003)) with SMTP id <0HBL00IK6VEWKD@chimmx02.algx.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:20:56 -0600 (CST) From: Jason Hihn Subject: RE: [Asrg] Several Observations and a solution that addresses them all In-reply-to: To: Kee Hinckley Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:20:55 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT > -----Original Message----- > From: Kee Hinckley [mailto:nazgul@somewhere.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 4:52 PM > To: Jason Hihn > Cc: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Asrg] Several Observations and a solution that addresses > them all > > > At 2:54 PM -0500 3/11/03, Jason Hihn wrote: > >I don't need or care that 90% (by domain? by email addr?) > haven't deployed > >it. > > By whichever the proposal needs to be deployed. > > >If Yahoo!, aol, MSN, hotmail, and comcast were to implement it, > 90% of whom > >I correspond with would be covered, excluding my mailing list buddies of > >course! Also, there would be no messages from fake yahoo.com addresses > >littering my mail box. > > If you authenticate on envelope from there'd be no email messages > with a fake yahoo.com email address in the envelope. What goes in > the Return-Path: and From: is an entirely different matter. If you > authenticate on the headers you've got a major problem with > acceptance. I suspect Hotmail and Yahoo would actually fight the > system, since a large percentage of their users are probably sending > from their ISP, but using the web mail address as the return address. > > But the fact that majority of your correspondents would be covered > does not mean that any of those sites can stop blocking email from > anyone who doesn't respond. So the spammers just use different > addresses. Furthermore, even you can't block based on > non-authentication--because those few emails you get from outside of > those systems are probably from ecommerce sites. You've got to get > them on board as well. > > > > > > work and pay the cost. That's why I'm focused on the idea of > >> requiring authentication only for bulk mailers, and using existing > >> tools to identify what messages are bulk. I'm not convinced that it > >> will work. But I am convinced that it applies the changes in the > >> places where people are incented to make them. > > > >The problem is, who is a bulk mailer? I can change my identity. What > >messages are bulk? There are a lot more holes in that tin can > than my idea. > >I can vary the message a little for each destination. I can inter-twine > >several different messages (porn, penis enlargement, fat > reduction, repeat) > >to throw off your detection. How are you going to force me to > play by your > >rules? Why should I care to play by them in the first place if > my messages > >end up in the trash can? > > The mechanism assumes that we can successfully defeat checksum > breakers for long enough to bring more complete authentication on > board. I'm not sure if that is true or not. > > >My method answers that last one nicely. If you don't play by my rules, I > >WON'T ever see it. If you do play, you at least have some chance that I > >might see it, but it's still not likely. > > That's correct. Or to put it another way. Your system penalizes the > early adopters, because they will miss lots of important email. No. This has already been addressed. But to refresh: Just use a promoted/demoted character. See previous email for fanciful things you can do to make the users like it more. Eventually it is up to the receiver's domain to choose to drop or demote. As someone who works with and uses automated emailers, I fully understand the concerns here. But the interesting thing is you can expect what automailers will be talking to you... _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 17:29:19 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15443 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:29:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BMgwp07545 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:42:58 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BMgvO07542 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:42:57 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15426 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:28:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BMb2O06575; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:37:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BMavO06516 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:36:57 -0500 Received: from chimta03.algx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15298 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:22:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from JHS ([67.92.23.74]) by chimmx03.algx.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.10 (built Jan 23 2003)) with SMTP id <0HBL00BQKVLJ95@chimmx03.algx.net> for Asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:24:55 -0600 (CST) From: Jason Hihn Subject: RE: [Asrg] Opt-out lists and legislation In-reply-to: <3E6E5533.1020601@americasm01.nt.com> To: Chris Lewis , Asrg@ietf.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:24:55 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Chris > Lewis > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 4:29 PM > To: Asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Opt-out lists and legislation > > > Michael Ellis wrote: > > >>It would be particularly difficult to craft legislation that _didn't_ > >>cover everyone involved in a spam, whether the spammer itself, or the > >>spammed-for person or... If only by invoking "conspiracy to commit"... > > > It would be my opinion that any legislation broad enough to > cover everyone > > even with 'conspiracy to commit' would then be struck down as > unconstitutional > > by the U.S. supreme Court just like COPA just died > > You're thinking way too complicated... > > If you pay someone to commit a crime, then you're guilty of that > crime too. > > If spamming US citizens is a crime, then the person in the US who paid > the, say, Taiwanese bulker, to spam US citizens, is guilty of it too. > > Given that something like 80% of spam is flogging US-based services in > one way or another, that's a huge bite. You also think that he government has the time and money (or power) to prosecute these people? You need $5000 in damage just to get the FBI to LOOK at a domestic cyber crime. Do you think that the FBI, CIA, or Dept. Homeland Sec. will have the facilities to be effective? And what's in it for a foreign gov't if you get a foreign government to go after their citizen? N-o-p-e. Not going to happen. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 17:30:55 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15541 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:30:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BMiYP07661 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:44:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BMiXO07658 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:44:33 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15514 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:30:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BMc1O07346; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:38:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BMbOO07143 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:37:24 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id RAA15322 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:23:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 29911 invoked from network); 10 Mar 2003 22:23:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.2.100.178?) (10.2.100.178) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 10 Mar 2003 22:23:10 -0000 From: Matt Sergeant X-X-Sender: matt@localhost.localdomain To: Vernon Schryver cc: "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Email Certification Path Proposal In-Reply-To: <200303111909.h2BJ9peH019359@calcite.rhyolite.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:39:35 +0000 (GMT) On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > From: Matt Sergeant > > > > That's wrong, even if you tie email addresses to official government > > > identities such as U.S. social security numbers. As I said, Ralsky > > > and other spammers would never run out of social security numbers with > > > which to authenticate his spam. He could pay a "homeless person" to > > > use certificates based on the person's social security numbers for 2 > > > or 3 weeks of spam. At the end of 2 or 3 weeks when that certificate > > > is widely blacklisted, he could hire another "homeless person." > > > > You're focusing far too much on the perfect here. I said "stronger > > ability to blacklist". Not perfect, but stronger. > > How does authentication give stronger blacklisting? Blacklisting > by domain name and IP address works pretty well today. Mandatory auth (and assuming its trustable auth, however that is implemented) means the spammer can no longer use open proxies (unless he auths against his own servers via an open proxy) nor open relays. That means he has to have fixed resources. Yes, the larger spammers can setup fake ISPs and so on, but they are the minority (in my spam traps) because this is difficult to do (and *still* results in fixed resources, albeit with a greater freedom to move around within his slash-space). So at the end of the day auth buys you a reasonable level of certainty that the user is who they say they are, which means you can more effectively hit a wider swathe of the spamming population with your blacklists. That all requires a huge infrastructure change of course, and I'm not suggesting it as a solution. Matt. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 17:32:08 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15613 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:32:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BMjlZ07785 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:45:47 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BMjlO07782 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:45:47 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15605 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:31:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BMc0O07330; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:38:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BMbJO07035 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:37:19 -0500 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15317 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:23:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com [171.71.163.14]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h2BMPG0E026159 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:25:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from CSCOAMERA19540.cisco.com (stealth-10-32-253-238.cisco.com [10.32.253.238]) by mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.1-GA) with SMTP id AEW47815; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:20:00 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030311142330.03d69288@mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com> X-Sender: fred@mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Asrg@ietf.org From: Fred Baker Cc: Asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [Asrg] note to the chair Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:24:55 -0800 I would urge you to separate this list into two: asrg-research@ietf.org asrg-rant@ietf.org I find it a heck of a lot to wade through to find the research. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 17:32:47 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15651 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:32:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BMkPu07835 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:46:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BMkPO07832 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:46:25 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15629 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:32:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BMe2O07438; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:40:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BMd5O07386 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:39:05 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id RAA15355 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:24:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 30015 invoked from network); 10 Mar 2003 22:24:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.2.100.178?) (10.2.100.178) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 10 Mar 2003 22:24:51 -0000 From: Matt Sergeant X-X-Sender: matt@localhost.localdomain To: Vernon Schryver cc: "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Email Certification Path Proposal In-Reply-To: <200303111909.h2BJ9peH019359@calcite.rhyolite.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:41:16 +0000 (GMT) On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > Plus I think the above pushes Ralsky (or whoever) into a whole other > > legal bracket than spamming, and thus gives the FTC the teeth they need > > to go after him for federal crime. But IANAL so this may be false. > > Where's the crime, false advertising, or other naughtiness, besides > wrecking the hopes of people who think authentication is magic pixie dust? I believe it would be fraud. Hiding behind hired goons is *not* a valid defense against fraud charges. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 18:00:11 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA16371 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 18:00:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BNDpf09872 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 18:13:51 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BNDpO09869 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 18:13:51 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA16340 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:59:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BN4HO08670; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 18:04:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BN3MO08602 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 18:03:22 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA16001 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:49:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2BMpH8M006785 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:51:17 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303112251.h2BMpH8M006785@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Email Certification Path Proposal References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:51:17 -0700 (MST) > From: Matt Sergeant > ... > > How does authentication give stronger blacklisting? Blacklisting > > by domain name and IP address works pretty well today. > > Mandatory auth (and assuming its trustable auth, however that is > implemented) means the spammer can no longer use open proxies (unless he > auths against his own servers via an open proxy) nor open relays. If you can't get open relays closed, how do you get them to install mandatory authentication? If mandatory authentication meant anything effective, you could use the same magic to say "mandatory no relaying without SMTP-AUTH" and close all open relays. Mandatory authentication does not prevent the use of proxies, because the proxy is transparent. Any authenticating by the SMTP server will not be of the proxy's IP address or of one of the IP addresses of a multi-homed legitimate SMTP client, but of the client itself beyond any proxies or network interfaces. If the message carries a good certificate from the original SMTP client, then it will still carry a good certificate when sent through a proxy. All that authentication does is give you another thing to blacklist in addition to domain names and IP addresses. The fatal flaw is that it will be quicker and easier to get new certs than to find IP addresses of open proxies and at least as easy as getting new domain names. Worse, you can now test an IP address to see if it is an open proxy and blacklist it. Given a cert that has been involved with spam, do you blacklist it? If so, why don't you blacklist the domain names and IP addresses of all big outfits today, because they've all sent spam? > That > means he has to have fixed resources. Yes, the larger spammers can setup > fake ISPs and so on, but they are the minority (in my spam traps) because > this is difficult to do (and *still* results in fixed resources, albeit > with a greater freedom to move around within his slash-space). Spammers will not need to have "fake ISPs" unless you limit the use of SMTP clients to AOL and other big outfits. (By the way, what MUA-MTA protocol do you use? Are you sure it's not SMTP, making your system a "fake ISP?") Are you sure you are recognizing the large spammers in your traps instead of mistaking them for small fry? Why won't all spammers still be equally able to use open relays as amplifiers of their bandwidth? > So at the > end of the day auth buys you a reasonable level of certainty that the user > is who they say they are, which means you can more effectively hit a wider > swathe of the spamming population with your blacklists. > ... If as you say most spammers are small fry that you don't recognize, then being able to check their authentication won't tell you anything you don't already know. You'll not be able to recognize the flood of new small fry whether by their new user names, domain names, or certs. ..... ] From: Matt Sergeant ] > > Plus I think the above pushes Ralsky (or whoever) into a whole other ] > > legal bracket than spamming, and thus gives the FTC the teeth they need ] > > to go after him for federal crime. But IANAL so this may be false. ] > ] > Where's the crime, false advertising, or other naughtiness, besides ] > wrecking the hopes of people who think authentication is magic pixie dust? ] ] I believe it would be fraud. Hiding behind hired goons is *not* a valid ] defense against fraud charges. Where is the fraud? If there is no fraud, then there's no crime to hire people to front for you. If that were a crime, then all corporations and all U.S. presidents for that last 50 or 100 years would be guilty because they all have transient "goons" fronting for them. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 18:21:23 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA18198 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 18:21:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BNZ3d10668 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 18:35:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BNZ3O10665 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 18:35:03 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA18162 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 18:20:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BNT5O10300; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 18:29:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2BNSbO10276 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 18:28:37 -0500 Received: from nber13.nber.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA17752 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 18:14:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from nber13.nber.org (localhost.nber.org [127.0.0.1]) by nber13.nber.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h2BNGYmr079838 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 18:16:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by nber13.nber.org (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id h2BNGYBh079837 for asrg@ietf.org.KAV; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 18:16:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from nber5.nber.org (nber5.nber.org [207.113.108.99]) by nber13.nber.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h2BNGVms079829; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 18:16:33 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Feenberg To: Kee Hinckley cc: Jacqui Caren , "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] What would authentication authenticate? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:58:25 -0500 (EST) On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Kee Hinckley wrote: > > In the email space we have seen several types of authentication > discussed. I may have the details wrong here as I haven't had time > to do more than skim the domain proposals. > > 1. Domain > Determines that a user is allowed to send email from a domain. This > assumes that the domain itself has determined the user to be valid > (which may or may not be a valid assumption). This can be done > non-cryptographically (comparing the sending IP to a convention for > DNS lookup) or cryptographically (comparing a token in the > message/transport to something you lookup somewhere). Can you make this clearer? Does "from a domain" mean "from a particular connection address?" Does it involve any of the email addresses in the message? Mechanically, will the receiver look up the domain from one of the email addresses and get information from the owner of that domain about eligibility of the IP address to originate mail? Or will the receiver look up the IP address and get information about the allowed email addresses? It seems like either one constrains the spammer to some minimum level of consistency, but doesn't place a significant obstacle in his path, unless an IP address is not authorized to originate any mail at all. In that important case, it will be effective. But aren't there simpler ways to accomplish that? Why involve the email addresses at all? Couldn't the authorization information be associated with the reverse DNS record for the sending host? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 19:30:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA20571 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 19:30:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2C0iFF16425 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 19:44:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2C0iFO16422 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 19:44:15 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA20550 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 19:30:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2C0epO16222; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 19:40:51 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2C0c9O16044 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 19:38:09 -0500 Received: from imf20bis.bellsouth.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA20223 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 19:23:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from bellsouth.net ([65.83.211.19]) by imf20bis.bellsouth.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.25 201-253-122-122-125-20020815) with ESMTP id <20030312002808.KCTT25210.imf20bis.bellsouth.net@bellsouth.net> for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 19:28:08 -0500 Message-ID: <3E6E7EA4.5020904@bellsouth.net> From: Jack Nerad User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3b) Gecko/20030210 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Email Certification Path Proposal References: <200303110850.h2B8o75s003358@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <200303111530.h2BFUpqc027059@calcite.rhyolite.com> In-Reply-To: <200303111530.h2BFUpqc027059@calcite.rhyolite.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 19:26:12 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Vernon Schryver wrote: >>From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu >> >> > > > >>... >>Running a CA is easy. Certifying that the users are who they say they >>are is *HARD*. >> >>Let's say the actual server, software, install, bandwidth, etc, costs $20K. >>Let's say we've also decided to charge $5 per certificate. >> >>Now you need an office where 4,000 people can come in and show ID to prove >>they are themselves so you can create a certificate for them. >>... >> >> > >Say you do all of that. What keeps Ralsky from hiring people off the >street to go into the office, get a certificate, and give it to Ralsky >who uses it for the next 20 spews of spam? > > > Trust. Valdis mentioned the problems with a "web of trust" idea to be significant bootstrapping. PKI alone doesn't do it, agreed. But with a way to identify where the messages come from, it becomes possible to trust the sources. With trust, all of a sudden you know which sources are reliable. The ones you don't know are reliable can be dealt with as you wish. I have no idea how a trust system would be implemented with email. What other arguments are there against the web of trust? >Authentication is not authorization. The only thing that certs, keys, >and so forth can do is reduce genuine forgery of sender information. > > True. certs, keys and so forth can only reduce genuine forgery, but they create a unique identity that can then be trusted by the community at large or not. Even a spamhaus generated fifty million unique certs, they still would not be trusted right off the bat. I'm not really sure about the mathematics of networks of trust, but it seems reasonable to assume that the spamhaus could create networks of trust that were local. Making the trust stick to the network at large would be much more difficult. >If I'm right that the reason that almost all spam with what some claim >is "forged" sender information involves free mail provider domains >from a few 100 domains instead the other 50,000,000 domains is that >it is not really "forged," then all of the cert-ing in the universe >will have no effect on spam. When you sign up for a Yahoo mailbox, >you'll simply get a cert in addition to a username and a password. > > > -- Jack Nerad _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 21:14:22 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA23101 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 21:14:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2C2S6622990 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 21:28:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2C2S6O22987 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 21:28:06 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA23090 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 21:13:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2C2KGO22812; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 21:20:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2C2JOO22744 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 21:19:24 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA22975 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 21:05:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2C27Gak012450 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 19:07:16 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303120207.h2C27Gak012450@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Email Certification Path Proposal References: <3E6E7EA4.5020904@bellsouth.net> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 19:07:16 -0700 (MST) > From: Jack Nerad > ... > True. certs, keys and so forth can only reduce genuine forgery, but they > create a unique identity that can then be trusted by the community at > large or not. Why can't the identities "jnerad@bellsouth.net" or "bellsouth.net" be trusted by the community at large today? I think the answer is that "jnerad@bellsouth.net" can be trusted, but "bellsouth.net" has too much of the wrong kind of history. One might also worry that a spammer could forge "jnerad@bellsouth.net." > Even a spamhaus generated fifty million unique certs, > they still would not be trusted right off the bat. ... Are you thinking of a system other than simply whitelisting senders that you have determined to be trustworthy, not by their crypto certs, but because they have good reputions, and with cryptography only preventing forgery? If that's the idea, then as has been suggested, you could tell your correspondents to use PGP or SMIME and put their public keys on their web pages so you could copy keys to your whitelist. No changes in protocols, no new headers, no new or old public key infrastructure (PKI), or much of anything else would be needed. At most you might want a better user interface software such as MUAs to make signing easier and perhaps integration of signature checking in MTAs to discard or reject unread all unsigned mail. This doesn't help the transition problem, unless you don't need to receive mail from strangers not on your whitelist. It would be good if those who think the transition problem is insignificant for their favorite solutions should say how the transition for their solution differs from the transition for other solutions. Consider: http://habeas.com/ started about August, 2002 or 6 months ago http://www.camram.org/ ditto http://www.bondedsender.com/ ditto judging from NetworkWorldFusion article 1. What is your estimate for the percent of Internet mail that is now covered by those three solutions? My guess is that there are between 2,000,000,000 and 10,000,000,000 msgs/day on the net, with 5 Bmsg/day being as nice round number. Do you think any of those solutions have reached 1,000,000 msgs/day or 0.02% in the 6 months they've been around? (I don't, with the possible exception of Habeas and Topica, but which rumors make sound like something better forgotten.) 2. What percent of email do they need to cover before many people would refuse unread any mail not covered by them and so have their individual spam loads reduced? What fractions of the people with mailboxes in the U.S., Western Hemisphere, and the world must refuse all mail not covered by a solution before it affects spam in the mailboxes of people using them? 3. Given how much mail they're covering after 0.5 years, how long until they reach necessary recipient participation? If you have a spam solution, what are the answers to those questions for it, and why is does its answer #3 differ from the apparent answers for those solutions of about 1000 years? Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 21:28:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA23455 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 21:28:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2C2gIB24295 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 21:42:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2C2gHO24292 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 21:42:17 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA23443 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 21:28:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2C2b4O23466; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 21:37:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2C2aeO23310 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 21:36:40 -0500 Received: from korimako.ssc.govt.nz (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id VAA23246 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 21:22:23 -0500 (EST) From: mike.pearson@ssc.govt.nz Received: from [192.168.120.100] (helo=stardust.ssc.govt.nz) by korimako.ssc.govt.nz with esmtp (Exim 6.66 #1) id 18sknP-0003nk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 03:31:59 +1300 Received: from odyssey.ssc.govt.nz (not verified[172.20.5.42]) by stardust.ssc.govt.nz with MailMarshal (4,0,4,0) id ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 15:23:35 +1300 Received: from centurion.ssc.govt.nz (centurion.ssc.govt.nz) by odyssey.ssc.govt.nz (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.5) with ESMTP id for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 15:23:43 +1300 Received: by centurion.ssc.govt.nz with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 15:24:29 +1300 Message-ID: <7B170C5E4008D311ABB70008C7D3825B03BC34E1@saison.ssc.govt.nz> To: asrg@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [Asrg] You say tomato, I say authentication Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 15:22:17 +1300 IMHO, people on this list have different ideas of authentication and where to apply it. Therefore a lot of messages are speaking at cross purpose. What I want from authentication, S/MIME, is to know 100% that an email address is the real email address of the sender. NOT the identity of the sender. - I can then drop any message which is not authenticated (you have the right to message anonymously, but I should have the right to decline to listen to you) - I will allow any message from my friends / business partners' mail domains straight through, and get on with my life - I might allow messages from authenticated strangers in trusted domains, to see what you have to say, but if you abuse it, then I can choose to filter them, or their entire domain. As I said in my previous posting "[Asrg] Proven solution for authenticating messages" - you don't need authentication software at the client end, move it up to the ISP gateway and reduce the complexity of the problem. (In New Zealand, we don't have 1000's of ISPs, probably not even 100s). Regards, Mike Pearson Personal: The views expressed are not necessarily those of my employer. ph +64 (4) 495-6769 mobile +64 (21) 631-731 fax +64 (4) 495-6669 mailto:mike.pearson@ssc.govt.nz _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 21:43:52 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA23714 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 21:43:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2C2vZJ24739 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 21:57:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2C2vZO24736 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 21:57:35 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA23703 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 21:43:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2C2l1O24396; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 21:47:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2C2kKO24373 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 21:46:20 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA23511 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 21:32:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.57] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2C2YDc3026068 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 18:34:13 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 18:34:13 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Opt-out lists and legislation MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 18:34:05 -0800 > On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 04:46:22 PST, "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" said: > > > What an amazingly parochial view. It is unlikely that we are going > > to see any US led trade agreements for many years. Why do you assume > > that your country is the only super-national actor? > > That was his point - the US, even as the most obvious super-national, > is having a hard time convincing other countries to do what we want. My point was that even though the approach of the current US administration does not lend itself to successful diplomacy or influence on subjects such as spam prevention, that fact does not preclude the possibility that other countries could be successfull in that role. > We can't even convince the rest of the US Security Council of > such blazingly > obvious "facts" as "madmen must be disarmed". ;) Oh I think that if you took a poll of the leaders in question they would all be very anxious to see the parties they consider madmen to be disarmed. > > Korea is looking to adopt anti-spam legislation unilaterally. Their > > people have the same complaints as everyone else. > > Right - the point is that they're doing it because THEIR citizens are > asking, not because some other country is. But they are very likely to be interested in synchronizing the approach they take with that of other countries in order to achieve maximum effectiveness. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 21:48:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA23829 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 21:48:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2C32Rx24935 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:02:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2C32RO24932 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:02:27 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA23820 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 21:48:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2C2v8O24710; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 21:57:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2C2uxO24683 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 21:56:59 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA23694 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 21:42:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc02.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2C2ipc3027125; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 18:44:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 18:44:51 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Jason Hihn'" , Chris Lewis , Asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Opt-out lists and legislation MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 18:44:50 -0800 > You also think that he government has the time and money (or power) to > prosecute these people? You need $5000 in damage just to get > the FBI to LOOK > at a domestic cyber crime. Do you think that the FBI, CIA, or > Dept. Homeland > Sec. will have the facilities to be effective? And what's in it for a > foreign gov't if you get a foreign government to go after > their citizen? Currently 419 fraud alone accounts for hundreds of millions a year. Almost all the spams are scams. Pyramid schemes, to consumer fraud, quack medicine, Premium rate fraud, you name a spam and its more likely than not that there is a scam. The point I tried to make in the original post which folk ignored was that this list will have little influence on whether there is legislation in the US or anywhere else. However it can possibly have an effect on whether legislation that does get proposed helps the situation or makes it worse. So once again, any *TECHNICAL* issues folk want to raise concerning one way encrypted opt-out lists? Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 21:57:14 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA23963 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 21:57:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2C3Aww25963 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:10:58 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2C3AwO25960 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:10:58 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA23947 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 21:56:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2C332O24986; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:03:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2C32UO24948 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:02:30 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA23824 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 21:48:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc02.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2C2oMc3029667; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 18:50:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 18:50:22 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Jason Hihn'" , Asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Anyone find this funny? MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 18:50:21 -0800 I got that too, I am putting it in my book on spam. The SpamArrest spam is going in too. We really need some clear statement of how people can write spam fileters and bounce mechanisms that do not cause problems with mailing lists etc. I know that there are claims that this is all in the RFCs, however it does not appear that the mode of communication the IETF favors is having the desired effect. Phill > -----Original Message----- > From: Jason Hihn [mailto:jhihn@paytimepayroll.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 4:46 PM > To: Asrg@ietf.org > Subject: [Asrg] Anyone find this funny? > > > Your message: > > RE: [Asrg] Opt-out lists and legislation > > has been identified as unsolicited bulk email (SPAM) and discarded. > > Thank you, > > SPAM Counter Measures > > Who's the culprit that is on this list that is generating > this message? > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 22:02:26 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA24099 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:02:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2C3G9426187 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:16:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2C3G9O26184 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:16:09 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA24094 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:01:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2C3E4O26086; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:14:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2C3D7O26037 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:13:07 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA24006 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 21:58:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc02.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2C30xc3000769; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 19:00:59 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 19:00:58 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'lstewart@acm.org'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Measurements on spam MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 19:00:57 -0800 > Alternatively, if a few largish ISPs would be willing to make > data files > available containing spam-flag> tuples > available for a week or so worth of traffic, then it would be quite > interesting. I suspect that that would be hard. However it is possible that if we come up with a list we could persuade a group of ISPs to go off and measure their data and return the results. Getting clearance to release log files is very hard, abstract research measurements is much easier. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 22:05:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA24235 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:05:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2C3JCP26403 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:19:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2C3JBO26400 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:19:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA24210 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:04:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2C3B3O25992; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:11:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2C3ANO25949 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:10:23 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA23929 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 21:56:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc02.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2C2wDc3000548; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 18:58:14 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 18:58:13 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Eric S. Johansson'" , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Economic model is borken. (sic.) Let's fix it MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 18:58:09 -0800 > One question I have for you is: would you be willing to try > an experiment with sender pays? No. I beleive that any move to a per message charge is a regressive and unnecessary change in the Internet infrastructure. If you want to propose such a scheme I will be happy to tell you which patents I believe that it infringes. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 22:10:53 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA24372 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:10:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2C3Ob326650 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:24:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2C3ObO26647 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:24:37 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA24352 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:10:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2C3I3O26335; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:18:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2C3HZO26265 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:17:35 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA24133 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:03:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2099552; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:05:30 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: Jason Hihn From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Anyone find this funny? Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 20:23:01 -0500 At 4:46 PM -0500 3/11/03, Jason Hihn wrote: >Who's the culprit that is on this list that is generating this message? It appears to be Anthony Howe . I've sent several complaints but heard nothing. It reminds me of the SecurityFocus virus info list, where someone signed up with a filter that bounced any message that had the word "virus" in it. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 22:13:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA24449 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:13:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2C3RSb26783 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:27:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2C3RSO26780 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:27:28 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA24438 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:13:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2C3I2O26317; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:18:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2C3HYO26261 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:17:34 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA24131 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:03:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2099542; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:05:29 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3E6E25A1.1030102@harvee.org> References: <3E69F90C.804@harvee.org> <3E6A1A1A.5040601@harvee.org> <3E6E25A1.1030102@harvee.org> To: "Eric S. Johansson" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Economic model is borken. (sic.) Let's fix it Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 20:20:47 -0500 At 1:06 PM -0500 3/11/03, Eric S. Johansson wrote: >drive off most spammers. Second, even if it does create one million >legitimate e-mail advertisers, that is an improvement. Like it or >not e-mail advertising is not going to go away. The best we can >hope for is raising the This is why I promised to go off and write a short summary of why spam is bad (not what it is--but just what is bad about it). One million legitimate e-mail advertisers could inflict far more damage on the network and email users than spam currently does. If stamps are set so low that existing bulk mailers can afford it, then they are set low enough that the tragedy of the commons still applies. The email in my inbox is still going to be trying to fool me into opening it--it's just that when I do, the contents won't be quite as offensive. >costs so it's minimized and use this opportunity to create the right >cultural rules which are often stronger than legal rules. To date we have not been terribly successful in creating a culture for cyberspace. The barbarians overran us at the gates. :-) >At the end of the day, the unintended side effects will be something >that neither of us considered. And we will go around and try and >solve that problem as well. "Hi, we'd like you to install this complex infrastructure. We don't know if it will make things better. It might make things worse. But it *will* stop spam if everyone does it." We need to work on that marketing pitch :-). At 1:15 PM -0500 3/11/03, Eric S. Johansson wrote: >Stamps are generated automatically through the outbound e-mail >filter. see: http://www.camram.org/camram_engine.html section >"Outbound messages" > >No purchases necessary, no human interaction provides better user experience. I just read your document. If she sends email without a stamp there is most certainly human interaction. You require the sender to download software to generate a stamp. Consider the fun a virus writer will have forging copies of that message. An in any case, you still have to deliver the message, just in case it's important. Yes, it's in jail. So for an early adopter, all their received email ends up in the "bad message" folder. And any commercial senders, faced with either buying hardware to generate stamps, or just letting a few early adopters fetch their email out of the junk bucket, do the cheap thing--nothing. At 1:46 PM -0500 3/11/03, Eric S. Johansson wrote: >Let me rephrase my comment them. The cost of sending e-mail on a >low-end machine will probably the only about 30 or 40 seconds per >address[1]. This I'm not clear how you say the user won't notice. That's 40 seconds that the email client sits there saying "sending email" in it's (often modal) dialog box. And if you background it, you need to figure out how to deal with dialup users, who thought they had sent their email and can now disconnect, but actually can't yet. And that's just for one address. Sending a joke to all the people in your address book could get pretty annoying pretty fast--especially when 90% of your friends don't need the stamp in the first place. Again, the problem is that it's causing pain for early adopters, but not providing any benefits. (I'm starting to feel like a broken record*.) On the other hand, as Vernon has pointed out, the high end machines don't seem to feel the pain. So, looking at this from the standpoint of who values their realtime more, we're hurting the end-user more than the spammer. * I just dated myself, didn't I? -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 22:39:47 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA24906 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:39:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2C3rWS28598 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:53:32 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2C3rVO28595 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:53:31 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA24902 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:39:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2C3aFO27308; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:36:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2C3ZbO27205 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:35:37 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA24659 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:21:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18ss2i-0001NL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:16:16 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Several Observations and a solution that addresses them all In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:46:34 PST." <8BBDA9DF-5402-11D7-8FBA-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:16:16 -0500 Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > > But you _did_ send email to him. Via _this_ mailing list. How was > > your mail server supposed to know that the IETF mailing server > > forwarded it to him? > > I'd argue that the relationship is between the subscriber and the > mailing list, and that's what ought to be validated. It's up to the > mailing list to validate what can be sent by it, but the user's > relationship is with the list, not with all of the users on the list. I agree. The list has the choice of forwarding a message or not. So any messages received are sent by the list, not by the subscribers. The list server can do whatever work it deems necessary to verify the originator of a message. After that, the subscribers only verify that the message came from the list. This understanding simplifies a number of verification systems, and removes any objections of the kind "but you've got to verify every party which handled the message." Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 22:57:48 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA25165 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:57:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2C4BXp30018 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 23:11:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2C4BXO30015 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 23:11:33 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA25156 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:57:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2C44LO29042; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 23:04:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2C43QO28979 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 23:03:26 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA25053 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:49:09 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2C3pGQh002992; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:51:16 -0500 Message-Id: <200303120351.h2C3pGQh002992@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.1 02/18/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: mike.pearson@ssc.govt.nz Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] You say tomato, I say authentication In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 12 Mar 2003 15:22:17 +1300." <7B170C5E4008D311ABB70008C7D3825B03BC34E1@saison.ssc.govt.nz> References: <7B170C5E4008D311ABB70008C7D3825B03BC34E1@saison.ssc.govt.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_-133170112P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:51:16 -0500 --==_Exmh_-133170112P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 15:22:17 +1300, mike.pearson@ssc.govt.nz said: > - I might allow messages from authenticated strangers in trusted domains, to > see what you have to say, but if you abuse it, > then I can choose to filter them, or their entire domain. It's called whack-a-mole spam. ;) Remember... 50 million .coms. "authenticated strangers in trusted domains" is a concept with poor scaling characteristics... --==_Exmh_-133170112P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+bq60cC3lWbTT17ARApjOAJ4wA+4mR3kJroYziHdUStQIuZZOGwCg5BFK sTa2NXFevIAefIHExxxFc24= =IKOP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_-133170112P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 11 23:00:13 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA25229 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 23:00:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2C4Dxj30089 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 23:13:59 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2C4DxO30086 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 23:13:59 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA25205 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:59:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2C492O29927; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 23:09:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2C484O29901 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 23:08:04 -0500 Received: from zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA25110 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:53:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h2C3trA27749 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:55:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF4V8MY; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:55:54 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (acart4uy.ca.nortel.com [47.129.10.2]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBF06F; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:55:52 -0500 Message-ID: <3E6EB088.2060006@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] Several Observations and a solution that addresses them all References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:59:04 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jason Hihn wrote: >>-----Original Message----- >>From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Chris >>Lewis >>True, but you'd not only have to get mailing lists "fixed" first, you'd >>have to change the mailing list standards and the MTAs so that the >>receiving MTA could figure that out... > I think they are already 'fixed' unless they are already broken ;-) (="bad > implementation") They're not already fixed. A substantial number of all mailing lists are broken. Ie: can't even detect mailing lists in general. If they're not fixed now, it's going to be a very difficult problem fixing them all (the currently busted and the currently non-busted) to a _new_ standard. >>Given how easy this is to circumvent (plus the difficulties of handling >>TEMPFAIL, and services that simply aren't reachable directly by TCP/IP >>at the best of times), I don't think it's worth going down this hole. > This may be a bit cavalier, but if you're having connection problems then I > think your spam/email would be having problems too... Nope, works just fine thanks. You ever heard of UUCP? Consider all of the non-TCP/IP and non-direct-internet-connected-TCP/IP networks. Authentication really needs to be inband to be practical. I've seen a web registration tool that insists on doing a VRFY to your mail server to "validate" an email address. Such things are hideously broken. We turned off VRFY and EXPN for a reason. We're not going to turn it back on again. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 02:34:08 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA25081 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 02:34:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2C7lx721065 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 02:47:59 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2C7lwO21062 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 02:47:58 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA25037 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 02:33:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2C7hRO20772; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 02:43:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2C7gCO20663 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 02:42:12 -0500 Received: from nycsmtp2out.rdc-nyc.rr.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA21716 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 02:27:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from damien (66-108-13-38.nyc.rr.com [66.108.13.38]) by nycsmtp2out.rdc-nyc.rr.com (8.12.1/Road Runner SMTP Server 1.0) with ESMTP id h2C7NvgD014387 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 02:23:57 -0500 (EST) From: "Damien Morton" To: Message-ID: <00eb01c2e868$4f247f70$6401a8c0@damien> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] ISP charges for receiving email? Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 02:23:42 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Some people were discussing the 10%, 50% and 90% implementation stages, and the motivation to convert over to any new system. Id like to propose that any system that requires changes at the client end will be much harder to push through than a system that requires changes at the server end. Changing 100K servers is easier and cheaper than changing 100M clients. If ISPs charged each other for receiving email, then net producers of email (and spammers) would end up paying where they pay nothing now. If a user at an ISP produced a disproportionate amount of email, the ISP would have an interest in pushing the cost onto the user, just as users of excessive bandwidth tend to be charged for it by ISPs. At the 10% stage, a charging system could act as a filter in which unpaid emails would be flagged as possible spam. Alternatively, mail from non-paying sources could be delivered at a lower priority and/or put through rigorous spam screening with a high false-positive rate. Paid email always get through. As you moved towards the 90% stage, you could begin to reject unpaid email at the server level. At the mail server level, the only thing that is required is some mechanism by which ISPs can decide - do I have a relationship with the sending/relaying server such that I can charge for each email I receive. I imagine that a number of clearinghouses could be set up to facilitate such transactions. Im sure this idea has been propsed before, but it seems to me to be the only effective way to ensure that spam is not sent, as opposed to filtered out at some point after it has been sent. There are a number of issues with this system, such as how to handle mailing lists. I imagine that some mechanism by which users could inform their servers of exemptions or rebates would come into play. I like to compare this system with the telephone system. Imagine if telemarketing calls became so endemic that people stopped using the phone system. One way to prevent that would be to switch over to having personal 1-900 numbers. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 04:46:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA27414 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 04:46:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2C9xvV29471 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 04:59:57 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2C9xvO29468 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 04:59:57 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA27388 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 04:45:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2C9uNO29293; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 04:56:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2C9tFO29254 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 04:55:15 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA27282 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 04:40:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2100346; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 04:43:02 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <00eb01c2e868$4f247f70$6401a8c0@damien> References: <00eb01c2e868$4f247f70$6401a8c0@damien> To: "Damien Morton" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] ISP charges for receiving email? Cc: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 04:41:04 -0500 At 2:23 AM -0500 3/12/03, Damien Morton wrote: >If ISPs charged each other for receiving email, then net producers of >email (and spammers) would end up paying where they pay nothing now. If Senders pay part of the cost now--it's hidden in their bandwidth costs. Spammers in general don't pay because they are stealing bandwidth. >a user at an ISP produced a disproportionate amount of email, the ISP >would have an interest in pushing the cost onto the user, just as users >of excessive bandwidth tend to be charged for it by ISPs. If ISPs felt that it was profitable to charge for outgoing email bandwidth they could do it now. Many already block port 25 outbound--so they can easily track outbound email use. They don't charge for this because there is a perception that users wouldn't stand for paying extra for it. And also because the cost of sending email is very low--in the noise compared to most network use. The cost is on the receiving side, where they have no control. So I'd argue that an ISP is not going to charge users for sending email unless someone is charging *them* for sending email. >At the 10% stage, a charging system could act as a filter in which >unpaid emails would be flagged as possible spam. Alternatively, mail >from non-paying sources could be delivered at a lower priority and/or >put through rigorous spam screening with a high false-positive rate. >Paid email always get through. When important email does not make it through there are two pressures. One is to on the sender, who wanted the message to get through. The other is on the recipient, who wanted to receive the message. I think it's fair to argue that the importance of getting a message through to any one person decreases with the number of people you are sending to. So if I'm sending to twenty people, the fact that one fails is less important than if I'm sending to one. On the other hand, the importance of *receiving* a message is based more on the content than the number of other people who received the message. To give a concrete example. It's very important to me to get my order confirmation from Amazon. Amazon, on the other hand, is not going to be terribly upset if one person in a thousand doesn't get their order confirmation. In talking to customers, it's clear to me that most people care *far* more about false positives (missed email) than false negatives (received spam). There are exceptions--but that view seems to be far more prevalent. Most messages are delivered to more than one person. This should lead to a simple formulae for the which way the incentives go when someone adopts a new solution. Unfortunately I've been up all night and formulae's, simple or otherwise, escape me. Anyone care to try? But the point I'm trying to make so awkwardly is that your 10% solution is does not create an incentive for people to start paying postage. It creates a very strong incentive for the recipient to stop charging. That's because the cost of a lost message is far higher to the recipient than to the average sender. We've had several people now propose that unpaid/unverified email be slowed down or filed elsewhere or otherwise demoted in order to increase the incentive on the sender to follow the rules. I think those suggestions are actually counter productive. I'd be more willing, as a recipient, to charge senders postage if I did *nothing* to the people who didn't pay. But of course if I do that, the senders will be even less likely to adopt the system. Fundamentally the tragedy of the commons is not just creating spam, it's also preventing a solution--because even the non-spammers are primarily motivated by self-interest. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 04:56:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA27642 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 04:56:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2CAAWD30644 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 05:10:32 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CAAWO30641 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 05:10:32 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA27613 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 04:56:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CA42O29718; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 05:04:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CA3GO29695 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 05:03:16 -0500 Received: from pop.snert.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA27439 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 04:48:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from snert.com ([193.41.72.237]) (authenticated bits=0) by pop.snert.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2C9ovoE024573 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 10:50:58 +0100 Message-ID: <3E6F02FB.9040401@snert.com> From: Anthony Howe User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4a) Gecko/20030303 X-Accept-Language: en, fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Anyone find this funny? References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 10:50:51 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kee Hinckley wrote: > At 4:46 PM -0500 3/11/03, Jason Hihn wrote: > >> Who's the culprit that is on this list that is generating this message? > > > It appears to be Anthony Howe . I've sent several > complaints but heard nothing. Yes its me and I'm VERY red around the ears just now. The message was caught by filters I wrote in procmail and haven't updated or whitelisted the list. The past year two I got into being a little draconian about trying to filter Spam with sendmail and procmail, and hadn't yet gotten into using milters or SA on my personal server for filtering. -- Anthony C Howe +33 6 11 89 73 78 http://www.snert.com/ ICQ: 7116561 AIM: Sir Wumpus "Will the real email please stand up..." _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 05:33:58 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA28293 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 05:33:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2CAlqD00404 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 05:47:52 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CAlpO00401 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 05:47:51 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA28275 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 05:33:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CAY5O31598; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 05:34:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CAXMO31567 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 05:33:22 -0500 Received: from imbaspam-ny03.ssmb.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA27987 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 05:18:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from imbarc-ny01.ny.ssmb.com (imbarc-ny01-1 [162.124.186.138]) by imbaspam-ny03.ssmb.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/SSMB_EXT/evision: 1.18 $) with ESMTP id h2CAL4Kb011362; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 05:21:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailhub-dc1.eu.ssmb.com (mailhub-dc1.eu.ssmb.com [169.186.145.234]) by imbarc-ny01.ny.ssmb.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/SSMB_QQQ_IN/1.1) with ESMTP id h2CAL1LU001020; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 05:21:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchukc4.eur.nsroot.net (exchukc4.eur.nsroot.net [169.186.223.93]) by mailhub-dc1.eu.ssmb.com (8.9.3-GEMSp1/8.9.3/SSMB-HUB) with ESMTP id KAA05596; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 10:20:58 GMT Received: by exchukc4.eur.nsroot.net with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55) id ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 10:20:59 -0000 Message-ID: <80AD1C20BCECD6118FD800508BCF7EDA72D7C7@exchuk19.eu.ssmb.com> From: "Clayton, Nik [IT]" To: "'Wes Peters'" , Asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Let's try something different MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.31 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 10:20:52 -0000 Hi Wes, > No, they won't be. The commercial world isn't willing to miss a single > email to 'sales@bigcomany.com' even if they have to pay some poor slob > to sift through all the spam, delivering the valid requests to the > sales staff. Not necessarily true. We tolerate false positives, because the benefits of aggressive anti-spam filtering outweigh the costs. Of course, smaller organisations are likely to be less flexible in this regard, but then again, they're probably also getting less spam. N -- 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 -- The 75 column-ometer Global Messaging, A: Top posting 120 Cheapside, x83331 Q: What's the most annoying e-mail habit? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 06:55:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA00859 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 06:55:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2CC9Zd06690 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 07:09:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CC9VO06686 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 07:09:31 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA00845 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 06:55:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CC3JO05781; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 07:03:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CC2DO05743 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 07:02:13 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA00781 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 06:47:45 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2C9xWYx006996 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 01:59:32 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2C9xWxL006992 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 01:59:32 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: ASRG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Asrg] Email Address Verification Notes Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 01:59:32 -0800 (PST) That simple code for email verification as was discussed in thread "RE: [Asrg] Several Observations and a solution that addresses them all" will not work - it breaks mailing lists and is otherwise easily abused by spammers. But I'v probably spent more time looking at various verification and callback ideas then almost anybody else on the list, so I'v put my notes in format that can be sent by email (see below). But beware these solutions are also breakable by spammers and generally require modification to SMTP prootocol (but same applies to most other proposals, I simply have not seen any one idea that can actually work in the long run). if you do not mind in a couple days I'll publish notes on callback email retrieval as this has not been widely discussed yet. I have notes for most of ideas/proposals presented so far to ASRG, some notes are in good form (like below), some are not well organized (but I can try to find time to do organize it as below and if people are interested, post this to the list). I planned to post all this to website as well, never got around to it so far... From what is listed below, read #3. It does same as MAIL-FROM even more, but does not break anything (i.e. mailing lists, forwarders). 1. Simple callback to verify email address Technology/Idea: When email is received and MAIL FROM command has been issues, the receiving email server looks up MX for the domain entered in MAIL FROM and then connects to that server to verify sender address exists Origin: Postfix mailing list Pros: a. Easy to do using existing SMTP commands (like VRFY, EXPN or using RCPT) b. Implementations already exist and works fairly well c. Does not require modifications of SMTP or breaks anything Cons: a. Nothing is stopping spammer from using valid email address in FROM even if they are not authorized to do it. Futhermore they could still use different "From" header which will be seen by users as the actual sender email address b. Nothing is stopping spammer from having valid domain name and having it answer yes to all verification requests (but valid domain name makes it easier to track spammer if we know where his mailserver is located permanently) c. Email server operators do not want to allow email address verification because this is abused by spammer to gather list of valid email addresses Summary: Usable now with no downsides but offers little protection against spammers 2. Callback verification with messageid tracking Technology/Idea: MTAs keep track of all outgoing messages for certain period of time (say 5 days) and when email is received, the server looks up MX and then tries to verify that email really came from that domain by check with mail server through special verify command to see if messageid is real. Variations require either messageid to be synchronized among all MX servers or that verification be done for each MX servers listed or that only first (MX 0) keep messageids and all other syncronize with it. Origin: (not entirely certain, one of mailing lists, TBD) Pros: a. Unlike #1 it allows verification only if email was sent, so no chance of email address harvesting Cons: a. Spammers can use valid email domains and verification - see 1.cons.b a. Requires modification to SMTP (new command of extension to VRFY) b. Requires mail server to keep track of messageids for all outgoing email, either with separate database or using log files c. Breaks ability to send email directly and set from address unless email is relayed through proper domain's from address d. Syncronization of messageids among all MXs is difficult to accomplish and all MXs being checked for messageid create too much delay e. Message can not be rejected at mail transmission time as messageid is not available then, so entire message HAS to be received and then go through filter and if messageid is wrong its, then returned back. f. This approach relies on that email messages are received within certain period of time (no long delays during transmission), otherwise the message tracking information may no longer be available. It should be noted that because of this, all verification must be done by receiving mail server and not by mail client, because mail clients may check email several weeks too late and if this filter is installed on mail client it could say that message is not authorized because it checked email after message tracking information has already been deleted. Summary: Because of cons c & d this is not likely to be accepted by entire community 3. Complex callback verification requirying full message tracking server functionality with dns extensions Technology/Idea: Either new protocol/system is used for tracking mail message or its integrated into SMTP as new extension. Either way this is complete system where outside autorized agent program can add and possibly delete message tracking information into special database. A new Message Tracking Header is introduced that has at least the following information: - sender email, - unique message id, - name of message verification server Additional extension to DNS is also necessary to list all possible mail verification servers for the domain, this maybe either new field (MC) or special agreed DNS name (mail-verify with CNAME or A) or with possibly in-addr representation of agreed subdomain with A 127.0.0.1 When mail server has received an email and supports this functionality, it should parse message tracking header. First it needs to verify that listed sender email address is either one of mail transmission FROM or the one in "From" header. It should then check on verification server by by finding ip for listed name and then checking in dns for sender email domain to see if its one of authorized verification servers. If it is, then connection should be made to that server to verify that listed message id and message from (and possibly date) are as then are in that server, and if it is, tracking information should be deleted (special command is issued from connecting party when its verified and n mail can then be delivered. When new message is being sent, it can be sent from arbitrary location and arbitrary email address can be intered into "From" if necessary, but email message must be entered into correct verification server for that From domain and its up to the verification server to provide functionality to verify that you're allowed to use that particular email account - this can be based on ip (most simple way) - if integrated into SMTP it it can be made part of AUTH - Possibly certificates can be used (maybe with STARTTLS) with certificate being issued and verified by user's ISP (so no central authority is needed) Whenver possible verification server should not only check that user is allowed to send email with from address from that domain but that user is actually who he says he is (i.e. his email address). Possibly message tracking should include also details on how long message ids are kept on message tracking server (expiration time). Origin: Compilation of several ideas (spaml & other mailing lists) plus DNS part taken from Vixies mailfrom. Actual proposal this full form is mine. Pros: a. Provides functionality to verify that email was sent by particular sender and he has right to use that email b. System is similar to MAIL-FROM proposals but does not break mailing lists or forwarders and in fact can be implemented with full backward compatability Cons: a. Spammers can use valid email domains and verification - see 1.cons.b b. Probably will require modification to SMTP protocol for verificaiton c. New verfication server must keep track of all messages which requires serious additional resources (cpu & storage) d. Message can not be rejected at mail transmission time. See #2.Cons.e e. Messages must be transmitted quickly (within period of time, tracking is done). See #2.Cons.f for details Summary: Generally pretty good at determinning if user is allowed to send email from mail domain (like RMX proposals) and does not break existing system. It does require modification to all mail servers and to protocol to be of any use. Since this does not provide global verification, spammer can make new system in compliance with new protocol/extensions and self-verify his emails, but having ip address of verification server can allow to keep track of origin of emails sent by spammers. Additional Notes (STSA): Idea should be explored futher to use this with certificates, possibly approach is to issue certificates to verification servers and they can issue certificates to users. Possible if emails are groups together on the verfication server by who sent it, a special command can be established to check how many emails this particular user has sent to determine if emails are sent in bulk (but because sender is providing his own verification, he can easily lie...) It would usefull to be able to deleted message tracking when message has been received (i.e. destination mail server can delete it after verifying the message), unfortunetly this does not work well with mailing lists where multiple receipients receive the same message and all need to verify it. But possibly sender can specify if email is certainly for one user or possibly after delete command is received, message would not be deleted immediatly but faster then usual. 3b. Complex callback verification with dynamic dns used for verification Technology/Idea: This is not idea on its own but variation of #3, so read #3 first. Particular to this variation is the idea that dynamic dns can be used for verificaiton which would not require modification to SMTP. In particular the setup would be such that when some server/user sends out email, it contacts special one of specially listed dynamic dns servers (as listed with special record for a zone its using for FROM) and adds new zone to it being actual messageid. The zone would include, several records - EMAIL (TXT record with actual email address), VRFY (either A or CNAME of verification server). SOA of the zone would already include date and expiration info, which is usefull. DNSSec can be used for secure verification and to establish identity. Origin: My unpublished idea to go along with complex verification. Late addition - around March 02, 2003 (most other notes are from Nov/Dec 2002) Pros: a. Everything listed for #3.Pros applies here b. Particular to this is that this would not require modification to SMTP protocol c. Since DynDNS software is already written and widely used, this can be implimented fairlyquickly Cons: a. Everything listed for #3.Cons applies here b. This will most likely require dedicated ip address for dyndn sserver as such this can be a problem for those who currently run everything (dns, mail, etc) from one ip address c. I have serious doubts that DynDNS can handle such a high frequency of updates/additions that would happen (though retrievals would be no problem) and that it can actually handle millions of subdomain zone files. STSA and preferably ask dns experts d. Even without modification to SMTP its still necessary to modify transmission servers to enter correct info about eash message as well as modify receiving servers to check for special header, etc. So in the end this still requires changes to how SMTP works Summary: While pretty neet idea, it probably will not work because of con c 3b. Complex callback verification with modifications to MAIL FROM Technology/Idea: This is something to go with #3, and is not an idea on its own. Read #3 first. Main addition here is that MAIL FROM as used during transmission can be modified to indicate that message has tracking information. This can be done as extension (ESMTP extension to MAIL FROM). Or it can also be done by modifying actual email address, so instead of user@domain.com, this becomes: verification.server.ip.address+messageid++user@domain.com Hopefully everything after the + can be ignored. But because full FROM address is passed along all between all servers used in relaying the message, it'll end up going up to the very end (receiving server) even if servers in between do not support new extensions. The receiving server that does support the extensions can use this information to bounce messages during transmission instead after email is already received and email headers can be retrieved. Origin: My idea to go along with complex verification, part of original notes separated because this particular extension can break mailing lists Pros: a. See #3.Pros b. Additionally bad email can be bounced during transmission in most cases c. This basicly automaticly cloaks sender's email address which makes it more difficult for email harvesters. Cons: a. See #3.Cons b. This would fail with many mailing lists and there everything would still rely on special header. This can not be used as substititure for this "tracking" header c. Very long MAIL FROM can be a problem with old email servers. Summary: Because of cons b & c, probably better to go with ESMTP extension but still STSA ---- William Leibzon Elan Communications Inc william@elan.net _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 09:35:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA04442 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 09:35:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2CEnj616421 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 09:49:45 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CEniO16418 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 09:49:44 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA04437 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 09:35:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CEiVO16235; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 09:44:31 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CEf2O16114 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 09:41:02 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA04277 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 09:26:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2100740; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 09:28:42 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3E6F02FB.9040401@snert.com> References: <3E6F02FB.9040401@snert.com> To: Anthony Howe From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Anyone find this funny? Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 09:13:00 -0500 At 10:50 AM +0100 3/12/03, Anthony Howe wrote: >Yes its me and I'm VERY red around the ears just now. If subpoenaed I promise to claim that you were doing it solely as a demonstration of the dangers of filtering technology. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 10:19:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA07342 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 10:19:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2CFXaN19496 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 10:33:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CFXZO19493 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 10:33:35 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA07333 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 10:19:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CFTAO19118; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 10:29:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CFPJO18899 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 10:25:19 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA06341 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 10:10:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.57] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2CFCuc3007891 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 07:12:56 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 07:12:57 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] You say tomato, I say authentication MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 07:12:55 -0800 For the purposes of fighting spam the following configuration would be sufficient: 1) Alice's client generates self signed cert 2) Alice's client uses DNS srv to discover XKMS service for email zone 3) Alice's client registers certificate with XKMS service 4) Alice sends email to Bob 5) Bob's client looks up policy of Alice's DNS zone, it is always authenticate using S/MIME, no root key specified, XKMS service specified. 6) Bob checks that message is signed correctly 7) Bob retrieves Alice's self signed cert via XKMS locate Obviously you get additional value from a trusted third party, particularly if you want to use the certs for more than spam control. However it is a heck of a lot better than what we have now security wise for email which is in almost all cases diddly squat. Phill > -----Original Message----- > From: mike.pearson@ssc.govt.nz [mailto:mike.pearson@ssc.govt.nz] > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 9:22 PM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: [Asrg] You say tomato, I say authentication > > > IMHO, people on this list have different ideas of > authentication and where > to apply it. Therefore a lot of messages are speaking at > cross purpose. > > What I want from authentication, S/MIME, is to know 100% that an email > address is the real email address of the sender. NOT the > identity of the > sender. > > > - I can then drop any message which is not authenticated (you > have the right > to message anonymously, but I should have the right to > decline to listen to > you) > > - I will allow any message from my friends / business > partners' mail domains > straight through, and get on with my life > > - I might allow messages from authenticated strangers in > trusted domains, to > see what you have to say, but if you abuse it, > then I can choose to filter them, or their entire domain. > > > As I said in my previous posting "[Asrg] Proven solution for > authenticating > messages" - you don't need authentication software at the > client end, move > it up to the ISP gateway and reduce the complexity of the > problem. (In New > Zealand, we don't have 1000's of ISPs, probably not even 100s). > > > > Regards, Mike Pearson > > Personal: The views expressed are not necessarily those of my > employer. > > ph +64 (4) 495-6769 mobile +64 (21) 631-731 > fax +64 (4) 495-6669 > mailto:mike.pearson@ssc.govt.nz > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 10:47:20 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA08749 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 10:47:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2CG1K221920 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 11:01:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CG1JO21917 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 11:01:19 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA08740 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 10:46:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CFu9O21526; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 10:56:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CFooO21231 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 10:50:50 -0500 Received: from woodstock.binhost.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA08149 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 10:36:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 5795 invoked from network); 12 Mar 2003 15:38:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.2.28?) (65.68.105.73) by woodstock.binhost.com with SMTP; 12 Mar 2003 15:38:08 -0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: jnewman@localhost Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: asrg@ietf.org From: "Justin B. Newman" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Subject: [Asrg] Cert-based Spam Fighting (rant) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 09:38:43 -0600 >For the purposes of fighting spam the following configuration would be >sufficient: > >1) Alice's client generates self signed cert >2) Alice's client uses DNS srv to discover XKMS service for email zone >3) Alice's client registers certificate with XKMS service > >4) Alice sends email to Bob > >5) Bob's client looks up policy of Alice's DNS zone, it is always >authenticate > using S/MIME, no root key specified, XKMS service specified. >6) Bob checks that message is signed correctly >7) Bob retrieves Alice's self signed cert via XKMS locate > Has anyone here suggesting the use of certificates in fighting spam done an S/MIME interoperability testing? I'm all for the use of PKI to solve the world's problems... but... the fact is that the current implementations of S/MIME in off the shelf email products is worse than any implementation I've ever seen. I'd seriously recommend that folks interested in utilizing PKI first survey the industry's capability of providing a PKI-based solution that works. How many websites do you hit with IE/Mozilla throwing up its hands about a bad certificate? Is it the site's fault or the browser's? Usually the site's. That said, have you ever tested the cert chain following capabilities of the browsers? Talk about a buggy area. I won't even go into certificate revocation issues... -jbn (Former/Recovering PKI Implementer) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 10:51:20 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA08939 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 10:51:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2CG5JT22248 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 11:05:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CG5JO22245 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 11:05:19 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA08924 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 10:50:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CFxTO21774; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 10:59:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CFtZO21497 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 10:55:35 -0500 Received: from aismtp1g.bellsouth.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA08415 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 10:41:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from 01al10015010061.ad.bls.com ([90.152.5.165] [90.152.5.165]) by aismtp1g.bellsouth.com with ESMTP for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 10:43:24 -0500 Received: by 01al10015010061.ad.bls.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 09:43:12 -0600 Message-Id: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D5C6@bremocag> From: "Sauer, Damon" To: ASRG Importance: high X-Priority: 1 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Subject: [Asrg] Getting lost in the noise Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 09:43:08 -0600 Dear Colleagues and people smarter than me, (or is it ..smarter than I?) I have read several threads that eventually just get so whitewashed with so much noise that they become useless. There are a lot of good ideas that are eventually deemed incapable of stopping spam and dropped or the thread becomes so homogenized and diluted that it is useless. I hate to keep going back to the beginning but can we decide on some rules for posting? Can we add [RANT] to the subject line if that is all we are going to do? (rule is not in place yet so, no, I do not have it in this subject line) I offer this- There is no way to stop spam completely. But there are ways to make it harder to spam and maybe we can make it just hard enough to make it ineffective as a marketing tool. I am still an advocate of some type of reverse authentication. I understand that this will not stop spam, but what it will do is legitimatize the sending mechanism, not the email coming from it. This is a godsend for the frontline soldiers, postmasters like me! (Think tanks are for big, fat, dumb, and happy fish) It gives me the ability to allow/reject based on factual information about the sending host without having to spend extra cycles researching the headers on thousands of spoofed messages. Everything else from this point forward can be handled programmatically. Content filters and the such are for filtering actual spam. But they are just that, content filters not context filters. I do not think that these alone can be used to stop spam. We keep building bigger and bigger dams to stop the flood. What we need to do is turn the source from a raging river to a bubbling brook. This can only be accomplished with mechanisms upstream, not at the final destination. I also believe that there is not one way to stop spam it will require several levels of legitimization. - Legitimize the email mechanism Trust, reverse authentication, RDNS, RBL, etc. - Legitimize the sender Whitelists, Stamps, Tokens, Certificates, etc. - Legitimize the content Spam filters, umm.., etc. - Legitimize the receiver double-optin, address verification, etc. I hate to keep going all the way back to start... can we go through the threads and pick out where they went wrong and start from there? I want to roll up my sleeves and get my hands dirty! Regards, Damon PS> Thanks for those that are keeping their sense of humor. It really helps get me through all these threads. ***** "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers." _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 11:51:27 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA10757 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 11:51:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2CH5S826612 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:05:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CH5SO26609 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:05:28 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA10750 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 11:50:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CGtJO26187; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 11:55:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CGs3O26142 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 11:54:03 -0500 Received: from chimta04.algx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA10493 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 11:39:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from JHS ([67.92.23.74]) by chimmx04.algx.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.10 (built Jan 23 2003)) with SMTP id <0HBN003RIADGA9@chimmx04.algx.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 10:41:40 -0600 (CST) From: Jason Hihn To: ASRG Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] Random thought Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 11:41:40 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT What if we assigned a bucket in the email address? joe[spam]@paytimepayroll.com Consent expression is then indicated by the bucket [spam] So if I wanted to give a contest (to win a BMW) my email (because they require it) my email, I'd on the fly assign BMW's email to their own bucket, I can specify joe[bmw] when registering to win a BMW on a website. Then, my mail client can give it it's own folder, or swash it into a default inbox according to my rules. It can create folders as it sees email (or if spammers abuse it, we can manually set up a folder, and trash anything not going to that folder) The big problem is that [bucket] can be stripped off. So solve this problem joe@ is to be considered invalid. Some bucket must be specified. joe[default] would be one such example(though poorly choosen) Or joe could set his [BMW] bucket to be his default inbox in his mail client. This will also allow us to track who sells our info. If I start getting mail sent to the BMW bucket and not from the sponsors, I know they sold my info. After the contest, I can trash anything automatically sent to that bucket. This makes evading spam rather easily, while still retaining your email server and provider. Comments? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 12:11:10 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA11627 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:11:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2CHPCt28690 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:25:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CHPCO28687 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:25:12 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA11608 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:10:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CHHaO28066; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:17:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CHEmO27876 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:14:48 -0500 Received: from chimta03.algx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA11046 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:00:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from JHS ([67.92.23.74]) by chimmx03.algx.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.10 (built Jan 23 2003)) with SMTP id <0HBN009W1BBZ0N@chimmx03.algx.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 11:02:24 -0600 (CST) From: Jason Hihn Subject: RE: [Asrg] Getting lost in the noise In-reply-to: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D5C6@bremocag> To: "Sauer, Damon" , ASRG Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:02:23 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of > Sauer, Damon > Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 10:43 AM > To: ASRG > Subject: [Asrg] Getting lost in the noise > Importance: High > > > Dear Colleagues and people smarter than me, (or is it ..smarter than I?) > > I have read several threads that eventually just get so > whitewashed with so > much noise that they become useless. > There are a lot of good ideas that are eventually deemed incapable of > stopping spam and dropped or the thread becomes so homogenized and diluted > that it is useless. > > I hate to keep going back to the beginning but can we decide on some rules > for posting? Can we add [RANT] to the subject line if that is all we are > going to do? (rule is not in place yet so, no, I do not have it in this > subject line) Sure, but I'll add [brilliant] to my subject lines! ;-) > I offer this- There is no way to stop spam completely. > But there are ways to make it harder to spam and maybe we can > make it just > hard enough to make it ineffective as a marketing tool. This I think everyone here agrees with. > I am still an advocate of some type of reverse authentication. I > understand > that this will not stop spam, but what it will do is legitimatize the > sending mechanism, not the email coming from it. This is a godsend for the > frontline soldiers, postmasters like me! (Think tanks are for big, fat, > dumb, and happy fish) It gives me the ability to allow/reject based on > factual information about the sending host without having to spend extra > cycles researching the headers on thousands of spoofed messages. > Everything > else from this point forward can be handled programmatically. My approach is just that. Even a rudimentary effort like I described I think will go a long way. There are three key factors to spam: it is easy, cheap and profitable. We only have to get things hard and costly enough that people lose interest. Then we'll only be left with those with deep pockets, rather than any quack that learns SMTP. > Content filters and the such are for filtering actual spam. But they are > just that, content filters not context filters. I do not think that these > alone can be used to stop spam. > > We keep building bigger and bigger dams to stop the flood. What > we need to > do is turn the source from a raging river to a bubbling brook. > This can only > be accomplished with mechanisms upstream, not at the final destination. > > I also believe that there is not one way to stop spam it will require > several levels of legitimization. > > - Legitimize the email mechanism > > Trust, reverse authentication, RDNS, RBL, etc. > > - Legitimize the sender > > Whitelists, Stamps, Tokens, Certificates, etc. > > - Legitimize the content > > Spam filters, umm.., etc. > > - Legitimize the receiver > double-optin, address verification, etc. > > I hate to keep going all the way back to start... can we go through the > threads and pick out where they went wrong and start from there? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 12:11:12 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA11641 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:11:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2CHPEp28706 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:25:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CHPEO28703 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:25:14 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA11612 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:10:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CHH9O27992; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:17:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CH7OO27373 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:07:24 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA10806 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 11:52:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc01.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53] (may be forged)) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2CGqhfK020265; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 08:52:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 08:55:00 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Justin B. Newman'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Cert-based Spam Fighting (rant) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=SHA1; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0014_01C2E88E.33E71EE0"; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 08:54:58 -0800 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0014_01C2E88E.33E71EE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > I'm all for the use of PKI to solve the world's problems... but... > the fact is that the current implementations of S/MIME in off the > shelf email products is worse than any implementation I've ever seen. Please support that accusation with facts. Netscape, Microsoft and Lotus have interoperated for at least five years. If you have evidence of incompatibility then please state the errors so they can get fixed. There may be some problems with the products of some of the self styled 'PKI product vendors', some of whom insisted on using obscure features. However there has never been a problem amongst the major application vendors that did not get addressed swiftly once identified. PKI works fine, just stay clear of X.500 and LDAP. Phill ------=_NextPart_000_0014_01C2E88E.33E71EE0 Content-Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIINaTCCAj0w ggGmAhEAulrJTAU7ktantt9O0FOSDTANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQIFADBfMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzEXMBUG A1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xNzA1BgNVBAsTLkNsYXNzIDIgUHVibGljIFByaW1hcnkgQ2Vy dGlmaWNhdGlvbiBBdXRob3JpdHkwHhcNOTYwMTI5MDAwMDAwWhcNMDQwMTA3MjM1OTU5WjBfMQsw CQYDVQQGEwJVUzEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xNzA1BgNVBAsTLkNsYXNzIDIgUHVi bGljIFByaW1hcnkgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGlvbiBBdXRob3JpdHkwgZ8wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADgY0A MIGJAoGBALZai6MNaiODgGvPOYf0IRMzBkwlou1VEpfFp4C5+oPBIKD6LxUNfKFga355LPoGDzqu 9htvsdL/LyhSX4N9S8R6t/hmH4BU/LfCjllKFFdG0ZqTvkGRA7sVgJNc6+fMCGw/PrNK/P9LbCPV UIImRBmOI8Nx6hkkRwSedb/IpgAfAgMBAAEwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQECBQADgYEAtgAfk1ekB6dAzmVA P1Ve7e/6VEmlMNYhfGGH7oOTC7+0M/KYrJ8Gv06ozhSBTMsETljDz1/ufNeab8tBird/gbj/hGHG J0NlHQzssQAK3Ruku8d4ICiyot02lS7hVE+/YLl3aBGZI+jqUuiqAE5nTruQtUWbRuuOFu/EM1sz PdUwggNDMIICrKADAgECAhAffl/nA9Hgv5kg3GuJDUsEMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBAUAMF8xCzAJBgNV BAYTAlVTMRcwFQYDVQQKEw5WZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLjE3MDUGA1UECxMuQ2xhc3MgMiBQdWJsaWMg UHJpbWFyeSBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0aW9uIEF1dGhvcml0eTAeFw05OTAyMjUwMDAwMDBaFw0wNDAxMDUy MzU5NTlaMIGtMRcwFQYDVQQKEw5WZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLjEfMB0GA1UECxMWVmVyaVNpZ24gVHJ1 c3QgTmV0d29yazFJMEcGA1UECxNAVXNlIGlzIHN1YmplY3QgdG8gdGVybXMgYXQgaHR0cHM6Ly93 d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JwYS1rciAoYyk5OTEmMCQGA1UEAxMdVmVyaVNpZ24gQ2xhc3MgMiBQ ZXJzb25uZWwgQ0EwgZ8wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADgY0AMIGJAoGBAKcEbA+icrdKBi741yksNJ2C vEiRSses+en8uVl4sVXAU1ixz28WO8FJ1cv0bszhzMu1xy5OiKo06bbQW3w+FVc04Ri8/931r2dZ IArlPeqIikDSmokTKam21dunfuHnNyST/ZR0TXrkMm1M6FwWl6/dktlmihRm5OpaA6g9X/sLAgMB AAGjgbAwga0wMQYDVR0fBCowKDAmoCSgIoYgaHR0cDovL2NybC52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcGNhMi5j cmwwEQYJYIZIAYb4QgEBBAQDAgEGMEcGA1UdIARAMD4wPAYLYIZIAYb4RQEHAQEwLTArBggrBgEF BQcCARYfaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JwYS1rcjAPBgNVHRMECDAGAQH/AgEBMAsG A1UdDwQEAwIBBjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQQFAAOBgQB59xXN6GhRWWv8qaa94B77vPQ/kN/n+u3kVPdh PVSLBrqXMloeqyzur3Orx13TP4/0zstOSGCiqGC2ON6gpvePKegRrMw5dlA83TlsC/Fa/QhUdt0W bPcxcLi/CPfJJgaO37svGbG2uLToPEjoJ7GXKSBXA5ybZ/p9QMQ4fxiqmjCCA8AwggMpoAMCAQIC EErIAANjYdQVAxbxhjabt80wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwga0xFzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJ bmMuMR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3JrMUkwRwYDVQQLE0BVc2UgaXMgc3Vi amVjdCB0byB0ZXJtcyBhdCBodHRwczovL3d3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcnBhLWtyIChjKTk5MSYw JAYDVQQDEx1WZXJpU2lnbiBDbGFzcyAyIFBlcnNvbm5lbCBDQTAeFw05OTAyMjUwMDAwMDBaFw0w OTAyMjMyMzU5NTlaMIGsMRcwFQYDVQQKEw5WZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLjEfMB0GA1UECxMWVmVyaVNp Z24gVHJ1c3QgTmV0d29yazFJMEcGA1UECxNAVXNlIGlzIHN1YmplY3QgdG8gdGVybXMgYXQgaHR0 cHM6Ly93d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JwYS1rciAoYyk5OTElMCMGA1UEAxMcVmVyaVNpZ24gQ2xh c3MgMiBFbXBsb3llZSBDQTCBnzANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOBjQAwgYkCgYEAwIrRh2Gi6jADVWsI NvCX+hpUNSQf6H2dyMNz09hG9ZEt2TjtlNewJnMq3pdQTf8iHL1wAJgMWCqxpHKPpbn3LXxg47Xf 6X1OISFh1fw7VMmkCZy7IvmiunBhT4ZGov0FZOwKP6ZYdle7FnNEfPClDZfAbKbxYwglsQQXlaCN /n8CAwEAAaOB3zCB3DApBgNVHREEIjAgpB4wHDEaMBgGA1UEAxMRUHJpdmF0ZUxhYmVsMS0xMTgw EQYJYIZIAYb4QgEBBAQDAgEGMA8GA1UdEwQIMAYBAf8CAQAwCwYDVR0PBAQDAgEGMEQGA1UdIAQ9 MDswOQYLYIZIAYb4RQEHFwIwKjAoBggrBgEFBQcCARYcaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29t L3JwYTA4BgNVHR8EMTAvMC2gK6AphidodHRwOi8vY3JsLnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9WU0NsYXNzMklu dC5jcmwwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADgYEANhj9M2DWF9MEtdhUX1Ia5ZIIKPSiQNrDW4wahpfvrqIV /mzEzi/IAcozvvJ5WDOXl5JFcFpOKB3d98GIThuHVwI9kyXZfk5yNYlJF7O5dy9tDvmkiCXBznZz ZWkFk3fn/ZOWGDhNWGx6nejSm+jQ24n9ScJ1BAOXpdSWgdgjQfAwggQZMIIDgqADAgECAhA+9bXR zPYuI4gNvfDw9NBIMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBAUAMIGsMRcwFQYDVQQKEw5WZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLjEf MB0GA1UECxMWVmVyaVNpZ24gVHJ1c3QgTmV0d29yazFJMEcGA1UECxNAVXNlIGlzIHN1YmplY3Qg dG8gdGVybXMgYXQgaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JwYS1rciAoYyk5OTElMCMGA1UE AxMcVmVyaVNpZ24gQ2xhc3MgMiBFbXBsb3llZSBDQTAeFw0wMzAzMDYwMDAwMDBaFw0wNDAzMDUy MzU5NTlaMG0xETAPBgNVBAoTCFZFUklTSUdOMQswCQYDVQQLEwJIUTETMBEGA1UEAxMKUmVjaXBp ZW50czE2MDQGA1UEAxMtcGJha2VyIChIYWxsYW0tQmFrZXIgUGhpbGxpcCwgVmVyaVNpZ24sIElu Yy4pMIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQC529nxcjfOOApfRaDWgQyPD/juCZYlFm2K Evx+Xm4i/QYhlrlQF6KNUwGgf0h1OksNdpDM/c+4C/h1tPaRvZKHyjIpEt22muPbRubfwKe8Dp1T Zi4HpQ+XfybmIt3eSfeDfaodpKyaj2rg+RYxG500PzqdjR0M4r8ZxPoNHHQyyQIDAQABo4IBeDCC AXQwCQYDVR0TBAIwADBZBgNVHR8EUjBQME6gTKBKhkhodHRwOi8vb25zaXRlY3JsLnZlcmlzaWdu LmNvbS9WZXJpU2lnbkluY0V4Y2hhbmdlRW1wbG95ZWVzL0xhdGVzdENSTC5jcmwwCwYDVR0PBAQD AgWgMB4GA1UdEQQXMBWBE3BiYWtlckB2ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20wgawGA1UdIASBpDCBoTCBngYLYIZI AYb4RQEHAQEwgY4wKAYIKwYBBQUHAgEWHGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9DUFMwYgYI KwYBBQUHAgIwVjAVFg5WZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLjADAgEBGj1WZXJpU2lnbidzIENQUyBpbmNvcnAu IGJ5IHJlZmVyZW5jZSBsaWFiLiBsdGQuIChjKTk3IFZlcmlTaWduMBEGCWCGSAGG+EIBAQQEAwIH gDAdBgNVHSUEFjAUBggrBgEFBQcDBAYIKwYBBQUHAwIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEEBQADgYEAot96IsOL q3q9VyOOj7WEo1A9luN0PhM/E/VyaBMLXN5n1DrhMPzwB+1VN6S41JukHxnult8Uc3nQIQFsxtZl iiubwKuDZ7vLaSFdeD3cXl3yljNWdCcP9TB4oxnKKi1PYt2tR2M/6RdgO/5omynvC3vpyV1eavl0 gGi+ytWXFd8xggL4MIIC9AIBATCBwTCBrDEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNV BAsTFlZlcmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsxSTBHBgNVBAsTQFVzZSBpcyBzdWJqZWN0IHRvIHRl cm1zIGF0IGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9ycGEta3IgKGMpOTkxJTAjBgNVBAMTHFZl cmlTaWduIENsYXNzIDIgRW1wbG95ZWUgQ0ECED71tdHM9i4jiA298PD00EgwCQYFKw4DAhoFAKCC AYwwGAYJKoZIhvcNAQkDMQsGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAcBgkqhkiG9w0BCQUxDxcNMDMwMzEyMTY1NDU3 WjAjBgkqhkiG9w0BCQQxFgQUwEuVYa30/VfIjRo/rVd7wW4gk3IwWAYJKoZIhvcNAQkPMUswSTAK BggqhkiG9w0DBzAOBggqhkiG9w0DAgICAIAwBwYFKw4DAgcwDQYIKoZIhvcNAwICASgwBwYFKw4D AhowCgYIKoZIhvcNAgUwgdIGCSsGAQQBgjcQBDGBxDCBwTCBrDEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24s IEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsxSTBHBgNVBAsTQFVzZSBpcyBz dWJqZWN0IHRvIHRlcm1zIGF0IGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9ycGEta3IgKGMpOTkx JTAjBgNVBAMTHFZlcmlTaWduIENsYXNzIDIgRW1wbG95ZWUgQ0ECED71tdHM9i4jiA298PD00Egw DQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQAEgYAOsRsyyfO8YRzNtTBiLc4umrsYHlS9/MP0Ir6InyJ0IxOoOWFHtkNv XHYNtfpsUSQrH6IfTRxOdy3p7OWoNNun8dQXf8aWEjTZdxVuFpMZF8PSyuN0LFM0UcKRsS2WnoyV Hw2Rik+I8n/9J3KQ6RKF4GI6N1JBkZNky3Ki72cz7wAAAAAAAA== ------=_NextPart_000_0014_01C2E88E.33E71EE0-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 12:19:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA11979 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:19:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2CHXUD29271 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:33:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CHXUO29268 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:33:30 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA11973 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:18:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CHR5O28899; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:27:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CHQGO28747 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:26:16 -0500 Received: from m1.imap-partners.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA11658 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:11:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from 128.114.63.158 (dhcp-63-158.cse.ucsc.edu [128.114.63.158]) by m1.imap-partners.net (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id ABJ61923; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 09:13:48 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200303121713.ABJ61923@m1.imap-partners.net> To: "ASRG" Cc: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" From: "Raymie Stata" Reply-To: "Raymie Stata" X-Priority: 3 (normal) X-Mailer: Bloomba 1.0 PR4-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: [Asrg] RE: You say tomato, I say authentication Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 09:12:43 -0800 Instead of authenticating senders, what if we authenticated sender-domains, leaving it to domains to authenticate senders (or not)? Further, what if we pushed the signing part of the problem onto MTAs, "originating MTAs" to be exact. So Phillip Hallam-Baker's the story goes more like this: 0) On an on-going basis, Alice's domain maintains a certificate(s) for e-mail authentication/integrity. Self-signed or not, doesn't matter, registered in XKMS service for the domain. 1) To send mail, Alice uses SMTP to post the message to an "originating MTA" blessed by her domain. (Of course, we'd all like to see that domain use an authenticated variant of SMTP to verify Alice's identity, but if you think about it, this is really a policy issue that perhaps domains would prefer we left to them.) 2) This MTA receives the message, (perhaps checks that the message meets certain of the domain's policies), signs it (S/MIME) using (one of) the above-mentioned certificate(s). 3) If Bob (or his receiving MTA) care, they can check the message on arrival. Potential advantages of doing this at the domain rather sender level: a) Many fewer certificates and thus potentially (much) more scalable. b) No concerns about the adequacy of (sending) MUAs. c) No concerns about (human) senders being confused, having to learn, making mistakes, being apathetic, etc. d) Because it's now easier for domains to take "ownership" of their outgoing mail, there's a bit more fairness to white/blacklisting of entire domains. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 12:21:13 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA12091 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:21:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2CHZFG29387 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:35:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CHZFO29384 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:35:15 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA12074 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:20:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CHULO29114; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:30:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CHTXO29028 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:29:33 -0500 Received: from qadgop.stewart.org (pool-141-154-57-117.bos.east.verizon.net [141.154.57.117]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA11842 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:15:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from qadgop.stewart.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by qadgop.stewart.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2CHPlOl001371; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:25:47 -0500 Received: from qadgop.stewart.org (stewart@localhost) by qadgop.stewart.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) with ESMTP id h2CHPkC5001367; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:25:47 -0500 Message-Id: <200303121725.h2CHPkC5001367@qadgop.stewart.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.4 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Jason Hihn cc: ASRG from: lstewart@acm.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Random thought In-Reply-To: Message from Jason Hihn of "Wed, 12 Mar 2003 11:41:40 EST." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:25:46 -0500 Giving out personalized email addresses to all correspondents is useful and great fun too. I do this with structured addresses @stewart.org. The greatest entertainment happens when (a not-random example) I start getting porn spam to "hertz.com@stewart.org". A letter to the CEO and chairman produces all sorts of response. Sort of like poking an anthill with a stick. Unfortunately a lot of addresses get given out, it is not so easy to manage them, and it is confusing for the people you really want to talk to. Oddly enough, too, I get much more traffic to addresses in stewart.org which I have NOT given out. Most are typos from some other intended domain. This discussion leads me, in a roundabout way, to a topic about which I am confused. Should mail to invalid recipients be rejected or merely discarded? If mail senders are legitimate, then rejecting bad mail makes sense. It helps folks who have made typos, of which I have made my share. However for spammers, I have not heard, or perhaps not understood, the argument. My own inclination is to silently accept such things as my small part in the task of making spamming uneconomic. -Larry _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 13:07:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA14151 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:07:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2CILjt00812 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:21:45 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CILjO00809 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:21:45 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA14141 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:07:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CIGMO00588; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:16:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CIFuO00548 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:15:56 -0500 Received: from aismtp2g.bellsouth.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA13990 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:01:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from 01al10015010057.ad.bls.com ([90.152.5.141] [90.152.5.141]) by aismtp2g.bellsouth.com with ESMTP; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:03:33 -0500 Received: by 01al10015010057.ad.bls.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:03:30 -0500 Message-Id: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D5CD@bremocag> From: "Sauer, Damon" To: "'Jason Hihn'" , ASRG Subject: RE: [Asrg] Random thought MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:03:21 -0500 -----Original Message----- From: Jason Hihn [mailto:jhihn@paytimepayroll.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 11:42 AM To: ASRG Subject: [Asrg] Random thought What if we assigned a bucket in the email address? joe[spam]@paytimepayroll.com Consent expression is then indicated by the bucket [spam] So if I wanted to give a contest (to win a BMW) my email (because they require it) my email, I'd on the fly assign BMW's email to their own bucket, I can specify joe[bmw] when registering to win a BMW on a website. Then, my mail client can give it it's own folder, or swash it into a default inbox according to my rules. It can create folders as it sees email (or if spammers abuse it, we can manually set up a folder, and trash anything not going to that folder) The big problem is that [bucket] can be stripped off. So solve this problem joe@ is to be considered invalid. Some bucket must be specified. joe[default] would be one such example(though poorly choosen) Or joe could set his [BMW] bucket to be his default inbox in his mail client. This will also allow us to track who sells our info. If I start getting mail sent to the BMW bucket and not from the sponsors, I know they sold my info. After the contest, I can trash anything automatically sent to that bucket. This makes evading spam rather easily, while still retaining your email server and provider. Comments? I think this could also be accomplished using an X-headers if you are not trying to authenticate the address at the gateway. This would be an administrative nightmare for x500 and Microsoft Exchange as this is not programmatic and each [bucket] would have to be added manually. One the other hand, I do not see an issue with writing a script that would allow the user to assign themselves [buckets] but their email would not work until the buckets were defined I think that this is an interesting approach and could likely be implemented right away. I would start by writing an instruction on how each user can add rules to their Microsoft Outlook client that would say, if TO: is user[bucket] then place in X folder. I would set up an internal webpage to define the buckets and programmatically add these as secondary addresses to the users address list via ldap mods. I would set aside several thousands of dollars to replace business cards and stationary. I would have to define rules to remove old [bucket] addresses as they are abandoned because spammers finally figured out what the address was. Hey, wouldn't it just be easier to assign multiple SMTP addresses? You see where I am going with this? Regards, Damon ***** "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers." _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 13:25:54 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA14700 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:25:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2CIdvM02610 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:39:57 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CIdvO02607 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:39:57 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA14682 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:25:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CIX2O01576; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:33:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CIWCO01538 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:32:12 -0500 Received: from chimta03.algx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA14533 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:17:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from JHS ([67.92.23.74]) by chimmx03.algx.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.10 (built Jan 23 2003)) with SMTP id <0HBN00FC9EUGUA@chimmx03.algx.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:18:17 -0600 (CST) From: Jason Hihn Subject: RE: [Asrg] Random thought In-reply-to: To: Jason Hihn , ASRG Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:18:16 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Whoops. I forgot the obligatory: Adoption: 10%: who cares? (Assuming) My server supports it (it has to for me to use it), I can benefit right NOW using client-side filters. The sender needs to know nothing, nor have anything special to send to me. I have immediate benefit. 50%: ditto 90%: ditto ;-) > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Jason > Hihn > Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 11:42 AM > To: ASRG > Subject: [Asrg] Random thought > > > What if we assigned a bucket in the email address? > > joe[spam]@paytimepayroll.com > > Consent expression is then indicated by the bucket [spam] > So if I wanted to give a contest (to win a BMW) my email (because they > require it) my email, I'd on the fly assign BMW's email to their > own bucket, > I can specify joe[bmw] when registering to win a BMW on a website. > > Then, my mail client can give it it's own folder, or swash it > into a default > inbox according to my rules. It can create folders as it sees email (or if > spammers abuse it, we can manually set up a folder, and trash anything not > going to that folder) > > The big problem is that [bucket] can be stripped off. So solve > this problem > joe@ is to be considered invalid. Some bucket must be specified. > joe[default] would be one such example(though poorly choosen) Or joe could > set his [BMW] bucket to be his default inbox in his mail client. > > This will also allow us to track who sells our info. If I start > getting mail > sent to the BMW bucket and not from the sponsors, I know they > sold my info. > After the contest, I can trash anything automatically sent to that bucket. > > This makes evading spam rather easily, while still retaining your email > server and provider. > > Comments? > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 13:25:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA14714 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:25:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2CIdxv02626 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:39:59 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CIdxO02623 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:39:59 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA14686 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:25:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CIURO01367; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:30:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CIPxO01100 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:25:59 -0500 Received: from chimta03.algx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA14302 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:11:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from JHS ([67.92.23.74]) by chimmx03.algx.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.10 (built Jan 23 2003)) with SMTP id <0HBN00F1YEJTTY@chimmx03.algx.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:11:54 -0600 (CST) From: Jason Hihn Subject: RE: [Asrg] Random thought In-reply-to: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D5CD@bremocag> To: "Sauer, Damon" , ASRG Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:11:53 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT So close, yet so far. See interjected comments > -----Original Message----- > From: Sauer, Damon [mailto:Damon.Sauer@BellSouth.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 1:03 PM > To: 'Jason Hihn'; ASRG > Subject: RE: [Asrg] Random thought > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jason Hihn [mailto:jhihn@paytimepayroll.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 11:42 AM > To: ASRG > Subject: [Asrg] Random thought > > .... > Comments? > > > I think this could also be accomplished using an X-headers if you are not > trying to authenticate the address at the gateway. > This would be an administrative nightmare for x500 and Microsoft > Exchange as > this is not programmatic and each [bucket] would have to be added > manually. > One the other hand, I do not see an issue with writing a script that would > allow the user to assign themselves [buckets] but their email > would not work > until the buckets were defined > I think that this is an interesting approach and could likely be > implemented right away. Indeed. The change is small, particularly of you rely on client-side filtering alone. Server-side you need only to trim [whatever] off the email for finding out who to deliver to. A better implementation would be to have the server place it in a folder on the server until retrieval. > I would start by writing an instruction on how each user can add rules to > their Microsoft Outlook client that would say, if TO: is user[bucket] then > place in X folder. Exactly! But I'd still prefer the server to do it because as I've stated before, Joe Blow knows nothing of filters. > I would set up an internal web page to define the buckets and > programmatically add these as secondary addresses to the users > address list > via ldap mods. Easily done, and relatively user-friendly > I would set aside several thousands of dollars to replace > business cards and > stationary. > I would have to define rules to remove old [bucket] addresses as they are > abandoned because spammers finally figured out what the address was. Now you're just getting crazy. > Hey, wouldn't it just be easier to assign multiple SMTP addresses? We do, but the ad-hoc nature is key. "Assigning multiple SMPT addresses" pins you down to a rather fixed list, and that's easy for a spammer to lock on to, and that's not what I want. I go to great lengths to protect my email addresses, but I always wind up getting on lists, then getting off is impossible. > You see where I am going with this? No. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 13:26:01 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA14733 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:26:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2CIe5v02690 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:40:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CIe5O02687 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:40:05 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA14693 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:25:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CIUbO01404; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:30:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CISCO01192 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:28:12 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA14369 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:13:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2CIFcYE016084 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 11:15:38 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303121815.h2CIFcYE016084@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Random thought References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 11:15:38 -0700 (MST) > From: Jason Hihn > What if we assigned a bucket in the email address? > > joe[spam]@paytimepayroll.com > ... How does that differ from what many people have been doing that for many years using the sendmail '+' mechanism? The sendmail mechanism is not a silver bullet. I prefer to invent a new alias every time I need to give an address to a vendor or other untrusted party. It is more work than the sendmail '+' mechanism, but is less easily "stripped." Two more random throughts or rants: Consider the RBL+, SPEWS, and SBL as models for how popular a favorite spam defense might be after several years. All of those are said to have significant good effects immediately and if everyoone used any one of them, the spam problem would be solved overnight. They don't require mail senders or other mail recipients to do anything. All of them are trivial to install. SPEWS and the SBL are entirely free other than quite modest per mail message bandwidth and other costs. The monetary costs of the RBL+ are less than many proposed alternatives. The RBL and SBL are said to have very low false positive rates. They are all reported to be at least 20% and according to some more than 70% effective (spam rejected divided by total spam). In summary, all three are exemplars of what many spam defenses would like to be. The rub is that they've been around for years and have not been adopted by even 50% of the Internet. Depending on whose estimates you believe, they're in use for between 10% and 45% of all mailboxes. If your favorite spam solution depends on 70% of the net using it before it is as effective as those systems, why will it do better than the RBL+, SPEWS, or the SBL and how will it ever reach that critical mass? I think such potential barriers are simply too high. If a defense depends on at least X% of the net using it to reduce your spam load by X% for any X greater than 0.01%, then it is hopeless. You will not use it unless you invented it or are selling it and it will never be adopted by X% of the net. .... If you accept that potential barrier argument, is there any hope in any mechanism that involves communicating consent? .... Which is the rant, the statement that "If we switch to using my special variety of unicorns for mail transport, the spam problem will be ended because the unicorns will use their horns against spammers" or the question "How will we breed enough enough unicorns?" Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 13:28:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA14911 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:28:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2CIgi402866 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:42:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CIgiO02863 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:42:44 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA14887 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:28:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CIW2O01514; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:32:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CIV3O01482 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:31:03 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA14490 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:16:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 5327 invoked from network); 11 Mar 2003 18:16:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO startechgroup.co.uk) (10.2.100.157) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 11 Mar 2003 18:16:21 -0000 Subject: Re: [Asrg] Random thought Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: Jason Hihn , ASRG To: lstewart@acm.org From: Matt Sergeant In-Reply-To: <200303121725.h2CHPkC5001367@qadgop.stewart.org> Message-Id: <0BF354B0-54B7-11D7-B8E9-0003939CB5D8@startechgroup.co.uk> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 18:18:38 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wednesday, Mar 12, 2003, at 17:25 Europe/London, lstewart@acm.org wrote: > This discussion leads me, in a roundabout way, to a topic about which I > am confused. Should mail to invalid recipients be rejected or merely > discarded? If mail senders are legitimate, then rejecting bad mail > makes > sense. It helps folks who have made typos, of which I have made my > share. > However for spammers, I have not heard, or perhaps not understood, the > argument. My own inclination is to silently accept such things as my > small > part in the task of making spamming uneconomic. There's lots of arguments on both sides of the fence for 5xx'ing invalid addresses or spam. I'm beginning to think that 5xx'ing spam makes the spammers evolve faster (they know their open relay spam is being blocked so they move on to open proxies), and so I think you should only 5xx unknown users, and accept caught spam. But I don't believe you can silently junk spam either - you have to either quarantine it or filter it to a folder. That way if there's a false positive it can be retrieved, and even the sender can be notified that there was a temporary problem that they may need to fix (especially if its a blacklisting). But I'm still not entirely 100% on the above, especially in the face of Striker or AOL - that's just too much spam to quarantine. Matt. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 13:30:12 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA15005 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:30:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2CIiGk02992 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:44:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CIiGO02989 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:44:16 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA14956 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:29:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CIUaO01387; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:30:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CIRcO01160 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:27:38 -0500 Received: from chimta05.algx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA14340 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:13:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from JHS ([67.92.23.74]) by chimmx05.algx.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.10 (built Jan 23 2003)) with SMTP id <0HBN00H6AEOMZ5@chimmx05.algx.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:14:51 -0600 (CST) From: Jason Hihn Subject: RE: [Asrg] Random thought In-reply-to: <200303121725.h2CHPkC5001367@qadgop.stewart.org> To: lstewart@acm.org Cc: ASRG Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:15:06 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of > lstewart@acm.org > Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 12:26 PM > To: Jason Hihn > Cc: ASRG > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Random thought ... > This discussion leads me, in a roundabout way, to a topic about which I > am confused. Should mail to invalid recipients be rejected or merely > discarded? If mail senders are legitimate, then rejecting bad mail makes > sense. It helps folks who have made typos, of which I have made my share. > However for spammers, I have not heard, or perhaps not understood, the > argument. My own inclination is to silently accept such things > as my small > part in the task of making spamming uneconomic. Enter domain authentication... It's be nice to know if your rejected mail will be rejected, or sent to a spoofed address... _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 13:43:18 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA15803 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:43:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2CIvM803801 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:57:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CIvMO03798 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:57:22 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA15773 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:42:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CIk7O03154; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:46:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CIjGO03107 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:45:16 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc03.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA15033 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:30:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from art.lextek.com (12-254-130-29.client.attbi.com[12.254.130.29]) by sccrmhc03.attbi.com (sccrmhc03) with SMTP id <2003031218324200300ala75e>; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 18:32:42 +0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030312104018.03cff630@mail.lextek.com> X-Sender: PollardA@mail.lextek.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Art Pollard Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [Asrg] Proposal .... Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 11:32:32 -0700 I recently made a proposal over at slashdot which seemed to garner a fair amount of support. It is this: When the mail client sends a message, it only goes as far as their local mail server. The local mail server stores the body of the message and then sends the header on to the recipient with a ID through which the body may be picked up. When the header arrives at the destination, the client on the other side downloads the body of the message from the specified host. There are a variety of advantages to a system such as this including: 1) There is a server which is responsible for the message that may be tracked down. Forging headers (as spammers now do) will not hide the origins of the message. 2) The system administrator on the other end will have time to "cancel" the message before it arrives at most of the recipients mailboxes. (i.e., the sysadmin looks and George has 20,000,000 messages in the outbox waiting to be picked up. The sysadmin looks at the messages, sees they are spam, then he nukes them.) 3) If the messages are nuked before they are picked up, the message header is simply thrown away by the mail client or written to a log or put in a special mailbox or ... in either case, it is totally transparent to the end user and the end user never even knows they have been spammed. Given this: It would also be possible to develop a self moderation capability. For example, the sending server has a specific port or reporting mechanism and given a: 1) Server ID, 2) User ID, 3) Message ID that is sent to it in a "Spam Report" it could verify that the message had actually been sent by the user specified and if so could flag it to the sysadmin. Furthermore, if N spam complaints came in for verified messages for a specified user in a given period, the account could be automatically put on hold until cleared by the sysadmin. Also, since there is a server which is directly responsible for the message, it would be easy to automatically add the server or server/user to a blacklist. Messages from servers that are blacklisted would simply be thrown away -- again transparently to the user. I personally don't believe that any one scheme is going to win the battle against spam. What we need to do is create a framework each node of which reinforces all the other nodes in the framework and makes it progressively more difficult for spammers to conduct their business. -Art -- Art Pollard http://www.lextek.com/ Suppliers of High Performance Text Retrieval Engines. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 14:14:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA16767 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:14:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2CJSmq05901 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:28:48 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CJSmO05898 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:28:48 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA16720 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:14:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CJPEO05763; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:25:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CJOkO05731 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:24:46 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA16518 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:10:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.57] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2CJCJc3028365; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 11:12:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 11:12:19 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Raymie Stata'" , ASRG Cc: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Subject: RE: [Asrg] RE: You say tomato, I say authentication MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 11:12:18 -0800 > Instead of authenticating senders, what if we authenticated > sender-domains, leaving it to domains to authenticate senders > (or not)? That is another equally valid method. I see a range of possible authentication mechanisms: Reverse MX - Not cryptographic, can be defeated, email must be routed through approved outgoing MTA SSL - Applies to whole domain, strong crypto email must be routed through approved outgoing MTA S/MIME - Applies to individual sender, strong crypto no restrictions on routing. And of course a trusted third party / CA can add value here but is not absolutely essential. I think we need to accept that there is a rationale and a place for each of these, and possibly new mechanisms that are carefully tailored to the problem of spam without boiling the secure email ocean. > 1) To send mail, Alice uses SMTP to post the message to an > "originating MTA" blessed by her domain. (Of course, we'd all like > to see that domain use an authenticated variant of SMTP to verify > Alice's identity, but if you think about it, this is really a > policy issue that perhaps domains would prefer we left to them.) Actually this gated model is actualy one that appears as a requirement in many secure email deployments - the canonical reason eing to add disclaimers to messages. The 'end to end' model of security does not address the security requirements of a lot of financial institutions, the end is the institution, not Alice or Bob. > Potential advantages of doing this at the domain rather sender level: I agree, we definitely need the choice. The only reason I backed off the domain level security scheme was that I didn't want to have yet more complaints about people not being able to send direct from their MTA while we discussed the principles. I am currently working on a broad-based security policy language that allows any security policy to be advertised through the DNS or other name/directory system. This is similar to work we are currently doing with Microsoft, IBM and RSA for Web Services. Rather than send the draft to the group in its current form I would like to continue to refine the idea for a while in a small group. My experience is that it is usualy better if one gets as many bugs out of a proposal as possible before going for widespread review. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 14:20:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA16907 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:20:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2CJYct06110 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:34:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CJYbO06107 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:34:37 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA16899 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:20:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CJQ2O05808; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:26:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CJPJO05776 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:25:19 -0500 Received: from backbone.midwestcs.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA16530 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:10:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from footbone.midwestcs.com ([206.222.212.237] helo=midwestcs.com) by backbone.midwestcs.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18tBeg-0005lm-00 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:12:46 -0600 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Random thought References: <200303121725.h2CHPkC5001367@qadgop.stewart.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: wayne In-Reply-To: <200303121725.h2CHPkC5001367@qadgop.stewart.org> Message-ID: Lines: 39 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanner: exiscan *18tBeg-0005lm-00*jk8fVVuMb2E* () Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 12 Mar 2003 13:12:46 -0600 In <200303121725.h2CHPkC5001367@qadgop.stewart.org> lstewart@acm.org writes: > > This discussion leads me, in a roundabout way, to a topic about which I > am confused. Should mail to invalid recipients be rejected or merely > discarded? I'm interested in hearing others opinions, but in my opinion, you should reject invalid recipients as early in the process as you can. In particular, if you can reject the email before the message has been accepted by the receiving MTA, you force the sending MTA to do the bounce. This means that the receiving MTA is not responsible for bounces that get sent to another of the spammers victims and decreases the chance that you will be (falsely) labelled as a spammer. If you silently accept email with invalid recipients, you may well end up in the same position as Alan DeKok. (see http://www.striker.ottawa.on.ca/ and his several million spams per day) Spammers often have more bandwidth than you do, and often care less about wasting it (since it is often stolen bandwidth.) Trying to get spammers to waste their bandwidth by consuming yours doesn't sound like a good idea to me. Similarly, I'm not sure that disabling the VRFY SMTP command is a good idea. Yes, the VRFY command can be easily used by spammers to do a dictionary attack on your server, but if you don't let them do it the "easy" way, they will likely do it the "hard" way by sending spam to every possible email address. Again, this increases your bandwidth and if the spammer doesn't get a rejection, it may well greatly increase your bandwidth a la stiker. These kinds of things seem to fall into the "cutting off your nose to spite your face" category. -wayne _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 14:22:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA16984 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:22:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2CJad606203 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:36:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CJadO06200 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:36:39 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA16965 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:22:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CJW6O06032; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:32:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CJVUO06011 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:31:30 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA16826 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:16:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.57] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2CJJ3c3029427; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 11:19:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 11:19:03 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'David F. Skoll'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] DCC and IP checksums MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 11:19:00 -0800 I don't trust sandboxes either. But I do trust signed code that has been thoroughly reviewed. We would be talking about a few hundred lines of code here, not tens of thousands. Phill > -----Original Message----- > From: David F. Skoll [mailto:dfs@roaringpenguin.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 4:12 PM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Asrg] DCC and IP checksums > > > On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > > > But consider what happens when you use mobile code to describe the > > hash function. > > Oh, yes, let's consider that. > > You have enormous security violations all over the Internet. > > "Mobile Code" is a non-starter from a security standpoint. I > don't trust > sandboxes, and I don't think most SMTP server owners do either. > > > This is how satelite TV companies keep card piracy at > acceptable levels. > > PThey don't shut off a pirate card immediately, they let a number > > of customers develop then they kill it when doing so does maximum > > damage to the pirate's reputation. > > They have a closed system and can trust their own mobile code. > > > The apamware companies have a big problem that script > writers do not, > > they want to make money from their code. So it takes them > much longer > > to react than the opposition. > > From my observations, a lot of simple anti-spam tricks that worked a > year ago (and are even widely-known, e.g., as part of > SpamAssassin), still > work pretty well. So I think you have a point about the > reaction time. > > -- > David. > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 14:29:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA17272 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:29:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2CJhdN07316 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:43:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CJhdO07313 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:43:39 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA17224 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:29:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CJf5O07206; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:41:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CJeSO07176 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:40:28 -0500 Received: from chimta02.algx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA17126 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:25:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from JHS ([67.92.23.74]) by chimmx02.algx.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.10 (built Jan 23 2003)) with SMTP id <0HBN00ELVI2PM4@chimmx02.algx.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:28:01 -0600 (CST) From: Jason Hihn Subject: RE: [Asrg] Random thought [enhancement] In-reply-to: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D5CD@bremocag> To: ASRG Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:28:01 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT If we just blindly strip [bucket]s out (and concat their contents), then we can be even more evasive: j[realmail]hihn, [realmail]jhihn, [real]jhihn[mail], all of which result in delivery to the jhihn mailbox, 'work' folder. This starts to get a little more complex, because here I say that we can now reject mail if the location of the bucket regions is not correct. This is merely to offset a brute-force address guessing attack from a spammer. It may be too complicated (particularly right now) to do, but it is something to be thought about. The down side is stupid spammers may generate more traffic trying to guess the hash, but this in turns comes back at them: if they are to make 3 guesses, takes them 3x as long to reach the same number of people, with lower chances when bucketing is implemented. I am merely trying to use a hash that if there is not a collision (valid bucket) the mail is dropped. We can then give out temporarily valid buckets, and then revoke them. It also allows for leakage tracking, as described in my first message of this thread. I suspect several people will be less privy to leakage if you can prove they leaked it. Right now there is no accountability. Also, client-side filtering will allow me to aggregate buckets, by specifying the same destination folder, incase I want a unified inbox (several buckets empty into one). I can always separate out later as well. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 14:31:06 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA17452 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:31:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2CJjBm07459 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:45:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CJjBO07456 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:45:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA17427 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:30:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CJg1O07261; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:42:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CJfYO07231 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:41:34 -0500 Received: from centipaid.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA17169 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:26:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from centipaid.com ([216.177.8.126]) by centipaid.com ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:37:34 -500 From: "ietf@centipaid.com" Reply-to: ietf@centipaid.com To: asrg@ietf.org Cc: Kee Hinckley Subject: RE: [Asrg] AMDP X-Mailer: Quality Web Email v3.0p, http://netwinsite.com/refw.htm Priority: normal Message-id: <3e6f8c7e.174b.548963947@centipaid.com> X-Server: High Performance Mail Server - http://surgemail.com Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 19:37:34 GMT Hi Kee > >Note that there are two scenarios > > > >1. Email is not allowed in, and only the envelope is > >2. Email is allowed and delivered as current system. > > Ah, okay that makes sense. Of course it doesn't fix the > problem for the SMTP reader of your email. The AMDP server will know it is talking to an SMTP server, from the HELO so it depends on the MHF implementation on what to do. 1. it can act as other SMTP servers and send the whole thing 2. It can send the URL. I had to think a little about your previous comment that URL could not support attachment, and I think a good transtional MHF solutions will include a similar interface to what we see today in web emails so all the attachment will be accesible and can be downloaded. > that time >they are removed. This does not happen in SMTP > and mail >will > >stay forever :( > > Presumably people aren't going to set the expiration date > every time. They'll use some default (e.g. 30 days). So > the ISP goes from a situation where they store incoming The MHF sets the ultimate expiration date, so if a users sets the message to 60 days, but the max days set by the MHF are 30, then the date is changed to 30. However note that expiration is used to clean up things, and not as a limiting factor. outgoiung mail quota is the limit. For example your ISP will say you have 10M web space, 50 email accounts, and 100 Mb outgoign mail quota. The user can do whatever he wants with those 100. The ISP is charging and sizing his business accordingly.. > BTW, I don't remember. If you get a bounce from a > recipient, does the server notice this and remove that id > from the list of pickups it is expecting? I did not include that in my initial proposal, but it is a valid point and will definetly add it and see how it will be managed > For instance, I know a very large insurance company that > requires special permission for their employees to use > the web. Mail sent from your system to theirs (until > they move to your system) will be unreadable by those > employees. There will be a transition and you can always find a solution regardless of the issue. If it does not work for them then it will not becuase of their business rules, and not becuase of the technology. They can always adapt, add filters, gateways, etc.. if they feel that it benefits them. > > > - It is no longer possible to send a single message > to >> multiple people and let the remote system explode > it. > > >Actually the MHF does a better job in managing space than > > Space yes. But not traffic or time. The time to send > notifications increases because you have to send them one > at a time. You made a golden point here, thank you! I did not think of this before, but I went back to the drawing board, and found out that the protocl should support this, and it can do it (after all it is supposed to be adaptive :)) So from your suggestion is makes sense if an MHF is sending an X amount of emails to one repient, then the envelope will have the same information outlined in the design, but instead of one email it will contains one addtion header that will tell the receiver gateway how many emails are getting the same message, and list them in order. For example a header will look like this AMDP-FROM-NAME: Name AMDP-FROM: foo@bar.com AMDP-NUMBER-OF-RECPIENTS: 5 AMDP-TO-NAME: u1 DP-TO: u1@yourdomain.com AMDP-TO-NAME: u2 AMDP-TO: u2yourdomain.com AMDP-TO-NAME: u3 AMDP-TO: u3yourdomain.com AMDP-TO-NAME: u4 AMDP-TO: u4yourdomain.com AMDP-TO-NAME: u5 AMDP-TO: u5yourdomain.com SUBJECT: Message to all AMDP-MAIL-CLASS: DIRECT::BULK::foo AMDP-LANGUAGE: EN ... This will work also very nicely when contacting the MHF so instead of downloading one message or envelope at a time. One message is read and passed to all recepients. Thanks it makes the system work better in bulk communications. > > > - All my recipients get annoyed at me because they > > > can't read my email without following embedded links > in it. > > >:) If you are emailing someone one using older SMTP > servers, >they wll get that actual message like today. > Only if they >have > >AMDP servers that they could either get the message or > the >link. > > Okay, this wasn't clear. How do you know which I have? > Is there a new kind of DNS lookup? Or do you assume that > the new server sits on the same MX server? In the HELO hanshake... > And if that's the case, why all this discussion about > transitionally including URLs in the email body, and > people using browsers to view them? The disccusion was assuming that the receiving server is AMDP as well, while the customer are using older clients. If the recpient is using SMTP they will never see AMDP it is transparent to them. Only AMDP interactions will follow the outlined process. > >Right! If I am the only one in the work using it it will > not >work, unless I have 20-30 million email accounts that > people >want to email, and then they will listen. > > But how do you get from "just you" to "20-30 million > accounts"? Your only hope of success is that AOL and a > few other major ISPs decide that they are going to do > this and warn the world that they are going to flip the > switch in 12 months. Then the rest of the world all I own and manage an email service supporting over 1.5 million users, but the email service is free, so moving into this model will just make the senders not email the people on my network. BUT it if it is big enough and all your friends and contacts are on that network then you will have to get a certificate, classify your email, use an MHF, to avoid paying postage.. If you are a small guy user you will be able to use an ISP with AMDP support, or use a third party company to email that network until you do. Or pay the postage. The design is flexible enough to allow willing participants to email te nwteork, and tough enough on the spammers that will not play the game. If spammers do get the certificate, and mhf, they will pay a fraction of the fee if they do not, and most likely their messages will never make it to the target audience they bank on.. > upgrades their mail servers to the new software. > But that isn't going to happen. The rest of the world > can't manage to apply simple security patches to their > email server and yet you expect them to all jump and make > this change? You're best case is that people will > provide transitional gateways between the two > systems--and then the spammers will sit on the old system > and throw spam through the gateways. That is true change takes time, and the proposal is just a draft when enough people feel that it has enough good points to go forward then the following will happen. 1. Put a clear transiontal plan, that includes technical, and marketing. encouraging open source software to add feature that will allow the technology to be usable 2. Put together a clear development plan. 3. Have the protocol examined, find vunerabilties and fix them before implementation. What encourages me to follow this model is that it what we use today in USPS, and other mail carriers worlwdide. It is just an adaptation, and we know from real life that spam is much more controlled in comparison to what you see online. I never open my home mailboz to see 200 pieces of junk mail. I see 3 - 5, and that is because of the economy of cost to the sender. And that is what AMDP is all about the specifics will definetly show up as individuals like yourself find those features that are key to making the process worth while. We can not spend out lives playing cat and mosue with spammers, change the process to make them accountable if they do not want to be, then let them have fun in SMTP world until there is no market worth pursuing, and ultimatly will play along.. > I've never seen business going around respecting other > businesses decision to hurt themselves. Laugh maybe, but > not respect. What possible reason would there be for a > business to use this system to restrict their incoming > email to solely those other companies who have deployed > it. We've created a world-wide network that is dependent > upon communication. Nobody can afford to cut their links > from that. I did not mean that they will use AMDP, but if I have AMDP installed and they receive a response saying that it costs them 0.002 to email us, since they are not using AMDP, then they will pay the 0.002 to get business done. > I mean, if you want to solve the problem by creating an > entirely new protocol, there's no need to create one from > scratch. We can all just step back a decade and take the > email branch we abandoned. X.400 should provide all the > infrastructure we need to prevent spam. -- I saw you post on X.400, and I am sorry that it did not make it, but you can not base eveythring you see on previous experience. I myself have dealt with AINC working on multilingual domain names, and have seen technologies go up in smoke, and some are very good. The fact they are chewed and spit is not a measure of how good or bad they were. Competition, and special interest play a major role in it too. Propoenents of email filters can keep saying "my filter is better than yours", but when will it stop?? If I felt that the future stands to keep email as it is, then I would not even try :)) Cheers Adonis _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 14:34:18 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA17625 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:34:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2CJmNT07675 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:48:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CJmNO07672 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:48:23 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA17605 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:33:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CJk1O07516; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:46:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CJiPO07361 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:44:25 -0500 Received: from centipaid.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA17317 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:29:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from centipaid.com ([216.177.8.126]) by centipaid.com ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:40:34 -500 From: "ietf@centipaid.com" Reply-to: ietf@centipaid.com To: Art Pollard Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Proposal .... X-Mailer: Quality Web Email v3.0p, http://netwinsite.com/refw.htm Priority: normal Message-id: <3e6f8d32.17b8.1647798291@centipaid.com> X-Server: High Performance Mail Server - http://surgemail.com Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 19:40:34 GMT Hi Art, Sounds like AMDP, check http://www.amdpmail.com/mod/fileman/files/draft-amdp-00.txt :) ----- Original Message Follows ----- > > I recently made a proposal over at slashdot which seemed > to garner a fair amount of support. > > It is this: > > When the mail client sends a message, it only goes as far > as their local mail server. The local mail server stores > the body of the message and then sends the header on to > the recipient with a ID through which the body may be > picked up. > When the header arrives at the destination, the client on > the other side downloads the body of the message from the > specified host. > There are a variety of advantages to a system such as this > including: > 1) There is a server which is responsible for the message > that may be tracked down. Forging headers (as spammers > now do) will not hide the origins of the message. > > 2) The system administrator on the other end will have > time to "cancel" the message before it arrives at most of > the recipients mailboxes. (i.e., the sysadmin looks and > George has 20,000,000 messages in the outbox waiting to > be picked up. The sysadmin looks at the messages, sees > they are spam, then he nukes them.) > > 3) If the messages are nuked before they are picked up, > the message header is simply thrown away by the mail > client or written to a log or put in a special mailbox or > .. in either case, it is totally transparent to the end > user and the end user never even knows they have been > spammed. > Given this: It would also be possible to develop a self > moderation capability. > For example, the sending server has a specific port or > reporting mechanism and given a: 1) Server ID, 2) User ID > , 3) Message ID that is sent to it in a "Spam Report" it > could verify that the message had actually been sent by > the user specified and if so could flag it to the > sysadmin. Furthermore, if N spam complaints came in for > verified messages for a specified user in a given period, > the account could be automatically put on hold until > cleared by the sysadmin. > Also, since there is a server which is directly > responsible for the message, it would be easy to > automatically add the server or server/user to a > blacklist. Messages from servers that are blacklisted > would simply be thrown away -- again transparently to the > user. > I personally don't believe that any one scheme is going to > win the battle against spam. What we need to do is > create a framework each node of which reinforces all the > other nodes in the framework and makes it progressively > more difficult for spammers to conduct their business. > -Art > -- > Art Pollard > http://www.lextek.com/ > Suppliers of High Performance Text Retrieval Engines. > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 14:43:54 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA18010 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:43:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2CJw0308202 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:58:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CJw0O08199 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:58:00 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA17989 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:43:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CJr8O07927; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:53:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CJn5O07714 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:49:05 -0500 Received: from chimta02.algx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA17650 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:34:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from JHS ([67.92.23.74]) by chimmx02.algx.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.10 (built Jan 23 2003)) with SMTP id <0HBN00EK9IH1QT@chimmx02.algx.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:36:37 -0600 (CST) From: Jason Hihn Subject: RE: [Asrg] Proposal .... In-reply-to: <5.1.0.14.2.20030312104018.03cff630@mail.lextek.com> To: Art Pollard , asrg@ietf.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:36:37 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT This is good, but I see problems. See injections. > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Art > Pollard > Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 1:33 PM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: [Asrg] Proposal .... > > I recently made a proposal over at slashdot which seemed to garner a fair > amount of support. > > It is this: > > When the mail client sends a message, it only goes as far as their local > mail server. The local mail server stores the body of the > message and then > sends the header on to the recipient with a ID through which the body may > be picked up. > > When the header arrives at the destination, the client on the other side > downloads the body of the message from the specified host. Imagine the server you are picking up from isn't honest. It's a spammers server. They now know the email they sent to was valid. Congrats, you've just verified your email, and that is worth double on the spam market. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 14:53:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA18406 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:53:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2CK7ed09471 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 15:07:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CK7eO09468 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 15:07:40 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA18387 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:53:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CJs1O08006; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:54:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CJqIO07885 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:52:18 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA17797 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:37:41 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2CJdpMd016964; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:39:51 -0500 Message-Id: <200303121939.h2CJdpMd016964@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.2 03/12/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'Justin B. Newman'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Cert-based Spam Fighting (rant) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 12 Mar 2003 08:54:58 PST." References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_1780829685P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:39:51 -0500 --==_Exmh_1780829685P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 08:54:58 PST, "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" said: > Please support that accusation with facts. > Netscape, Microsoft and Lotus have interoperated for at least five > years. If you have evidence of incompatibility then please state > the errors so they can get fixed. And *HOW* many years did Microsoft products *interoperate* before somebody pointed out the completely b0rked implementation of basic constraints? How many years did a lot of SNMP products *interoperate* before major holes in the ASN.1 parser were revealed? Software that interoperates with things that play nice isn't secure, it's only interoperable. For security, you need the *additional* constraint that it refuse to talk to things that are trying to lead it astray. -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Senior Engineer Virginia Tech --==_Exmh_1780829685P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+b40HcC3lWbTT17ARAhsEAJ9b/kwc3mU6vpidEuhCvCDppZBmvwCgu5/S oEo5J/VX2esUYMZ6+SOCbXU= =b2Wj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_1780829685P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 16:06:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA22814 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:06:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2CLKpN15400 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:20:51 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CLKpO15397 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:20:51 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA22792 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:06:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CLHLO15153; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:17:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CLFCO14981 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:15:12 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA22384 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:00:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (zcard307.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h2CL2fo28103 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:02:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDFBTAFB; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:02:42 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBGAMP; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:02:41 -0500 Message-ID: <3E6FA134.6050907@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Random thought References: <200303121725.h2CHPkC5001367@qadgop.stewart.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:05:56 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit wayne wrote: > If you silently accept email with invalid recipients, you may well end > up in the same position as Alan DeKok. (see > http://www.striker.ottawa.on.ca/ and his several million spams per > day) Spammers often have more bandwidth than you do, and often care > less about wasting it (since it is often stolen bandwidth.) Trying to > get spammers to waste their bandwidth by consuming yours doesn't sound > like a good idea to me. Slight correction. Striker never did that AFAIK. Striker always rejected, via either outright denial of connection or inline rejects rather than bouncing or accepting. The unproven supposition is that his problem is because of one or two malfunctioning dictionary runs. There's on the order of 1500 or so unique destinations in the load. To an example more to the point and closer to my heart: our spamtraps didn't even have MXes for two years. Spam load before the MXes was removed was on the order of 50,000/day. Spam load after the MXes was restored is on the close order of 800,000/day and growing slowly day-by-day. There's about 10,000 unique addresses in the spam load. Note: _our_ spamtrap accepts _any_ address (our spamtrap has a hardcoded "yes" to every question). Your supposition would suggest that it'd grow far faster than it is. I think comparing our numbers with AOL and/or MSN would suggest that "late bouncing" isn't anywhere near the influence as you may think. Remember, Millions CDs are write-only. > Similarly, I'm not sure that disabling the VRFY SMTP command is a good > idea. Yes, the VRFY command can be easily used by spammers to do a > dictionary attack on your server, but if you don't let them do it the > "easy" way, they will likely do it the "hard" way by sending spam to > every possible email address. Multiple "RCPT TO" then "QUIT" is the same as VRFY. We don't see a lot of that on our spamtrap actually. What we see _vastly_ more of is "HELO/MAIL FROM/QUIT" same "MAIL FROM" all the time. God knows why they're doing that. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 16:15:49 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA23259 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:15:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2CLTvU16023 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:29:57 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CLTvO16020 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:29:57 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA23219 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:15:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CLPEO15718; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:25:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CLNwO15610 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:23:58 -0500 Received: from korimako.ssc.govt.nz (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id QAA22955 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:09:18 -0500 (EST) From: mike.pearson@ssc.govt.nz Received: from [192.168.120.100] (helo=stardust.ssc.govt.nz) by korimako.ssc.govt.nz with esmtp (Exim 6.66 #1) id 18t2Nx-0000BW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 22:18:53 +1300 Received: from odyssey.ssc.govt.nz (not verified[172.20.5.42]) by stardust.ssc.govt.nz with MailMarshal (4,0,4,0) id ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 10:10:32 +1300 Received: from centurion.ssc.govt.nz (centurion.ssc.govt.nz) by odyssey.ssc.govt.nz (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.5) with ESMTP id for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 10:10:39 +1300 Received: by centurion.ssc.govt.nz with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 10:11:24 +1300 Message-ID: <7B170C5E4008D311ABB70008C7D3825B03BC34E8@saison.ssc.govt.nz> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] RE: You say tomato, I say authentication MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 10:09:12 +1300 >Raymie Stata wrote : >Instead of authenticating senders, what if we authenticated >sender-domains, leaving it to domains to authenticate senders (or not)? Well I agree. That's what my original post "[Asrg] Proven solution for authenticating messages" described: The New Zealand government has developed a specification for securing Internet email (authentication/encryption/integrity), between agencies, using S/MIME gateways. http://www.e-government.govt.nz/see/mail/index.asp The specification is an interpretation of several RFCs: http://www.e-government.govt.nz/docs/see-mail-bus-req-2-2/chapter1.html This system is in use by over 50% of government agencies in New Zealand already. Agencies have chosen to implement it either with commercial off the shelf packages, or through the development of an open source version. If an ISP were to adopt the system, then a customer's FROM address, could match the email address(es) associated with the username/password of the ISP account. In this way, we could authenticate all messages between that ISP's customers and any other system user. Because it happens at a server level, the customer never sees the complexity of PKI. The servers automatically establish and maintain links with new servers they discover (so long as the server's CA is trusted). Regards, Mike Pearson Personal: The views expressed are not necessarily those of my employer. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 16:23:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA23533 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:23:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2CLbev17050 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:37:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CLbeO17047 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:37:40 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA23515 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:23:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CLZ5O16300; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:35:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CLYLO16253 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:34:21 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA23425 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:19:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2CLLpoM008094 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:21:51 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303122121.h2CLLpoM008094@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Random thought References: <200303121725.h2CHPkC5001367@qadgop.stewart.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:21:51 -0700 (MST) > From: wayne > ... > Similarly, I'm not sure that disabling the VRFY SMTP command is a good > idea. Yes, the VRFY command can be easily used by spammers to do a > dictionary attack on your server, but if you don't let them do it the > "easy" way, they will likely do it the "hard" way by sending spam to > every possible email address. ... That is not the hard way to do a VRFY when the target SMTP server has turned off VRFY. Instead the extremely well known alternative consists of replacing the SMTP VRFY command with two commands. Use a Mail_From command with any sender that you think will be acceptable to the target followed by a Rcpt_To command with the address you wish to verify. The result is at least as reliable as VRFY and does not require significantly more of your bandwidth, computing, or even thinking. If you run an SMTP server, you can watch the spammers do zillions of these sorts of VRFY commands. Spammers use this tactic even when VRFY is turned on, because this mechanism cannot be turned off and it is so easy. Of course, EXPN is something else. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 16:38:14 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA24380 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:38:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2CLqLp18014 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:52:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CLqLO18011 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:52:21 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA24371 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:37:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CLf3O17461; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:41:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CLe5O17410 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:40:05 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id QAA23697 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:25:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 16828 invoked from network); 11 Mar 2003 21:25:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.2.100.178?) (10.2.100.178) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 11 Mar 2003 21:25:18 -0000 From: Matt Sergeant X-X-Sender: matt@localhost.localdomain To: Vernon Schryver cc: "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Random thought In-Reply-To: <200303121815.h2CIFcYE016084@calcite.rhyolite.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:42:03 +0000 (GMT) On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Vernon Schryver wrote: > Consider the RBL+, SPEWS, and SBL as models for how popular a favorite > spam defense might be after several years. All of those are said to > have significant good effects immediately and if everyoone used any > one of them, the spam problem would be solved overnight. They don't > require mail senders or other mail recipients to do anything. All of > them are trivial to install. SPEWS and the SBL are entirely free > other than quite modest per mail message bandwidth and other costs. > The monetary costs of the RBL+ are less than many proposed alternatives. > The RBL and SBL are said to have very low false positive rates. They > are all reported to be at least 20% and according to some more than > 70% effective (spam rejected divided by total spam). In summary, > all three are exemplars of what many spam defenses would like to be. Just some figures for this, on my home system (which I admit isn't statistically significant, but we don't use these DNSBLs at work) the SBL stopped 7% of my total spam this week, wirehub (open proxies) stopped 32%, and monkeys.com (another open proxies list) stopped just over 1% and ORDB stopped 1%. I have a feeling wirehub beat monkeys.com simply on speed, and so looks better, but there should be no overlap with the other lists. The rest was stopped by a combination of different content filters (and a few sneaked through the net). Oh, and zero false positives - these DNSBLs have very low false positive rates generally. This doesn't prove much except that different people get different results with their DNS blacklists. [This has nothing to do with why you posted the above I know, but people earlier were asking for some figures so I thought I'd post some]. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 16:43:07 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA24460 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:43:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2CLvEU18209 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:57:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CLvEO18206 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:57:14 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA24452 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:42:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CLo2O17902; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:50:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CLnGO17859 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:49:16 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA24197 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:34:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2CLajPg008800 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:36:45 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303122136.h2CLajPg008800@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] DCC and IP checksums References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:36:45 -0700 (MST) > From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" > I don't trust sandboxes either. > > But I do trust signed code that has been thoroughly reviewed. If you don't trust sandboxes, then you are crazy to follow the Microsoft ActiveX fraudulent nonsense of confounding authentication with authorization. That someone at a big company has signed some code does not imply anything about how well it has been reviewed. Bugs happen, and you can never know for certain that a VP has told a chain of pointed hair bosses to stop delaying and SHIP IT! Besides, how do you trust that the goals of any reviewing had anything to do with your goals or even your well being? Let's consider some of the attacks that might be done with distributed filtering code. If the sandbox does not exist or allows the code to modify passing mail, then your entire system is wide open. Naughty filters could add viruses and worms to passing mail. If the sandbox does not allow changes to passing mail by the filter, then a filter from Microsoft could cause a random 70% of mail from AOL to be rejected, and be labelled a bug much like Microsoft's so called bug caused alternatives to Windows to fail. See http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/network/2000/02/07/schulman.html and http://www.google.com/search?q=microsoft+drdos > We would be talking about a few hundred lines of code here, > not tens of thousands. The checksums computed for the DCC involve fewer than tens of thousands of lines of code but strech a few hundred. My first checksums half a dozen years ago did almost exactly what one person proposed in this list. However such simple tactics have not been effective for years. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 16:44:54 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA24518 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:44:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2CLx1R18290 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:59:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CLx0O18287 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:59:00 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA24506 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:44:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CLn5O17847; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:49:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CLmLO17757 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:48:21 -0500 Received: from co1.dslextreme.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA24111 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:33:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from kit (eli-208.187.128.9.dslextreme.com [208.187.128.9]) by co1.dslextreme.com (8.12.8/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h2CLXcD1021570 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:33:39 -0800 Message-ID: <005801c2e8e0$088a60c0$0980bbd0@kit> From: "Jed Margolin" To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.3000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] spammers and telemarketers Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:40:41 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Many people have different definitions of spam. Since spammers seem to be the Internet manifestation (or infestation) of telemarketing it might be instructive to see how the U.S. Government defines telemarketers: From http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/6106.html U.S. Code TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 87 > Sec. 6106. "The term ''telemarketing'' means a plan, program, or campaign which is conducted to induce purchases of goods or services by use of one or more telephones and which involves more than one interstate telephone call. The term does not include the solicitation of sales through the mailing of a catalog which - (A) contains a written description, or illustration of the goods or services offered for sale, (B) includes the business address of the seller, (C) includes multiple pages of written material or illustrations, and (D) has been issued not less frequently than once a year, where the person making the solicitation does not solicit customers by telephone but only receives calls initiated by customers in response to the catalog and during those calls takes orders only without further solicitation." The FTC has recently issued new rules which, among other things, will require telemarketers to transmit a valid Caller ID. They are also setting up a national Do Not Call List. (A national email Do Not Spam List would be a bonanza for spammers.) I would like to add: 1. If the email return address is phony, it's spam. 2. If the email comes from a domain where the email address for the Administrative Contact person is phony, it's spam. And, finally, it's been suggested that some ISPs and free emailing services benefit financially from spammers (much as the telephone companies benefit enormously from providing service to telemarketers), so I still want email stored on Sender's server and not mine. Jed Margolin _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 17:06:22 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA25218 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:06:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2CMKTL20544 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:20:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CMKTO20541 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:20:29 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA25213 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:05:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CMA5O20165; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:10:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CM9FO20124 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:09:15 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA24949 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:54:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2CLujW4010600 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:56:45 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303122156.h2CLujW4010600@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] Archives and statistics Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:56:45 -0700 (MST) For a list places to find performance numbers for some filters, see this list ] BlackList/BlockList Comparisons: ] http://www.sdsc.edu/~jeff/spam/Blacklists_Compared.html ] http://www.sdsc.edu/~jeff/spam/cbc.html ] ] Statistics: ] http://groups.google.com/groups?q=relays.osirusoft.com+bln.net.statistik ] ] BlackList/BlockList Checking tools: ] http://www.moensted.dk/spam/ ] http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/ip4r.ch?ip= from http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3E2000B0.4080200%40Griffin-Technologies.net I was going to link this note to a recent comment about the performance of DNS blacklist, but it seems the archives for this list have disappeared. The link on https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg to https://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/asrg/ now catchs a 404 (replacement) page. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 17:18:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA25482 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:18:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2CMWkd21042 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:32:46 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CMWkO21039 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:32:46 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA25477 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:18:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CMPJO20746; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:25:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CMOEO20695 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:24:14 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id RAA25295 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:09:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 19506 invoked from network); 11 Mar 2003 22:09:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.2.100.178?) (10.2.100.178) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 11 Mar 2003 22:09:26 -0000 From: Matt Sergeant X-X-Sender: matt@localhost.localdomain To: Jed Margolin cc: "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] spammers and telemarketers In-Reply-To: <005801c2e8e0$088a60c0$0980bbd0@kit> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 22:26:12 +0000 (GMT) On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Jed Margolin wrote: > Many people have different definitions of spam. Since spammers seem to be > the Internet manifestation (or infestation) of telemarketing it might be > instructive to see how the U.S. Government defines telemarketers: > > From http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/6106.html > > U.S. Code TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 87 > Sec. 6106. > > "The term ''telemarketing'' means a plan, program, or campaign which is > conducted to induce purchases of goods or services by use of one or more > telephones and which involves more than one interstate telephone call. Just so long as we don't limit the definition of spam to linking to goods or services. That rules out Nigerian Scams, and also the wierd "Uncertainty Probability is Untenable" guy (though that was worth getting for humour value, the first time around). I'm still quite happy with the monkeys.com definition: http://www.monkeys.com/spam-defined/ Matt. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 17:25:02 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA25745 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:25:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2CMd9p22107 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:39:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CMd9O22104 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:39:09 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA25732 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:24:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CMQ1O20812; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:26:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CMPCO20740 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:25:12 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA25359 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:10:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2CMCfuH013700 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 15:12:41 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303122212.h2CMCfuH013700@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Random thought References: <3E6FA134.6050907@americasm01.nt.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 15:12:41 -0700 (MST) > From: "Chris Lewis" > ... > Remember, Millions CDs are write-only. Not all spam target lists are on Millions CDs. > ... > Multiple "RCPT TO" then "QUIT" is the same as VRFY. Minor nit: "Mail_From" then "Rcpt_To" is the same as VRFY. VRFY does not imply quit. For a really minor nit, N VRFYs are the same as 1 Mail_From followed by N Rcpt_Tos. Spammers often follow one or more RCTP_To probes with a QUIT, but they don't need to. > We don't see a lot of that on our spamtrap actually. What we see > _vastly_ more of is "HELO/MAIL FROM/QUIT" same "MAIL FROM" all the time. > God knows why they're doing that. What's wrong with the obvious explanation, that they're validating target lists? The (equivalents to) VRFYs in my logs tend to be for usernames that are valid or close to valid or to obvious dictionary lists. VRFYs are often followed by spam from the same spammer, judging from various stigmata common between the VRFY and the spam. I've done other obvious experiments with names culled from VRFYs, and found the obvious things you'd expect if you assume many spammers are not stupid and understand their businesses as well as you do. Validated target lists are sold by spammers as more valuable. Some target MTAs penalize IP addresses with too many bad Rcpt_Tos. Open proxies and relays are readily available, but there's no point in burning a relay or proxy if you can buy a "verified" target list. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 17:25:08 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA25758 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:25:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2CMdGh22126 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:39:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CMdGO22123 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:39:16 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA25736 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:24:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CMV4O20985; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:31:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CMUuO20942 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:30:56 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA25458 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:16:17 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2CMILMd020202; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:18:21 -0500 Message-Id: <200303122218.h2CMILMd020202@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.2 03/12/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: Vernon Schryver Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Random thought In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 12 Mar 2003 15:12:41 MST." <200303122212.h2CMCfuH013700@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <3E6FA134.6050907@americasm01.nt.com> <200303122212.h2CMCfuH013700@calcite.rhyolite.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_1539445436P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:18:21 -0500 --==_Exmh_1539445436P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 15:12:41 MST, Vernon Schryver said: > > We don't see a lot of that on our spamtrap actually. What we see > > _vastly_ more of is "HELO/MAIL FROM/QUIT" same "MAIL FROM" all the time. > > God knows why they're doing that. > > What's wrong with the obvious explanation, that they're validating > target lists? The (equivalents to) VRFYs in my logs tend to be for HELO MAIL FROM QUIT No RCPT TO. I've seen a few myself, and no idea why either. --==_Exmh_1539445436P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+b7IscC3lWbTT17ARAighAJ9rT6F+wvky0DBie4foRe5zniWeTACeOWF+ ItpTf7q24ynIMNV7F3032ZY= =6UA4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_1539445436P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 17:32:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA25954 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:32:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2CMkgj22324 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:46:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CMkgO22321 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:46:42 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA25937 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:32:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CMZ3O21152; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:35:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CMYxO21126 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:34:59 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA25546 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:20:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from video.attbi.com (12-235-20-211.client.attbi.com[12.235.20.211]) by rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (rwcrmhc51) with SMTP id <2003031222222805100iqdu4e>; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 22:22:28 +0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030312142256.048fca48@mail.attbi.com> X-Sender: schear@mail.attbi.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" From: Steve Schear Subject: RE: [Asrg] Economic model is borken. (sic.) Let's fix it Cc: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:25:18 -0800 At 06:58 PM 3/11/2003 -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >If you want to propose such a scheme I will be happy to tell you which >patents I believe that it infringes. Yes, please do. I'm in the sender-pays camp. Although one can reasonably maintain that spam is a social phenomenon, the economic dimension is one which has heretofore not received attention in deployed systems. steve _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 17:37:18 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA26103 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:37:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2CMpPp22454 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:51:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CMpOO22451 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:51:24 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA26098 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:36:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CMc5O22064; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:38:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CMbmO22028 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:37:48 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA25691 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:23:09 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2CKZ2uS017076; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:35:02 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2CKZ1LC017072; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:35:01 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu cc: Vernon Schryver , Subject: Re: [Asrg] Random thought In-Reply-To: <200303122218.h2CMILMd020202@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:35:01 -0800 (PST) HELO, MAIL FROM, QUIT is how spammers verify if they are blacklisted from that machine, at the same time they also look at SMTP greeting header to see which machine this is. This is also way of cleaning up their list preparing for spamming, they want to make sure they are allowed in and not blacklisted so before major event, they would verify their FROM address and if it is not accepted, use different domain in from for that particular mail server or different ip address as an origin. I suspect the 2nd part (ip address) is more important, they are trying to subdivide large email list among multiple relays and want best-hit ratio. The above is my own conclusion and I'v no real proof of this. But I think this helps to explain what is going on. On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 15:12:41 MST, Vernon Schryver said: > > > > We don't see a lot of that on our spamtrap actually. What we see > > > _vastly_ more of is "HELO/MAIL FROM/QUIT" same "MAIL FROM" all the time. > > > God knows why they're doing that. > > > > What's wrong with the obvious explanation, that they're validating > > target lists? The (equivalents to) VRFYs in my logs tend to be for > > HELO > MAIL FROM > QUIT > > No RCPT TO. > > I've seen a few myself, and no idea why either. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 17:46:07 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA26762 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:46:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2CN0FT22772 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 18:00:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CN0FO22769 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 18:00:15 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA26730 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:45:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CMt4O22587; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:55:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CMsbO22554 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:54:37 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA26258 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:39:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.57] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2CMg3c3021053; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:42:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:42:03 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Vernon Schryver'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] DCC and IP checksums MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:42:02 -0800 [Off list there has been enough noise there already] > If you don't trust sandboxes, then you are crazy to follow the > Microsoft ActiveX fraudulent nonsense of confounding authentication > with authorization. Microsoft employ many people whose credentials in the security world vastly outrank your own. In addition to Roger Needham who recently passed away, Butler Lampson has been working for them for many years. You will not bandy arround terms such as 'fraudulent nonsense' again if you want to be taken seriously as intending to make a constructive contribution to this group. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 17:57:51 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA27270 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:57:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2CNBx624092 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 18:11:59 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CNBxO24089 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 18:11:59 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA27255 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:57:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CN54O23009; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 18:05:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CN4uO22986 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 18:04:57 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA27061 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:50:17 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2CMqMMd020926; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:52:22 -0500 Message-Id: <200303122252.h2CMqMMd020926@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.2 03/12/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'Vernon Schryver'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] DCC and IP checksums In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:42:02 PST." References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_1604699198P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:52:22 -0500 --==_Exmh_1604699198P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:42:02 PST, "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" said: > Microsoft employ many people whose credentials in the security world vastly > outrank your own. In addition to Roger Needham who recently passed away, > Butler Lampson has been working for them for many years. Microsoft also employs bozos who make mistakes. If they *DIDNT* confuse "authentication" with "authorization", please enumerate the options besides "dont run code" and "run code". Is there a "allow this code to access network", or "allow this code to access temp disk space only, no user files", or.... It equates "signed and accepted" with "fully priveleged". --==_Exmh_1604699198P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+b7omcC3lWbTT17ARAnjhAJ46cICSScaZBPG8Bh+aVTaXbgC5CwCgonQp 1OP0S5Ut4WEbkFdHZwOtpII= =dB5Y -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_1604699198P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 18:05:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA27757 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 18:05:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2CNJeH24487 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 18:19:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CNJeO24484 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 18:19:40 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA27703 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 18:05:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CN42O22972; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 18:04:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CN3UO22958 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 18:03:30 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA26987 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:48:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2CMowbk017593 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 15:50:58 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303122250.h2CMowbk017593@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Random thought References: <200303122218.h2CMILMd020202@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 15:50:58 -0700 (MST) > From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu > > > We don't see a lot of that on our spamtrap actually. What we see > > > _vastly_ more of is "HELO/MAIL FROM/QUIT" same "MAIL FROM" all the time. > > > God knows why they're doing that. > > > > What's wrong with the obvious explanation, that they're validating > > target lists? The (equivalents to) VRFYs in my logs tend to be for > > HELO > MAIL FROM > QUIT > > No RCPT TO. > > I've seen a few myself, and no idea why either. Oh, I've seen those mysteries. I thought Chris Lewis's note lacked RCPT_To as a typo. Could those be efforts to check for IP address or sender domain blacklists? They wouldn't work for that if the target does something like the typical sendmail "delay checks" business. I'll raise the betting with complete SMTP transactions that land in my traps with a body consisting of only "QUIT" and not to mailing list control addresses but to dictionary attack names such as black@calcite.rhyolite.com. They're not common enough to be ordinary VRFY efforts. Then there are the relay attempts that consist entrely of Hipcrime style word lists. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 18:21:12 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA29381 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 18:21:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2CNZLr25519 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 18:35:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CNZKO25516 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 18:35:20 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA29371 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 18:20:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CNSJO24840; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 18:28:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CNEEO24286 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 18:14:14 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA27413 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:59:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.57] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2CN1fc3026359; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 15:01:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 15:01:41 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu'" , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'Vernon Schryver'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] DCC and IP checksums MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 15:01:39 -0800 I was hoping that we could avoid further rants on this topic. Security is about risk control, not risk elimination. It is certainly not the result of blind implementation of dogma. The Authentication/Authorization distinction is a decomposition of the problem that has value in certain circumstances but certainly not all. The design of the code signing services was to ensure that code obtained through the web was at least as trustworthy as code bought in a shrinkwrap box in a store. It was not to eliminate all possible risks. If you want to see an example of an environment that does provide the degree of control you seek look at .NET. However we do not need that degree of flexibility to solve our problem here. The perfect is the enemy of the good. The ideological is the enemy of everything. Phill > -----Original Message----- > From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu [mailto:Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 5:52 PM > To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip > Cc: 'Vernon Schryver'; asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] DCC and IP checksums > > > On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:42:02 PST, "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" > said: > > > Microsoft employ many people whose credentials in the > security world vastly > > outrank your own. In addition to Roger Needham who recently > passed away, > > Butler Lampson has been working for them for many years. > > Microsoft also employs bozos who make mistakes. > > If they *DIDNT* confuse "authentication" with > "authorization", please enumerate > the options besides "dont run code" and "run code". Is there > a "allow this > code to access network", or "allow this code to access temp > disk space only, no > user files", or.... > > It equates "signed and accepted" with "fully priveleged". > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 18:22:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA29466 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 18:22:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2CNanc25603 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 18:36:49 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CNanO25600 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 18:36:49 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA29433 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 18:22:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CNSsO24889; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 18:28:54 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CNEFO24294 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 18:14:15 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA27415 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:59:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2CN1hT9018369 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:01:43 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303122301.h2CN1hT9018369@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] DCC and IP checksums References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:01:43 -0700 (MST) > From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" > [Off list there has been enough noise there already] I'm think I'm going to be able to overcome the temptation to forward your note to the list, but it's going to be a close thing. I consider veiled threats as deserving of and expecting no privacy. I don't think much more of private flames. > > If you don't trust sandboxes, then you are crazy to follow the > > Microsoft ActiveX fraudulent nonsense of confounding authentication > > with authorization. > > Microsoft employ many people whose credentials in the security world vastly > outrank your own. In addition to Roger Needham who recently passed away, > Butler Lampson has been working for them for many years. My respect for Butler Lampson and Roger Needham is such that your attempt to lay Microsoft's ActiveX fraud at their feet is deeply offensive. Sheesh!--even Microsoft has stop flogging the ActiveX authentication is the same as authorization fraud....yes, "fraud" is the right word. > You will not bandy arround terms such as 'fraudulent nonsense' again if you > want to be taken seriously as intending to make a constructive contribution > to this group. You could stop bandying around fraudulent nonsense so that I wouldn't feel compelled to point it out. Please do not send any more private mail to me. Our views of the nature and importance of truth and honesty are evidently incompatible. vjs _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 18:44:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA00266 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 18:44:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2CNwoX27329 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 18:58:50 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CNwoO27326 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 18:58:50 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA00231 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 18:44:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CNm5O26908; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 18:48:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CNlcO26869 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 18:47:38 -0500 Received: from backbone.midwestcs.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA29833 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 18:32:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from footbone.midwestcs.com ([206.222.212.237] helo=midwestcs.com) by backbone.midwestcs.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18tFkP-0007FY-00 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:34:57 -0600 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Random thought References: <200303121725.h2CHPkC5001367@qadgop.stewart.org> <3E6FA134.6050907@americasm01.nt.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: wayne In-Reply-To: <3E6FA134.6050907@americasm01.nt.com> Message-ID: Lines: 30 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanner: exiscan *18tFkP-0007FY-00*jh24V4Jolbo* () Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 12 Mar 2003 17:34:56 -0600 In <3E6FA134.6050907@americasm01.nt.com> "Chris Lewis" writes: > wayne wrote: > > > If you silently accept email with invalid recipients, you may well end > > up in the same position as Alan DeKok. > > Slight correction. Striker never did that AFAIK. Slight correction. I never said that Striker did, just that you could end up in the same position. > Multiple "RCPT TO" then "QUIT" is the same as VRFY. I'm sure I'm showing my ignorance here, but then, I tend to stay away from all DJB projects. However, it was my understanding that qmail didn't do much validation on the RCPT TO, the validation would come much later. Anyway, my points were that reporting errors was important because you want false positives to be reported and it doesn't hurt the spammer much by not reporting errors. Also, validating early is better because you waste less bandwidth, and you can force the sending MTA to do the bounce. -wayne _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 19:44:16 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA01591 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 19:44:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2D0wRK31007 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 19:58:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D0wRO31004 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 19:58:27 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA01580 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 19:43:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D0q3O30813; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 19:52:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D0pSO30793 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 19:51:28 -0500 Received: from backbone.midwestcs.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA01492 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 19:36:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from footbone.midwestcs.com ([206.222.212.237] helo=midwestcs.com) by backbone.midwestcs.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18tGkC-0007bg-00; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 18:38:48 -0600 To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'Vernon Schryver'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] DCC and IP checksums References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: wayne In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lines: 15 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanner: exiscan *18tGkC-0007bg-00*/yRQlVMTetA* () Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 12 Mar 2003 18:38:46 -0600 In "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" writes: > To: "'Vernon Schryver'" , asrg@ietf.org ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > [Off list there has been enough noise there already] I would say that it is too late to put this particular cat back in the bag, but I do agree about the noise level.... -wayne _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 19:44:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA01604 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 19:44:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2D0wmH31043 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 19:58:48 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D0wmO31040 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 19:58:48 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA01586 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 19:44:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D0iHO30571; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 19:44:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D0h3O30541 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 19:43:03 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA01367 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 19:28:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2D0USFc002246 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:30:28 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303130030.h2D0USFc002246@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] DCC and IP checksums References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:30:28 -0700 (MST) > From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" > ... > The design of the code signing services was to ensure that code > obtained through the web was at least as trustworthy as code bought > in a shrinkwrap box in a store. It was not to eliminate all possible > risks. > ... Requiring that the signature on the new version of the code match the signature on the original from the shrinkwrap box would be a significant and radical improvement on the ActiveX model and what I understood Phillip Hallam-Baker to be proposing. As I understand ActiveX, esssentially any code signed by any vendor recognized by Microsoft and marked "safe" by the vendor is allowed free reign to do whatever it wants. However, I don't see how to allow Vendor X to change only bits that have been previously signed by Vendor X except with something that sounds like special case of "sandbox." Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com P.S. I would like to apologize to the list about my previous message. I didn't realize I was replying to a message from the list until after I'd hit the switch. P.P.S. "Fraud" is too strong for ActiveX if you cannot conceive of any network except a centrally controlled corporate net where there are are very few naive over-the-wire security threats and where whatever the central controllers want to do to other systems is kosher. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has asked/warned users equuivalents of "this virus will aid the maintenance of your system" before Microsoft had heard of IP or thought of ActiveX or auto-update. Hooks to add and remove cron scripts and other things can ease a lot of transitions and deployment hassles. Outside controlled corporate networks such things are worse than frauds. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 20:00:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA02034 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 20:00:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2D1Ehm32446 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 20:14:43 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D1EgO32443 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 20:14:42 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA01964 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 20:00:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D0w3O30982; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 19:58:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D0vtO30967 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 19:57:55 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA01573 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 19:43:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2D0jLUS004009 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:45:21 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303130045.h2D0jLUS004009@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Random thought References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:45:21 -0700 (MST) > From: wayne > ... However, it was my understanding that qmail > didn't do much validation on the RCPT TO, the validation would come > much later. Also in common sendmail configurations, such as when you want to excempt some recipients such as postmaster from access_DB filters. See http://www.google.com/search?q=sendmail+delay+checks > Anyway, my points were that reporting errors was important because you > want false positives to be reported and it doesn't hurt the spammer > much by not reporting errors. Also, validating early is better > because you waste less bandwidth, and you can force the sending MTA to > do the bounce. If the sending MTA is standards compliant, you can force it to do the bounce provided you say 5yz at any time in the transaction including the very last bits of the transaction. If you count bits including the DNS lookups for the IP address, HELO value, Mail_From domain name, and Rctp_To domain names, any IDENT checks, and DNS blacklists, you often find that the bandwidth required to process that DATA command and receive the body is less than half of the total. Stopping before the DATA command is often not much of a bandwidth savings except for worms and legitimate mail, and you can't stop the first before the DATA command and don't want to stop at all for the second. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 20:05:07 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA02165 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 20:05:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2D1JJ732654 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 20:19:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D1JJO32651 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 20:19:19 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA02159 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 20:04:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D1A4O32299; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 20:10:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D19vO32271 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 20:09:57 -0500 Received: from newsguy.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA01882 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 19:55:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from tg-laptop.nhbteam.com (user107.net384.nc.sprint-hsd.net [65.40.69.107]) by newsguy.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id QAA70542 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:57:23 -0800 (PST) From: Ted Gavin To: Subject: Re: [Asrg] spammers and telemarketers Organization: Institute for the Very, Very Nervous Reply-To: tedgavin@newsguy.com Message-ID: References: <005801c2e8e0$088a60c0$0980bbd0@kit> In-Reply-To: <005801c2e8e0$088a60c0$0980bbd0@kit> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h2D19wO32272 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 19:57:06 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:40:41 -0800, "Jed Margolin" wrote: >Many people have different definitions of spam. Since spammers seem to be >the Internet manifestation (or infestation) of telemarketing While I understand the premise, I feel the need to point out the dangerous flaw in that statement. Spammers are not like telemarketers. They're not even close in terms of practical impact. In telemarketing, the cost of the marketing effort is borne by the marketer. The recipient bears only the inconvenience and the soft costs (time, lost opportunity, etc...). With spam, the marketer bears nearly zero cost, while the recipients (and the interim networks) bear the majority of the cost. In fact, since the spammer generally only experiences fixed costs and little-to-no variable costs (which is also entirely unlike a telemarketing operation which is opposite that), the more messages a spammer sends, the closer their cost per message gets to zero. Ted _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 20:06:53 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA02197 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 20:06:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2D1L5V32749 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 20:21:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D1L5O32746 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 20:21:05 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA02192 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 20:06:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D1F3O32487; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 20:15:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D1EkO32461 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 20:14:46 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA01977 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 20:00:03 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2CNC3uS019151; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 15:12:03 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2CNC3VB019147; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 15:12:03 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: Vernon Schryver cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Random thought In-Reply-To: <200303130045.h2D0jLUS004009@calcite.rhyolite.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 15:12:03 -0800 (PST) Based on my tests less then half of mail servers will accept 500 error after data command (those are mostly the ones that support limits on size of emails - SIZE ESMTP extension I believe). The trick that has been used is to issue RSET command to reset the session to beginning (which is more widely accepted) even at DATA and then bounce with 500 or to simply disconnect (before end of transmission, which would cause calling email server to try again). But that you can't easily bounce email and filter during DATA transmission is very unfortunate and puts many email filters in the position of returning unwanted email (to FROM command, which is often invalid and thus wasting servers resources) instead of bouncing it at the transmission. My review of solutions shows that most would require additions to SMTP such that email server can not make a decision after RCPT and TO command and only can do it either after all headers are received or after main body of email is received. What I really would like is ability for receiving mail server to get data or parts of it (particular header, mime structure of the email, particular mime object) out of band before making final decision on accepting or rejecting entire email. Also I do not agree that DATA is < 1/2 of the amount of transmission for each email. It is true for all those small emails we often sent to each other (which almost all are not spam) but for larger emails that have larger chance of being spam or virus, DATA portion takes well over 75% of total packet count. On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > From: wayne > > > ... However, it was my understanding that qmail > > didn't do much validation on the RCPT TO, the validation would come > > much later. > > Also in common sendmail configurations, such as when you want to > excempt some recipients such as postmaster from access_DB filters. > See http://www.google.com/search?q=sendmail+delay+checks > > > > Anyway, my points were that reporting errors was important because you > > want false positives to be reported and it doesn't hurt the spammer > > much by not reporting errors. Also, validating early is better > > because you waste less bandwidth, and you can force the sending MTA to > > do the bounce. > > If the sending MTA is standards compliant, you can force it to do the > bounce provided you say 5yz at any time in the transaction including > the very last bits of the transaction. > > If you count bits including the DNS lookups for the IP address, HELO > value, Mail_From domain name, and Rctp_To domain names, any IDENT > checks, and DNS blacklists, you often find that the bandwidth required > to process that DATA command and receive the body is less than half > of the total. Stopping before the DATA command is often not much of > a bandwidth savings except for worms and legitimate mail, and you can't > stop the first before the DATA command and don't want to stop at all > for the second. > > > Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 20:48:26 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA03412 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 20:48:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2D22dc02685 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:02:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D22dO02682 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:02:39 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA03396 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 20:47:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D1qGO02387; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 20:52:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D1pMO02357 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 20:51:22 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA03192 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 20:36:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2D1cgBD010421; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 20:38:42 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] DCC and IP checksums In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 20:38:42 -0500 (EST) On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > I don't trust sandboxes either. > But I do trust signed code that has been thoroughly reviewed. I do not, necessarily. Signed code is not really more secure than unsigned code, because it only takes one piece of buggy signed code to open up an exploit. The problem with PKI is that revocation is not very scalable or reliable, so old, buggy signed code continues to do damage for a long time. > We would be talking about a few hundred lines of code here, > not tens of thousands. Nevertheless, I would still not trust it, and I doubt many other administrators would either. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 20:56:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA03614 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 20:56:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2D2Ark03896 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:10:53 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D2ArO03893 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:10:53 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA03595 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 20:56:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D233O02723; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:03:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D22kO02700 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:02:46 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA03400 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 20:48:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (h005018086b3b.ne.client2.attbi.com[66.31.45.164]) by rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (rwcrmhc52) with SMTP id <2003031301501105200e5855e>; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 01:50:11 +0000 X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas Subject: Re: [Asrg] Lets Fix Mailing Lists Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: mathew In-Reply-To: <200303100416.h2A4GOd4027447@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to . X-Image-Url: http://meta.ATH0.com/photos/MailPictures/meta@pobox.com Message-Id: <1FC989AD-54F6-11D7-9AC1-00039380F1B6@pobox.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 20:50:10 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sunday, Mar 9, 2003, at 23:16 US/Eastern, Vernon Schryver wrote: > However, I refuse to jump through hoops. If, as was the case tonight, > you send me a message, I respond, and your computer responds with a > demand that I jump through its hoop to prove I'm not a spam robot, I > will silently refuse. If you don't want my mail, it would be wrong > for me to whine, beg or jump through hoops. Same here. Also, the same goes for people who post questions on Usenet with broken reply-to addresses. If I notice, I don't even start to answer the question for them. (No, I am not going to edit an e-mail address by hand for the privilege of being allowed to e-mail you.) > Fine, but "forged" is wrong. In English "forgery" means "an act of > forging; especially the crime of falsely and fraudulently making or > altering a document (as a check)" (See http://www.m-w.com/ ) > It is wrong to say all 96.6% of those correspondents are guilty of > "falsely and fraudulently making or altering" SMTP headers. Almost every piece of spam has at least one false Received: header, deliberately altering the correct path information to fraudulently suggest that the mail came from somewhere other than its actual origin. How is this even debatable? If you don't believe it, sign up for SpamCop, and see what proportion of spam you report produces a "false Received: header" message in the traceback report. mathew -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 21:01:50 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA03747 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:01:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2D2G3404072 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:16:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D2G3O04069 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:16:03 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA03741 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:01:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D2A3O03862; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:10:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D29sO03839 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:09:54 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA03586 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 20:55:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2D1vJBD010543 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 20:57:19 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20030312232853.24814.78042.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> Message-ID: References: <20030312232853.24814.78042.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Asrg] Code signing (was Re: DCC and IP checksums) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 20:57:19 -0500 (EST) From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" > The design of the code signing services was to ensure that code > obtained through the web was at least as trustworthy as code bought > in a shrinkwrap box in a store. That's nice. I do not use shrinkwrap Microsoft code on any computer I run, because I don't trust it any more than I'd trust the handful of .exe's from random people that my mail filter blocks each day. > It was not to eliminate all possible risks. Adding mobile code to SMTP servers or MUA's opens up a vast new area of insecurity and potential exploits. In 1980, who would ever have dreamed that e-mail viruses could exist? E-mail was just a chunk of text sent from point A to point B. Sorry, but anyone proposing mobile code on the uncontrolled Internet either has an incredible amount of hubris, or has failed to learn from history. I would actually support signed mobile code on one condition: The authority that signs the code must agree to compensate everyone for any loss caused by the signed code, or by an exploit of a weakness in the signed code, for a period of 20 years from when the code is signed. Under these conditions, I doubt anyone would sign any code. :-) -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 21:13:54 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA03922 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:13:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2D2S7S04458 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:28:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D2S7O04455 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:28:07 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA03895 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:13:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D2N5O04338; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:23:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D2MIO04309 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:22:18 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA03819 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:07:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (h005018086b3b.ne.client2.attbi.com[66.31.45.164]) by rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (rwcrmhc53) with SMTP id <20030313020942053001v8lae>; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 02:09:42 +0000 X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas Subject: Re: [Asrg] Several Observations and a solution that addresses them all Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: mathew In-Reply-To: To: asrg@ietf.org X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to . X-Image-Url: http://meta.ATH0.com/photos/MailPictures/meta@pobox.com Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:09:41 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I came up with a possible spam solution that had quite a bit in common with Jason Hihn's proposal. Of course, I think mine's better in some important respects, but I would, wouldn't I? :-) However, I'm not going to write it up, because it has the same problem as Jason's: there's no clear route from here to there. It requires e-mail to be sent via a fundamentally different protocol, rather than SMTP. There's no gain for early adopters, just expense and a limited audience. It strikes me that there might be a way to get such a thing rolled out, however. Just don't call it e-mail. For years now, we've been waiting for a unifying instant messaging and presence system. What if one was built, and it also had "delayed instant messages", which used this new e-m**l protocol that was spam-resistant? Initially people would use the new system as their IM system; since there's not much good competition in IM, it wouldn't be impossible to give early adopters a clear gain. People are used to running IM alongside their existing e-mail client. Then as time went on, they'd start using the unified IM system for the messages currently sent by e-mail... If we got assistance from the big boys (like AOL), we could get interoperability with the current IM systems. That would be a massive gain that would drive rapid adoption. mathew -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 21:22:46 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA04126 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:22:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2D2b0e04963 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:37:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D2b0O04960 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:37:00 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA04112 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:22:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D2U3O04647; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:30:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D2TWO04585 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:29:32 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA03948 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:14:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (h005018086b3b.ne.client2.attbi.com[66.31.45.164]) by rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (rwcrmhc53) with SMTP id <2003031302165605300suph7e>; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 02:16:56 +0000 X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas Subject: Re: [Asrg] Proposal .... Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: mathew In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030312104018.03cff630@mail.lextek.com> To: asrg@ietf.org X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to . X-Image-Url: http://meta.ATH0.com/photos/MailPictures/meta@pobox.com Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:16:55 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wednesday, Mar 12, 2003, at 13:32 US/Eastern, Art Pollard wrote: > I recently made a proposal over at slashdot which seemed to garner a > fair amount of support. [details deleted] That's basically the idea I had, which I alluded to in a previous message. As I say, the problem is how we get from here to there... I think it would need to replace SMTP, not be layered on top of it. > 2) The system administrator on the other end will have time to > "cancel" the message before it arrives at most of the recipients > mailboxes. (i.e., the sysadmin looks and George has 20,000,000 > messages in the outbox waiting to be picked up. The sysadmin looks at > the messages, sees they are spam, then he nukes them.) And the asshat system administrators who leave their systems as open relays will get a "slashdot effect" of spam, as 100,000 spam victims call to collect the sales pitch, saturating the open relay machine's network connection and maybe even taking it down. Chances are, most of the victims' machines will be unable to get through, and so the spam won't appear to those people. This solves the fundamental problem of SMTP, which is that the cost of having an open relay isn't borne by the idiot who has it. Blacklists have attempted to shift the cost onto the enabler, but by changing the protocol, you make it inherent that the enabler pays the network cost. > 3) If the messages are nuked before they are picked up, the message > header is simply thrown away by the mail client or written to a log or > put in a special mailbox or ... in either case, it is totally > transparent to the end user and the end user never even knows they > have been spammed. Yeah. My idea was to have the user client throw out messages if it couldn't collect them after a certain time period. Basically, you change e-mail from push to pull; your e-mail client becomes somewhat like an RSS feed reader. mathew -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 21:30:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA04492 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:30:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2D2ip106211 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:44:51 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D2ipO06208 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:44:51 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA04474 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:30:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D2b3O05059; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:37:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D2aEO04940 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:36:14 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA04097 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:21:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc02.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2D2Ncc3000207; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 18:23:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 18:23:37 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Vernon Schryver'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] DCC and IP checksums MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 18:23:36 -0800 > > [Off list there has been enough noise there already] > > I'm think I'm going to be able to overcome the temptation to forward > your note to the list, but it's going to be a close thing. I consider > veiled threats as deserving of and expecting no privacy. I don't > think much more of private flames. I made no threats, your claims that I did only further discredit you. Arguing with you is like fighting with a chimney sweep, one inevitably ends up getting soiled in the process. For the record, the value in separating authentication and authorization is uniquely a function of an environment where there is a great variation in the rights which individuals may hold. In environments where there is no such variation in rights there is not an intrinsic value in authentication as a distinct step. If you can't learn to moderate your language could you possibly try to understand that just because people don't observe the limitations the litterature may contain does not make them ignorant or 'frauds'. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 21:36:19 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA04583 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:36:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2D2oXY06426 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:50:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D2oXO06423 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:50:33 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA04575 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:35:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D2Y5O04819; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:34:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D2XKO04789 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:33:20 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA04051 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:18:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (h005018086b3b.ne.client2.attbi.com[66.31.45.164]) by rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (rwcrmhc53) with SMTP id <20030313022044053000d8t4e>; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 02:20:44 +0000 X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas Subject: Re: [Asrg] Proposal .... Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: mathew In-Reply-To: To: asrg@ietf.org X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to . X-Image-Url: http://meta.ATH0.com/photos/MailPictures/meta@pobox.com Message-Id: <647E47C6-54FA-11D7-9AC1-00039380F1B6@pobox.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:20:43 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wednesday, Mar 12, 2003, at 14:36 US/Eastern, Jason Hihn wrote: > Imagine the server you are picking up from isn't honest. It's a > spammers > server. They now know the email they sent to was valid. Congrats, > you've just verified your email, and that is worth double on the spam > market. ...assuming the current spam market and current infrastructure. Knowing a million people's e-mail addresses is worth zip if you can't deliver spam to them without the sending machine's network connection being wiped out, sysadmins alerted, and the sending machine either cleared of spam or firewalled by an upstream ISP. Besides, my e-mail address has been the same for ten years. It's "verified" a thousand times over. That's what makes it useful. The apparent need to keep your e-mail address secret is one of the problems of spam we should be trying to solve. mathew _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 21:43:47 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA04742 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:43:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2D2w2G06644 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:58:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D2w2O06641 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:58:02 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA04739 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:43:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D2q7O06505; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:52:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D2pbO06475 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:51:37 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA04599 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:36:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2102655; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:39:03 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3e6f8c7e.174b.548963947@centipaid.com> References: <3e6f8c7e.174b.548963947@centipaid.com> To: ietf@centipaid.com From: Kee Hinckley Subject: RE: [Asrg] AMDP Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:25:03 -0500 At 7:37 PM +0000 3/12/03, ietf@centipaid.com wrote: >I had to think a little about your previous comment that URL >could not support attachment, and I think a good transtional >MHF solutions will include a similar interface to what we >see >today in web emails so all the attachment will be accesible >and >can be downloaded. I would recommend just sending the whole body. Otherwise you've completely destroyed my filing system by not sending me the content of the message. I'll end up cut and pasting the message from the web site and mailing it to myself (and sending you a nasty response). > > For instance, I know a very large insurance company that >> requires special permission for their employees to use >> the web. Mail sent from your system to theirs (until >> they move to your system) will be unreadable by those >> employees. > >There will be a transition and you can always find a >solution >regardless of the issue. If it does not work for them then >it >will not becuase of their business rules, and not becuase of >the >technology. They can always adapt, add filters, gateways, >etc.. >if they feel that it benefits them. But you've given them no choice in the matter. They are running SMTP. You're sending via your new system that sends them a link. As a result, you can no longer communicate with your insurance company. Now which is going to happen? They are going to change their security system to to accommodate a few early adopters? They are going to implement a brand new system that may never take off? Or they are going to tell you to go back to using SMTP if you want to communicate with them? >I did not mean that they will use AMDP, but if I have AMDP >installed and they receive a response saying that it costs >them 0.002 to email us, since they are not using AMDP, then >they will pay the 0.002 to get business done. It all depends on leverage. If you are one customer, and they have a hundred more who use SMTP, then they are going to tell you to take a hike. >I saw you post on X.400, and I am sorry that it did not make >it, but you can not base eveythring you see on previous I'm not. X.400 was a horrendous idea. Massively centralized, and based on the assumption that email would be run by government organizations like the post office. The addressing mechanism was unusable without a global directory service, and addresses were completely non portable. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 22:18:16 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA05373 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 22:18:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2D3WVR08536 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 22:32:31 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D3WVO08533 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 22:32:31 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA05363 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 22:17:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D3ODO08112; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 22:24:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D3N4O08088 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 22:23:04 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA05097 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 22:08:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2102737 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 22:10:30 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: ASRG From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Random thought Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:57:42 -0500 At 11:41 AM -0500 3/12/03, Jason Hihn wrote: >What if we assigned a bucket in the email address? > >joe[spam]@paytimepayroll.com I've been doing this for about a year. (Using myaddr+domain@example.com, which is supported by many MTAs). It turns out that it starts to be a pain to manage. Companies change names, domains change. You start to have addresses registered at sites where you aren't sure which token you used. Never mind that you get the sites that don't let you type in a + in the address (or like drugstore.com, which just made it impossible for me to access my email account because they added that restriction *after* I had registered--not to worry they said, they'll fix it in 3-5 weeks.). But it hasn't had any impact on my spam. Why? Because legitimate sites don't sell your email address. And I don't give my address to non-legit sites. Most of my spam comes from postings to mailing lists and other things that put my address on the web. Giving each of those a different address would a) result in a lot of spam, b) make it hard to send mail to a mailing list and c) would (if I blocked them once I started getting spam) make it difficult for legit folks to get in touch with me. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 22:18:18 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA05386 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 22:18:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2D3WXo08553 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 22:32:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D3WXO08550 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 22:32:33 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA05367 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 22:17:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D3R2O08358; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 22:27:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D3QjO08293 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 22:26:45 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA05204 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 22:11:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc01.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53] (may be forged)) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2D3BcfK006363; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 19:11:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 19:13:54 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Fred Baker'" , Asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] note to the chair MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 19:13:45 -0800 Well I just tried to post a research paper on spam and it got bounced as 80K of research is considered too much it appears. I will forward the paper to anyone who asks. It is in pdf. I am dyslexic so I can't read the plaintext RFC format and I don't see why I should force anyone else to read monospaced fonts. Phill > -----Original Message----- > From: Fred Baker [mailto:fred@cisco.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 5:25 PM > To: Asrg@ietf.org > Cc: Asrg@ietf.org > Subject: [Asrg] note to the chair > > > I would urge you to separate this list into two: > > asrg-research@ietf.org > asrg-rant@ietf.org > > I find it a heck of a lot to wade through to find the research. > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 22:27:00 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA05661 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 22:27:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2D3fFj09597 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 22:41:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D3fFO09593 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 22:41:15 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA05656 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 22:26:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D3a3O08684; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 22:36:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D3ZGO08647 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 22:35:16 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA05420 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 22:20:29 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2D1WLuS021357; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:32:21 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2D1WLVw021353; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:32:21 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" cc: "'Fred Baker'" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] note to the chair In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:32:21 -0800 (PST) Better if you just put the paper on some website and post URL to the list. On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > Well I just tried to post a research paper on spam and it got bounced as 80K > of research is considered too much it appears. > > I will forward the paper to anyone who asks. It is in pdf. I am dyslexic so > I can't read the plaintext RFC format and I don't see why I should force > anyone else to read monospaced fonts. > > Phill > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Fred Baker [mailto:fred@cisco.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 5:25 PM > > To: Asrg@ietf.org > > Cc: Asrg@ietf.org > > Subject: [Asrg] note to the chair > > > > > > I would urge you to separate this list into two: > > > > asrg-research@ietf.org > > asrg-rant@ietf.org > > > > I find it a heck of a lot to wade through to find the research. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Asrg mailing list > > Asrg@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 22:58:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA06635 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 22:58:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2D4CWx11399 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:12:32 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D4CVO11396 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:12:31 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA06618 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 22:57:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D45DO10340; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:05:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D448O10281 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:04:08 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA06335 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 22:49:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc02.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2D3owc3020003; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 19:50:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 19:50:57 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'william@elan.net'" , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'Fred Baker'" , Asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] note to the chair MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 19:50:57 -0800 I was hoping for some constructive comment from the list before posting it somewhere that is slashdotable. Phill > -----Original Message----- > From: william@elan.net [mailto:william@elan.net] > Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 8:32 PM > To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip > Cc: 'Fred Baker'; Asrg@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Asrg] note to the chair > > > Better if you just put the paper on some website and post URL > to the list. > > On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > > > Well I just tried to post a research paper on spam and it > got bounced as 80K > > of research is considered too much it appears. > > > > I will forward the paper to anyone who asks. It is in pdf. > I am dyslexic so > > I can't read the plaintext RFC format and I don't see why I > should force > > anyone else to read monospaced fonts. > > > > Phill > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Fred Baker [mailto:fred@cisco.com] > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 5:25 PM > > > To: Asrg@ietf.org > > > Cc: Asrg@ietf.org > > > Subject: [Asrg] note to the chair > > > > > > > > > I would urge you to separate this list into two: > > > > > > asrg-research@ietf.org > > > asrg-rant@ietf.org > > > > > > I find it a heck of a lot to wade through to find the research. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Asrg mailing list > > > Asrg@ietf.org > > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Asrg mailing list > > Asrg@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 23:02:02 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA06706 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:02:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2D4GHW11501 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:16:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D4GGO11498 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:16:17 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA06703 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:01:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D481O11202; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:08:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D47BO10701 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:07:11 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA06435 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 22:52:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc02.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2D3sYc3020398 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 19:54:34 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 19:54:33 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'Asrg@ietf.org'" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----_=_NextPart_000_01C2E914.415BD3F0" Subject: [Asrg] Position paper, in zipped HTML Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 19:54:32 -0800 This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_000_01C2E914.415BD3F0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Where there is a geek, there is a way. Here is the position paper in gziped HTML, so you don't even have to mess with pdf. I really wish we had put a packed encoding into the html spec, it was one of the major oversights. Phill ------_=_NextPart_000_01C2E914.415BD3F0 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="nospam2.zip" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="nospam2.zip" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 UEsDBBQAAAAIAHy2bC7ovBaMGmQAAIlqAQALAAAAbm9zcGFtMi5odG3sXHtz20aS//tUxe8w4dau 71IGiQcJkrDEiiRLiXdtryLZcdXFqdQQGJITARgEA5DmXt2HuMcHvu7BAAQfejHmRvEpjkhint2/ fkz3YIDDaRaF5FMUxtKbHTXzNPakP2URlUbE/VRIMc4MX0TeLAqbjYOiobitoRiPuc/0V9Vlfo8u c5EGVYcggx45D7xT+7xjmZZpuN0Tx7CswDKO7cG5YZrHx6Z5anX6fbvsddScZlnitdvz+bw1d1oi nbTfXbYvz04N5LNjNoeNg8bB4ZTRAH4dRiyjBLsY7Necz45ORZyxODPeLRJG/OLiqJmxT1kb+78g /pSmkmVHcx4HYi4Ny+7azWqkmEbs6CIVk1dB1fsDMNV6Kfw8gqvVlt+ymKU0E+lyqjclLgT7kcHa 2H9P+YTH9+gS8viapCw8OuchM15zmZFpysZHzVY7FjKhkf3zGGpkGz9DqG4BfqpnxrOQDY/JRUhj MoaJ3gpydXH85rBd1ECTrwzjRz4mk4yRSAoy+Gl4CL2hhhwKr2QVYEhYmnEmsQJrjvNsKtLhxZSH IU/IdzQMaWSc0GuWHrarat34NZXZHR1qTXSnSzbjkot4aGN9daVr34mMhu94xIYdp48NlgW1SS9S DsAGQ9s0HQP+t+x31sDrdj3T/Pdy1rKN7naaMrrSxXlnOl7XKruU9bVZrujslg7LFrrLBZ0AjpZi q/itK1Dkcti3+l2sKq5KqkBVqZ+xVA47rtsdKEqWZWUrESU0Xgy/FSmgTCV5Ffst1VRXlETzGGZ1 +gq44qKiLaWTlCZTORw4BYFVwQYpH3g2vUqoD927Pcc0V4mq1eqeP0ApinDQ6nRMxX5ZgtrWvknd cM5cZiK6WRt/Pg6+Ez7qCJufLvyQvXpJgky5nXEoaNYcdnrdjmtZAwvn2dK8Guksojy8yke/MD8r x5AZ6MikOdTW1gqEr4apt12SorRYVa33T6ZK67+hWTbiLXCWBTHLDtsGecllEtLFW3AZ6+MpY1of o9a+xPUW+A7baO2HX/3I4oCPfzKM4W0eYa60suYACZYp7cr4iIc8K3QMS8+FyGKRsdd0IfLsNb9m Hz7021X11ZQmN9Udh3wSv6Mj8GmXYn6ygI92bdx0wjK0KmihWiIty/pizEs6VwN84EE2Xa9UNTCo PE5oqrsetrcwgoVrHG8CBmUyW1TeFLq1vybn4NHJSzbmMc9AwyX5ut04+GYMpcYYbKJx8C//oS8i Hi5g5jzlLH0B5WCoQjID/AfZ+If1IBNDddXLl1eVTnAJ4r5RHzgSAUvjlX6wDkQ080Q2LSasKhKe +VNvzD+xYKVcAsY0y1PmOZoQC0j5z9v4+QD6GcCfXOGoe0+O7Ns4onkmtpA9oylHsd5AuUlst99x up2uqyY2bKvT6/Qdt9O/i5d3dCoiusKITSyLuKRDHNKFzw6xSefhspFzLuXDWel2Hbc36Ay6K0wA G8R1zU7vLnaaxzB6SN7H3AfdIG+umttZs6t/21mz7P4emDMsYjjuwBz0e12HuKhwHcsemLZzJ18f v9nK2SMhHJ3CFbqJDa+QtN5I8RaNMnxOQl6/CvhseYkM48TK2Rh5EkAcsmINRQW4NPBUXrNgnqYQ YxqZSDy3ZSZZrQyizykoKI9rZSORwUKx0TRk42VLmCihKnAFDrw5h9DZECksbapao/IPBjCXo6xI CUM0Sd6yObkEq4qXIgKywacbtzcGIKfWKhAxBPRegdAax0sK7mbZ2Z1lqGLGCKi/NugYIh+PzgSv PCgsNxC/MxhwxkLPWsPI3YaRUuOH4VLXSYioY3C964PPmeJ+JMJAwWj/gWG012DsfD4YN7CqZkKY PA5ZBvcVgM4fGEBnDUBnjwAiVp0/MFad+yjbb/RrN+CmloYykH4HoJULxGqZXibqhQrv39H5m/tx /gqQU5rg9CUW1aWGQV/fV+O+CGhu0B9IV+O6ZlyyMYPooAieZpgE+jQ0KCZRnswhK6x3OouDe/dJ ah3qerpSpOVTK/uStfREBAvk8VUcQDxWArJeqjFZLf7MsLS6RVPc+jS4msEzWnb3kQR01MMNzuek 1LvvFqBUWIQw+CIUqTcKc1ZxEDBfpAWxOTCDTZeVVYknIQaCaF1NgHuHGQu2zHEuwlDMWbCcK8nT JPwNsyU16a1KCkBZShUsKFuJ3lcEuVr7W1R8u9A2MyWltqdwdfaJRgCAUtiVa1TVWkFj1b/SiHlN rCa6vlKE7fnKP9PqCYpIwmQTVm56jKh/PUkFCND702Bwenp+voabVU0F4454wI1a5Va/UdvDeZDj Xp3gdr+CAFeSWYpkiyyw+J8OtDIMOgI6RCI95WJIS3308BMw5Te64G0478njJK0TCmYv4mqpWrlG VGsF2xRdVxOs/70T7f42kJabVg9C5hsMjMkV83FOlWjrKZT4KvkV5HrqGqRqV8LVF+W8eGuOpdq1 VeuQoggiku01CQXXbEgwJp95ausE5VEnCWn0yoJyb0XdFtvYcMW7YSQ0SxHipcEDz7Ccao9RlWWw HoAPj5Ll/k5RzqAI/BZ0kp7R69qd3sDtdxRUemxPZQnVpoS6Mkoj8FbxKCrjPBoBi4mQilQPpb6u BMt+W1bt5ezWFs6sHTizLUCkM3B7/frgd7Fm7saZeQ/G7C2MmQ9nDLnq9V3LrovMvp0v5asezlfV 7Va+nE2+7MEOfNlOz3Ft1zbrY9/B173ZupWDzhYO+g/noON0B13H7dv1obcyoKnUty1GeRiybJUP pNf7eG6e9NbK92qFjVWPe7WIIO2qcdPdAlTv4UAZdtfqWlbHrQ+9P6A+u03fBZO7BSZ3B5jA1K1u 1+27dZNw9wXUHpzEXUD1tgDVfThQttOx+1bXqRteb28w/Rafcxcg/S2A7LBGGH230zWtnlVfI/p3 +NLd/Mn9FvXBJl/WDmtEr+PAwmc69SV9sDdBf35A7hK/tRHWWW6vZ1tmZ4v7mC5G6XKDd4tVwIrq QPjjErfnDvpuf6B/DKzyh7Nb1QrFf0g7szaizI7bcQa2Y+4ANIRxTt82+1Z/r0hvj10fPdIbYe/A hOi1b7m7IO1akKy4fcsuEOqZzoPgvCfSd0XTnyfqtDYCZ8t0uz3Qw12gMayBDRFVv9ffrxZuj8gf vRZuhPhWZ+AMILPsO7tg7ZgmLEPmwNwr1ntLHvaL9UaWYA3A3K2u290SytyNtdvvdmz0zHvFem/5 x36x3kg1bNM1bVj0uzv4kK4NUtq7B9lfArMXpEVxSmllk9MsHHl+c1VxiLJdP0V585l0iQdHAzam eZhJMvOAuqMmC3jWJDLhQUQ/HTVts2s22w8+3qoHD9Uh0ZWhy4O5OH6yOmlAM3rUtNR06rRtbYzh 1tOibf3EAvwciWBBQhpPjs7eGu+vCN6SOsK7XWSmfhY3o4hC5ugZCg8Pq6czGioBPitGCfiM+CGV 8qjcFS3Kp1Z59j8T5G88DMlVQiOYX9cnuteb8ojZ1uP5z8kPLOVXfBLr8+SJHt0eHo9khse9YUj7 piHfTRlJUjEKWUTEmOTxnOJ5e0LjgPA0ZaB8UEAi6EXw/DKeGn3eOPBFFIk4XJDrWMxjQiXeu4sI h++Mphm0QqYkUCZyCc0CNklpwEgG0+WSjfMwZjCiGDcOGA7bAuKhEvqrDWYyV1TNOHShRObpjC2Q vExRy2OfJzQkNIE21J8ySfw8xXN14aJxMGI4O9SFHPhAKpAyfIYjFaHiC3qBGamRAZ+MTRZktCDz KfenOAPURMyf0pjLSDYOIgrV+IhKNOJxMeKSNChNUjZlseQzUAQR5ihgbIOkqpkjFlOf1QRjDYuN cMQIGl0U6N8m9/f3kgrZEIo6LRARmjLgAGoVMKVUSJxzSWMfhUIzAkaHLgU0AAD1r2EyZFzibZQR axykbELTAEmQMMRLFuMdSpDIFag7hzGOs4z614ROKI/BNSJjSrCEx+OUAs65jwcxtRAbB6/QUGIG 82aSheMlPNtVFBpHlYoFwMAMSBmnApgjb0C0C3KxyKZAq7xmGYhR4sgAAWgqHTPozSleVzKuaREI M6MTAdIGhzWlIEbwBWPugwNbAAbXWk4RAb+QBo0DOhIzFD3en0yQnx84tgHNh0/4/zn5HyT0f1vk OASS8omaEFifAnQjxoAqEsEQz0mQAxBAFR5zVyqDJgIu+Bq11Qd4JJaCuSj2YYIciIdB/ut9DJrG fbxpTk5B6Cz1OZ5AVU8Y/HdhPHguRHHq4z30X3OUl0JRUYFMgZefAiVAmVooOE2VfmEJcIm2BSCB ebQISiAodfbXnOIBfOS8FEihQJkyf7BCQDrg0k95hLfHGBoljxUtqJghCyas6jJHvwfmVTkesERs OQOdAfR/EameK2UgLg6jy1bjoA6AVjMJ6sB+zZUTAGIlT/E48PPCZGJg0S9JzFZcHt7AkuiwwBqm yJ+mI69NEYGvwkeBCo2rSN3WpHGgOAO9YeszkQhW7glVzlGkhIUFPnipgITlbgoa1iKnLM0oIgaB DgwIPf1KyJpdNGkaQo8ap1qTUHNpqrrkMfdpcb+tsF+YC2UxE2CyUkFDfV/kILIRDdEXgBeJ2VxC wIIPCZXgRTReEJ9KdLR12hR8NFDHjiTDRzBwIu2ctA+s5AZ8wbIl1YNuF+jki+GrwsbBhaKeJ4pk AihSHw2C+2gP+pgTUMBT5BBBh1bogHOgFcjO5iK9LsZHghsHCzBYCRqGVpipliGQnlVcCVCxgitQ AFDDQNzmho5jAj4fJLCynsiFhLiTzEUeBoX3QKbH6tyKQjupnufxqsHzsIwZajemIdp6pmA9QuNR 4UrI16nY3u/FZty2WqIesCGkZZqmlWQvypDZg7yMFBEsCcfCerE8HaAC3CKIOdOKihoX6pEqG1Dq KA/bIX+UFMdC27Me71GSe4lPxKaKWHD2qR6Lx6DYqOLKi+ASAY6AcVxLiuCC4fEm9CRgYgwWxPSR sXWigib1yBYEyWiGejhQI2RUKoZQIH8kwrdGNeif+CQvTqI9NvUCdqQP7l0tEsW6K/WAKXITEzYe Y2YCzguiwIH5ZxRMFaChSoKrDkSCC+ijMx2JFzTD5D/DeKk09BmmGzxrPTKCiweU0dRhndUj6RCh 1JvDdh7etAi9heSDpSittWWozDyqIHOMp+cwphjTFCKmcx5iFFxkRmXWRNMNTYfgdATVAUkh7WWV hRb2Cgsnhg8rqj8CJwXcjNX4JXEQgnHckeBjWPdAFiroHWMuijTW8kyd/i1X6XpUBJoa4sEo4CJi ZGXBaZHzPEVXqOJXdIdF2DqHaWFyWtID4R5QHqgWEwV94Twh+EfyZjoxYkXYUOVshW/FYA6CGIYK pvMaruIaSPfyVMew0IenRa8JQw2cphjz3xZJvMYjZ8VZcEJzGCDOdJxWF86ISh3igNvBA5GNg1CA NimpSUAJojxgdV1+KqrZ6qQw7EmrpQYFiXsVODnKZHWd0ZGbWlZa5H0M6GR5Ecxr/JZ9MTlUo1bB u16aMB3gkxiUwKc67CriJJ1VIvCgCRCCsiSjigOGQlRDlApdShT9Dwtug/UKLAG1ZhXRDFL5mENi UEc0XSSZUA/OY24xxjWXLsEvBAs0rwi6CiU0uqpQ6LdElLkBjrKcH/W7OCqHWJSqjTiBputNBIkD Q/IB3ko98zuHSPo2Ljf2ScAFSI5wU5KUL5JQ6liZEoKNrEMqAVEv5LUcd6206wBT+lAbRPUEFR+p 7RHm5yr/0h7qxWqOASqkEipkGmQoZeWOyqRHYaS1Q1aT0NILYAYKyK8K7JAPQVMO23yooASE/7Eu yZVdru9zio5msbmfcuOm13GsoCZCvRugtmFzQ2ZNVGLdOIhEzK8LxS7W0ZXUSKmtfjVBhCtSWlpS mSeDg1PHTRsHYJh5kIdMmwXQU8/xdLYc61UKtFAl4TCC2v0AMoqNq9Lg0AKl2nCFCUFsAFpW2zXr D8qdKJ3Gasuu7LXAmYgZalHjwDUN8MXKmXMRkH89xHP51WIJyx149TAw8HC617w8Oyc/X7KxYw6s gdtzyceP0+azoXqIn1i3v64AN2eHZv+leTo4O+4Nzgcnx6dnltU/7dvFK2c6J8cD88SEK/VfX3+/ LL665/AHdW4X/lzTdBz4g3JnAH+W/sbyXvGN/+E7A9S0W3ef28jp8N+22p9+cImoZ2uOcPlAc9Fb v7gJXzx0U1S82HiEDfQcH2J7NjzUL5hp1lFrasBuhfrq7HtSNPv48WtyfHl88uoUoLY02YdtOoRp TpFg5XNLM1PCr8tcy9saGLZF/goTAoh2xXPhikciBVM9siDjhwQ9oT7Y15GprhIaBMXVHN/fcNTt OyXJqsDrOL1WR516JvXjJF1VWAxs4LYUTSTzyh+6wotFzFRQpRvisxZolLB4qDcBIdYQTOnhJR5J VuSohnjIWU1Dql/PlLJl+s01WaCJHlhkVogSQrRV8lsDvIuiyblxaqLnvXFOssXzHI6G+IIPsE+Q zaHwkiHek8DP0bAQAL7rIgvWiLXc/o3UWsWptTvJ1XAqSaxjjIW3AL0jp6e4ty7Sxf35dOzOjXza neKJ0kfI6EuGu53JPWQK3+m+9FGziGnMOttQ9pm5drp//hz6uqS2LjUcrF6oE6/t1Os2xXMcN6Nz bzTury27OoFzSFUAms9iB/8vAXwDOQ7kBH8DHGn8nJxO8QGyIsH5K4WlEC6+WMOzrSfD21Vv9P13 0rEsco4ROHmywV2xfBXPeKZvLkH2hDGnzMrMhYchm+ANx5TGclwkQpAwThgOJvNIJSqQxkB+otLm t3yCt2gP6Uroqx+Lx6NA4yy2nun3Kv7pZ7xqKnyLQBquocZqEvXexKNmc1jE0RXNG0/YFw0UNcsJ ZcIw/VKvIlJvyfNKEp5hmgBpzFcyTzB4K8eTPw1/tH6qUohhFYlXAXmr0K4v1Bn1nnzRrvZzIdJY b0E9OaFdQVy1yrMoyRb4Skwwy7/EI5m8qFlmPS7/Qq3RfbLGXRXpDe6KGq/x7g15Q9Nrhjcgnuzy N8FJ1uD8cpfBJ8PbWVO+z/HY4BsWcB+TuCeT2xXI71g6goj7B44vhH5OTtQrJZ6TCxZzSc5iFX3j Ca0v1wqdJyvcVXlORI5n656sb1cAL9X9N1zkitvA+lTllP8C7g2KW1/uftST1e2qNKcpPqNCLllC efpke7vC+JQE1tF42h7eWZG+pdEofMr7nkzxyRR/b0V6yZNQRPTJEp8s8bNYYv/JFHfVpL/jUckn Q3wMhghfeDZveMuDsmqfB4/Mc3zjMfH1EazqGKA6gyvVw3Pj/6vua5fcuI4s/zOC71CjtcNUBNhi U9+0xI02RdkckxRDTY5mw+HYKACFRolAFVxV6Cb8FuRuzO99w32FzXMy834U0GjKQ41j58dYbAC3 bt2bN29+nDwZAaF1c/vWQlEprHff8q8JNBQ4+oa4wKEtuqrUUuRhue39EfXfq2KhmPyT4v7Xv2Xd IoH5/pBZ23VVv2mbuVZRoxrgskZlnKJpAf4OENmCCNm+uGM5+9u3QtJ+UhyM1k+KzJ/6+KQ48wkV X/52/HQtYTe87XgmrK4ciikWcl73XbXZKigyrYdEPQBLJjGUj23vtZVB+QLFnVGAUwtS7XorntWr VS8z/eq36SC6PNNtjx8AWaxly/L/VxWhwp5exzyH3QaU7yuCtJf1tCbqnFEIwPARkkjrVO2/LHF/ J8lCTgq3f2VCn/42VGqHUr+wkdyot1ONGb0rulHsgwjxndfk1E4FIK8tm2sl6Vxm0CfImdDXZTEA B1jvvMh1Ppexe4M+D9ilWV7oi/IRWcmd16Wvq1LhCNPdpuxjteoiVL8cApEfPklaG4XfpIfoLdXh u+Qc1Qp5YCEV6mFZT6CT2O6Aja9mq4pTDyU1kLtliSJpVqKsttwmwNiLy7qTM4Uek1eyu5Pbt56c /1B8fe/ePT5R1xmlvkouYpUbF0Bus9FaIXvZDCJlfbmSnVrJScU/tEhfy6N8J1QfQBr7NQrbRKi3 qJLecp1QSjDEqhiRrfk2VO/oDxoU4sgM19vFYuXlvMsKBSglXvcvfT37K5Z2vfE9DCtpy4cnARqC 2oEBVOCliG69GJaOnB/QN7K4I/f3xywuKJWCQT4h0YGvNdUHS0vI1BAPEit41qzdEa21TkH2fr5s kBtqLqD5tVIAeH5SqCcTun8vOR0s9i91J1kuZaijZTnX0qx5JVKIYhYU1gO3Jt+v3kAMnNRASwmI 34dco5gZoi3LtdiutOSnq3vdDHz3sl1t1xQtPtVqu7nBuixe9yNHZDtbopJIRBHw9e185zh/eZJK X5xytZGnoEalnc22nVb9rOth4OFDVdmoCItV9rw29PDzeNhg/f4CkChgxuoZbKFW/ugcRM1FDPuM 78B69ykWZrOBXjheDfQTtSVEan532c4yEhFoE7adLRuo02msf4HEzI2m2mq5RfRZ2yI/aiqUui8r yitlamtlk42Mf4GLFxK93G1QXyLbIKdDdfead9q0YjWZKg0rtMMu6NRmOMVUBHqLd4Vy/rBerrcD dvuWfKqbN9RrL8QqlUAlKf/nbngVetFOoQJM6VN9r+XJD65fvgCLSuD7agnDIop8Q6xptIpR3hZW zjevtaiFFfEl7cO5l4W5Wv9mCptGj4D9bOZnOByHmuN2WhqmhYCBnMUua28RwYfEoofsYUfV/S96 2dNPPv1GJPBhN//mE/xvsHO8kLHqKqvnETXEUkifw3yfEyFdg8RQGq/CdFeQT1RuRmj+WW21Tj9+ /+ir+/f9l6LbxSKZl928yAuvILY7/xYmkW3Ly/ZB8ejRA1SS/wH/y5ITUVxawBnqqsKkJ86KUs5/ 3vYDrx1Vek2Fk1LKs2gGaQ6E1A5J6dGq3FGFs0zS2WsKlMj+1+4Rj+DY6P3lG6K6zBfJxyHBB8pe eSgCoNB5aSIPjW/KlWjfq46qlbpbn4RhMyM9N87DltgMIXYwzj/cOn7OdRyWo3XUm8WoW5YUuFaf JAKjtBxsmS2HUzy7DzWdM68HvnZ/vdBOCW7IRSM71XYXoi/+LtsGTprqpNBN/pOoDVa8ZVWqm1Ce E3wmGfBC+4frzieWuWogubl0Yuuq0vuvr8SUJrlSC+oaIEuHYEytyqsPtSQvee5QgwkHwsor4anE 8u03G6VnOVQ4mFU7m+w/2S9q1M+L0u5xuSBZdyzDaXHiRAS6jNw6LUhWYAq7AzKozVTB0oDVcvq1 cXDJlV6AjmZ1ia99QeYlAHTF7dpOSVIlV7EsI9mN2NCe50C2LK9R/O/F+bZDmbCfORlJDD1SCHWv uYGtOyJbbgYKc9fVAMafD7UXbH1s1cGgxaHSL7TJRm8kXHTH7CYwGylxV6o3ZhOLfhjYK15Movdy WM4u6OaYu6tmHQ0WV8jTakGmp7pjDECUS8+9LFFwPe/Kq0YsCG4hlte2P1fosKAHJaEyi8WrTll4 zrt5xvGWdrJ6lNnDrhyi0ax8X6kw9nuSaMQEdLDp5ZXzcuM6tu7Smm4s3grXDNW781iYXV/wBhL7 VA6nyId4ITcajJ+q55vXy4agQKCZU90yb6FycbvZsV+L4QixsZuXVyNLcvWmjfrapeMqGKGwkzta /zCD4eXClqb+1OdPV+1Mr104az61zJ51W19cNV1QMYroGfThoxHfRzpu8uonxR+2CMiglNguFuoX 3n7uongVNOZDqYiseVws0QJizvYWnVi2G9rNE2XhQlxhVb9WPgEZRGt5RlIwiiDIcy7adq71Bv6L Um5J7X9n3AJX6AeMrzxuLuQILSHQ6g/2tH2uUHS/YQxrXiF44LukQQJ1krkoe9aBrs0NcYMV4j1Y x3azxHE2H2asfaljk2tLtSWeb55Eb3Rl6SpRvTXl/71MKQoDL1wS5ZBXCHQDIzlWoY1XVSKrFCez KV1gGD/B7WKhFDA5VnqzZKcNl1tZZHfQwMv2wH2SvS747cQF10+W0A0bWcE4X8YrptvVa4sKXS3b 3vyeRo4aSL/klUm8JirJ3o6t32gNHz3z2K/4QuD0xC5Pq+EKbmoIkIwMCIrvvJqWDAqeFKo54iq3 WyV1S6qNLJpJfj0GL0kUw9uJwct4u1HNiDUBbg/7VbdtDpgxMLNy0wUsP5UfL7FOWzHHLGQLK1U8 96aK8QWlQEjDFoNTS2kAz29vG3AuZ0mUUQ/SC0SwIJRpcPSkOJPrYs6ATQVmC+j+IMvGitd4zIYm m55mElZg5nh1mZ7HndDSGyaAU83JazO+O4O9yaU5urdn6kUnTnSu1GnFyMWwg4kkJ5zH9KR4ZtEW +5bFKKlynOhuPO+EzQNkHhqE5O3TMGiJ7cWyykmZtx3i0mFrkke7eZg6Hq5iKdoalVaiI9FQO39m 14eX87ihhn9i1C/VPjriW12MKH+iEKGmyaE3wRZfLWVlVr3fKn666uEddlql5+B71E6CKNrZZFY/ 0PnyaKia1/lNCmWAYdixVHVMKRVJAZUFogriiTI8T0vDbUPIAz6hFdmD83Imu2MMNbwQoaWgKDYd ts35UeXuMRNM7lhxPwcqyRbVaKuSmgNWYZSt5X0qivNqhgj/D8gWvQ/LCH4zAxtP4kdAN0EvDzEY MK8RJuA3uZFzUdzw10FJM4dfyO+6Ks3ikAif5T/2YBce97Y3Dp1edA5MSQ+gxWCXRyA1CF19UIbC PtBi3Utosb44TIv1tMUElbmLfMDvQ9v1i57wQsN4lHU+R1aL94nlMT78E/+tvqgRRa/sgeY+nbwH zRdEh0RO8GLmIGHFbdLyKoL0Ob/OfEvtzu1eVCt4u6pqEC+EvIlWbyJD6orcUEohCD+W7giijqu2 fR1TGXIL49fNYrV9Qz3N8dvkNyIvIboViL7mgQYaFCM2KZokojDooaq/kNusENpBDEVVgdVVcmCN jpfkenqd1P4yJcdjeSnVc4wJQou+hbz7QXoX1akbSocYUI87B67wnDv54G64/xskjU5wImQjS8yW g3tUpqZvymen9k8ZY3y4iZrgQBifH14JLgaduHKzIfOpXR3yaVyewA9HFYiQkvltvV4Ua8bsyuLt HsXzO8xqzPHMl4Mit1sINbVPzl8oZbB+n6vWwPjZu5Cj8aHMc4vEg/Y31Be2n8rQ+l3VfggxeaDm StxLjzXszUozVqD5wuSO7HM4syHYoYEU3kfw0euDpjccBnlVBjF53apaTlnSovSZQKynYsfQ6j4p vvc0G6yNvuotoIW4DiL6ZEYTea7WdM1HAXA8uXcxLqc12ZkHpfASB3D0Rr/s7ee1XCGaB+m2K7WS y6vfh9tH7nPkunHli+k+j7NQs5Ob0U51zxogB+TjTtms3KLBpSSGaXBJGTQwaz6hdF7XfR+3nTly iMRwUoxn7WoMKVLX8rJByYKPXUIePU9Z2KlklImudDpmSLRpHpvOrNnCq3ilR9cGErkoYUWFRAQ4 Gd2oOzQ3oxKulfYQ7j+ssOPMxKqc/IXHW+6KSW4v+OLIlbwdRMVfdNvpVGYYTnaITJeuZ/UQ6Xyn ok/lzuujMtLbgK6ckn+HsLDDIRAntxzUHJz0vuoWZkpjYMxvr53+LyrDd0gaKIuenJRzHKIk/gMR ipEECv0hUSqScyHurhzVcHHtFMpC94gXrcwXk2k8bVmT4a6dXkLzB7JDNVPh9Da71D1VQuibM5OD R241tCz6Dm4oR1XjWV/hMhoRidqxsHNYO9u/cPNb2EYWw0ZXXw2Hr4SGBf2jUUhy3cFz2PNu2FVg j6yoh42FXu1yVX1vo557d+wd/xDVoY+WADToG1WaxhKFTJUZNkDsVLuR8T1NfIrPb6gTbW0A8ZBh ZQ5F8iT5+pMXyUEjOzmgMtU8DyxxqIRHHALAefADsTR8nRhdRCTIgrpO98hj7Y50XBLaOftPQsZO B5vDZmw3yv16Ve7ssuhBPq9aVp9ggaGaHtaAOO5V8hjZ1wvtGqI3/e1bsvz12uJktEC/qR+2m6rR dFsPMsVJdqJNhHhWZXpXcKkjhX094u93bsudvdexnSe9WePBpGTSmnPsLrbVPNF/4Sqre81gQBRh cdfamUL2aQlbjd6acrqa8zMt+9rin8keyOubPaHnXsWLcaTtFO809Ytp7YGb/PcIkBLVgQAkl5ff L1+LYJJBljFuLj74/BCLAWl9T6uXXRcsAmciDhRBEq62tOeMbeHF2Z4nbR1w2dBTfmdB0iLFGMiI 1ZuSMRzMOMQkacjB7k9nni89Jc9evgLBKe+L3xdUQVxjmU6hs7GEQCuvLtbk+YvHP52HH/fFs7MX 55jr//ojlwL6b7Md1HXHqWOLD2p2Wfj//U2JlHRwnUR2nM+lmqd8LvjXR07mIv84ROZCIVdJe6zj jMhcUiftH2NyqW9icnk/hQfiWKKTEEvBYq1IS6t3cKDVtv4Mg2xc1NH46QGfBz8UbVEMbjR12+YA Ky9EIDbMiCKNBgTl0GYCHQhfcRL6aoV7fVrtWiJMMlPypHgOI2TvoKXiFqSrhDZDQwbe2Rp+YA8E UYAiG79Xr9aCtIxmp710GC6LsL9HCIPenW29SwMs+amIO4Nfh16P+TOGSTBjMF6yGcmMN31x6C1E 6awUxoc/wx4AjCGASMAsVsZwV6pl+KNXr54/fjlJRkaGXgG4VDy2d6/OiwTmJyq3hpiIj9riEts3 hXhh6OB0f/rldlD7qSx+qqZ9PVQeFC71a2G0FFNGu8eMGE3HrhZ3RQSQn8X1LqpWVm3CvRBd0s1r u5wHuiLTFeCWkFd5n4xyl3S4sswpvfRNkbCDlNR1o+1t2rlIN8yPCrlgmZtT0YoP1A27u+jkYane vK1OsdcnxmMdYidokk6NcO7N+bOXL9jvp521q+KOwdZk7b/++rcfF8DUznZmwEW1/O8nn927RxPh 1atHLwq2Crl9y0TtsQe6/UaTt/EByNPNxiL2moxRUtpD/h1JPo+WJj6/mJdoMmQ6KokM+9ieeQXw bOgo30Q0a4cTI6OODlpfRAshiyfr/GKal9YBFj7NKzATWw/iiM0sD1VTlZSWC9X7TdN8SdYLnnyj G9Uy5GoyoIzxw3Vf5VKdfv3VvV4Hblftxe4o7zd2FaZAPN/tak7WdqRboHCulEScV2XQwC4IaCj0 CJaHu5ocMOYGe2Qidmlqa0c/t5vbRc/josFn+NuixS7CTIK0sR00hsO1Cn8fl/lmlVp9aleu5YLG Jb8udwbWLcPfZLvvlIaC+VgFKGD8YE7+SgHcL5Jg5+eHg50vlx7mPPQuGgAaghrQ+Ih6bGNfU97v u+fnHjO1MJct1omI+C8M1H7wuR+YchICVV2+fmMDIuDRhcCqvJeocU3B//NeyOz9PgcSHHgti8rt 70ZEWCcnIHjrWfhuYhGF8NAhzC3BI/L3sNm4hnPiaEuLVv1/tjaWY6/6CAINlSE3LpONlS7WL1qm IzmFg1Cm+7YkNXVcrXZPcrd4/E08X6fKd3Ddmu0cR90VPYmtF1qPeI79d9Y2YKRgeZ1YfwcN8CRP 81w4zWJrmlE3ZhESdppEjPJ52Ax8Otp1SOwtcY4xGlsMoNuAPlo7DoixGkHUNgwuLD6euG+bA6P2 1v+gl2EHd2tL/5kGYdCQUpb0ZwW8GyJKozQqQwgt9TNYQyoRs7SXUBGBnbQgUjvs04fPDDz7FJas GGCfXp8LX5cRZ1sYF3waydOEa5NiSok2D6KonU9KHaDN+vEVz5LBsdpMkNCQkEeImoO8dtbkTV/S jxaS4WniAw6Q3XlWwZaIf5m/BefX0Z9NcECY23LbyKmSSdNuare9fPUofO47OaO1xbkTfJBCU3KM Mr8DAaZbo3d7OO7BmWmYEUellZhZM6D51OA1S67uMLamxewyDNmxOyLd651BJZGB2dSNSMLHEz65 FpGukJWo1e1XA70MR5PIFU06xSlrrZ5OO1oktP9apGOqjjgLld6spSlybOLoK8Z7VEkybdvXciSa C+RjwrcssEPEOe0UOdKtnkU5JGbr7k+mphMpRqcGyvyt9IwcehsrF+lDh8U++DzieMKytlRjMLy0 /IEOknyRKUIHKrL4DGef0FUFs9P+tz7GjkfUrDkfYpHs2uLKrSO5qJ01jKOtTdrjtUWht2sm2xas 2pgOLD0BEV11lkpZwF8hez9E+xcqs4YFHNZGN7cDdCoELnPxVk+4JxIdn75de54qTRFYdVMTk3sq Fp43nHvaELartoa1XyIVYCE4c8gK+Xio16ZXxrnBdM9PCMkfycG4KsjCe5SfGOUK6ZagUTbEGtA3 lG+2TT5uEHPPAg2VO8WmSDg7Nw3SDIjd0PpWRxM2PXNLWTKciB0LyeuKJWnb3jojWfzYrxp025IR EcHOe+i4NPqadHQUE5nSNEblxwkeflfPUjHcdOI7InauaeEDwjm9oWouvxVCro9OmCMFND6dyW7o zEsFq9J7QAvwT50h690OCZBUt9Y0cJ3rw8IafmmxqvVnCmopWTMEJGZAGzbqk/PS9BsMPzcFbjtp GFgTDLwvAwxZborXCkMOMdpuwfW22a0JLbBU15GVfZKnL7uaIQ6avjFKNlG4XbZqopEQ32qvZGpz K2jYKHJ+kaegMYxcA0xeNwbY4rChEVEWt4y6Efgpa0lLqMUAmBZR3qVWrGmejyqg7F/7c9Fcaa5x vEKrrAeWnPJ3c0gJRBhHN3E5VozBPGFvLq9o3KJ3M5e17cL3c2HmPgSBPyLdZq7leFXNmcTE9Div oKPIfxOSvz8D0WVnK4JXEdZf7ddhMO+LpeoVEGGi7IUEUZ8FSEgAfKRl1GUT+mdhl2UeaeJGbMU/ yq5cMTt0xHC0yCf/Dpk4GMbjfHiholV4Igy1uzkX9izTW4mZZOPJ5BalpnkMWujRGVl5i8RhoV7J IlVD8fx5ZsmIwFj0TscLP86jeNnr5+HL4tESQI+ji/GMGbDUz4hVLGx7H69W/cCRel7aejgGCuD2 G8tCovs65mGA2mLa1dUiq12VBQ4Wm343hJkPDt9q/h4JI4illZf5H2ReVxXap2uvZHFZrmyPLMvG N2VkEAvpD8zrM5Ad4y24WaHT/TEcVdbaGi+kI2oJdNnXFZMTcjhlAYDdp6qkQKCW1sy1ca3ruBmr TZKv4eZqYtXT3+MdKCbJbEUfxutjBgRGYW5NK3NQsTFDyJpinvHJdEs7pZNAAEEmdzIKi+ezsZG3 TY3Es+Xl/TEyG8XmqenENF4XJohdS85NBAZelqtt0D2K3NYhzcpaq9K3+c3zOOaiHKmF04cvW3X4 zh09Kkfi9Iglc1WpcwzZCTgZXB0OlMMgdF463Wdtzh0koHeU/ajcQb5uW8ILHcnVcsV4MdbhoivX RV7mENEn2oe7TWIysQ97nbRAvKLt8STvaZhVvZjnTmXrmWpwJ8DJNIsNRaDTalaqfy4rigrTARlX mDAWJ0orsw31mKj8PCCs67CsL5YIWadVMkae4feEuF5EKdQBZ115bUAA4WDyIu53MWk1nOCEi7Ks +1WpJUCh5Sg7QSbvbsdtUowrf0KhP3YmAabYyyM8Y+ecIIu1EaXoD8IaMV1RMXmJqCmyKtnXb6zc YJJ1jIq5cqRaskvqGMKqiX0wxyAptxxjFo73NydZs5IT2oIp/RREt7z/8Id0eY+lwbIvqpDiRKt5 OaVQ6GGuG79hVnaIvZAL30npXDSGyIsj/lGWtNqgVoOtY83SxZaLUUGATSxg5ZYj/+02xc2lsL3m UmXCy3K1oKcXx96rjV2XuxxyntjDLp9qOLNjJnMxKjvIsqSnLit003xOUJ3qs8k/O8K+kkMSSoOZ ACti9mt8ONwfOuq3qUW/kXPRgYgDaBYNehgkNj9pdZT4monmWMiVg4TU42TZEHvdws7207ooGJ3k sFnIGDYuMVXmwQTjLFIeqKkeu5zaZkQ+AiSQcfw3iP1WmqTDpZz2x63TcvUKNX3R4tA4HKwMDWHO Ldta4ohVd4FZ8PjdvGZafCEWDufihtn5n87unipeOF09lRivasCNCHtbXzMfMmSsr10nWaEu1jyH 4h6fUrhANyQ3KeS1axHTtn293RDyLtcLU6OI5OFKdjedYLYRxmXUtOh+1rTo/kd5x6L7R0Au17Qs +s+jXO7fhHLJI7KQma2B09yzidVkXjWWINIdYS4iEDZkSgxH42HsYbzZIzlWZK+D7t6HwuMhAwiJ oM9jwsRyAVNk1P1I5ipC2VnGb2l8ItWeOB1cgcFS6sZDAjmR1907gqJeRYX0o0tULW2TZT1CBuhP Xr9Q330AdWJTHajgt2phC+h4+GoZuLogqLJa72JUEMpLZiVnQyOGXXaxPTIShycNVaV88WhT5X5T d1AWRBQg98Wm4/JeK214XQ9ulhBHrGex38lt267Vvl2Xrx2PxpAiru12pdWkJ4VPpw7ToayVfh7F FiTyF5eTRkShVMIDgqnZVT4FLcNPLWIvB51gxuq0obu6JakULbH1Eg1ENYNFFHiOjknpN/XD/bdg 4gkRwADg7mPpjN7/MP22Xj47sxFM7cWIk36suEgP58wBS6AX2oZiHDkr4VoM0TZyL8BEjXV2s/0F T6wtA5VXZa94+Oqy5IOmu+x0iX2dcHOYoALFay/T1XjLEvfQqk6U9IGHBxwlKpToS9EHhadVZLWs CcLeziTlsdzKMb+hfDvxUbgdBlYez2ViEeaF520pifPLkuAPleZ53ce//FKupX2OCc3VfjN9+Jz1 33+udgBsgq8jCtL0oXJ4PEujkD00r6xsiPCJcvCrVDGfiJQtuzIYbcr2ldLs1VYNvVdKtUF/kUnx pz/+iWXBh2qbT+Jck81UXYVDVSsMpo2ZGqqLQXEXRlbEfBJ8okIpIyBxWlihcZZLzSUa5i+x4tVG lMP1WieRCpR5A9HINFX86s/Fn1qzhR6xaNQRV1Xkf+StwKb2DpKn3J5Xb4Bf/kFUEesc/gCV4UFH ywKXPQ2m6pdT49wkFrdvPXVc8CG5gEIM+Ceta7BCenyvRF52Xm+NFTC19/2lA/8QQt/gIrOLZj9/ k4uLBowSfy/JMsZaIaZz6Q8rMltsbLrAc6vl97yRceHRNFQXyE06qlF90JuQP1Chlo/OnoRJTMIf 64QoC0aIRj1cu8JvF7VIAhoslXhkFzw8NvakuIYAKtzrFpWL9E51E8DuIQ6jsa9DZAlHuKPCyNgi 5Dho3Xt+pcQU32hg32c1kWMXwJNQ4EGjQpsGo2HvaOl43ltX0Qt4nKbqIeDMace69Sb5+oj/ahIR mcXZ+aMnTxhBrxTlmI5g/B1JtbkuuQVVwkonB9rNOxXGUA2vhffuaDHOPOZL4j2+ML4PhYm0oQZD yS+Ni44pd81NzMMkmB7QxQo8Imp8xd//YnqzI4f9gPbXO/scaW6CKlfFy1B3kGuAPZqcA6rRIpXY GgR5a4YqRUEjXgFWPqJNpyS/VPaf5LlZvUNJIFAahStjyjzJYRhlF7QG1bIHoNPbKgTubMKihf7N SSLiMwmc9IOglx6OeQBg/6HcVX1N1WeulSUQECDv/7YtqQliVOz2LdVGynxkCCcCVZbtFdek0uKo BDg1VA4V2RCcMYP+2Fv3gfiFZOo0n0OgOtyA04q0nZ5PXCvHrxV/jziOisCIe5Di69eXwFdQDt9X 1Xwq9nEmeF0Vy4+zwxeQ+oo19/jXtbanoUj0TVUbLeyBE15VwPyqCtUQ3tRwcglTldnat2/ti4M5 bS4CHnbXxBx2udYIZeFpZ11dHAluRRH2IlYxJcWyql3WVj4hP96U5OWYg0+m9MK1JIva5FnViJ3C YQZ315TFf60Keph2DD+FosXeiAGSumSlkdlE89kcCL1myB6nuKqUsQvBrHVtEn5IrAMGDgFkufH/ KwTvu11TrutZ8WoDrz1Knl8fYWHU1MSm2jX0PgpR3R1Xe5Fm9LDeC9C+ZkUMcQIycGnCplwwI7Dl hPux2NUp03WRq1vMGibuSgsm/Sdeh4PSz1X7i1kGj6y6La6cY3tq8aMhEHSRsdy+AT6xCFK4Q+SH 1m6KBlhs//53IBMGgG4vPi7UtbVfaYbi7aJGPh/u6dC/456Eys8MmBuqeLNP9GyEITUFFrzFEKcc +TSVgnjeIna+u7tph3fj2M8kpOimO80ttJ2PlWgVZN7bdanwgnYVKw33bK6pujbJ5eCgUqwYYkIa K3d1McnTj1HBjGJ2zoy+dz1YHpLlGBCZdAnsrulXiIfJ6MAEH2dZPhCT2bv9O16dqDBBzJzqhnQM 4LwqaXoFIUdiyPgwLBzAr5s5x2/PY7Jz9GpyK5Svq+bgvVc8q2ddC4Ow+GE7ILYbtXrpLqjdOZmb Gn3DYJUE5WCo/5kxR33vDGijFUk4HG2B417vvV5tQAoyHvqLWmgF8Tuo34u6ino2D7WIgMNyaBf2 egzG48wxNjeJTz4eYOlpezAmbilnTkPukEuZpMaeWNWI5ReJFK+otFFluxWpGiN7mtuvNAqolZEe XqqbLaw3mRbqnByZQI9vtSOmACT5pRZPNYrVRJ4hi1Oe5eA3jHJmyJfypqjlCzfPkHcBkeEhjYDq tCSkINuB6l2YxXft+3a4pjsHVaoDpZidIqHrz6sp8euEbMwSmFgvrfQNlSPwHc3jpRLZlLixZbE7 8u6gzH9bN5WjlGIN5TMjoBqWGZ+xE9crUihGtn0CAPwzgc9D+Vq5p1KmmGWV/CxwXrOi04hoiPoN T0IIrsgnh2iLLLldezlTXFmIo4BzAI7WlgId/Wyu7fhVK3fvEpBEPGeBd8DhAq79j6PCsycW1zyQ Za8exQKkjaFjj7blQf4RAhu1W1RAOvLQGuIr4vI19mssdL3a+xHhFQryNdRdydmAZ9XV/es+yMrC 0G0OIU14KGtw8X79qarcM+RUm+Ipot8EsMtwihDo1eIluPsHOTArOrkgPGFmjgEvuPh9z+jdqrzq t3XMij4VMd0Vj0VJ9Az8IV1sYe3w12WJXg1LQgUNA74AbgeGm/jdCPhmnPLyVNUiy3otUt5j2gVp +43GDujrxlEAIHQAiGcYVoGU9Ten9+5N0FijXAyVO+mmL+VW7aKcWB5KrbfDPUvsNdhzpgK6shmW fUGQTwCZB1LEq1LpFEn4XzmWVz3rICm+MKsKeXGiso0gqduFF+ZIcsYuFcoItV91P2+73YQia+zt 4cHQjFNZ4teaYLLkxxr12p2VlirrHPQefmEJEpbfiqz8XJKZ7Sgow/XfASqnikmDyKHb4WbgYZlW Mg1Mih6u8vSRJzG1dcAlO1dQUWLrAMb5GimxDl0AAoFuVfx5Vf09vp11trCAsjg//X6aWLvPjPGy YqNexnDET9W0sBWaZzHPiI4MpJEU8kRKmBSXk+0hUoznyUb8tzNyhuH8C//pNU8xyJyO2pzG4a1x LR8lXmuBEBcyqeqXNEy8iLoivSGokEeXiT6qD9v5MgVk1X2MoOb++AjKbo5k3XuUNjkvpua3DS2T Fj6Y/JkLp6dofElgGL2ejqI8MluaueGUp4gYpUumGZoR8N5pXJkEq5qcv9+gYBEsM0l/Xe31xxBZ Qzcc2kR1mkNWI7IUhV6+Zv2CegHqN7BertgHmSj9yijquW5FwZc+KFMZpQdz1bwF/8OThXWQsAI1 tzqabLP2XuAQyGWasuG0UwZAQG7DOsr0JAaX4Np5TailETiXRdbkeQJeSkMOy09HJuJRxHMufiOq KbZsAfKo1jJ+KtHhqjU840ReZiDth3oL0BQJmMbsTH52UAL/0M53L8UBf0L/m1kdG0+bnf0HCI74 8xjeeBKSIFaaGpOriKrjRItdG5haM4Ykntic8usQZHH/EKkzjmfE8Yo0ARFdB3aswSGywslgiqVH xwMx9h5u09QpdWHdOw95yCMhj09BtrrKJp2Oh7A3ohGwF6tpVQ8xAnhFy4oXTkh9E53V6E9oCozP 5Ptt2h5SB5XI9FYfnP7u4f/B/xUBczPVkuQDiXjzkzS84Bs/LvWp+8JNCRp5Ckeh8ZOsBQIK3oVH Y1ELeqvXbrLZ7yoRDkd2hAzqQrqe9exe370uN30uWyIBVusOzJMjEpD5shKTcbwrcOb0fiNlCS65 wkuXdJYNFZbBo05jyaxHx5L5BcRaAETonNwBG730++3vIzlRjLmu2nYTT+JPDFwkfKtWMpTQdzrM UHVWg3YMYRs9/MR7K9qZ4ykanCL7dZL+DM+MrxebUdR9CLzrGcU94vKkTsQsfbf89G2bLbi5iAaI wEbegupljURzxFOpe82ojtm4thgBjGJz75DjV0wVjzBPov3SiOj0YtBbKcStd+mV/wFjn49SDX77 1n8U5+dP0/CyuEooErRbdLjOzUtsLH6nIkDqvJ29ruAj7bBRd2Tojynp/MrLsx9fvnx6bhRHDB/I F4LfuFf0N20tNmzGh1rzuqzBkyniccbf/v3k83tfAwtZg7kdwG2NaTHH79lieSq59Pw9qvQYKmUL vNFE4+AgwvvCt5uq0kzcLK1t57aX2WGN9mE4moyG0doeeP3LmNrLhTNQncB5/Kob/smzJ88exz3X f8cQokzv7kCCs+sqMUeRjybQ7YH9c75zB57f4nKRISe+dowHKIGcliJpsXG6G4nV89nYlnkBhPhO jJ/PrjN+vrdLQfOZ1x/n1u55gqB7rQGwWz0J06g7shc1Ua2RtZaBORGxpAe0nwL9NnwBPMVgxtkE Twr25ryqwy1lDAWisNL2tfOa+neL+qIRAYITMyzbWNNvl96eY5JUPehP7X19wGucQHsGGgOKP7Ri URzzH3vORHzCTf5fgPRkXAPhDYzdvUjg9JpfvMhgYbHw07jpzDALYSUuf10pX3FOPMfDmz48HA09 /77XDv8uiQBQzOfOC2Pr0OqnCnQpPitXJ842SLcPuYBVWwbnXGZx01KlZlaE50WRsmFytlL1lI+s SMi1+s+ty1GNBDS/LdYOfZzz8FORBXKcp0UOGn8FYszd2/Ao3yaOboWA1vukuBCdsHFyUcZ2GIqV o9R1Ct/R0nwkhHgKoHGjdopMFns7G58PZ9MKO0ynKZuRtjQwRWX0BCStAwFGa52GfYM0x5EdfWJ+ 8+86MCI+Ej7EZW3Z76BoFlXpsjA6Oe59jQL0mXJ8kpGcFsGmewq751xhHsd0ZWYEBlyIbM24OAUS zpqC1c5iIizcUDLRsmhEERFNYPhdTnhwgja87mBOMAqCGIg3nPOgBkUXa1yyKWkfKIvVKz9Du0iG N2uLdU1dFUPiGrumbeXs0yqYe6z02PGoQpNAQbjbugQ1WebzmxSsHxoSa8Is1+luFG/QX2n127ED /kxxHwcN2D6w6WWJ2rTTWsiM9qMM0NR8DWtfZ3Yzm5aYywHVZN3XkAOzGYzvp5yxk0C/ADXLpt1H ps4YsQm6L2lwTJpdK6YJr+KYoVIjrKH0XLYjsatLC8xpcLzqj3LsjSB4CY5mdvgYRH240+R7zilM Wcl7HugleDCIGY4GXVezG7PE9Ui2VIeKc9EZzaIOGiMDCSlke9XEcOzoi7qOnAqIUN6n47DCN33L MGb+5u4CZPON7Z9s56i5WsBOmUxVviC9lFYlGZxQ0+StI3wVrpRwiltFMwhVzErlix05yNegYqwV Frgg5ZZrjGC/Z/RGlc0hGfVyMvAg67ENyjn4PkCBy1L3AadBryQMFFlIHFLezJVIuU9sp2xrxwY2 G/pwIZo2hNAPhJjUyS4vZTP5tuPwYEgXF8+CzjgWKDw3fDQx0BpTgYNkj7KDAuRH6MCCHI747D0R BgggV/OYoEgsjNabNJOKngWshE9wgKR7UMBRjPpEWzUdwin8tt++Bxpv5EdwhpCutzo1xFPhLYym MhG52oblsTPwgzqquEmMqdTuLX+FoQ3L1acSQ9Zhnk37flTc8jpdqV2PyjDO/tdUqC3bjYgsYlv9 5JhdXYTMBmu5lGceMUfNkA3LJERxpzq5OAlXLkJa3Bn4SkSDeNRz1SK19rFuW6TgGD3Zbpvs0WUs WPGm1hpEe8+o45O1Mo4loeHrC7Gr0cxgqdrvcVdr0AVaVM+grKZyDfGnyHKnHhxjiaO77vukoj3B otAkCMw1IViWH/G8LbyqfpVQOnJpNouBzoi22mjvnQ8YC0iIvT8hEtju2CQAFG9ePzOicluyNPOm CrTRGUBHvffQXpuRWFi69AsNT5GIAQ2u5NzGZzojZJ+OU9gwFrU5MMYHXKMfKyTfRN/dvvUo9mSL K5TFU8an0W++UBCssRURH4S6cO1lESrtROkhKvwgaQOnmk+/n1GxeciMQaj092z2yYg2OmDF6KqX peEH/ND3KT4t+NWe6VPjmZvQEvJu3oxH3tOf9imaCm6QZn2X9Ya/gBjY/mYX1bkeg0dLsowfvZ5M pes3CYuOlSN2mvAkP4EbBCJ6OieLStMDc8bZemhsReEj45m3mhntZWkBsKBXjLht/x7ejIiwvfGf 2AyrPegdgPa6/s6k41+HVdO22sduX6Nh1lvQo415K7wsMCo4jHjsYuNtH/BE0D7oPbbQ9Hi8JL1H JONf9tCQhLaQRohLabPJw40xrjSwOmI3qVVgjTQH30MfsnZdzyL8IOsvZE+eWj+wpMrYhbYM+DNv AJ1OpQwEPWhjcGWF2rA65PWsuxAlnAB+sz/p0nO+28bnR9GY79EzOEDHaSNuCt+AxGYRayr2cmUM i24Vs09mpiJ0o+RyeHUXJWPDXlv8IO8EjNxZqJIbUV2hc445klzPJXWk2zt6AsLrQEVA7i/Ngzae ik7/oN1JVOPrJ9DPIB3g7atdIpC+mm7Z3gAXJriLQAN7cydrLkM+e+uQUDgnSqiQiX3HYos8ef+7 YvO9LiJsKpf1yDKkcTwFKHMttiiJdQuwZhO1pL9gpGcVSxQnsAUt52NgB+uFilx3YXenWbjXCZvW KEEGalOk4xMz5DYDNYh5Gh4VuWYk0Qgh6jaSgghFoX9OlcVd0RN0DYeRHBrtMnRwrxWR65t97CDo Qw4RBNklyqNqq+gvh7dO3w7E2LpEgVXrEXUDGt4F9fUbuUrx7d98fgKkXGgfMm9RAgK5KDSibi2T bLEyh9c1jWzdz1uRJ/XsWdSi1KcASDtjjbHYqBeUoXyfOmeR3TNPxSO44D9vaj2RRrZ1VqtilYzG 2BRwkTP4LjPXsjTOLeZjUAkyLjHA6sVp7bKe1urINSjyc6h/LnceXDr0dC2ENpnIhZe7mX7XFOws MOQotyKnL5MFro4iG/OAqa51eHVoZAzui76q3Lap2d+SPXlv5F5KGaTM6MYLM2wX3Nac71FsAd9D 6iIjYpBFK/3AMTW2y15ZDmi9Cle2ZhDZzoU3q/os5jPj86xkmJaBP7N17kZnB1NaostacY5UDHg4 4EjpBIbDPGIeSuWQU2IvpuI5L2qDMGctNGRKctERABP3xvVo1RASpURCtkVILOgNZ9/SFEQ9BKhM PysRcgixBxko3RMuvedQ8innYcAhEi5WCu2zr/eZ4fkC1MEzayecHz8jxHj8RvNqYcHrG4BWtM8c Qgh2GrJ+x4JTvcPH/FOy5wAQl87DUfljV+WVZVFnJWgbNsZv6uUgbnAsirfP6wsY9w2Yq8g69Y6y c83AbDWuw5+bKqvX9MLaBfn/7s7YpFrm2jhpkqzqlwqbbVdznoxjs36mfdE5z79tGepGIf6MgQHS K6Fnul6gkUVTlo5VVj37V2NPFuJfoJUgANg3GrNBK6DQyMfCDOTXRahdVvy96INXhg712vBRRttw ICP2tBj02QMas2WZdXE/Owiw17eUE04NrN6eh6FJc1hbvJiS7bBA+geLIeQWnR9a7QenpZ1Xi9IL Mo5puraY+7KkTYacMs4R7ntISziVqHJF5F3e74enzGDHMiikgpjI9zpVH6kcUyjYqAgZhg5SxW++ dMNJrtT5RcZB9ug5mpNb31JUSIuo/71VrhzC4rdN0kOiVElWsxUEWGVDv6r52Ym6DrxjcbbC4flR 1va1eE0J2u2jNXmpSrmhts0DOQH9Rw9TsNv1CQZHmoQ7MqwxrgmvKtqF0IhYEsAgyuLevvVcVPb/ AEpScf5aTgzEOMjyGYY78D7Y0/DD5OXkFsjQSX4ww3fPhgEETLvijxpPzx10DJSZJscDyBSLTXnF mocrhGisGjjwY67CYBOVFZEtEx1RbTQosXtpsyc4FAoX9isg4o7qLgnA0puBIcr3J1qV0pg8IBNt XNJKCq0PnllGSvQTA3s2LKPxe2fClcycVWN8t+3xxrZPmuJft8ZodY5kG0/G6ddff1k82uE/RdAB YaaYGECMsUh0hrhijlW59TedWVbdLhGFeOp+arvV/FGrS3D2xyfnyZvCOtXWpHYRjR/9zq2mE5ER VodyFXF9XRDyAvN71/rNHqeCMx3E8or8lBGeEIAPZe8so1CjCGPtv7zd9gYXhyKODNNJNiRoY0zE PVxmlGmU6N5z8Nu3ktGXCFhOrWKsDDwmvHe0Da6HV9CfmxXRTdpoTAuPSlJx8K97878qnS4jus5J jIJ535RrPentqV0AcA3DHI4kj/vPqJiFZAGMUjfpaaAwapt728ajtQFAWVkIaEx5Q21vq0iB5x1g Z0kW4MBlcWLt+iyU+AFZomRTf6wegA9oqxwXZ+LglaQnuIMTNCleVg3RFVXxnbhrtRwfno9H0KEf W+DWO8o9QDBX5sqQkL8A9YOO+a6n2QBEqj9FDy1MHopw1biHa8CPS2PuSPopc9On2pOYztQ3HkH+ kduus7DxMar4mfL1rtK+98yviUefhNHWoL7qUlmi2xA8IGWbMm03qF+jlufC4rdE+MtzugrWy4dM LNQXoGuUkybGDLtoXp7sS63tVbh8vjcTz3YphNiBWoTw6xLZ2EUYmgdDTu9vToPhIEfhmts/00tJ E4C9yWkW3R/mCQae1jCrdOdeHLIv7JI2Vj26iwzDdYQ8mINdI2us6pOhv6pnYVSMKc1cUjUO6G8m G5+B8RcigHf7+u84Gaf3Tu5tht/zT2IN1qvdgzPxCla/e/ibU60MRI3t3KJATdvcnQUy4JNv2gcb sWf0/19r3ByAjsMKPmdzpCPb/cOyFmX+fnt9YFf0GiQYEbEW7xxQx64TenxxYyQTUiyKgyOSDzLU 8BCKyFBzAPgd3WeeIdhOESM0l5sOKDRsLf9LAVwsIvxnicd75lIftQzcdvWssAqc64/nFxNZxXJV y5I3dTk+oapH/5HtsjqcA1O5fevOo+ePPhbVOWy7xv2lSdy6548O7Fm6X1aAb4sCfN3Uwdr/2PE1 L1sN8GRbVN9+qG0JalD24qdW/FJAJJ8iVYdL5eyCHUqjyrx960adySs72Z6XfnMAXtjMEZnqCJZC eBJ4CntWeRG7oWqkFSYns4Y9yIg01ejhNP1eKJPvePkDTXRomV8unUrKXY9oWFh3JpujTQJ/43mw gDRDu4hDxVanW7ZToC3FdOvEE3B4Enq7ci+H1qJ1FdoCb8AisqnEF2NCmd5Ba+gyCkqIO6C5CLxS r6ieWr9DoIDghIRBWTqy2DKGHgw9EOXLzPq4Go/cB3wkr6yLEvucjhYE/3x1XryQKZToSUwyC4RA g9kVXUr+QGvevz4p/pVlSU+rtkEPB7zHq05WvSzOIa5LmA4TM9lBkF0hghiglrb0mxWy+RfbmrVj unybukMnEv4LITs9ihpF4mppiTbDofpsN5BCyfVXXkH+s8fKP7UOHQjOWdwiTlPrwLMR9r4PEBBw wtbAioHQCmyA73n0XoDOs6MSPHl+UjyGaMmqwNYN9uSbsr/2mnrBc14vFkoAUCVGWjxqVO00L/Vg BZ4K1SI+xLtR98y8DxO3LDwtoErZCOVziGcNB3u/XfKwTHKzAeX8T1GHk+uslgM2y+1bZrUkNs9v Tj+dfH2qXatLC1f8zvQSPv4cx/QftmHOq3q+giT8satwM4kH8aztBjSjcFl41K7arpy314rDgZ/y tNDo1kgwxUAJiczXQNAJhvSm4lw0O1riuF+/YKdYsN89fCbiW/ybfOPPFfyhE3/hMDXlEpqlN0Eq mWbX6OHScD+MkfgjjyWYHRKlXbaAZY4eNSqd/2JVT6vVRDOtTkRod77rRgRVNJJOZEiZujak2CAt RBZ3lZ1CbnoNCqvC2oA37YxmfZL4YYzI6zlDKODa+yic3j61tNUDw6ZVoQbDdYzP03qWIIZAdzju ZXF4K2W1Oj1BUUb8xW/fin/D01l7oHUBuG5x55Ue93y5rPIN4lohGhzm/J6qD+Fb6L0ssDqRVZud UN6/mhT37907zWy9Qgt7y3E8Flzsa/FZxQh7x7iw0z1oqW/s4jFyUg3xaL4zfhiBu9xHrY0ae8zF qc7ku1Q3TL46/Xry1RefZurhXVQP1orgfZRPcJjufzE5vfdZgSDPvNJ7Lgu7ogYLmjEevHye93We 3yuGXsfhbL+YfH3vs8mXp/ehJDtv2rHIwzipx/oLN/WgRf/+zpY71pqrGCjnpaJ8C7EvmjkjDB0r 3/Noq22j73842/hj1fysnacyDqO2aWWXDeCixwFfhlxPNezRmlToE3j69/0N9aSAMB86FFdqtujQ yafBzEIpcOL/wuMCppRHGahZj8ykQKEaouaHl5iHZv/HqjgwdtqgL7RCk0t7VimQOG2FYzCDakWH 9fq7/LtK+8W+/7Vrku/pF7Vsy8uWwSaZ5qTI7uPJ519+NTn98nON1eMoMCKbHpF/+D5m2SOXhrHH BJmKPwW6HQWxll6nUpx+Gsi8SqXps+j1xgEbDMQxMDk3WghvfaKm1o1wrYQ+NMtkHE6cIbkr3yWS REEWfbtAO9ReDSmLqmYMVjHKjBdI8HzUILdvGbfedt1nAa+Dj9cLTM/qqBPVkyZrDK5iKEetUhKQ gjyn5YqW9WBagQw4pd+x6aPkNXWlXwNsAD9xaVFseT2n1tD3qjstrq8V1FspBCK9CN71mqGwiPmN IWzFpxyw4ZxfK3bfIxajDnzNjVmv6HTYLoqxNWGEk3nCiO6THE1e8uAjkXvdWkqWBjgj75sJYZER h43WzasqlZJHDrVhOcJOiEtlF8jamvkV53U1T1xnKFSSSYW+GB5YUm8WQWzVrOyBQENEIVzK5eXH vY+r5EKYJissKwFvkM51xT7avQFcwpiYYOSHW4f2kr56kB3HDWgWx2KsNDJTwnVI2tqZsyhCq2oe IZ2B/cX8zyXYOjJInDnlds6sT8ulLJHuAvJKeDldLV1U37F0g/ojNrqqPgPAi0y0F+hYFw3aKE/8 Zr+JXVcN+nPX3eubEHI/ytRxsrySVPVcTjHI1wpRhUgialVNyiUKg7rpQ4/TmzSY9aORb/QLvvPO SyBjZmc7zhQM7ebBvbr5HVO+3wI6J18svlnV12YY+vYulPmD1ekX2vX3tFgt2s9/D5oZBH/6BywM OGGqQTGmBf7P1IyGa5rDFqS+qLusfS7WWA6lhOF4sabfILHR85Wnygat6g/6Kmf23AQZbnDVa9+m q7wIP2kl13n3KRuPj1CtYhT3fAe7TTwbaWeDLql3MCrHraQ43vVqHYKtSlwkemUD52pgiClTDhYI +2xZ++ss/w++2l4+7as0BiKGGKKiWtV1DdnmjjzpdJQ9J2BwApdGPdpjTIHC4eyFPT+b3G28QaYG NbahMH7LOxHhzE4/05ho7wvzzSfb1UOHafDdzonVeD+02pOmeCaKQfy8+9yIx9uu3cirFq+aJOxT yiXambmuelX/3ZuZXzRmzMpLhy4SOdrw8Okb27WhuU68ArbNyjGKSRTrLSS9bt4dT2rHHHbY9KAR k1T2hqD6GK96dY78UXMR0VpAk+LllNrccaws6ESWNyiSYB+ELpC3b721Q/muiFWhzXwcPXMoy+Iw u4gy3pLRwDozk7bNuZsj7i5Z81ls4UOA8qJ8o/FuBSbHtdZ2mnxRLdpYgbZip4uDlg8xs9KEqDpL lpaI+jQX7wGs1QqHjOwPbx0XJ+yL11izps42nHZZYREXxEe8kIQMKxioFfu2buL33EQYHKxOUK3b C0TT6HjxGT5cvdjrnqmrTUi77SvbrWovvBuNUqtfyW/USxBGXKxk1iR6s9oLNKlx0dMo/Xc8aXJK ZYiznsXTXMA73z07+1hXKtQx9WH8VkHpuPYt0h633G/0zOE42C6Odn+zWLFFJRofovxP1sBPXw5y SDIjqM0vZ07/k744wmzVUJnfxRd8dpZFC/o2/LnuteRQw5N65rbGJKIfFGy6bLKTnEadoJO48QqE lV4mVrsZpzszgYGlVKwVaT7qoNxu7M8YpEo2IWuzVAcy0FiLQc3ARbt96xqVIbP0LqOy7qgxxCFP +0ra5cqesaE3gnhf1uywOLdyCXxXn7yuKjUNA2cViPVCGWFktVKm4toTz967JFzo2BYavO+3PoFg IVjq3ls2jSvwAOuOxTYRjc7g1XnQCFp8YN1ivFYWTeRxL4kLw35WtO8rlnTxwCrRRNRacHqL5/Ub eWtxE8/WsgxgVPzDCvwD35dvOBlNcCjohoWuDcjMpiXSTbdvuTYtRqFMjepvm/EDky4JAdaq/oNM eej1PcFwwztU1sM8STXMNLKSBDzMtUPRymqC9fl529X9ptvO9ZjibA+xtDznRRiH8HjDx8aIUQPA kjvx/jbGOSl692JbEnyYODiow7XZItpaOyDJPr5AhqrRYNIsGo5se47O3pAkuxcuIyFSSZJrDVpg 3VMWhlKbsPI8eHeZIvTnZMFTrwm2vVug0GUaIB70tJFhRDhnzitAUZZuKozKJQZt41lr2KbPqRag 6J5CKOtlq8TuPywWYijLI2mP/UneuTla2XrWjDu9ui8WL/1sfkm/8zb2CKM5Har8NJcAHvfmYlWp pEDo6Op5aBYEE01lfX66HXc7rthSDELLAZOaIHuA87YlM1FuCKyqcf3PVqKoRQqdMBwDBDWAN3pr ZlULAEInNhFKrt5ZWZYdKya8lREcc0evWHVekIpe2/Utwtuu2otdRrQYZauU07AT613E+rkuGqMj h+Jv5fgwbMpZHXLhXAerVhI1TkITO5jezWibMErtrRZeRKbM46l+TuUVCUptyCVT5Rt6GM7auwlf 4lnW0jwaupu0oCWB7DsYkEVhV0RIsACWhkIUihhDdNCHfIEk41U/AdE3+/7MwE7cmh1bzdsNFNxx G9CKN9Mbb4+Cmg0oslOHYgqvSO6i7xTWobfcAOJDc8Xn5m9DR9pbuCIQi8ArEwjsQZPghpOpnRT/ mg3izgudwsWqvNCAvO6ihoFZnRZ7xLOgTh2K+XZKPGhMjs9b2DhaIYxI0Gpx169Zrqhy23FSG9Ez iBzSrEViVUSuY1Mvk3QKQpy51wSHIu58payMMtMCUGdGpjG0hfFyyyJDxYbf9tsAuz/QEtMcWOTZ JsWKfOUaNLWbThnnm9hj1NH48kJ9FovSKHDdwOmMqEReiQttVwkGX+q+OrTwTKsylYssRKdJpY1Z xIqz4HsGD5NN7NsrcnvMDrlyGC0XK2qeuPtqYxlvd6X3+fhxHFQXwR3k9ARPyT7e2XIMGgZvgPVS o51/lC/+AxW0OPINucfc6s1eBtifhXVkTghpWr++AtjLg1KDWD5LXmcTyIvsEMwu/xrdIqT1ydin K6Pw/oExS3cuV1uWpV5aFVgNMiU1oJJ2GVOte0pyXVAXTQwp4EwhFIP4JCni8a8lm9wSqIZFt+pS OZuX9cC2pDIITiOa1jC4Ww9p1NgkJ9admIqqNQMjimCB3nMBXJNB+zfpdsdGKs0bbedoVsR2g5lv aa32tdlttRGeZbtzEkmPchGMFrD2Eh+qXBEkpxd3fdaNScPOW6OQ9n218kGgXJqLVgMFZ4sLRheH Es5UZYcUO9DRX0JRz1bPA7Fr0diji5kwS2hBebkBPqF4LHMEewIo37abYI1sm17jf8kwge7TFXAp ikaMbrCyKCjDrKJdqJnDdVBpFan7gzDxGrK/stky6e+pQLHsaQ18cokt7z/8LvAnHG8RXyTdi8Dq Acb8Nthtxa4a1KLbxOZc6/ICJLzT7WpV2bF8XSMOo9GLR/ttrIz9MXTwdKs8cIwGakbvMw3poCWh 12beDxAWcB2acpKBAU/xTCWTWCNFeLj3WqxFppGVz8+VIqYAEXCajnTkKbfOY6Pr7Em9NgnMm72Z xILm/lLDiKar8OJkgEjIlEbF5+VqaC/IyHtS5ETCshnjFY4yF/o2mQ+S8L7Fm0RVkqJhbfV8Ru0i UJyJccbEo0U2jVeTG3CciU955c2IHaV9ZnvyMkktKb1/x7Q2nWHzal6RsL5je9hDEujiK+8myz3c xZ6IGReSR2bvJtR6KswjwubkFOiy4v5tLnQ4D6GcpCHs7OD4FvQJcpb6T/4mGuFqWGrZE0UsIY3Z X6L9I+V0H24D5UeGveGqhja8U2jEmR8ka/XXwfkhJVMYMXMfHy2NnuJJpo1uKDTPnAu8eq9q3loC RBIZWQ4lf3OSnWD2jhhAxh6LH1+TB8/P4zso5QbLzm5YThIXByV73RaOhCW6kcDdlEoE22jeBl+6 KapmM4mVg5gH1tEX3qqOx1OmZZiEi6YAMVtJj7WTA22BXAcT9GPh0XPyxILt2Et2YPbKXRhgSGD7 J+J6znFrzqsFXKHw4kQ0VozrkyLSwrdxWo+xwZUaWi/RTw3mZlXcefL45fcf23D96J2Nw8qHZFXw BvWXJW44whPE6mbwvlK/nW4bYlbaXwuAoykEg8iEJtj30E4Jj5itmL0TD1S1qsAiHR/uSEjMt7iS ccEEd2LMYtm0fEomAXEEu7BCv+0w659bGqkc+/atn4z/+Y/kf2ZM2NAU9kuG226Ou4fZwhThLoon O2xJGzb0yTLTfTGxcSIudTvwPVT5TIMxVYNwtLQ+EzwHjEdWNa4mESb/ZTkrYeOUCS1FZXyVlZEE BdkxestnKMUPy2VABW4ObMZ5hRH7nObC8PTyM+LibwIuaZZE3jjv5EDEK/feeud9df/EGh2qtrh9 i9ld2jD6hS+4L6FDhGF4skG+/lyNVw05kmcgvFMoOAgzCpMZ2MV0hWWUYYBAncilzd7XqCS3ZbD2 doOPH1Nj7yUXnRnBIagqD2zMAblgjAQZFVC/Gwu5h6MpT8gAw/ftLsQ2Vl62/LQXP/qvs5P+I056 eDp7R9oM7PluyeoZy2jQYcloRC0soqs+hS6M7dgnGVWPHkcLAOiIs8APJXe/wfUt18oeWEr0ocF+ DJUOlKpEZ6ZjQyd1eSiwAJaw+TxpS7VuAylJf94JoZBiqJM5EIyaNENSS0JBJvSngv41d04fIdZH U6+3StrHCVvOCfYJ8Ve4j0ImKNfk1p6VbYX1dqF3OFWA38xQ8TPry6QKYsta3Pc4bt+PGOeDIio9 Oon7ueLmd60STq2Z4x1fNZ5A4BE4cA+RHp/pzJQZcmpZz4GWz5zjh0W2HfWS9zA/ZmR6W3rtX+LG 0Qk7kzvLJ+qD3PayGTjLXHYOwsjzdrbVLEmdUj9+BgYePfePomHyfTmDiQybjsHzZ2b4H+Otf8mb Rol3xLMwL5mRXbPVa71xQgoMecPAshuK+Bmr+OfBml6lUHmCQPZJpTVMkryVXpEbUh2hh9oHRsw8 i9CopPIyMju7xUDsrEcEkVI91NiLYQWOpX0YIUUbMG3NtY93q3Vls1Vtl/yv9zL2DL4MQ4bj4lIk hHfJPN2k5Tf+q6YGnDpt03RRw5w+/CzOFYrgmyQ3Utrm7jrOaZfKUSssnXRAWsmjD+CWPnt49uKJ Xn487t9rg86bTjuNjdqvizKoxuJsE9jTUCEAs1Q10qJEnO2OPO1jPi3u7Lqdb1eVcxiyhwUqEsjD tvCmF4HKjDoC8ZZM8dHhTIbMlobXlVs1AUa6omtm2EPd81Sd3mzK7PEqeXZKbIF1pQXeSo45MPo6 KMpWt2peLNtZNs9ar7x4l2DKg8bVupGvmGnxkYefUc1fu4k/BSW2w4s4MoE2XUCw/tM0cURleto5 IcEdHYOAMdX8Ht5Am/b8SkjR9zmRep2ZyxVCg0z002gqXdcg1ori/A8/3e/CCfVHZec03GyjOZfe Pzy5CRg+4RjGil5r01Hr3ztuEeM3JYYzhhz00I5I3kzPWipcI6UEVLF4y/paeRsKppsMDmowPeU0 QMx4X6dBm0NUnmI9npWNDGGB5GsPxFnGHcjk9HwSsGE4G+sytnEu+nYxkH0Izgk9OljpbsFneG3U LTnOcXTArJuq+19ZhAjJsznWC/HGethq8vmfdiSDWrHdOxiE5TaFfnL5iuk+O3eUSALdAkfb4r7S IiwNhdvZmSEHibbwv8KNP3qhA+Jv1z4MAe+q4C6YhYcQPSiS2rCgt7IOcEmZT7YkQGDRHZluV689 Af7hFVdUUsGwzdZ6HQ5I1Aa//nov2qxDiTk0ZTrZ0ZHL5px0DrQBq1/ZeD0w//QQ5LrRW54kDRY0 CqD4fQVL2UhdpXYb0t2KL0OePq0W+xVepmy8tKBdBPHWXUgF3JS0mDawRNQyV3xOP6jAeLMV1Qru 5Yb9nLYMt4919Cn5cFZbDWDdLc5QD95wUZ+3NEVFWZ8eMUEtisTQYtJRW2fvPZ4KLyyjfiF2YeNd dJ63SQjKKuR8nDTnEWIQAWAawjIA0I8jM3EMpfGtDMpoqBIrikphLb32ULenEILk+JiQkDlijD4G yXnfMgh2bFFqoNLXU2cdZGOekGNLi4IVh3VhPVh0KX07aef6Ev46d9GnifR+eVh6v5k+/M5PfWhq is9ZqEoimkFjSJp7GEF6k6RWUQbzKEDV9nybTRm6gv1CtfJ+75KkcP0YqcWERousJY650JgEjZ3q h6VCXvpc0lXRW54XYsXuff6DDaEUoRDTqQurQMLyq7yqJTZtck9CNjB9yyzRmGrYFOOXaVU3KA/Z 2/WayTKcrNCacwgMpr/0un2/t8w9MrybzfCmN7zm/dJ2z3b4ou5WnmM2B9LGnFaoUMXCkXHqVX1Q beY4T6JC/H4CTMhaWITGJIonD3KjGrKrlgrycLmLmutXkKLS2zfyWU+tZfqh3myxro3h39X1ne6W pV+IBG2mIb4Qf9eU+pOhj73zNMNCaGarHUTRiErBvzZe2g/vLLNcCi9TCz7UlCr6AgN4R4hfZQlf BJeDU0yTe5nGSR0g1TN70rSPbvD3jrl9RkmXnvQgtBILe8FiG2KUDjhy+3cdQ1TY1qJPmt7qfR7Q 5gV6Y1EyR5PyiSYNffRStiIhJRFPD1w9eGhtGhqbsOrFqHQ14XEpsg7eL48DkV7aYhWD5hwCZF/h db3rn8V2paQ8Hoo6Kfwdh4ACt8pzuJXK2lv6W6sRmsDlOD+tFkIKxLv8JvDY1PKICImJzrw2g2et Pw26JiaihjTDEL/Jo3C1ZC4FD2CLdSS8J0niA6OoSgFw254crYhP5DX0v+Q/UsGu9PcPQAkKUn9K ukjxv/ylXhT/YhL6vX3Y/xVMFQUBid/KNpq9Keuyqi+ab8GhWoCA49vTgq0Hv/3o009/+5F+61/+ AgTh4q/vNYvfiYr4djE0+0aqTwWUGg+/KdNBwivU8wf47e8KkYjFtx/9t/8p/5L/Ov3o9i00Avz2 I/zh9KNiqMUS/Pajjx4qjcjeM36sjOfpYcYzsiZneoX03l1wCZZiDXUP0IbXJn/96v3l9K9xIQJp iP1P+bA4t2P/2enp7Vvfg4JuUsT2oFaT3MeOCMVTb4hA6Vq3Yo8Qm1Z2kQAbFjBerZ4Zq11IG0Lg 3gKH+664wwqE9ceEjTaX3rNSAd8KtXVmC0iY9lbyYhfauI2oEQWEw/jR04uxC2K6pj1iV0rz3ujd OFg3aWMWBlPFLhQc0Z7HbPsh5GUQL3gLNPY7Q1WGdCYAD7hTAC0hIpJNrR21FtvTyzAkimCxlPXD 9Z5SPlf0L9gqS2oL5LAoUPrB3szAq0kCbFS5TF7X86Zk61YCCJQwZFmtVLEBuN5asNnatumT11tl gvwHjqofkn385vsfkvvjQ3I/OyT3/ymH5P7xQ/KkYfk9wHXt6+0G3hX7JM1iQZjlu4fB8SRTJcs2 8IJ3wkXxLvA6fU2gcsnmdMFomdfE5iycK9DuWAui6pGAhYFMljaCsgOnP7x967JcwUPsqgvQnSeY LhR3MT6p3zy8+zfKgazQtRr7sX72qytsmwNFsZof0Nc2EUii/z6aTaeff3byOej+chn1FxMRvX0L o0YhlX9Rkxcmo/j0ehm1h49ENFClHZbR95HQ+qiE3r61HIbNg08+ubq6OpEHXPUnbXfxyaL828ly WK+O7vUn03a+s//El+U//x9QSwECFAAUAAAACAB8tmwu6LwWjBpkAACJagEACwAAAAAAAAABACAA toEAAAAAbm9zcGFtMi5odG1QSwUGAAAAAAEAAQA5AAAAQ2QAAAAA ------_=_NextPart_000_01C2E914.415BD3F0-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 23:22:48 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA07250 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:22:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2D4b3d12220 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:37:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D4b3O12217 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:37:03 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA07247 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:22:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D4U4O11957; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:30:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D4TIO11927 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:29:18 -0500 Received: from plaidworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA07104 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:14:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.8/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h2D4GcZQ027901; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 20:16:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Random thought Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: "'Kee Hinckley'" , "'ASRG'" To: "Damien Morton" From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <002401c2e915$ca2a4cb0$6401a8c0@damien> Message-Id: <955EFA36-550A-11D7-902E-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 20:16:37 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wednesday, March 12, 2003, at 08:05 PM, Damien Morton wrote: > Yeah - fundamentally, any spam solution has to be able to pass this > test: > > Can I publish my email address anywhere and not expect to inundated > with > spam. > Which sounds awfully like a whitelist system to me. Implementable today, no protocol enhancements, minimal training, and decent systems can be pre--programmed to minimize the hassles to people you WANT sending to you.... the big issue on whitelists seems to be the social issue, the "jumping through hoops" issue. But I haven't yet seen a suggestion I thought didn't require at least that much hassle/work/retraining/etc and most require a lot more. So why not whitelistings as part of a solution as a lesser evil to all this other stuff? -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/ No! No! Dead girl, OFF the table! -- Shrek _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 23:24:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA07302 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:24:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2D4ckF12977 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:38:46 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D4ckO12974 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:38:46 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA07288 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:24:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D4PBO11822; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:25:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D4OMO11790 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:24:22 -0500 Received: from nycsmtp2out.rdc-nyc.rr.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA07028 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:09:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from damien (66-108-13-38.nyc.rr.com [66.108.13.38]) by nycsmtp2out.rdc-nyc.rr.com (8.12.1/Road Runner SMTP Server 1.0) with ESMTP id h2D45egD025841; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:05:40 -0500 (EST) From: "Damien Morton" To: "'Kee Hinckley'" , "'ASRG'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Random thought Message-ID: <002401c2e915$ca2a4cb0$6401a8c0@damien> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:05:30 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Behalf Of Kee Hinckley > > At 11:41 AM -0500 3/12/03, Jason Hihn wrote: > >What if we assigned a bucket in the email address? > > > >joe[spam]@paytimepayroll.com > > I've been doing this for about a year. (Using > myaddr+domain@example.com, which is supported by many MTAs). It > turns out that it starts to be a pain to manage. Companies change > names, domains change. You start to have addresses registered at > sites where you aren't sure which token you used. Never mind that > you get the sites that don't let you type in a + in the address (or > like drugstore.com, which just made it impossible for me to access my > email account because they added that restriction *after* I had > registered--not to worry they said, they'll fix it in 3-5 weeks.). > > But it hasn't had any impact on my spam. Why? Because legitimate > sites don't sell your email address. And I don't give my address to > non-legit sites. Most of my spam comes from postings to mailing > lists and other things that put my address on the web. Giving each > of those a different address would a) result in a lot of spam, b) > make it hard to send mail to a mailing list and c) would (if I > blocked them once I started getting spam) make it difficult for legit > folks to get in touch with me. Yeah - fundamentally, any spam solution has to be able to pass this test: Can I publish my email address anywhere and not expect to inundated with spam. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 23:34:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA07558 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:34:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2D4mu013369 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:48:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D4muO13366 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:48:56 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA07552 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:34:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D4g7O13129; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:42:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D4fpO13103 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:41:51 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA07349 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:27:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2D4T9LD028764 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:29:09 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303130429.h2D4T9LD028764@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] DCC and IP checksums References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:29:09 -0700 (MST) > From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" > ... > For the record, the value in separating authentication and authorization > is uniquely a function of an environment where there is a great variation > in the rights which individuals may hold. In environments where there is > no such variation in rights there is not an intrinsic value in > authentication as a distinct step. That's right. In an isolated corporate network where central administrators are responsible for all of the computers in the network, authentication and authorization are the same. In that kind of network is no difference between code the central operators sign (or is signed on their behalf) and authorized code. However, the Internet or even a large university is a different kind of universe. Microsoft or any outfit can be expected to sign some code whose installation and operation is authorized by the owners of some computers, not authorized, on other computers, and worse, only partly authorized on still other computers. The distinction is relevant to signed spam filtering code. If it were technically feasible, might the U.S. Dept. of Defense might ask a vendor of spam filters to auto-update its customers filters to affect mail in arabic to or from computers in a particular time zone or with other characteristics? How about a filter that affects mail about organizations that the Chinese government does not like? I think the answer to both questions is "Of course!" Such filters would be authenticated by the shrink-wrap box vendor but entirely unauthorized. > If you can't learn to moderate your language could you possibly try > to understand that just because people don't observe the limitations > the litterature may contain does not make them ignorant or 'frauds'. What better words are there for those who say by their words and products that there is not "a great variation in the rights which individuals may hold" in the Internet? The decades of security problems in DOS, Windows, and Windows XP/2000/NT as it is configured by default are caused in large part by the [you pick the word] and entirely false assumption that is no "great variation in the rights which individuals may hold" on computers running Microsoft software. No useful anti-spam system can ignore the fact the spamishness of a message or class of messages cannot be centrally defined and that there are those vast variations among individual email recipients and system operators. I've intentionally avoided the issue of whether that signed code has been reviewed by Lampson and Needham instead of whoever has been reviewing Microsoft products for the last 20 years. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 23:40:00 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA07662 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:40:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2D4sFw13604 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:54:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D4sFO13601 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:54:15 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA07654 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:39:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D4m1O13308; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:48:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D4l6O13265 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:47:06 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA07477 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:32:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18tFcz-0001i8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 18:27:17 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Random thought In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 12 Mar 2003 11:15:38 MST." <200303121815.h2CIFcYE016084@calcite.rhyolite.com> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 18:27:16 -0500 Vernon Schryver wrote: > I think such potential barriers are simply too high. If a defense > depends on at least X% of the net using it to reduce your spam load > by X% for any X greater than 0.01%, then it is hopeless. You will > not use it unless you invented it or are selling it and it will never > be adopted by X% of the net. Let's turn a problem into a solution. Is there a critical percentage of the net which will cause/force wide-spread adoption of an anti-spam method? If so, who are they, and what percentage of the net do they control? Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 23:43:02 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA07764 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:43:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2D4vHu13732 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:57:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D4vHO13729 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:57:17 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA07746 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:42:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D4t4O13668; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:55:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D4sGO13617 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:54:16 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA07656 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:39:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18tFju-0001iS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 18:34:26 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Real-world spam experiences In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:05:56 EST." <3E6FA134.6050907@americasm01.nt.com> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 18:34:26 -0500 "Chris Lewis" wrote: > Slight correction. Striker never did that AFAIK. Striker always > rejected, via either outright denial of connection or inline rejects > rather than bouncing or accepting. Yes. I set up a domain, added myself as a user with email, and waited 5 years. > The unproven supposition is that his problem is because of one or > two malfunctioning dictionary runs. At this point, I think it's impossible to know for sure. But it does prove that spammers don't prune their databases. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 23:52:13 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA07997 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:52:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2D56S114101 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 00:06:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D56SO14098 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 00:06:28 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA07983 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:51:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D543O13964; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 00:04:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D4wFO13752 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:58:15 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA07798 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:43:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2D4jaaG000525 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:45:36 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303130445.h2D4jaaG000525@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Random thought References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:45:36 -0700 (MST) > From: william@elan.net > Based on my tests less then half of mail servers will accept 500 error > after data command (those are mostly the ones that support limits on size > of emails - SIZE ESMTP extension I believe). I'd like to believe that you've only hit bad patch of SMTP clients. I think sendmail has done the right thing with a 5yz response to DATA for eons. Many major SMTP clients that used to ignore 5yz responses to DATA commands such as Hotmail's now do the right thing. > The trick that has been used > is to issue RSET command to reset the session to beginning (which is more > widely accepted) even at DATA and then bounce with 500 or to simply > disconnect (before end of transmission, which would cause calling email > server to try again). Who uses that tactic? Many of the many sendmmail Milter filters don't but do use simple 5yz responses to Data comamnds. > . But that you can't easily bounce email and filter > during DATA transmission is very unfortunate and puts many email filters > in the position of returning unwanted email (to FROM command, which is > often invalid and thus wasting servers resources) instead of bouncing it > at the transmission. I don't understand that. If your SMTP server says 5yz to the STMP client and incorrectly assumes that client is not junk, then it won't know that no bouce was generated. That no bounce is generated in this case is no more the responsibility of the rejecting SMTP server than any other bug that causes the other machine to fail to generate a bounce when it should. > My review of solutions shows that most would require additions to SMTP > such that email server can not make a decision after RCPT and TO command > and only can do it either after all headers are received or after main > body of email is received. What I really would like is ability for > receiving mail server to get data or parts of it (particular header, > mime structure of the email, particular mime object) out of band before > making final decision on accepting or rejecting entire email. > ... Again, why do that when the protocol already includes sufficient provisions for examining headers or data before making a final decision? What SMTP lacks is a way to say in response to the DATA command "reject for the 1st recipeint, accept for the 2nd, and temp-fail for the 3rd." To the DATA command ou can only say accept, reject, or temp-fail for all recipients togehter. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 12 23:57:23 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA08200 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:57:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2D5BdQ15124 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 00:11:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D5BcO15121 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 00:11:39 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA08170 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:56:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D57VO14920; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 00:07:31 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D53XO13936 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 00:03:33 -0500 Received: from nycsmtp3out.rdc-nyc.rr.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA07927 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:48:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from damien (66-108-13-38.nyc.rr.com [66.108.13.38]) by nycsmtp3out.rdc-nyc.rr.com (8.12.1/Road Runner SMTP Server 1.0) with ESMTP id h2D4p6Hx018020; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:51:06 -0500 (EST) From: "Damien Morton" To: "'Chuq Von Rospach'" Cc: "'Kee Hinckley'" , "'ASRG'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Random thought Message-ID: <002801c2e91b$42cbda80$6401a8c0@damien> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 In-Reply-To: <955EFA36-550A-11D7-902E-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Importance: Normal X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:44:40 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > From: Chuq Von Rospach [mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com] > > On Wednesday, March 12, 2003, at 08:05 PM, Damien Morton wrote: > > > Yeah - fundamentally, any spam solution has to be able to pass this > > test: > > > > Can I publish my email address anywhere and not expect to inundated > > with > > spam. > > > > Which sounds awfully like a whitelist system to me. Implementable > today, no protocol enhancements, minimal training, and decent systems > can be pre--programmed to minimize the hassles to people you WANT > sending to you.... Im not sure that the test I proposed implies any particular system, including whitelists. My own personal preference is a sender-pays system, implemented at the ISP level, which would be equally effective. Im sure others have proposals that would satisfy the test. > the big issue on whitelists seems to be the social issue, the > "jumping > through hoops" issue. But I haven't yet seen a suggestion I thought > didn't require at least that much hassle/work/retraining/etc and most > require a lot more. So why not whitelistings as part of a > solution as a > lesser evil to all this other stuff? Its probably a little premature to be voting on various approaches. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 13 00:02:12 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA08349 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 00:02:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2D5GRR15328 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 00:16:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D5GRO15325 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 00:16:27 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA08342 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 00:01:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D5C2O15168; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 00:12:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D5BaO15117 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 00:11:36 -0500 Received: from plaidworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA08166 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:56:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.8/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h2D4weZQ028575; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 20:58:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Random thought Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: "'Kee Hinckley'" , "'ASRG'" To: "Damien Morton" From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <002801c2e91b$42cbda80$6401a8c0@damien> Message-Id: <749A4BC2-5510-11D7-902E-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 20:58:39 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wednesday, March 12, 2003, at 08:44 PM, Damien Morton wrote: >> Which sounds awfully like a whitelist system to me. Implementable >> today, no protocol enhancements, minimal training, and decent systems >> can be pre--programmed to minimize the hassles to people you WANT >> sending to you.... > > Im not sure that the test I proposed implies any particular system, > including whitelists. My own personal preference is a sender-pays > system, implemented at the ISP level, which would be equally effective. > Im sure others have proposals that would satisfy the test. Sender pays requires a set of standards, cooperative implementation, some non-trivial infrastructure to make it work, and a lot of time and energy. Whitelisting is something that can be built on an individual, site or organizational level without a need of new standards, new protocols, financial transactions, certification, PKI infrastructures, or anything else. It can be implemented today, in fact, layering on top of what's there in most cases. No, it doesn't solve all problems. but it solves some useful subsets of problems, which simplifies the issue of solving the next subset. > Its probably a little premature to be voting on various approaches. > I'm not voting. Or suggesting we vote. I'm suggesting that, compared to some of the "rewrite the world" approaches, we consider more off-the-shelf and less, well, world-changing ones as well. -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/ Stress is when you wake up screaming and you realize you haven't fallen asleep yet. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 13 00:07:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA08533 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 00:07:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2D5LpJ15575 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 00:21:51 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D5LpO15572 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 00:21:51 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA08498 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 00:07:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D5J7O15429; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 00:19:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D5IWO15397 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 00:18:32 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA08429 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 00:03:45 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2D55qbh004410 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 00:05:52 -0500 Message-Id: <200303130505.h2D55qbh004410@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.2 03/12/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] DCC and IP checksums In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 12 Mar 2003 18:23:36 PST." References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_-825174768P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 00:05:52 -0500 --==_Exmh_-825174768P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 18:23:36 PST, "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" said: > For the record, the value in separating authentication and authorization > is uniquely a function of an environment where there is a great variation > in the rights which individuals may hold. In environments where there is > no such variation in rights there is not an intrinsic value in > authentication as a distinct step. Hmm.. Vern, he's got us there... A truly sad state of affairs, but he *does* have us there... --==_Exmh_-825174768P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+cBGwcC3lWbTT17ARAvfuAJ9IAV4599tK+ABwrJWXdOebGgnA4gCfQe1K wc1uvOYWmLzO3yEK8Pt1BnQ= =Tpp4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_-825174768P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 13 00:51:51 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA09617 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 00:51:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2D668m17797 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 01:06:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D668O17794 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 01:06:08 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA09610 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 00:51:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D60FO17524; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 01:00:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D5x0O17449 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 00:59:00 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA09511 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 00:44:12 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2D3uHuS023082; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 19:56:17 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2D3uHmd023078; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 19:56:17 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: Vernon Schryver cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Random thought In-Reply-To: <200303130445.h2D4jaaG000525@calcite.rhyolite.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 19:56:17 -0800 (PST) On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > Based on my tests less then half of mail servers will accept 500 error > > after data command (those are mostly the ones that support limits on size > > of emails - SIZE ESMTP extension I believe). > > I'd like to believe that you've only hit bad patch of SMTP clients. Since I was testing mail servers that connected to my mail server, possibly the data was contaminated by spammers who just dont take no (500) for an answer. > > My review of solutions shows that most would require additions to SMTP > > such that email server can not make a decision after RCPT and TO command > > and only can do it either after all headers are received or after main > > body of email is received. What I really would like is ability for > > receiving mail server to get data or parts of it (particular header, > > mime structure of the email, particular mime object) out of band before > > making final decision on accepting or rejecting entire email. > > ... > > Again, why do that when the protocol already includes sufficient > provisions for examining headers or data before making a final decision? After you receive entire email though... Why wase so much bandwidth when 75% of spam can be rejected based on just incorrect headers and most solutions require using special headers for additional information on authentication as well allowing to distiguish between standard mail and authenticated email. > > But that you can't easily bounce email and filter > > during DATA transmission is very unfortunate and puts many email filters > > in the position of returning unwanted email (to FROM command, which is > > often invalid and thus wasting servers resources) instead of bouncing it > > at the transmission. > > I don't understand that. If your SMTP server says 5yz to the STMP > client and incorrectly assumes that client is not junk, then it won't > know that no bouce was generated. That no bounce is generated in this > case is no more the responsibility of the rejecting SMTP server than > any other bug that causes the other machine to fail to generate a > bounce when it should. I'm way confused by what you wrote. What I meant is that there is a difference between how blacklists work (when SMTP servers responds with 500 just based on your ip) and how spam filters work (which scans the email, trys to classify it as spam and it is - its either discards it or bounced back to the sender or sent to special spam folder). I'd rather have filtering do like blacklists and either return an error (instead of discarding or trying to send email back) or accept it (either to spam folder or to normal folder). > What SMTP lacks is a way to say in response to the DATA command "reject > for the 1st recipeint, accept for the 2nd, and temp-fail for the 3rd." > To the DATA command ou can only say accept, reject, or temp-fail for > all recipients togehter. I agree - this is also really really needed. What else I'd find usefull is automated way to say that it requires certain type of authentication for email to be accepted (and not just that it requires authentication as is possible now). -- William Leibzon Elan Communications Inc. william@elan.net _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 13 01:08:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA09847 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 01:08:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2D6NEY19123 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 01:23:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D6NEO19120 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 01:23:14 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA09839 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 01:08:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D6L7O19073; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 01:21:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D6KrO19058 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 01:20:53 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA09807 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 01:06:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2D687r9010522 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:08:07 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303130608.h2D687r9010522@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Random thought References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:08:07 -0700 (MST) > From: william@elan.net > ... > > > Based on my tests less then half of mail servers will accept 500 error > > > after data command (those are mostly the ones that support limits on size > > > of emails - SIZE ESMTP extension I believe). > > > > I'd like to believe that you've only hit bad patch of SMTP clients. > Since I was testing mail servers that connected to my mail server, > possibly the data was contaminated by spammers who just dont take no (500) > for an answer. I don't understand. How can you know that 5yz responses to DATA are ignored? How can you tell the difference between a broken client that ignores 5yz for DATA and a good client that generates a bounce? The won't-take-no(5yz) STMP clients clearly do accept and recognize 5yz errors to the DATA command; they just do the wrong thing. > ... > > Again, why do that when the protocol already includes sufficient > > provisions for examining headers or data before making a final decision? > After you receive entire email though... Why wase so much bandwidth when > 75% of spam can be rejected based on just incorrect headers and most > solutions require using special headers for additional information on > authentication as well allowing to distiguish between standard mail and > authenticated email. The bandwidth required to handle a single mail message is trivial. It's typically about that required for a single HTTP page hit. Only if your system is handling more than about 200,000 mail messages/day do you need more than current puny, commodity PC hardware. I think there are subscribers to this mailing list who are dealing with 2 Mmsgs/day or more with cheap, commodity PC boxes, albeit more than one box. > ... >I'm way confused by what you wrote. What I meant is that there is a difference > between how blacklists work (when SMTP servers responds with 500 just based on > your ip) and how spam filters work (which scans the email, trys to > classify it as spam and it is - its either discards it or bounced back to > the sender or sent to special spam folder). I don't like that distinction for several reasons. I think a "filter" is any of those things. Besides, there are spam defenses that use DNS IP blacklists to detect and report spam to a distributed network so that substantially identical copies can be rejected from unlisted IP addresses. DNS IP blacklists can do anything of the things that the other sort can do, including only tag or segregate spam. It is at least as common for DNS IP blacklists to operate at the end of the envelope, so that the SMTP server can accept mail to some mailboxes such as postmaster from blacklisted IP addresses. > I'd rather have filtering do > like blacklists and either return an error (instead of discarding or > trying to send email back) or accept it (either to spam folder or to > normal folder). Some implementations of what you call "filtering" can do that. > ... > What else I'd find usefull is automated way to say that it requires > certain type of authentication for email to be accepted (and not just that > it requires authentication as is possible now). It's often easier to require the authenticating tokens at the start, do much of the processing, and only just before doing something permanent or expensive check the authentiation tokens as well as decide whether the request is authorized given the authentication. In other words, if that's what you want, you could simply use SMTP-AUTH but lie about whether you like the tokens. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 13 04:24:27 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA24855 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 04:24:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2D9cnI10431 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 04:38:49 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D9cnO10428 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 04:38:49 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA24847 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 04:23:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D9XQO09456; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 04:33:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2D9WvO09439 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 04:32:57 -0500 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA24751 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 04:17:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 18tOsg-0008FX-00; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 09:20:06 +0000 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Asrg] Random thought To: "wayne" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.4.11] Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 09:20:06 +0000 > > > > > This discussion leads me, in a roundabout way, to a topic about which I > > am confused. Should mail to invalid recipients be rejected or merely > > discarded? > > I'm interested in hearing others opinions, but in my opinion, you > should reject invalid recipients as early in the process as you can. > In particular, if you can reject the email before the message has been > accepted by the receiving MTA, you force the sending MTA to do the > bounce. This means that the receiving MTA is not responsible for > bounces that get sent to another of the spammers victims and decreases > the chance that you will be (falsely) labelled as a spammer. > I agree, it's what we try to do here. The exposure to a "dictionary attack" may be over-emphasised. Such an attack has a pretty clear signature ( high invalid/valid ratio over a short time originating at a single IP or small range). It's possible to (dynamically) modify policy with respect to a source which has given that signature. Of course, this signature is strong for us - as our ~100k accounts cover only a small part of dictionary (or randomised localpart) space. It's likely not as strong for Yahoo or Hotmail. On a related point: We've had a number of complaints from foreign system admins about such attacks using a (forged) sender in one of our domains. They tend to send us yards of their MTA logs as "evidence". It seems that there are many "postmasters" out there who don't know how to read their own logs ("it's the IP stoopid!"). Sender forgery tends to come as a terrible surprise to them. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 13 06:39:16 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA27247 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 06:39:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2DBrel18829 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 06:53:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DBreO18826 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 06:53:40 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA27200 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 06:38:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DBemO18243; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 06:40:48 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DBdmO18159 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 06:39:48 -0500 Received: from ciphertrust.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA26878 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 06:24:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.com with ESMTP ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 06:26:21 -0500 (EST) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 06:16:09 -0500 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu'" , "'asrg@ietf.org'" , "'Vernon Schryver'" , "'pbaker@verisign.com'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] DCC and IP checksums MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 06:15:59 -0500 Gentlemen, If you wish to continue this discussion, perhaps you can do so in private communication. There are over 400 subscribers to this mailing list. For the most part these are busy individuals that signed up for a research mailing list to understand and contribute to solving the spam problem. They are not interested in scoring a debate match between two men and a sidekick. To all: With every post to this list, please ask yourself if your message contains an idea or contribution that is worthy of sitting in the mailboxes of 400 busy and intelligent individuals. Remember, we are here to stop (not produce) unwanted messages. Thanks, Paul _______________________________________________ Paul Q. Judge Paul.Judge@CipherTrust.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu [mailto:Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu] > Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 12:06 AM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] DCC and IP checksums > > > On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 18:23:36 PST, "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" > said: > > > For the record, the value in separating authentication and > > authorization is uniquely a function of an environment > where there is > > a great variation in the rights which individuals may hold. In > > environments where there is no such variation in rights > there is not > > an intrinsic value in authentication as a distinct step. > > Hmm.. Vern, he's got us there... > > A truly sad state of affairs, but he *does* have us there... > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 13 06:46:00 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA27424 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 06:46:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2DC0OB19182 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 07:00:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DC0OO19179 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 07:00:24 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA27390 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 06:45:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DBq9O18775; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 06:52:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DBpiO18711 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 06:51:44 -0500 Received: from mail.neosinteractive.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA27112 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 06:36:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from tthompson ([217.35.105.173] unverified) by mail.neosinteractive.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Thu, 13 Mar 2003 11:43:43 +0000 From: "Tom Thomson" To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20030313060001.17479.52412.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Mar 2003 11:43:43.0531 (UTC) FILETIME=[CCAF07B0:01C2E955] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] {Asrg] some comments on the signing and authentication off-topic rant Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 11:38:16 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >From: Vernon Schryver >Subject: RE: [Asrg] DCC and IP checksums > >> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" >> >> ... >> The design of the code signing services was to ensure that code >> obtained through the web was at least as trustworthy as code bought >> in a shrinkwrap box in a store. It was not to eliminate all possible >> risks. >> ... > >Requiring that the signature on the new version of the code match the >signature on the original from the shrinkwrap box would be a significant >and radical improvement on the ActiveX model and what I understood Phillip >Hallam-Baker to be proposing. As I understand ActiveX, esssentially any >code signed by any vendor recognized by Microsoft and marked "safe" by >the vendor is allowed free reign to do whatever it wants. In that case you don't understand active-X very well. It's possible to set up your box in a variety of different ways. Most of my boxes will tell me when they see an sibned active-X control, tell me who signed it, tell me whether it is marked "safe for scripting", and ask me if I want to let it run. It also strikes me that there's a pretty clear distinction between authentication in that setup - someone signed it and the system checks the certificate chain - and authorisation - I give permission for the code to run - so maybe you have been falsely accusing MS about failing to make that distinction? Certainly I have never seen anything from MS that tells me I should trust signed code, as opposed to trusting that it was signed by the signer. I don't think MS is particularly good at security, but they aren't any worse than anyone else in the business (apart from their email scripting, where they really introduced a nightmare for themselves and for all their customers)and they seem to be less inclined to push snake oil than some rival camps. Code signing was designed for exactly what Phill described and works as well as any PK system will work for that purpose (which is not actually very well, since certifying authorities have no relationship with relying parties, but is probably the best that can be done at present). _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 13 06:51:04 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA27544 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 06:51:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2DC5SW19420 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 07:05:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DC5SO19417 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 07:05:28 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA27538 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 06:50:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DBu2O18929; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 06:56:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DBtCO18882 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 06:55:12 -0500 Received: from centipaid.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA27282 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 06:40:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from centipaid.com ([216.177.8.126]) by centipaid.com ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 06:51:15 -500 From: "ietf@centipaid.com" Reply-to: ietf@centipaid.com To: Jason Hihn , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Proposal .... X-Mailer: Quality Web Email v3.0p, http://netwinsite.com/refw.htm Priority: normal Message-id: <3e7070b3.7e7d.337494916@centipaid.com> X-Server: High Performance Mail Server - http://surgemail.com Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 11:51:15 GMT > > When the mail client sends a message, it only goes as > > far as their local mail server. The local mail server > > stores the body of the message and then > > sends the header on to the recipient with a ID through > > which the body may be picked up. > > > > When the header arrives at the destination, the client > > on the other side downloads the body of the message from > the specified host. > Imagine the server you are picking up from isn't honest. > It's a spammers server. > They now know the email they sent to was valid. Congrats, > you've just verified your email, and that is worth double > on the spam market. The proposal make sense, you want them to be there. Today we run away from giving out our email becuase we will be spammed without an mercy. But if you know where the spammer is, you can take counter measures, you can use better filters, use alternative solutions such as postage, certs, etc.. If you look at the paper presented by Phillip Hallam-Baker you will see that "90% of the emails did not have a valid sender address. These emails could be excluded if there were some mechanism that allowed validation of sender addresses" So a system that will call back will make them stick. I have dealt with spam for years, and I never got stats, but I always felt that if I was able to go back and get the messages fro them, instead of autmatically take the junk, then it will be a fair game for all. They get to deal with serving it to me, and I will galdly take it, as long as it is not put on my door step 300,000 messages a day... _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 13 07:39:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA28323 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 07:39:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2DCs9d23101 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 07:54:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DCs9O23098 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 07:54:09 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA28314 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 07:39:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DCkUO22750; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 07:46:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DCj2O22682 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 07:45:02 -0500 Received: from nber13.nber.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA28134 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 07:30:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from nber13.nber.org (localhost.nber.org [127.0.0.1]) by nber13.nber.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h2DCWFQI095219 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 07:32:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by nber13.nber.org (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id h2DCWFl2095218 for asrg@ietf.org.KAV; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 07:32:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from nber5.nber.org (nber5.nber.org [207.113.108.99]) by nber13.nber.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h2DCWCQJ095192; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 07:32:13 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Feenberg To: william@elan.net cc: Vernon Schryver , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Random thought In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 07:14:02 -0500 (EST) On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 william@elan.net wrote: > Based on my tests less then half of mail servers will accept 500 error > after data command (those are mostly the ones that support limits on size > of emails - SIZE ESMTP extension I believe). The trick that has been used Can you clarify? Do you mean that many receiving MTAs don't support rejection of messages based on content, or that if the receiving MTA rejects during the DATA command the sending MTA will not "accept" the 500 error? In the former case, it is easy enough for those wanting to improve their content based scanning procedure to get an improved MTA. They are already making a substantial change to their system. If the latter, what happens to the message? Is it dropped on the floor? Does the receiving MTA get some acknowledgment that the the error has not been accepted? Can you provide MTA names? Do the offenders include any of Exchange, Postfix, qmail? Finally, does this mean that MILTER based content scanning will lose mail coming from certain other MTAs, rather than rejecting it? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 13 08:50:15 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA00396 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 08:50:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2DE4hn28759 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 09:04:43 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DE4gO28756 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 09:04:42 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA00387 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 08:49:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DDqaO28156; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 08:52:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DDpAO28081 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 08:51:10 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id IAA00044 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 08:36:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 11187 invoked from network); 12 Mar 2003 13:36:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO startechgroup.co.uk) (10.2.100.157) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 12 Mar 2003 13:36:02 -0000 Subject: Re: [Asrg] Proposal .... Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: asrg@ietf.org To: mathew From: Matt Sergeant In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <0F1F33F1-5559-11D7-B5D3-0003939CB5D8@startechgroup.co.uk> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 13:38:22 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thursday, Mar 13, 2003, at 02:16 Europe/London, mathew wrote: > And the asshat system administrators who leave their systems as open > relays will get a "slashdot effect" of spam, as 100,000 spam victims > call to collect the sales pitch, saturating the open relay machine's > network connection and maybe even taking it down. Chances are, most > of the victims' machines will be unable to get through, and so the > spam won't appear to those people. Why wouldn't the spammer do what he does now, and deposit his email on 1000 open relays, making it only 100 connections to the victim's machine (which just looks like a prolific poster)? Matt. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 13 09:26:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA01594 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 09:26:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2DEf2T32083 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 09:41:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DEf1O32076 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 09:41:01 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA01588 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 09:26:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DEX2O30905; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 09:33:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DETEO30714 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 09:29:14 -0500 Received: from chimta04.algx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA01128 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 09:14:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from JHS ([67.92.23.74]) by chimmx04.algx.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.10 (built Jan 23 2003)) with SMTP id <0HBO006YHYBD3Y@chimmx04.algx.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 08:16:25 -0600 (CST) From: Jason Hihn Subject: RE: [Asrg] Proposal .... In-reply-to: <3e7070b3.7e7d.337494916@centipaid.com> To: ietf@centipaid.com, asrg@ietf.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 09:16:25 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf@centipaid.com [mailto:ietf@centipaid.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 6:51 AM > To: Jason Hihn; asrg@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Asrg] Proposal .... > > > > > When the mail client sends a message, it only goes as > > > far as their local mail server. The local mail server > > > stores the body of the message and then > > > sends the header on to the recipient with a ID through > > > which the body may be picked up. > > > > > > When the header arrives at the destination, the client > > > on the other side downloads the body of the message from > > the specified host. > > Imagine the server you are picking up from isn't honest. > > It's a spammers server. > > They now know the email they sent to was valid. Congrats, > > you've just verified your email, and that is worth double > > on the spam market. > > The proposal make sense, you want them to be there. Today > we run away > from giving out our email becuase we will be spammed without > an mercy. Do you put your home phone number on highway bulletin boards, even if you have caller ID? (Even assume that they couldnot block it) I think not. > But if you know where the spammer is, you can take counter > measures, you can > use better filters, use alternative solutions such as > postage, certs, etc.. You can take measures on HIM AFTER it's too late (He's sold your address to someone else) > If you look at the paper presented by Phillip Hallam-Baker > you will see that > > "90% of the emails did not have a valid sender address. > These emails could be excluded if there were some mechanism > that allowed validation of sender addresses" My verify plan does this while taking measure to protect your email. There is only one time consuming way to do it under my plan. Under this plan it is 100% certain and fast. > So a system that will call back will make them stick. I > have dealt with spam for years, and I never got stats, but I > always felt that if I was able to go back and get the > messages fro them, instead of automatically take the junk, > then it will be a fair game for all. They get to deal with > serving it to me, and I will galdly take it, as long as it > is not put on my door step 300,000 messages a day... You'll still get those 300k messages a day, because 100% of list purchasers will have 100% verified lists, and you're the one that helped them build it! Assume temporarily that most of this plan works. Spammers are caught and their messages killed. This has first amendment rights (freedom of speech) violations all over it. The courts have been pretty strong to protect freedom of speech. But we also don't have to listen. You'd only be able to kill messages if a spammer was hacked into an ISP (trespassing). Furthermore, he can craft his sending scheme to evade whatever traps were put in place, and have the same effect. If the spammer uses his own systems, then it'll take even longer to shut him down, because he'll be doing it legally. So in the end he ends up verifying addresses with absolute certainty, just a bit slower if he doesn't have his own equipment. In the end you'll end up with more spam, because people will pay more for verified lists, making spam a more lucrative arrangement! No way. I'd never use such a system. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 13 09:29:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA01683 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 09:29:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2DEiAc32235 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 09:44:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DEiAO32232 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 09:44:10 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA01674 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 09:29:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DEYHO30991; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 09:34:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DEXOO30943 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 09:33:24 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA01321 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 09:18:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc01.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53] (may be forged)) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2DEIGfK026143; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 06:18:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 06:20:33 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Chuq Von Rospach'" , Damien Morton Cc: "'Kee Hinckley'" , "'ASRG'" Subject: Deployment advantage RE: [Asrg] Random thought MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 06:20:32 -0800 > Sender pays requires a set of standards, cooperative implementation, > some non-trivial infrastructure to make it work, and a lot of > time and > energy. Whitelisting is something that can be built on an individual, > site or organizational level without a need of new standards, new > protocols, financial transactions, certification, PKI > infrastructures, > or anything else. It can be implemented today, in fact, > layering on top > of what's there in most cases. Whitelisting/Authentication delivers an immediate early adopter value - it reduces the chance that the company deploying the authentication will have its emails listed as false positives, it reduces the chance the authentication aware filter deployer will lose emails. Clearly there is also a network effect, the more people use authentication the more incentive there will be to use it as content filters can become more aggressive. Consider the following scenario, 50% of the mail you receive is authenticated (not difficult if it is all internal). That means that you can tighten your acceptance criteria on your spam filters, probably halving the residual amount of spam without the overall false positive rate being higher than before. However network effects bend both ways. Another name for network effect, or 'viral marketting', is chicken and egg problem. That is why it is critical that there be a value to early adopters. I don't see any such early deployment advantage to sender pays. It provides zero or negative return until it is widely deployed. If I am the only person who puts stamps on my email I will pay money out to do so and receive none in return. So it is in the self interest of every party to wait until the scheme is fully deployed before participating. Furthermore there can be very little confidence sender pays will ever get anywhere so there is even less incentive. In particular I and many others simply don't believe that sender pays will decrease spam if successfully deployed. So the deployment incentive curve is negative. Sender pays is an expression of an ideology and reason is not going to provide any answer. Self interest represents an imminent critique in this instance since the governing ideology is that of Ayn Rand. The sender pays proposal will never be made in terms any more concrete than it is today. We will never see an answer to the problem of how mailing lists are going to be managed in the new free market, or how the charging infrastructure to allocate costs will be managed. The costs of infrastructure are easy to overlook. If you look at past VeriSign press releases you will see that the hardware we bought from IBM to suport the DNS clusters cost well over 8 figures. The number of lookups would be much more than for DNS and if real money was involved the running costs would be much, much more than for DNS, they would be much higher in any case because each lookup would involve a state change. ATLAS would have to be much more complex to manage state changes. Basically any sender pays mechanism is going to cost a minimum of 0.01 cents per message to operate, it is more likely the cost would be 0.1 cents even for the most naive scheme. The cost of the infrastructure required to deploy would be in the tens of millions for a commuinty of users large enough for the stamps to provide any value in decreasing spam. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 13 10:15:11 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04750 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 10:15:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2DFTfu03450 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 10:29:41 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DFTeO03447 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 10:29:40 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04674 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 10:14:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DFT5O03411; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 10:29:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DFSPO03332 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 10:28:25 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04492 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 10:13:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2103782; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 10:15:32 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: "Alan DeKok" From: Kee Hinckley Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Subject: [Asrg] Who is most incented to make anti-spam changes? Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 10:14:16 -0500 At 6:27 PM -0500 3/12/03, Alan DeKok wrote: > Is there a critical percentage of the net which will cause/force >wide-spread adoption of an anti-spam method? If so, who are they, and >what percentage of the net do they control? Commercial bulk mailers have an incentive to change their systems out of fear of being blocked. ISPs have an incentive to block spam if it can be done in a way that decreases support and maintenance costs. In other words, adding complex systems isn't necessarily helpful. Reducing forgeries so that they don't get fake complaints might be helpful. Reducing bounces would be helpful. For another view on who is interested in the problem, consider the attendee list to JampSpam. http://www.jamspam.org/home/Participants -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 13 10:16:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04938 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 10:16:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2DFV2703589 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 10:31:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DFV2O03586 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 10:31:02 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04869 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 10:16:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DFTAO03432; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 10:29:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DFSSO03336 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 10:28:28 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04498 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 10:13:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2103800; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 10:15:34 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <955EFA36-550A-11D7-902E-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> References: <955EFA36-550A-11D7-902E-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> To: Chuq Von Rospach From: Kee Hinckley Cc: "Damien Morton" , "'ASRG'" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Subject: [Asrg] Whitelisting issues Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 10:09:20 -0500 At 8:16 PM -0800 3/12/03, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: >Which sounds awfully like a whitelist system to me. Implementable >today, no protocol enhancements, minimal training, and decent >systems can be pre--programmed to minimize the hassles to people you >WANT sending to you.... > >the big issue on whitelists seems to be the social issue, the >"jumping through hoops" issue. But I haven't yet seen a suggestion I >thought didn't require at least that much hassle/work/retraining/etc >and most require a lot more. So why not whitelistings as part of a >solution as a lesser evil to all this other stuff? Whitelisting works well for people who use mail for social communication. They have a limited set of people they communicate with regularly. My only real issue with it in that context is that it's a virus-writer's dream--lots of addresses to send viruses to, and they'll all work. But that's really a different problem. Whitelisting doesn't work at all for inbound company email. I regularly get email addressed to me from people that I don't know and have never heard of before. There are people on this list who are using challenge-response whitelists, and the complaints have been pretty loud. However to be a true spam deterrent, whitelisting needs to do two other things. 1. It needs to *block* non-whitelisted email. Anything that just puts them in a junk folder isn't a long term solution because you still have to read the spam every day. It's a helpful tool, just as any filtering tool is--but it's not a solution, and it won't stop the spammers. If it blocks the email, then you're back to the question of how you get past it. Challenge response? Assume that anyone who tries again is okay? And how you deal with commercial mail systems that either don't read bounces, assume that the bounce is fatal, or don't have a system for retrying. So you need some kind of standard there. 2. It needs authentication. Otherwise the spammers just start forging email more than they already do. This is a weaker need, because it more clearly puts spam on the illegal side of the fence, and greatly reduces the chance that legit companies will spam. P.S. Note that I'm changing the subject line. People have complained about wading through the volume, so I am hoping it will be helpful if people are more aggressive than usual about changing subjects to reflect the specific content of the message when the thread topic forks. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 13 10:17:01 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA05018 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 10:17:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2DFVUO03633 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 10:31:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DFVUO03630 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 10:31:30 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04928 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 10:16:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DFINO02758; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 10:18:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DFDtO02540 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 10:13:55 -0500 Received: from chimta05.algx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA03078 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 09:58:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from JHS ([67.92.23.74]) by chimmx05.algx.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.10 (built Jan 23 2003)) with SMTP id <0HBP00HTT0D6B8@chimmx05.algx.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 09:00:42 -0600 (CST) From: Jason Hihn In-reply-to: <002401c2e915$ca2a4cb0$6401a8c0@damien> To: Damien Morton , "'Kee Hinckley'" , "'ASRG'" Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] Proxy your address (Was: Random thought) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 10:01:05 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of > Damien Morton > Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 11:06 PM > To: 'Kee Hinckley'; 'ASRG' > Subject: RE: [Asrg] Random thought ... > Yeah - fundamentally, any spam solution has to be able to pass this > test: > > Can I publish my email address anywhere and not expect to inundated with > spam. Well then do this: 1) we'll leave a 'calling card' (that looks like an email address for scripts that check for validity) when we use mail and BBS's (ASED232@hotmail.com) (It can be a current email address eventually, but bare with me here...) 2) In order to send a message to me, I must approve you. This is done by sending me your email address (and maybe a short message). I will then give you an encoded address to use to send mail to me. The encoded address will use an algorithm and values of my random choosing. The encoded address will take into account your email address and my email address. 3) You can send to the encoded address where my server will apply the from: address to the destination address, revealing your address (mailbox) for the mail to be deposited in. What we have here now is a way for one-to-one verification. It works well for ICQ AIM and the rest of the services that are pretty much junk free (ICQ screwed some stuff up early on, but I'd not mind spam email at the frequency of ICQ junk - 3 a month and I have a 7 digit number.) Your hashed ID can be sold, but we still have some accountability because the From address must remain the same for the hash to hash to your mailbox. Once verified the user can store the hashed address in their address book. It was still easy to give out how to get in touch with me for business cards and the like. (We can now illustratively change back from ASED232@hotmail.com to joe@hotmail.com since you've followed me through the example - I hope it didn't make it more complicated to follow) If implemented today, we'd get flooded with spam requests for IDs. No one would answer them unless a victim of social engineering. Spam would stop after a flood of requests. The only spam to remain is resold hashes and from: addresses which are filterable. Comments? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 13 10:40:08 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA05885 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 10:40:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2DFscD05890 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 10:54:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DFscO05887 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 10:54:38 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA05878 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 10:39:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DFi5O05106; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 10:44:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DFhqO05083 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 10:43:52 -0500 Received: from chimta03.algx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA05392 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 10:28:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from JHS ([67.92.23.74]) by chimmx03.algx.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.10 (built Jan 23 2003)) with SMTP id <0HBP00B0T1RN0I@chimmx03.algx.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 09:30:59 -0600 (CST) From: Jason Hihn To: Asrg Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] Washington Post article on Spam Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 10:30:59 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A17754-2003Mar12 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 13 11:12:49 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA07229 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 11:12:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2DGRK108510 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 11:27:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DGRKO08507 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 11:27:20 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA07224 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 11:12:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DGNQO08291; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 11:23:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DGKCO08156 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 11:20:12 -0500 Received: from nycsmtp2out.rdc-nyc.rr.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA06872 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 11:05:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from damien (66-108-13-38.nyc.rr.com [66.108.13.38]) by nycsmtp2out.rdc-nyc.rr.com (8.12.1/Road Runner SMTP Server 1.0) with ESMTP id h2DG1GgD001048; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 11:01:16 -0500 (EST) From: "Damien Morton" To: "'Jason Hihn'" , "'Kee Hinckley'" , "'ASRG'" Message-ID: <004201c2e979$c0e2f850$6401a8c0@damien> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] RE: Proxy your address (Was: Random thought) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 11:01:05 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > From: Jason Hihn [mailto:jhihn@paytimepayroll.com] > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of > > Damien Morton > ... > > Yeah - fundamentally, any spam solution has to be able to pass this > > test: > > > > Can I publish my email address anywhere and not expect to inundated > > with spam. > Well then do this: > 1) we'll leave a 'calling card' (that looks like an email > address for scripts that check for validity) when we use mail > and BBS's > (ASED232@hotmail.com) (It can be a current email address > eventually, but bare with me here...) > > 2) In order to send a message to me, I must approve you. This > is done by sending me your email address (and maybe a short > message). I will then give you an encoded address to use to > send mail to me. The encoded address will use an algorithm > and values of my random choosing. The encoded address will > take into account your email address and my email address. Too much trouble for me. I want to publish my email address the same way I can publish my phone number. I _want_ individual strangers to be able to reach me without having to jump through hurdles. Im lazy, and keeping a whitelist is too much trouble for me, especially for my publically available email address. I don't want spam, however. > 3) You can send to the encoded address where my server will > apply the from: address to the destination address, revealing > your address (mailbox) for the mail to be deposited in. > > What we have here now is a way for one-to-one verification. > It works well for ICQ AIM and the rest of the services that > are pretty much junk free (ICQ screwed some stuff up early > on, but I'd not mind spam email at the frequency of ICQ junk > - 3 a month and I have a 7 digit number.) > > Your hashed ID can be sold, but we still have some > accountability because the From address must remain the same > for the hash to hash to your mailbox. > > Once verified the user can store the hashed address in their > address book. It was still easy to give out how to get in > touch with me for business cards and the like. (We can now > illustratively change back from ASED232@hotmail.com to > joe@hotmail.com since you've followed me through the example > - I hope it didn't make it more complicated to follow) > > If implemented today, we'd get flooded with spam requests for > IDs. No one would answer them unless a victim of social > engineering. Spam would stop after a flood of requests. The > only spam to remain is resold hashes and > from: addresses which are filterable. > > Comments? Try explaining your system my 70-year old uncle who still keeps all of his documents on his mac os desktop because folders are too complicated. He'll just give up. Its too complicated for 99% of users of email. Sender-pays, on the other hand, could be completely invisible to the user, if implemented as a trading arrangement between ISPs. Think of it like carbon-rights trading, but for email. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 13 11:37:53 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA08004 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 11:37:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2DGqM410493 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 11:52:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DGqMO10490 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 11:52:22 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA07999 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 11:37:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DGn6O10337; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 11:49:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DGmgO10306 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 11:48:42 -0500 Received: from chimta01.algx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA07922 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 11:33:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from JHS ([67.92.23.74]) by chimmx01.algx.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.10 (built Jan 23 2003)) with SMTP id <0HBP00J1D4RQFE@chimmx01.algx.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 10:35:50 -0600 (CST) From: Jason Hihn In-reply-to: <004201c2e979$c0e2f850$6401a8c0@damien> To: Damien Morton , "'ASRG'" Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] RE: Proxy your address (Was: Random thought) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 11:35:50 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT > -----Original Message----- > From: Damien Morton [mailto:dm-temp-310102@nyc.rr.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 11:01 AM > To: 'Jason Hihn'; 'Kee Hinckley'; 'ASRG' > Subject: RE: Proxy your address (Was: Random thought) .... > Try explaining your system my 70-year old uncle who still keeps all of > his documents on his mac os desktop because folders are too complicated. > He'll just give up. Its too complicated for 99% of users of email. Too complicated to say that you get to approve of who gets to talk to you, and you have to ask someone to approve to talk to them? And it only has to be done once per person. I'd like to be able to have this control. Maybe something to put on a wish list. > Sender-pays, on the other hand, could be completely invisible to the > user, if implemented as a trading arrangement between ISPs. Think of it > like carbon-rights trading, but for email. I think Sender-pays would go a long way, but like everything suggested to date, not 100%. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 13 13:48:18 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA12451 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 13:48:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2DJ2pA20525 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 14:02:51 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DJ2oO20522 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 14:02:50 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA12428 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 13:47:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DJ0cO20458; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 14:00:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DIxWO20343 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 13:59:32 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA12357 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 13:44:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2104356; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 13:46:37 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: Jason Hihn From: Kee Hinckley Subject: [Asrg] RE: Proxy your address (Was: Random thought) Cc: Damien Morton , "'ASRG'" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 13:44:02 -0500 At 11:35 AM -0500 3/13/03, Jason Hihn wrote: > > Try explaining your system my 70-year old uncle who still keeps all of >> his documents on his mac os desktop because folders are too complicated. >> He'll just give up. Its too complicated for 99% of users of email. > >Too complicated to say that you get to approve of who gets to talk to you, >and you have to ask someone to approve to talk to them? Well, there's the little matter of the software he has to install to manage all these fake addresses. But no, the complication I assume Damien was referring to was on the other side. You've made it too complicated to talk to someone. I get mail from random strangers that goes: "I liked that article you wrote." Do you really think they are going to jump through all of these hoops in order to send me that? What about the guy who says, "I just tried xxx you wrote, and there's the bug where it does such and such--here's a fix." Challenge response systems are extremely annoying to people who are trying to talk to you. They are so annoying that there is no way a company would use them on contact email addresses. And as an individual I wouldn't get lots of messages I'd really like to get. Ironically, there is one class of people who will wade through a challenge response system. The people who really want to sell me something. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 13 14:11:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA13333 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 14:11:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2DJPcZ22668 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 14:25:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DJPcO22665 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 14:25:38 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA13315 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 14:10:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DJM5O22400; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 14:22:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DJLqO22359 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 14:21:52 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA13150 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 14:06:48 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2DJ8vRU006182; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 14:08:57 -0500 Message-Id: <200303131908.h2DJ8vRU006182@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.2 03/12/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: Paul Judge Cc: "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] DCC and IP checksums In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 13 Mar 2003 06:15:59 EST." References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_-1098136358P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 14:08:57 -0500 --==_Exmh_-1098136358P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 06:15:59 EST, you said: > There are over 400 subscribers to this mailing list. For the most part these > are busy individuals that signed up for a research mailing list to > understand and contribute to solving the spam problem. They are not > interested in scoring a debate match between two men and a sidekick. On the flip side, I'm writing this as yet *ANOTHER* worm is crawling around and poking port 445 all over the place. http://isc.incidents.org/port_details.html?port=445 And there's Code Red outbreaks STILL. I'll spell it out: Not many of the proposals I've seen so far address the issue of what happens once "spammer" meets up with "Outlook/IE worm" and/or "DDOS zombie network". The average security posture Out There is *abysmally* low, and the machines are for the vast majority a monoculture developed around a broken security model. Several ideas have overlooked the concept that the remote end could be lying to you, but almost all make the implicit assumption that the *local* end is trustable. And I'm not at all convinced that's true at most sites. --==_Exmh_-1098136358P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+cNdJcC3lWbTT17ARAlSGAJ0ekUHNDqSBM4TQncfxkegkoGLNcwCff/19 exMW7M59Z+rzmTc1IUPrfBI= =3G0Z -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_-1098136358P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 13 15:12:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA16768 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 15:12:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2DKRBP27883 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 15:27:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DKRBO27880 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 15:27:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA16702 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 15:12:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DKLSO27556; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 15:21:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DKGtO27318 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 15:16:55 -0500 Received: from chimta03.algx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA15483 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 15:01:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from JHS ([67.92.23.74]) by chimmx03.algx.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.10 (built Jan 23 2003)) with SMTP id <0HBP00G4VEEMML@chimmx03.algx.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 14:03:59 -0600 (CST) From: Jason Hihn In-reply-to: Cc: "'ASRG'" Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] Taking a step back (Was: Proxy your address) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 15:03:58 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Yeah, I get emails like these too. It would be a lot of work for such a disposable conversation. Maybe we should devise a list of spam reducing technology and prioritize it. My list would read: 0) Receiver Anoniminity 1) Sender verification (see note below) Note: This should be considered different from a simple RCPT-TO check. While easily implemented as such, it can be used to validate an address (violating #0) IMHO RCPT-TO should not ever return an error until after the socket is closed. Then when it goes to return an unknown mailbox error, it ends up doing a verify of the From address. This does several things. 1) It will prevent unnecessary error messages being sent back to a no-good address. 2) It will slow/prevent address receiver verification. While on the subject of recipient verification, can we do something about embedded images in html messages? For the un-initiated: A spammer can assign a picture (even a 1x1 transparent pixel picture) to a message. Using the he can cause your client to load that image. But that image is a script that quietly submits (and therefore) verifies your email address before it sends out the image. Can we come up with a standard that requires all images (any binary content really) to be embedded? My preferred email client has a check box to "not load remote images in mail", which works for me, but I fret over people whose clients aren't so careful. > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Kee > Hinckley > Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 1:44 PM > To: Jason Hihn > Cc: Damien Morton; 'ASRG' > Subject: [Asrg] RE: Proxy your address (Was: Random thought) > > ... > > Well, there's the little matter of the software he has to install to > manage all these fake addresses. But no, the complication I assume > Damien was referring to was on the other side. You've made it too > complicated to talk to someone. > > I get mail from random strangers that goes: "I liked that article > you wrote." Do you really think they are going to jump through all > of these hoops in order to send me that? > > What about the guy who says, "I just tried xxx you wrote, and there's > the bug where it does such and such--here's a fix." > > Challenge response systems are extremely annoying to people who are > trying to talk to you. They are so annoying that there is no way a > company would use them on contact email addresses. And as an > individual I wouldn't get lots of messages I'd really like to get. > > Ironically, there is one class of people who will wade through a > challenge response system. The people who really want to sell me > something. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 13 15:12:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA16788 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 15:12:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2DKRGx27900 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 15:27:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DKRFO27897 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 15:27:16 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA16728 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 15:12:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DKOnO27690; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 15:24:49 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DKJ0O27418 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 15:19:00 -0500 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA15618 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 15:03:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com [171.71.163.14]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h2DK5vhs011938; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 12:06:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from CSCOAMERA19540.cisco.com (stealth-10-32-253-238.cisco.com [10.32.253.238]) by mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.1-GA) with SMTP id AEY28309; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 12:00:10 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030313115930.02155ea8@mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com> X-Sender: fred@mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" From: Fred Baker Subject: RE: [Asrg] note to the chair Cc: Asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 11:59:48 -0800 At 07:13 PM 3/12/2003 -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >Well I just tried to post a research paper on spam and it got bounced as 80K >of research is considered too much it appears. I'm interested. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 13 16:14:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA19354 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 16:14:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2DLTBb32562 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 16:29:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DLTAO32559 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 16:29:10 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA19343 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 16:14:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DLOKO32348; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 16:24:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DLJBO32105 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 16:19:11 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA19064 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 16:04:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2104735; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 16:06:11 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: Jason Hihn From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Taking a step back (Was: Proxy your address) Cc: "'ASRG'" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 16:05:02 -0500 At 3:03 PM -0500 3/13/03, Jason Hihn wrote: >verifies your email address before it sends out the image. Can we come up >with a standard that requires all images (any binary content really) to be >embedded? My preferred email client has a check box to "not load remote >images in mail", which works for me, but I fret over people whose clients >aren't so careful. I read somewhere that the next version of Outlook was going to ship with that checkbox on by default. On the downside, that means that companies will be sending you larger email messages. Can't win that one. In any case, email content is definitely out of the scope of this group. (Which ought to rule out content filtering :-). -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 13 16:20:01 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA19560 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 16:20:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2DLYbT00430 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 16:34:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DLYbO00425 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 16:34:37 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA19541 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 16:19:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DLVXO32727; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 16:31:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DLPtO32432 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 16:25:55 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA19306 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 16:10:47 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2DLCrRU014074; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 16:12:53 -0500 Message-Id: <200303132112.h2DLCrRU014074@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.2 03/12/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: Jason Hihn Cc: "'ASRG'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Taking a step back (Was: Proxy your address) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 13 Mar 2003 15:03:58 EST." References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_-1039847448P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 16:12:53 -0500 --==_Exmh_-1039847448P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 15:03:58 EST, Jason Hihn said: > Note: This should be considered different from a simple RCPT-TO check. While > easily implemented as such, it can be used to validate an address (violating > #0) IMHO RCPT-TO should not ever return an error until after the socket is > closed. Then when it goes to return an unknown mailbox error, it ends up > doing a verify of the From address. This does several things. 1) It will > prevent unnecessary error messages being sent back to a no-good address. 2) > It will slow/prevent address receiver verification. So.. instead of giving them a '550 Piss Off' right then and there, you go to all the effort of queueing it to disk and verifying the From: afterwards, and then finding out that you can't double-bounce. Really bad if you're being spammed by 100K things in a dictionary attack... And this is a messy situation - you have to be able to distinguish between double-bounces that should go to the postmaster because there's a real problem, and spammer double bounces. Silently dropping all double bounces is a bad idea... > verifies your email address before it sends out the image. Can we come up > with a standard that requires all images (any binary content really) to be > embedded? My preferred email client has a check box to "not load remote > images in mail", which works for me, but I fret over people whose clients > aren't so careful. Let's note a few things: 1) This is (as you noted) really an MUA issue. 2) There's often legitimate uses for it. If you're at the end of a slow link, you may very well want to download your mail w/o images, and then select 'load images' for certain pieces of mail and not others. 3) The same spammers that don't follow RFC822 won't follow your proposed standard either. 4) Identify the major software vendors who have issues in this area, and ask whether they're likely to implement such a standard. 5) Making it a standard won't make people upgrade. Only user education or forcing an upgrade on them will do that. --==_Exmh_-1039847448P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+cPRUcC3lWbTT17ARAuP7AKDHvTxy4qksAmgMKsZOAEI9RskLAwCcC68L JUguVKmi0oL3ku0xLkPBJeE= =l6t/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_-1039847448P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 13 16:23:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA19746 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 16:23:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2DLcEh01472 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 16:38:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DLcEO01469 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 16:38:14 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA19709 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 16:23:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DLa3O00538; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 16:36:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DLZcO00500 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 16:35:38 -0500 Received: from chimta04.algx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA19583 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 16:20:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from JHS ([67.92.23.74]) by chimmx04.algx.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.10 (built Jan 23 2003)) with SMTP id <0HBP00ASXHZRRW@chimmx04.algx.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 15:21:27 -0600 (CST) From: Jason Hihn Subject: RE: [Asrg] Taking a step back (Was: Proxy your address) In-reply-to: <200303132112.h2DLCrRU014074@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Cc: "'ASRG'" Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 16:21:26 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Bah, I give up. Looks like I'll be relying on the Bayesian spam filtering in the just-released-today Mozilla (v1.3). So much for reclaiming band width, I'll just route spam to /dev/null because the client makers are much more willing to take a stab at the problem than the server admins (who ironically are suffering more). You (We) all are never going to make any progress at this rate. No one wants to adopt anything. No one wants to do anything more than bitch about it. It must not be a big enough problem then. You're going to have to make a commitment to SOMETHING SOMETIME. Jesus, anything is better than what we have now. If you don't want to commit to something then stop bitching and lay in the bed you made. I think sender verification should be started. It is easily implemented and we can stand to have significant gains rather easily. Even if we want to use the RCPT-TO hack in the short term. > -----Original Message----- > From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu [mailto:Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu] > Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 4:13 PM > To: Jason Hihn > Cc: 'ASRG' > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Taking a step back (Was: Proxy your address) > > > On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 15:03:58 EST, Jason Hihn said: > > > Note: This should be considered different from a simple RCPT-TO > check. While > > easily implemented as such, it can be used to validate an > address (violating > > #0) IMHO RCPT-TO should not ever return an error until after > the socket is > > closed. Then when it goes to return an unknown mailbox error, it ends up > > doing a verify of the From address. This does several things. 1) It will > > prevent unnecessary error messages being sent back to a no-good > address. 2) > > It will slow/prevent address receiver verification. > > So.. instead of giving them a '550 Piss Off' right then and there, you > go to all the effort of queueing it to disk and verifying the From: > afterwards, and then finding out that you can't double-bounce. Really > bad if you're being spammed by 100K things in a dictionary attack... > > And this is a messy situation - you have to be able to distinguish between > double-bounces that should go to the postmaster because there's a real > problem, and spammer double bounces. Silently dropping all double > bounces is a bad idea... > > > verifies your email address before it sends out the image. Can > we come up > > with a standard that requires all images (any binary content > really) to be > > embedded? My preferred email client has a check box to "not load remote > > images in mail", which works for me, but I fret over people > whose clients > > aren't so careful. > > Let's note a few things: > > 1) This is (as you noted) really an MUA issue. > > 2) There's often legitimate uses for it. If you're at the end of a slow > link, you may very well want to download your mail w/o images, and then > select 'load images' for certain pieces of mail and not others. > > 3) The same spammers that don't follow RFC822 won't follow your proposed > standard either. > > 4) Identify the major software vendors who have issues in this > area, and ask > whether they're likely to implement such a standard. > > 5) Making it a standard won't make people upgrade. Only user education or > forcing an upgrade on them will do that. > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 13 16:50:52 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA20807 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 16:50:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2DM5T403239 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 17:05:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DM5TO03236 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 17:05:29 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA20785 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 16:50:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DLxAO02288; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 16:59:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DLwVO02239 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 16:58:31 -0500 Received: from new.agentzero.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA20215 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 16:43:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.123.193] (h0050e4251179.ne.client2.attbi.com [66.30.24.79]) by new.agentzero.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2DLjUUD006499; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 16:45:31 -0500 Message-Id: <200303132145.h2DLjUUD006499@new.agentzero.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: Jason Hihn , Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu From: Jim Youll Subject: RE: [Asrg] Too much of too little (Was: Taking a step back) Cc: "'ASRG'" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 16:45:28 -0500 I believe there has been far too much discussion generally, without reflection and thought... and far too much has been said about specific applications. The emphasis here should be on creating guiding principles... simple, clear, brief guiding principles... not code nor zealous defenses of unmeasured techniques. Unwanted e-mail is an old problem. I see no reason that there should be an agreed upon solution in a week's time. I've been involved in the "spam problem" since Canter&Siegel and have tried to be work in other groups like this on, every one of which degenerated into application wars and semantic battles about "what is spam" and so on. What is missing is the guiding principles, the catalog of approaches, carefully considered and then summarized discussion of each, and empirical evidence pro and con... Everyone may not agree on what those principles should be, but they are probably collectively tree-shaped and as they fork, individuals of varied opinions could at least determine where they stand in their beliefs and with whom, but would then be expected to defend those beliefs with some hard evidence - applications and the results of real testing and analysis. The problem is not "spam" - someone in this mess of noise wrote a very good definition of what the problem is. For me, I fall back to a phrase from the US Supreme Court and picked up by privacy advocates: "The right to be left alone." An opinion of whether some message is or is not "spam" may very from person to person, and individual tolerance levels may vary, thus an individualized solution is needed. Yet some things, particularly high-volume, error-packed mail blasts, may be "spam" in the eyes of an ISP due to their impact on networks, thus a server-based solution is needed. And clients and servers may only have incomplete information, so client-server collaborative approaches may be needed. And some "spam" is only detectable via a worldview that no single server can have on its own, thus interop between servers/ISPs may be needed. Will one "agreement" solve all of this? No. But neither will more headstrong efforts to just dive in and start writing code. The problem tangles social, political, economic, historical and technological matters. We will not fix it by jumping in and writing applications, nor by trying to yell the loudest. - Jim At 16:21 -0500 3/13/03, Jason Hihn wrote: >Bah, I give up. > >Looks like I'll be relying on the Bayesian spam filtering in the >just-released-today Mozilla (v1.3). So much for reclaiming band width, I'll >just route spam to /dev/null because the client makers are much more willing >to take a stab at the problem than the server admins (who ironically are >suffering more). > >You (We) all are never going to make any progress at this rate. No one wants >to adopt anything. No one wants to do anything more than bitch about it. It >must not be a big enough problem then. > >You're going to have to make a commitment to SOMETHING SOMETIME. Jesus, >anything is better than what we have now. If you don't want to commit to >something then stop bitching and lay in the bed you made. > >I think sender verification should be started. It is easily implemented and >we can stand to have significant gains rather easily. Even if we want to use >the RCPT-TO hack in the short term. > > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu [mailto:Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu] >> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 4:13 PM >> To: Jason Hihn >> Cc: 'ASRG' >> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Taking a step back (Was: Proxy your address) >> >> >> On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 15:03:58 EST, Jason Hihn said: >> >> > Note: This should be considered different from a simple RCPT-TO >> check. While >> > easily implemented as such, it can be used to validate an >> address (violating >> > #0) IMHO RCPT-TO should not ever return an error until after >> the socket is >> > closed. Then when it goes to return an unknown mailbox error, it ends up > > > doing a verify of the From address. This does several things. 1) It will >> > prevent unnecessary error messages being sent back to a no-good >> address. 2) >> > It will slow/prevent address receiver verification. >> >> So.. instead of giving them a '550 Piss Off' right then and there, you >> go to all the effort of queueing it to disk and verifying the From: >> afterwards, and then finding out that you can't double-bounce. Really >> bad if you're being spammed by 100K things in a dictionary attack... >> >> And this is a messy situation - you have to be able to distinguish between >> double-bounces that should go to the postmaster because there's a real >> problem, and spammer double bounces. Silently dropping all double >> bounces is a bad idea... >> >> > verifies your email address before it sends out the image. Can >> we come up >> > with a standard that requires all images (any binary content >> really) to be >> > embedded? My preferred email client has a check box to "not load remote >> > images in mail", which works for me, but I fret over people >> whose clients >> > aren't so careful. >> >> Let's note a few things: >> >> 1) This is (as you noted) really an MUA issue. >> >> 2) There's often legitimate uses for it. If you're at the end of a slow >> link, you may very well want to download your mail w/o images, and then >> select 'load images' for certain pieces of mail and not others. >> >> 3) The same spammers that don't follow RFC822 won't follow your proposed >> standard either. >> >> 4) Identify the major software vendors who have issues in this >> area, and ask >> whether they're likely to implement such a standard. >> >> 5) Making it a standard won't make people upgrade. Only user education or >> forcing an upgrade on them will do that. >> > >_______________________________________________ >Asrg mailing list >Asrg@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 13 17:19:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21677 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 17:19:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2DMYJk05281 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 17:34:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DMYJO05278 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 17:34:19 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21648 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 17:19:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DMNCO04819; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 17:23:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2DMMrO04780 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 17:22:53 -0500 Received: from chimta01.algx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21315 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 17:07:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from JHS ([67.92.23.74]) by chimmx01.algx.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.10 (built Jan 23 2003)) with SMTP id <0HBP006PDK64VJ@chimmx01.algx.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 16:08:29 -0600 (CST) From: Jason Hihn Subject: RE: [Asrg] Too much of too little (Was: Taking a step back) In-reply-to: <200303132145.h2DLjUUD006499@new.agentzero.com> To: Jim Youll , Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Cc: "'ASRG'" Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 17:08:27 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT A very well written and accurate piece. I like the idea of consolidating theories and proposals and the pros and cons. Though as a developer, I don't share in your view that we shouldn't jump in and just start coding. I think talk is cheap and action is actually worth something. (Though, I don't think it needs to be said that the coding effort should be haphazard and wasted) What I would like to see is an implementation test bed, where we all develop and try to be spammers and break each other's implementations. A place where we can turn theory into fact. You are right that one agreement won't solve it. But we have yet to agree on any one thing. I can't get everyone to agree that sender verification should be required. I see it as a no-brainer, fundamental starting point. I (and I think everyone else does too) want to be left alone from senders that don't exist. Ultimately, I think the network should guarantee that what we get is a 'valid' (yes, yet to be formally defined) communication. Once delivered, the user will ultimately be responsible for determining it's spammness (client filters). > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Youll [mailto:jim@media.mit.edu] > Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 4:45 PM > To: Jason Hihn; Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu > Cc: 'ASRG' > Subject: RE: [Asrg] Too much of too little (Was: Taking a step back) > > > I believe there has been far too much discussion generally, without > reflection and thought... and far too much has been said about > specific applications. > > The emphasis here should be on creating guiding principles... simple, > clear, brief guiding principles... not code nor zealous defenses of > unmeasured techniques. > > Unwanted e-mail is an old problem. I see no reason that there should > be an agreed upon solution in a week's time. I've been involved in > the "spam problem" since Canter&Siegel and have tried to be work in > other groups like this on, every one of which degenerated into > application wars and semantic battles about "what is spam" and so on. > > What is missing is the guiding principles, the catalog of approaches, > carefully considered and then summarized discussion of each, and > empirical evidence pro and con... Everyone may not agree on what > those principles should be, but they are probably collectively > tree-shaped and as they fork, individuals of varied opinions could at > least determine where they stand in their beliefs and with whom, but > would then be expected to defend those beliefs with some hard > evidence - applications and the results of real testing and analysis. > > The problem is not "spam" - someone in this mess of noise wrote a > very good definition of what the problem is. For me, I fall back to a > phrase from the US Supreme Court and picked up by privacy advocates: > "The right to be left alone." > > An opinion of whether some message is or is not "spam" may very from > person to person, and individual tolerance levels may vary, thus an > individualized solution is needed. > > Yet some things, particularly high-volume, error-packed mail blasts, > may be "spam" in the eyes of an ISP due to their impact on networks, > thus a server-based solution is needed. > > And clients and servers may only have incomplete information, so > client-server collaborative approaches may be needed. > > And some "spam" is only detectable via a worldview that no single > server can have on its own, thus interop between servers/ISPs may be > needed. > > Will one "agreement" solve all of this? No. But neither will more > headstrong efforts to just dive in and start writing code. The > problem tangles social, political, economic, historical and > technological matters. We will not fix it by jumping in and writing > applications, nor by trying to yell the loudest. > > > - Jim _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 13 20:28:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA28177 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 20:28:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2E1hQE18116 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 20:43:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2E1hQO18113 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 20:43:26 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA28162 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 20:28:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2E1bRO17738; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 20:37:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2E1U5O16743 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 20:30:05 -0500 Received: from hm61.locaweb.com.br (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id UAA27974 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 20:14:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 31144 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2003 01:19:37 -0000 Received: from hm20.locaweb.com.br (200.246.179.120) by hm61.locaweb.com.br with QMTP; 14 Mar 2003 01:19:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 8984 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2003 01:19:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?200.203.32.3?) (wilson@netwhatever.com@200.203.32.3) by hm20.locaweb.com.br with SMTP; 14 Mar 2003 01:19:06 -0000 From: Wilson Roberto Afonso To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records) Organization: Not much In-Reply-To: References: <3E6A11F7.6050809@harvee.org> Message-Id: <20030313221655.A6FF.WILSON@netwhatever.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Becky! ver. 2.05.07 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 22:17:02 -0300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sat, 8 Mar 2003 14:23:51 -0500 Kee Hinckley wrote: > At 10:53 AM -0500 3/8/03, Eric S. Johansson wrote: > >classic challenge response systems have a serious problem if the > >center of the message is a robot. For example, you purchase > >something on the net, you get > > They also have another problem I haven't seen addressed. People are > talking about Turing-test type challenges to prove you are human. So > far all the ones I've seen proposed require that you can see. They > will not pass federal requirements in the U.S. as they currently > stand. And if they get widely deployed outside of the federal arena > you are certain to see accessibility lawsuits. Solveable perhaps by > including both visual and audio prompts, but someone should start > thinking about it now. I'm a lagging behind on the traffic of this list, but I thought I'd comment on this. A while ago I implemented a system like this for a website where we had a problem with software robots. It was your usual "fuzzy image with text" system (we had to play with it a little bit to make it OCR-resistent without making it unreadable). We did get a few complaints from blind users who were being shut out of the site, so I did the sensible thing: I added a link saying "click here to listen to the challenge" an generated a "fuzzy" sound file with the same information that is in the image. It was not particularly hard to do, I just had to research a little bit on sound file formats. So, it is not an intractable problem. It just has to be done right. -Wilson -- Wilson Roberto Afonso wilson@netwhatever.com http://www.netwhatever.com GCS d- s: a C++ UBL++++$ P++ L++++ W++ N+(++) o+ K++ w !E !O M V- PS++ PE++ Y+ PGP++ t 5? X+ R tv+ b++++ DI++++ D- G+ e++ h-- r+++ y+ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 13 20:29:25 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA28207 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 20:29:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2E1i6w18193 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 20:44:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2E1i6O18190 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 20:44:06 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA28201 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 20:28:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2E1f2O17974; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 20:41:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2E1cRO17821 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 20:38:27 -0500 Received: from web12803.mail.yahoo.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id UAA28082 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 20:23:15 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20030314012525.62963.qmail@web12803.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [207.188.198.140] by web12803.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 17:25:25 PST From: cipherbk Subject: Re: [Asrg] note to the chair To: Asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030311142330.03d69288@mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 17:25:25 -0800 (PST) Even better would be to just make the archives of this list actually available. The link to the archives at https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg doesn't work... --- Fred Baker wrote: > I would urge you to separate this list into two: > > asrg-research@ietf.org > asrg-rant@ietf.org > > I find it a heck of a lot to wade through to find the research. __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online http://webhosting.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 13 21:21:49 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA29664 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 21:21:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2E2aWC21191 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 21:36:32 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2E2aVO21188 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 21:36:32 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA29651 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 21:21:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2E2VEO21022; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 21:31:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2E2UpO20938 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 21:30:51 -0500 Received: from dogma.slashnull.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA29354 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 21:15:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.jmason.org (ga183055.reshsg.uci.edu [128.195.183.55]) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2E2EWx06197; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 02:14:33 GMT Received: by localhost.jmason.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 4E0678BD3F; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 21:13:03 -0500 (EST) Received: by cabbage.jmason.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id B06A18BD3A; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 18:52:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from cabbage.jmason.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cabbage.jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA53F8BD38; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 15:52:36 -0800 (PST) To: Vernon Schryver Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Economic model is borken. (sic.) Let's fix it In-Reply-To: Message from Vernon Schryver of "Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:37:35 MST." <200303111837.h2BIbZ9A015511@calcite.rhyolite.com> From: jm@jmason.org (Justin Mason) X-GPG-Key-Fingerprint: 0A48 2D8B 0B52 A87D 0E8A 6ADD 4137 1B50 6E58 EF0A X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to . Message-Id: <20030313235236.B06A18BD3A@cabbage.jmason.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 15:52:31 -0800 Vernon Schryver said: > If adding some headers and having filters operate on those is so > trivial, then why is it that most legitimate bulk mail still does not > contain RFC 2919 and RFC 2369 headers? RFC 2369 is 5 years old. Yes! Legit bulk mailers should really try to generate standards-compliant messages; it'd really help them avoid becoming filter false-positives. (I'd say most content filters, even bayes ones that read the headers, are likely to run into this problem.) Good indication, BTW, that any technical solution we come up with here, may take a long time to get into legit bulk mail systems... :( > The most reliable RFC 2822 header indication of bulk mail is the > absense of a Message-ID header. And, sadly, where it occurs in non-spam mail, it's a good indicator that it's sent by a legit, mainstream large-scale bulk mailer. :( --j. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 13 21:40:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA00181 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 21:40:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2E2t0k22599 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 21:55:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2E2t0O22596 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 21:55:00 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA00143 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 21:39:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2E2mOO22390; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 21:48:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2E2lNO22351 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 21:47:23 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA00045 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 21:32:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2E2YIBD020677 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 21:34:18 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Asrg] Thoughts so far Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 21:34:18 -0500 (EST) This forum has been pretty depressing, actually. :-( I have a few thoughts about the spam problem after reading the postings. 1) Time is of the essence If Alan DeKok and Chris Lewis's domains are harbingers of things to come, we really need to act fast. Some of the protocol proposals on this forum will take years, if not decades, to become widely-used enough to have any effect. If spam increases to "striker" levels, the 'Net will collapse before then. Perversely, the spammers have given Alan DeKok an awesomely-powerful weapon: With a few edits of his DNS zone file, he can direct a powerful DDoS attack at the server of his choosing. Perhaps rotating this traffic among various government mail servers will convince lawmakers there's a problem. (They'll probably pass legislation making redirection of mail to servers outside your control a felony.) 2) Legislation is needed, soon Technology alone won't solve this problem. Laws with real teeth are required. However, I'm not holding my breath. 3) In the mean time, we must do whatever we can to force behavior on spammers Filtering works -- for now. DCC works -- for now. But both are easily defeated. The DCC fuzzy checksum, for example, is an astonishing piece of work, and I can't imagine how many hours of development and testing went into it. Unfortunately, the effort required to defeat it is no more than half an hour of a creative person's time. Similar comments apply to Razor, content-filtering and Bayesian analysis. Even Razor's clever (but not very scalable) "Ephemeral Signatures" can be defeated with appropriate message mutations (left as an exercise for the reader.) There is exactly one piece of information the spammer cannot control: The reply code returned by the victim's mail server. In spite of some postings, I believe that spam runs contain many invalid addresses (which other postings seem to confirm), and a clearing house mapping number of bad destination addresses to source IP address would be useful. Again, in spite of some postings, storing this information is no more difficult than storing the information already kept in DCC or Razor. The spammer can control the source IP address of his spam, but is much more constrained. Whereas the number of purported source e-mail addresses is practically unlimited, as is the number of possible message mutations, the number of possible source IP addresses is probably quite small, in the millions at most. So I see the only way forward as a combination of filtering, distributed data-gathering and reporting, DNS-based blacklists, silly tricks like tempfailing first-time senders, and so on. All the proposals for authentication, and the complex schemes for new mail protocols, are, I believe, missing the point. In the early days of the Internet, everyone changed from NCP to TCP, because the Internet was small enough that everyone went along. Today, the Internet is too big to force a major protocol change on everyone. (Just look at the adoption rate of IPv6.) Depressing. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 13 22:29:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA01218 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 22:29:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2E3iLc25941 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 22:44:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2E3iLO25938 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 22:44:21 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA01200 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 22:29:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2E3d9O25673; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 22:39:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2E3csO25639 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 22:38:54 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc01.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA01007 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 22:23:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (h005018086b3b.ne.client2.attbi.com[66.31.45.164]) by sccrmhc01.attbi.com (sccrmhc01) with SMTP id <2003031403254800100jak3pe>; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 03:25:48 +0000 X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas Subject: Re: [Asrg] Code signing (was Re: DCC and IP checksums) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: mathew In-Reply-To: To: asrg@ietf.org X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to . X-Image-Url: http://meta.ATH0.com/photos/MailPictures/meta@pobox.com Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 22:25:48 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wednesday, Mar 12, 2003, at 20:57 US/Eastern, David F. Skoll wrote: > I do not use shrinkwrap Microsoft code on any computer I run, because > I don't trust it any more than I'd trust the handful of .exe's from > random people that my mail filter blocks each day. A wise move; see . Now, anyone still want to trust code signing? mathew _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 13 22:46:20 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA01547 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 22:46:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2E415T26470 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 23:01:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2E414O26467 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 23:01:04 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA01515 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 22:45:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2E3uFO26344; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 22:56:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2E3tGO26293 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 22:55:16 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc01.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA01481 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 22:40:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (h005018086b3b.ne.client2.attbi.com[66.31.45.164]) by sccrmhc01.attbi.com (sccrmhc01) with SMTP id <20030314034211001005iqg3e>; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 03:42:11 +0000 X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas Subject: Re: [Asrg] Proposal .... Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: mathew In-Reply-To: <0F1F33F1-5559-11D7-B5D3-0003939CB5D8@startechgroup.co.uk> To: asrg@ietf.org X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to . X-Image-Url: http://meta.ATH0.com/photos/MailPictures/meta@pobox.com Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 22:42:11 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thursday, Mar 13, 2003, at 08:38 US/Eastern, Matt Sergeant wrote: > On Thursday, Mar 13, 2003, at 02:16 Europe/London, mathew wrote: >> And the asshat system administrators who leave their systems as open >> relays will get a "slashdot effect" of spam, as 100,000 spam victims >> call to collect the sales pitch, saturating the open relay machine's >> network connection and maybe even taking it down. Chances are, most >> of the victims' machines will be unable to get through, and so the >> spam won't appear to those people. > > Why wouldn't the spammer do what he does now, and deposit his email on > 1000 open relays, making it only 100 connections to the victim's > machine (which just looks like a prolific poster)? Well, if he can get a list of that many open relays, yes he can do it. However, this system can be used in association with open relay blocklists, and in practice it would need to be. The advantage over what we have today is that it vastly narrows the window of opportunity for the spammer. Today, you connect, send 100,000 spams, and vanish. If the machine you used as an open relay gets added to the blocklist, you don't care, 'cause the spam was already sent. With reader-fetch, if the open relay gets blocked before I next check my mail, I never see the spam. This brings in the interesting tradeoff that you could reduce the amount of spam by making e-mail slower. Some people would still check mail every 5 minutes, and would get more spam that way. I'd come home from work and log in, and a lot of the spam would already have been blocked during the day by diligent sysadmins. There's also the filtering factor--if you narrow the field to spammers who can find 1,000 open relays, you've already filtered out all but the most dedicated spammers. I mean, a lot of the spam I get is from people who can't work out how to send HTML e-mail... mathew _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 14 03:01:14 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA18571 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 03:01:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2E8G3i22627 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 03:16:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2E8G3O22624 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 03:16:03 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA18545 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 03:00:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2E88fO22257; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 03:08:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2E7wbO21100 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 02:58:37 -0500 Received: from web12803.mail.yahoo.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id CAA18342 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 02:43:17 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20030314074526.14694.qmail@web12803.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [207.188.198.140] by web12803.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 23:45:26 PST From: cipherbk Subject: List Archives (Was: Re: [Asrg] note to the chair) To: Asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20030314012525.62963.qmail@web12803.mail.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 23:45:26 -0800 (PST) Well, at least this one works: https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/index.html --- cipherbk wrote: > Even better would be to just make the archives of this list actually > available. > > The link to the archives at > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > doesn't work... > > --- Fred Baker wrote: > > I would urge you to separate this list into two: > > > > asrg-research@ietf.org > > asrg-rant@ietf.org > > > > I find it a heck of a lot to wade through to find the research. > > __________________________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online > http://webhosting.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online http://webhosting.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 14 05:15:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA20948 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 05:15:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2EAUMb31019 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 05:30:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2EAULO31016 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 05:30:21 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA20937 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 05:14:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2EAM8O30737; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 05:22:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2EALdO30711 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 05:21:39 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id FAA20748 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 05:06:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 21339 invoked from network); 13 Mar 2003 10:06:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO startechgroup.co.uk) (10.2.100.157) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 13 Mar 2003 10:06:02 -0000 Subject: Re: [Asrg] Proposal .... Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: asrg@ietf.org To: mathew From: Matt Sergeant In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:08:27 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Friday, Mar 14, 2003, at 03:42 Europe/London, mathew wrote: > There's also the filtering factor--if you narrow the field to spammers > who can find 1,000 open relays, you've already filtered out all but > the most dedicated spammers. I don't think that's true. Most of the ratware available now comes with a service that automatically provides you with thousands of open proxies through which to send your crap. It downloads the list of proxies automatically from the ratware's web site (yes they do get shut down, but they pop up again later somewhere). Matt. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 14 05:19:06 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA21009 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 05:19:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2EAXwx31117 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 05:33:58 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2EAXwO31114 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 05:33:58 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA20998 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 05:18:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2EAJJO30625; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 05:19:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2EAIFO30574 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 05:18:15 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id FAA20675 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 05:02:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 21129 invoked from network); 13 Mar 2003 10:02:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO startechgroup.co.uk) (10.2.100.157) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 13 Mar 2003 10:02:37 -0000 Subject: Re: [Asrg] Thoughts so far Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: asrg@ietf.org To: "David F. Skoll" From: Matt Sergeant In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <6BAD6599-5604-11D7-B5D3-0003939CB5D8@startechgroup.co.uk> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:05:01 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Friday, Mar 14, 2003, at 02:34 Europe/London, David F. Skoll wrote: > 2) Legislation is needed, soon > > Technology alone won't solve this problem. Laws with real teeth are > required. > However, I'm not holding my breath. I have strong hopes for the FTC spam workshop to make some inroads into this. Anyone else attending? Matt. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 14 05:29:53 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA21180 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 05:29:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2EAikM32304 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 05:44:46 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2EAikO32301 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 05:44:46 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA21172 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 05:29:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2EAg6O32194; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 05:42:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2EAfkO32166 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 05:41:46 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA21145 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 05:26:22 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2E8d4Jk017361; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 00:39:04 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2E8d3xO017357; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 00:39:03 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu cc: Paul Judge , "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] DCC and IP checksums In-Reply-To: <200303131908.h2DJ8vRU006182@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 00:39:03 -0800 (PST) Actually one of my notes was exactly on this issue. I concuded that the best is to use local filters and separate attachments (such as .exe, .scr, .bat, etc) from the email and deliver email to recepient without an attachment but include a instead a note/attachment that it was present with information on how attachment can be downloaded from the local ISP server - possibly by using IMAP server with IMAP url indicating exactly what message to get from the server. This saves time for users when receiving email over slow connection (dialup) and for well-known viruses, the users would not even try to download it (plus checking email for viruses on common IMAP server is easier setup for ISP, since many use unix servers for mail delivery but most antiviruses run from windows platforms) (To be fair - this idea came when I was reading somebody elses proposal on delivering not the email itself but a link where it can be picked up at the sender's server by IMAP - similar concept to sending user to read email on the website) Additional thoughts on the issues included on how to verify that email is "virus free" and has been checked by anti-virus by the sender by using special certificate generated (automaticly) by antivirus based on content of email (simple hash) and based on its own certificate - that anti-virus certificate can of course be checked on antivirus website, so it creates fairly good trust system. Now the above not address your point that local end can not always be trusted and email-only hoaxes can still propogate just fine, but it addresses larger problem of security & viruses that get sent through email. On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 06:15:59 EST, you said: > > > There are over 400 subscribers to this mailing list. For the most part these > > are busy individuals that signed up for a research mailing list to > > understand and contribute to solving the spam problem. They are not > > interested in scoring a debate match between two men and a sidekick. > > On the flip side, I'm writing this as yet *ANOTHER* worm is crawling around > and poking port 445 all over the place. > > http://isc.incidents.org/port_details.html?port=445 > > And there's Code Red outbreaks STILL. > > I'll spell it out: Not many of the proposals I've seen so far address the > issue of what happens once "spammer" meets up with "Outlook/IE worm" and/or > "DDOS zombie network". The average security posture Out There is *abysmally* > low, and the machines are for the vast majority a monoculture developed > around a broken security model. Several ideas have overlooked the concept > that the remote end could be lying to you, but almost all make the implicit > assumption that the *local* end is trustable. > > And I'm not at all convinced that's true at most sites. > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 14 05:53:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA21544 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 05:53:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2EB8Ol01513 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 06:08:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2EB8OO01510 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 06:08:24 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA21541 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 05:52:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2EB26O00450; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 06:02:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2EB1DO00420 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 06:01:13 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA21382 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 05:45:48 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2E8wWJk017640 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 00:58:32 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2E8wWes017636 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 00:58:32 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Thoughts so far In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 00:58:31 -0800 (PST) The forum is not depressing, what is depressing is the fact that many want to see a solution but all have different thoughts on what it should be and none are probably correct (damn, I think I'm depressed now as well...) Now I'll not comment on legislation (I personally do not think it'll help unless its global) and as a geek I prefer to focus on things technical or fantastic (like solution to spam :) ... I think as far as technical part we need to do the following: 1. Good classification of possible solutions and proposals with all pros and cons clearly listed (I'm attempting to do so now with my notes) 2. Separate solutions into two threads a) solutions that can be done fairly quickly (1-2 years to adaption) to partially control spam b) solutions that need more extensive changes and will take long time to adapt but have a lot better chance of actually stopping spam BOTH should be done at the same time, 2nd one will take longer to adapt but by the time solution(s) a) begin to fail we should be ready with at least some adaption for b). And yes, it may take 4-10 years for long-term solutions to become mainstream depending on how much change they require. And I personally would prefer b) to actually be new Unified Messaging protocol to combine mail/news/im. The reason is that its adaption will depend not only on how well it'll stop spam but if it offers other benefits and the more benefits it offers, the better and easier it is to push it through. Besides new mail protocol would go just in time for new ip protocol (I'm curious how many email messages actually come through ipv6 and if there is anyone on this list who's doing it regularly, please respond if you do). Hope it helps (though I'm depressed myself now...) William On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, David F. Skoll wrote: > This forum has been pretty depressing, actually. :-( > > I have a few thoughts about the spam problem after reading the postings. > > 1) Time is of the essence > > If Alan DeKok and Chris Lewis's domains are harbingers of things to > come, we really need to act fast. Some of the protocol proposals on > this forum will take years, if not decades, to become widely-used > enough to have any effect. If spam increases to "striker" levels, the > 'Net will collapse before then. > > Perversely, the spammers have given Alan DeKok an awesomely-powerful > weapon: With a few edits of his DNS zone file, he can direct a > powerful DDoS attack at the server of his choosing. Perhaps rotating > this traffic among various government mail servers will convince > lawmakers there's a problem. (They'll probably pass legislation making > redirection of mail to servers outside your control a felony.) > > 2) Legislation is needed, soon > > Technology alone won't solve this problem. Laws with real teeth are required. > However, I'm not holding my breath. > > 3) In the mean time, we must do whatever we can to force behavior on > spammers > > Filtering works -- for now. DCC works -- for now. But both are easily > defeated. The DCC fuzzy checksum, for example, is an astonishing piece > of work, and I can't imagine how many hours of development and testing > went into it. Unfortunately, the effort required to defeat it is no more > than half an hour of a creative person's time. Similar comments apply > to Razor, content-filtering and Bayesian analysis. Even Razor's > clever (but not very scalable) "Ephemeral Signatures" can be defeated > with appropriate message mutations (left as an exercise for the reader.) > > There is exactly one piece of information the spammer cannot control: > The reply code returned by the victim's mail server. In spite of some > postings, I believe that spam runs contain many invalid addresses > (which other postings seem to confirm), and a clearing house mapping > number of bad destination addresses to source IP address would be > useful. Again, in spite of some postings, storing this information is > no more difficult than storing the information already kept in DCC or > Razor. > > The spammer can control the source IP address of his spam, but is > much more constrained. Whereas the number of purported source e-mail > addresses is practically unlimited, as is the number of possible message > mutations, the number of possible source IP addresses is probably quite > small, in the millions at most. > > So I see the only way forward as a combination of filtering, distributed > data-gathering and reporting, DNS-based blacklists, silly tricks like > tempfailing first-time senders, and so on. All the proposals for > authentication, and the complex schemes for new mail protocols, are, > I believe, missing the point. In the early days of the Internet, > everyone changed from NCP to TCP, because the Internet was small enough > that everyone went along. Today, the Internet is too big to force a major > protocol change on everyone. (Just look at the adoption rate of IPv6.) > > Depressing. > > -- > David. > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 14 09:03:53 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA25490 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 09:03:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2EEInF12887 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 09:18:49 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2EEInO12884 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 09:18:49 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA25476 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 09:03:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2EEAeO12685; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 09:10:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2EE9sO12614 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 09:09:54 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA25270 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 08:54:27 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2EDuab4010232; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 08:56:36 -0500 Message-Id: <200303141356.h2EDuab4010232@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.2 03/12/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: william@elan.net Cc: Paul Judge , "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] DCC and IP checksums In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 14 Mar 2003 00:39:03 PST." References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_-797122832P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 08:56:36 -0500 --==_Exmh_-797122832P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 00:39:03 PST, william@elan.net said: > Additional thoughts on the issues included on how to verify that email is > "virus free" and has been checked by anti-virus by the sender by using > special certificate generated (automaticly) by antivirus based on content > of email (simple hash) and based on its own certificate - that anti-virus > certificate can of course be checked on antivirus website, so it creates > fairly good trust system. Just remember that this check done *by the sender* is close to useless: 1) As written, it doesn't contain any verification that a *current* template of signatures was used - I've actually gotten mail that was stamped "this mail certified virus-free by LlamaWare 1.2" and contained a virus anyhow, because it's signature database was *literally* 2.5 years out of date. 2) Either the sending system has a virus, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, it doesn't matter if it got scanned. If it does, I have no guarantee that said scanner hasn't been fooled by a rootkit. 3) Now imagine a virus that injects itself and then forges a "virus free" signature for itself (remember - if the virus scanner has enough info to generate a cert, any malware that gets loose on that machine has enough info to forge the same cert). Now, to be fair, the outdated signature issue and the rootkit issue both *DO* also apply at the local end. On the other hand, the local end is under my control (well.. OK.. the guy in the next cube over ;) so I can make informed decisions regarding whether to trust its opinions... --==_Exmh_-797122832P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+cd+TcC3lWbTT17ARAronAKCs+bMzk9UeD0XGBsgloHJNucyKgQCgoLB4 G7roCN/H6zgqTfmQ89ANHuc= =Kg7m -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_-797122832P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 14 09:38:14 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA26376 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 09:38:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2EErBh14975 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 09:53:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2EErBO14972 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 09:53:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA26356 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 09:37:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2EEm9O14656; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 09:48:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2EEl3O14618 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 09:47:03 -0500 Received: from chimta03.algx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA26138 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 09:31:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from JHS ([67.92.23.74]) by chimmx03.algx.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.10 (built Jan 23 2003)) with SMTP id <0HBQ008FYTS8N1@chimmx03.algx.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 08:33:45 -0600 (CST) From: Jason Hihn Subject: RE: [Asrg] Thoughts so far In-reply-to: To: "David F. Skoll" , asrg@ietf.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 09:33:44 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of David > F. Skoll > Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 9:34 PM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: [Asrg] Thoughts so far > > > This forum has been pretty depressing, actually. :-( > > I have a few thoughts about the spam problem after reading the postings. > > 1) Time is of the essence > > If Alan DeKok and Chris Lewis's domains are harbingers of things to > come, we really need to act fast. Some of the protocol proposals on > this forum will take years, if not decades, to become widely-used > enough to have any effect. If spam increases to "striker" levels, the > 'Net will collapse before then. > > Perversely, the spammers have given Alan DeKok an awesomely-powerful > weapon: With a few edits of his DNS zone file, he can direct a > powerful DDoS attack at the server of his choosing. Perhaps rotating > this traffic among various government mail servers will convince > lawmakers there's a problem. (They'll probably pass legislation making > redirection of mail to servers outside your control a felony.) > > 2) Legislation is needed, soon > > Technology alone won't solve this problem. Laws with real teeth > are required. > However, I'm not holding my breath. It's technology's problem. Tech created it, tech will have to fix it. As long as it is technically possible to do, you can bet we'll have it. We are going to have to replace the email delivery system sometime. > 3) In the mean time, we must do whatever we can to force behavior on > spammers > > Filtering works -- for now. DCC works -- for now. But both are easily > defeated. The DCC fuzzy checksum, for example, is an astonishing piece > of work, and I can't imagine how many hours of development and testing > went into it. Unfortunately, the effort required to defeat it is no more > than half an hour of a creative person's time. Similar comments apply > to Razor, content-filtering and Bayesian analysis. Even Razor's > clever (but not very scalable) "Ephemeral Signatures" can be defeated > with appropriate message mutations (left as an exercise for the reader.) Filtering works now, and is immediate. No one (even close to a mesuarble percentage uses it) Plus it only hides the problem. The bandwidth is still wasted. Not enough email clients do a good enough job. Maybe we need a intermediate peice that will filter it on the server before the client pics it up? But it'd have to be under user control. Defaulting to on I think would be ok. Filtering can buy us time though, and I think we should only see it as a way to buy time and not as an end. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 14 09:54:50 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA26843 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 09:54:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2EF9mR16324 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:09:48 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2EF9mO16321 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:09:48 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA26800 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 09:54:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2EEx4O15190; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 09:59:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2EEwvO15176 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 09:58:57 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id JAA26603 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 09:43:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 5853 invoked from network); 13 Mar 2003 14:43:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO startechgroup.co.uk) (10.2.100.157) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 13 Mar 2003 14:43:13 -0000 Subject: Re: [Asrg] DCC and IP checksums Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: william@elan.net, Paul Judge , "'asrg@ietf.org'" To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu From: Matt Sergeant In-Reply-To: <200303141356.h2EDuab4010232@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 14:45:39 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Friday, Mar 14, 2003, at 13:56 Europe/London, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > 1) As written, it doesn't contain any verification that a *current* > template > of signatures was used - I've actually gotten mail that was stamped > "this > mail certified virus-free by LlamaWare 1.2" and contained a virus > anyhow, > because it's signature database was *literally* 2.5 years out of date. > > 2) Either the sending system has a virus, or it doesn't. If it > doesn't, > it doesn't matter if it got scanned. If it does, I have no guarantee > that > said scanner hasn't been fooled by a rootkit. > > 3) Now imagine a virus that injects itself and then forges a "virus > free" > signature for itself (remember - if the virus scanner has enough info > to > generate a cert, any malware that gets loose on that machine has > enough info > to forge the same cert). 4) there's a window of opportunity between the virus coming out and the signature being created. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 14 09:55:13 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA26857 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 09:55:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2EFAAE16371 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:10:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2EFAAO16368 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:10:10 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA26831 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 09:54:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2EF32O15346; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:03:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2EF25O15314 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:02:05 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA26656 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 09:46:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2106527; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 09:48:48 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: mathew From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Proposal .... Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 09:08:25 -0500 At 10:42 PM -0500 3/13/03, mathew wrote: >Today, you connect, send 100,000 spams, and vanish. If the machine >you used as an open relay gets added to the blocklist, you don't >care, 'cause the spam was already sent. This assumes that a) open relays get added to the list and are blocked within a day and b) that people can safely use open relay blacklists without false positives. It seems to me that if those two things were true, then everyone would be using open-relay RBLs now. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 14 10:05:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA27312 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:05:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2EFKTj16798 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:20:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2EFKTO16795 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:20:29 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA27259 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:05:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2EFCHO16447; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:12:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2EFBsO16427 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:11:54 -0500 Received: from chimta02.algx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA26886 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 09:56:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from JHS ([67.92.23.74]) by chimmx02.algx.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.10 (built Jan 23 2003)) with SMTP id <0HBQ0042WUWWVL@chimmx02.algx.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 08:58:09 -0600 (CST) From: Jason Hihn To: Asrg Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] The proposal to end all proposals ;-) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 09:58:08 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT I'm thinking that we need to proceed in a slightly different way. We can focus on filters on the short term because they have immediate effect. That should buy us some time for us to get a better protocol implemented. I think we also have the option of taking ALL proposals and running with them at once. All we need is an interop spec that will allow the receiving server to dictate how mail is delivered to it. This would have the effect of de-universalizing spam methods. Even though there are a variety of SMTP spam techniques, they all fall under SMTP. If we have some servers that use verification, while other use certs, other use some hash hand shake, and other may use dcc, etc. we raise the barrier to entry for spamming while giving each method a chance to 'do it's thing' and compete (and thrive if it does well). Eventually we'll be able to see which ones work best. SMTP is a protocol that not only tells how you get in the door, but it also takes you through the door. I'd like to separate that out and come up with a meta transfer protocol if at all possible. It'll enumerate the accepted methods for delivery, and how to do them. True, this will complicate things for everyone, but in the end the spammers will suffer the most. Admins should be able to handle the complexity of what I'm suggesting rather easily. We may very well come up with a super server what supports every variation of mail delivery protocol known to man, and have the receiver use only the 'best' few. For now {SMPT; sender validation; DCC} would be the accepted list. The goal here is to eliminate SMTP, and maybe add more advanced protocols. This would allow interop and experimentation on the living 'net. I imagine an FTP like system where control goes over a connection, and data over the other. Once the receiver is satisfied on the control connection, he can start reading from the data socket. Also, the control connection could be a daemon that proxies out delivery daemons. That probably made no sense, so here it goes: A control daemon runs. Also running is an SMTP and DCC daemon. The control daemon does his thing and then when it comes time to do the actual data transfer, we can have it hand-off to the running daemon. This would make transfer daemons plug-able at runtime and eliminate the need for a server-all-in-one server implementation. What this does is makes the spammer have to craft his methods for each mail server, and each technique. Hopefully he can't be everything at once. The control daemon should negotiate the preferred method of transfer. For now, this is good ol' SMTP. But people who want to eliminate spam can run whatever type daemon they want and if the receiver supports it, and use that protocol. Eventually (5 years, 10 years, whenever) we can drop SMTP once we've seen what each system does to the flow of spam. The market will be able to decide what is best, rather than those with the loudest marketing teams. This allows slow adopters to interop while those motivated to kill spam can do something. Then they can peer pressure everyone else into dropping SMTP. In the short term, we need only to push to have this daemon running. Hopefully this is one area where fragmentation can be put to good use. The admin can run 1, 3, or 20 mail delivery systems. Here's one issue I see. Spammers will be able to adjust their 'attacks' to exploit the negotiated method. Solution: keep inventing new methods (or adjusting the current one if there's room) until we stumble across the right one(s). Right now this is unheard of because SMTP is hard-wired in, but it doesn't have to be ;-) Here's the other issue: If spammers are given a choice they will negotiate to the easiest method for them to use. We need some sort of penalty for not using the preferred method. Maybe a tar-pit(s)? (Tar proxy the non-preferred daemons) Comments? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 14 10:12:58 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA28364 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:12:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2EFRuU17225 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:27:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2EFRuO17222 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:27:56 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA28309 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:12:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2EFI2O16674; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:18:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2EFHhO16646 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:17:43 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA27038 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:02:13 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2EF4Lb4015829; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:04:21 -0500 Message-Id: <200303141504.h2EF4Lb4015829@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.2 03/12/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: Matt Sergeant Cc: william@elan.net, Paul Judge , "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] DCC and IP checksums In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 14 Mar 2003 14:45:39 GMT." References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_-775418452P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:04:21 -0500 --==_Exmh_-775418452P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 14:45:39 GMT, Matt Sergeant said: > > > 1) As written, it doesn't contain any verification that a *current* template > > of signatures was used - I've actually gotten mail that was stamped "this > > mail certified virus-free by LlamaWare 1.2" and contained a virus anyhow, > > because it's signature database was *literally* 2.5 years out of date. > 4) there's a window of opportunity between the virus coming out and the > signature being created. How is that different than my (1)? I was using an extreme example of years, but as we all know, sometimes it's out of date by only hours. It doesn't make much difference whether you've failed to download a template or the vendor hasn't posted one - if your template doesn't have the signature for an already existing virus, it's non-current. ;) --==_Exmh_-775418452P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+ce91cC3lWbTT17ARAohYAJ9HqArmiZ8sOnNGnzZL2yzqxtgQyACeLVTu m86V7AmGfZrbyTAk3S3x+bQ= =A6Hi -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_-775418452P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 14 10:31:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29302 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:31:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2EFkdw18984 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:46:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2EFkdO18981 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:46:39 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29260 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:31:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2EFfMO18682; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:41:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2EFbJO18076 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:37:19 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA28914 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:21:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2106646; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:24:01 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: Jason Hihn From: Kee Hinckley Subject: RE: [Asrg] Thoughts so far Cc: "David F. Skoll" , asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:20:03 -0500 At 9:33 AM -0500 3/14/03, Jason Hihn wrote: >Filtering works now, and is immediate. No one (even close to a mesuarble >percentage uses it) Plus it only hides the problem. The bandwidth is still It's more widespread than you think--you just don't see it. All AOL and MSN users use filtering, even if they don't know it. On the desktop all the major email clients either already have builtin Bayesian filtering, or will in their next release. >Filtering can buy us time though, and I think we should only see it as a way >to buy time and not as an end. Agreed. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 14 11:01:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA00530 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 11:01:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2EGGdf21500 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 11:16:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2EGGdO21497 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 11:16:39 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA00497 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 11:01:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2EG7VO20851; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 11:07:31 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2EG1TO19881 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 11:01:29 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29996 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:45:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2EFm8BD024222 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:48:08 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Thoughts so far In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:48:08 -0500 (EST) On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Jason Hihn wrote: > > Technology alone won't solve this problem. Laws with real teeth > > are required. > > However, I'm not holding my breath. > It's technology's problem. Tech created it, tech will have to fix it. I don't agree. It's a social and economic problem as much as a technological problem. > As long as it is technically possible to do, you can bet we'll have > it. We are going to have to replace the email delivery system > sometime. We don't have the luxury of waiting. Changing from NCP to TCP when the Internet had under 1,000 hosts was easy. Changing a major protocol on today's Internet is well-nigh impossible. > Filtering works now, and is immediate. No one (even close to a mesuarble > percentage uses it) Plus it only hides the problem. The bandwidth is still > wasted. Not enough email clients do a good enough job. Maybe we need a > intermediate peice that will filter it on the server before the client pics > it up? That's what our software does. (End-user-controlled server-side filtering.) > But it'd have to be under user control. Yes. > Filtering can buy us time though, and I think we should only see it as a way > to buy time and not as an end. Filtering will always be useful because there are other reasons to want to filter e-mail besides stopping spam. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 14 11:54:55 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA02516 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 11:54:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2EH9uW25671 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 12:09:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2EH9uO25668 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 12:09:56 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA02502 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 11:54:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2EH0OO24064; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 12:00:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2EGxmO24017 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 11:59:48 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA02225 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 11:44:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2EGkLKW007680 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 09:46:21 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303141646.h2EGkLKW007680@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Thoughts so far References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 09:46:21 -0700 (MST) > >Filtering works now, and is immediate. No one (even close to a mesuarble > >percentage uses it) Plus it only hides the problem. The bandwidth is still > > It's more widespread than you think--you just don't see it. All AOL > and MSN users use filtering, even if they don't know it. On the > desktop all the major email clients either already have builtin > Bayesian filtering, or will in their next release. > > >Filtering can buy us time though, and I think we should only see it as a way > >to buy time and not as an end. That pair of messages demonstrates a need for better terminology, because I suspect that "filter" is used in two ways in the two messages and that both of which are as misleading as the use of "forged" by others to mean "sender has not yet jumped through my confirmation hoop." Both uses of "filter" conflict with the historic technical and non-technical meaning of "filter" as anything that removes some of a stream. Some messages sent to this list have used "filter" to include and others have intended it to exclude checksumming mechanisms. Some people would say that looking for good or bad domain names among SMTP headers is "filtering," while others disagree and say it has something to do with "detecting forgery." The confusion in "filter" is shown by the fact that many of the people who distinguish "filter" from "DNS blacklist" (or "blocklist") consider SpamAssassin a "filter" although it can use DNS blacklists. I'd like to see definitions and to-be-determined ("TBD") words something like these: TBD1 (address mismatch?): envelope and/or header values that are inconsistent or apparently contradictory, such as mismatches between From and Reply-To headers or between envelope Mail_From domain names and SMTP client IP address reverse DNS names. Some uses of TBD1 are necessary and desirable. forged: envelope or header values involving forgery and that are fraudulently intended to evade filters or confuse mail recipients. Header or envelope forgery involves false and fraudulent TBD1. filter: any mechanism that filters or rejects or discards mail whether based on IP addresses, envelope values, header absence, presence or values, words, punctuation, or other patterns in STMP bodies, STMP authentication mechanims, time of day, or anything else. TBD2 (word filter?): a particular kind of filter that involves detecting patterns of words or punctuation in message bodies. TBD3: ("content filter"? perhaps covered by TBD3) a particular sort of filter that attempts to characterize messages by checksums or semantic content. Bayesian filter: any of many mechanisms often unrelated to Bayesian statistics that involve detecting or count words in the body and sometimes headers of the message. Bayesian filters are a special type of TBD2. TBD4 (address or domain filter?): a particular kind of filter that detects client IP addresses or domain names. "Blocklist" and "blacklist" are commonly used for this notion. Many people think that DNS mechanisms must be involved, but others include local lists such as the sendmail access_DB. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 14 13:31:06 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA05208 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 13:31:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2EIk8P31819 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 13:46:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2EIk8O31816 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 13:46:08 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA05130 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 13:30:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2EILNO30173; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 13:21:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2EIKwO30153 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 13:20:58 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA04371 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 13:05:25 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2EGIGJk025338 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 08:18:16 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2EGIGOE025334 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 08:18:16 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] DCC and IP checksums Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 08:18:16 -0800 (PST) > At 12:39 AM -0800 3/14/03, william@elan.net wrote: > >Actually one of my notes was exactly on this issue. I concuded that the > >best is to use local filters and separate attachments (such as .exe, .scr, > >.bat, etc) from the email and deliver email to recepient without an > >attachment but include a instead a note/attachment that it was present > >with information on how attachment can be downloaded from the local ISP > >server - possibly by using IMAP server with IMAP url indicating exactly > >what message to get from the server. This saves time for users when > >receiving email over slow connection (dialup) and for well-known viruses, > >the users would not even try to download it (plus checking email for > >viruses on common IMAP server is easier setup for ISP, since many use unix > >servers for mail delivery but most antiviruses run from windows platforms) > > 1. This breaks HTML email (unless you were planning on guessing which > attachments are currently "safe" and then checking them to see what > they say they are--in which case you might as well just check for > viruses). As I said - only some attachments like .exe would not be delivered, rest are. > 2. This actually makes life worse for the dialup user in the > non-virus case. Dialup. Fetch mail. Disconnect. Try to read mail. > Reconnect. Fetch attachment. I doubt you receive too many legitimate .exe attachments. I does happen, but its really rare. > 3. While this would protect from auto-executing attachments, I fail > to see why the user that opens a questionable attachment is going to > be any less likely to download it. That depends how smart user is. Most virus emails are detectable by content I for one, never got my system infected so far. And having message that attachment is not delivered by needs to be picked up will make them more suspicious. > 4. You lost me on the windows/unix problem there. First of all, most > major anti-virus vendors *do* offer Unix versions of their > software--they know what platforms are used to deliver email. Not really. They do offer software that can be used on unix servers but usually acual core of the antivirus still runs on windows. And most offer software that works just like I describe - it checks mailboxes by using POP3 or IMAP. > Secondly, if the IMAP server can run Windows, so can the POP server. Yes, so? It'll still be easier to scan particular "attachment" folder. > But in any case, unless you are going to install custom MUA software > on all clients, you're going to have to use an HTTP server to handle > downloads. And people aren't very good at managing downloaded files. > Not to mention that once it's downloaded, you just bypassed what > minimal security efforts the email program would have provided to > keep you from executing it. Again read above - they will see warning that this is executable program and hopefully think about it. It is better than situation availalble right now. But it still relies on people being smart enough to see that they do not need this attachment and it is a fake (unless antivirus cought it in time). > 5. If you're going to install custom software to deal with > attachments--why not just install anti-virus software and be done > with it? (Actually, the reason most vendors don't is that it's not > cheap, and the way the licensing works with some anti-virus vendors > it's possible that a burst of email will cause you to overshoot your > licensing requirements and suddenly you won't be able to process any > email at all.) The above would not be a problem when attachements are located in separate folder. The antivirus can have limit on how many attachemnts are checked per given time and do best it can. Not impossible that some would not be processed in time before attachment is downloaded but most would be. > Those costs need to be passed on to the end-user. > And since the end-user has already been told a million times that > they need to install anti-virus software, and since email isn't the > only way to get viruses.... Let them do it.) The main problem is that too many do not do it which causes headaches for service providers which end up thinking on how to check email on their end. The reason why some do it is to mimimize their support cost. > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 14 13:36:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA05816 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 13:36:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2EIpIZ31975 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 13:51:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2EIpIO31972 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 13:51:18 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA05755 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 13:35:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2EIe5O31590; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 13:40:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2EIdsO31541 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 13:39:54 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA04798 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 13:24:21 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2EGbCJk025610 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 08:37:12 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2EGbCkQ025606 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 08:37:12 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] DCC and IP checksums In-Reply-To: <200303141356.h2EDuab4010232@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 08:37:12 -0800 (PST) > On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 00:39:03 PST, william@elan.net said: > > > Additional thoughts on the issues included on how to verify that email is > > "virus free" and has been checked by anti-virus by the sender by using > > special certificate generated (automaticly) by antivirus based on content > > of email (simple hash) and based on its own certificate - that anti-virus > > certificate can of course be checked on antivirus website, so it creates > > fairly good trust system. > > Just remember that this check done *by the sender* is close to useless: > > 1) As written, it doesn't contain any verification that a *current* template > of signatures was used - I've actually gotten mail that was stamped "this > mail certified virus-free by LlamaWare 1.2" and contained a virus anyhow, > because it's signature database was *literally* 2.5 years out of date. Certificate being included with email is certificate has antivirus ceertificate as a parent (antivirus program signs the certificate, which itself is signed by antivirus vendor). In order to "fake" it virus should be really smart and have debugged code for that particular antivirus to find how to do it. It would also assume that new certificate is issued by antivirus vendor every time you download updated list of virus definitions - and in fact the certificate is used to verify that downloaded list of virus definitions is truly from antivirus vendor. > 2) Either the sending system has a virus, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, > it doesn't matter if it got scanned. If it does, I have no guarantee that > said scanner hasn't been fooled by a rootkit. I agree with you. As I said in the beginning none of my notes offer complete solutions, but I examine techniques available - write pros & cons and mark the ones that offer most possibility of success. The system above combined with checking emails on the receiving end (and sending only the link to suspicious attachment) offers very good chance of of never letting virus be delivered even if client does not have antivirus program (though it would still be recommended that they do). > 3) Now imagine a virus that injects itself and then forges a "virus free" > signature for itself (remember - if the virus scanner has enough info to > generate a cert, any malware that gets loose on that machine has enough info > to forge the same cert). Virus has to be very very smart to be able to do this and would have to know howto generate signatures for each version of antivirus program and each antivirus program user may have. > Now, to be fair, the outdated signature issue and the rootkit issue both > *DO* also apply at the local end. On the other hand, the local end is > under my control (well.. OK.. the guy in the next cube over ;) so I can > make informed decisions regarding whether to trust its opinions... The signature has less trust built into it then scanning it locally. But it helps nevertheless for those who do not have antivirus installed. People should still buy and install antiviruses so that they can scan incoming email and also scan and sign outgoing email as well. -- William Leibzon Elan Communications Inc. william@elan.net _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 14 13:58:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA08054 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 13:58:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2EJDV001381 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 14:13:31 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2EJDVO01378 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 14:13:31 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA08028 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 13:57:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2EJ29O32432; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 14:02:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2EJ19O32396 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 14:01:09 -0500 Received: from chimta02.algx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06881 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 13:45:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from JHS ([67.92.23.74]) by chimmx02.algx.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.10 (built Jan 23 2003)) with SMTP id <0HBR00J585J0FP@chimmx02.algx.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 12:47:24 -0600 (CST) From: Jason Hihn Subject: RE: [Asrg] Thoughts so far In-reply-to: <200303141646.h2EGkLKW007680@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Vernon Schryver , asrg@ietf.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 13:47:24 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT > I'd like to see definitions and to-be-determined ("TBD") words > something like these: > > TBD1 (address mismatch?): envelope and/or header values that are > inconsistent or apparently contradictory, such as mismatches > between From and Reply-To headers or between envelope Mail_From > domain names and SMTP client IP address reverse DNS names. Some > uses of TBD1 are necessary and desirable. =consistency filter > forged: envelope or header values involving forgery and that are > fraudulently intended to evade filters or confuse mail recipients. > Header or envelope forgery involves false and fraudulent TBD1. > > filter: any mechanism that filters or rejects or discards mail > whether based on IP addresses, envelope values, header absence, > presence or values, words, punctuation, or other patterns in STMP > bodies, STMP authentication mechanims, time of day, or anything > else. broaden it to anything that categorizes something based on content. (categorized for deletion is one example) > TBD2 (word filter?): a particular kind of filter that involves > detecting patterns of words or punctuation in message bodies. =lexigraphical filter (Lexigraphy)(lexicon=dictionary) > TBD3: ("content filter"? perhaps covered by TBD3) a particular sort > of filter that attempts to characterize messages by checksums or > semantic content. =Statistical content filter > Bayesian filter: any of many mechanisms often unrelated to Bayesian > statistics that involve detecting or count words in the body > and sometimes headers of the message. Bayesian filters are a > special type of TBD2. > > TBD4 (address or domain filter?): a particular kind of filter that > detects client IP addresses or domain names. "Blocklist" and > "blacklist" are commonly used for this notion. Many people think > that DNS mechanisms must be involved, but others include local > lists such as the sendmail access_DB. =network filter _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 14 14:06:25 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08625 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 14:06:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2EJLRd01673 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 14:21:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2EJLRO01670 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 14:21:27 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08597 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 14:05:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2EJ83O01209; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 14:08:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2EJ7UO01068 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 14:07:30 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07675 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 13:51:56 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2EIs7b4022973; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 13:54:07 -0500 Message-Id: <200303141854.h2EIs7b4022973@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.2 03/12/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: "David F. Skoll" Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Thoughts so far In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:48:08 EST." References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_-724060472P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 13:54:07 -0500 --==_Exmh_-724060472P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:48:08 EST, "David F. Skoll" said: > On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Jason Hihn wrote: > > > > Technology alone won't solve this problem. Laws with real teeth > > > are required. > > > However, I'm not holding my breath. > > > It's technology's problem. Tech created it, tech will have to fix it. > > I don't agree. It's a social and economic problem as much as a > technological problem. Don't expect to win on social/economic points unless you have a really well-bankrolled team of vicious attack lawyers. http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/03/11/223248&mode=nocomment Executive summary: Microsoft doesn't like Washington's anti-spam laws. --==_Exmh_-724060472P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+ciVOcC3lWbTT17ARAirYAJ47OKK0kMKUQNne7SvPRpyc17y+nACgiSlp Iuir3CiWui0SxxojkstyDsI= =WUQc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_-724060472P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 14 14:47:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10533 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 14:47:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2EK2bl04635 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 15:02:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2EK2aO04632 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 15:02:36 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10501 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 14:47:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2EJlGO03873; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 14:47:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2EJkNO03834 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 14:46:23 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09943 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 14:30:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2EJWvbd012007 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 12:32:57 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303141932.h2EJWvbd012007@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org References: Subject: [Asrg] word definitions Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 12:32:57 -0700 (MST) > From: Jason Hihn > > I'd like to see definitions and to-be-determined ("TBD") words > > something like these: > > > > TBD1 (address mismatch?): envelope and/or header values that are > > inconsistent or apparently contradictory, such as mismatches > > between From and Reply-To headers or between envelope Mail_From > > domain names and SMTP client IP address reverse DNS names. Some > > uses of TBD1 are necessary and desirable. > > =consistency filter "Consistency something" is fine, but it makes no sense to "filter" for such consistency except to try to stuff the Internet back into the BBS box. Sanction "consistency filter" and you'll have people insisting on the nonsense of rejecting mail from an example.com IP address because it has an envelope sender of domain.com. > > forged: envelope or header values involving forgery and that are > > fraudulently intended to evade filters or confuse mail recipients. > > filter: any mechanism that filters or rejects or discards mail > broaden it to anything that categorizes something based on content. > (categorized for deletion is one example) "Based on content" is one of the phrases used in this mailing list and elsewhere that bugs me. It means too many contradictory things to people, and its literal definition is useless. What isn't "based on content" in some sense? "Filter" should be consistent with the broad definition that long predates the Internet. That standard definition applies to the RBL+ and any other mechanism that "filters." > > TBD2 (word filter?): a particular kind of filter that involves > > detecting patterns of words or punctuation in message bodies. > > =lexigraphical filter (Lexigraphy)(lexicon=dictionary) good. > > TBD3: ("content filter"? perhaps covered by TBD3) a particular sort > > of filter that attempts to characterize messages by checksums or > > semantic content. > > =Statistical content filter Statistics do not necessarily have anything to do with checksums or semantic content (e.g. full-out Chomsky or AI efforts). > > Bayesian filter: any of many mechanisms often unrelated to Bayesian > > TBD4 (address or domain filter?): a particular kind of filter that > > detects client IP addresses or domain names. "Blocklist" and > > "blacklist" are commonly used for this notion. Many people think > =network filter No, that has a trouble like "Bayesian filter" or the common use of "filter." Everything that "filters" including the RBL+ is a "filter." Everything that rejects mail via a network is a "network filter." Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 14 15:02:14 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11075 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 15:02:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2EKHIG06151 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 15:17:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2EKHIO06148 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 15:17:18 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11068 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 15:01:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2EK7AO05107; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 15:07:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2EK6dO04903 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 15:06:39 -0500 Received: from hotmail.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10718 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 14:51:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 11:53:14 -0800 Received: from 63.118.24.242 by pv1fd.pav1.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 19:53:13 GMT X-Originating-IP: [63.118.24.242] From: "Doug Phillips" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Thoughts so far Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Mar 2003 19:53:14.0015 (UTC) FILETIME=[5944FAF0:01C2EA63] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 14:53:13 -0500 Bringing lawsuits against individual senders of spam is economically unattractive to most lawyers and potential plaintiffs. Litigation is expensive, thousands of suits would need to be brought to have any impact, and even if substantial damages were awarded, collecting the damages from individual spammers would be difficult. On the other hand, it might well be economical, if appropriate laws were in place, to take civil or criminal action against the vendors of the software that people use to send spam. Of course, merely creating software that can be used for mass mailings is not and should not be illegal (and making it so would surely be unconstitutional). But what potentially could be made illegal is the marketing of software tools for defeating anti-spam technologies. Such a provision would be analogous to the anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which is enforceable through both civil and criminal proceedings. Anti-circumvention legislation designed to prevent the marketing of software for defeating anti-spam technologies could also be challenged on constitutional grounds, but almost surely could be crafted so as to withstand constitutional challenge. While by definition such an approach is not a solution in and of itself, it could be used to strengthen technological strategies against spam. Doug Phillips (Vicious Attack Lawyer) -----Original Message----- From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu [mailto:Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu] Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 1:54 PM To: David F. Skoll Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Thoughts so far On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:48:08 EST, "David F. Skoll" said: > On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Jason Hihn wrote: > > > > Technology alone won't solve this problem. Laws with real teeth > > > are required. > > > However, I'm not holding my breath. > > > It's technology's problem. Tech created it, tech will have to fix it. > > I don't agree. It's a social and economic problem as much as a > technological problem. Don't expect to win on social/economic points unless you have a really well-bankrolled team of vicious attack lawyers. http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/03/11/223248&mode=nocomment Executive summary: Microsoft doesn't like Washington's anti-spam laws. << ATT00053.dat >> _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 14 15:18:51 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12890 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 15:18:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2EKXt906878 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 15:33:55 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2EKXtO06875 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 15:33:55 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12870 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 15:18:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2EKL8O06367; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 15:21:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2EKKOO06302 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 15:20:24 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11263 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 15:04:48 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2EIHcJk027162; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:17:38 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2EIHbTY027158; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:17:38 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: Doug Phillips cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Thoughts so far In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:17:37 -0800 (PST) The world is not larger then US alone. There is nothing stopping spammers from buying software in other countries to be used on their servers which are also mostly based outside us. I do not see how us laws can be applied in this case. And you're not even trying to go after spammers but software vendors which is even futher from us soil. No I think this kind of law will do nothing to effect spam. On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Doug Phillips wrote: > Bringing lawsuits against individual senders of spam is economically > unattractive to most lawyers and potential plaintiffs. Litigation is > expensive, thousands of suits would need to be brought to have any impact, > and even if substantial damages were awarded, collecting the damages from > individual spammers would be difficult. > > On the other hand, it might well be economical, if appropriate laws were in > place, to take civil or criminal action against the vendors of the software > that people use to send spam. Of course, merely creating software that can > be used for mass mailings is not and should not be illegal (and making it so > would surely be unconstitutional). But what potentially could be made > illegal is the marketing of software tools for defeating anti-spam > technologies. Such a provision would be analogous to the anti-circumvention > provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which is enforceable > through both civil and criminal proceedings. > > Anti-circumvention legislation designed to prevent the marketing of software > for defeating anti-spam technologies could also be challenged on > constitutional grounds, but almost surely could be crafted so as to > withstand constitutional challenge. While by definition such an approach is > not a solution in and of itself, it could be used to strengthen > technological strategies against spam. > > Doug Phillips > (Vicious Attack Lawyer) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu [mailto:Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu] > Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 1:54 PM > To: David F. Skoll > Cc: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Thoughts so far > > > On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:48:08 EST, "David F. Skoll" > said: > > On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Jason Hihn wrote: > > > > > > Technology alone won't solve this problem. Laws with real teeth > > > > are required. > > > > However, I'm not holding my breath. > > > > > It's technology's problem. Tech created it, tech will have to fix > it. > > > > I don't agree. It's a social and economic problem as much as a > > technological problem. > > Don't expect to win on social/economic points unless you have a really > well-bankrolled team of vicious attack lawyers. > > http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/03/11/223248&mode=nocomment > > Executive summary: Microsoft doesn't like Washington's anti-spam laws. > << ATT00053.dat >> > > _________________________________________________________________ > Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 14 16:22:22 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA14904 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 16:22:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2ELbRx11882 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 16:37:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ELbRO11879 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 16:37:27 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA14886 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 16:21:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ELVIO11093; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 16:31:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ELUiO11043 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 16:30:44 -0500 Received: from mail1.braslink.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id QAA14746 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 16:15:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 5081 invoked by uid 74); 14 Mar 2003 21:17:18 -0000 Received: from afranca@voltapc.com by mail1 by uid 71 with qmail-scanner-1.12 (trophie: 6.150-1001/319/46653. . Clear:. Processed in 0.75717 secs); 14 Mar 2003 21:17:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO voltapc.com) (200.160.235.102) by 0 with SMTP; 14 Mar 2003 21:17:17 -0000 Message-ID: <3E7246DB.8010104@voltapc.com> From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Alberto_Fran=E7a?= Reply-To: afranca@voltapc.com Organization: Mac.Net =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Inform=E1tica?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: [Asrg] Smart e-mail Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 18:17:15 -0300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Maybe the next generation e-mail system should evolve to become "active" rather than "passive" as it is today. By "active", meaning a _smart agent_ running at the senders machine, would be called to clear the message BEFORE it is allowed to travel. The message once cleared, would be sent by this _smart agent_ to the addressee mailbox. At the receiving side, the _smart agent_ upon recognizing itself, will accept the message. Anything else is ignored. How would this work? By first transforming "someone@xyz.com" in a _program_ (not an address) which has the following features: 1- it contains the actual mailbox address of "someone"; 2- it carries with it, a decision tree on how e-mails should be handled; 3- it only accepts messages from himself. E-mails to "someone" will be cleared to be sent, only if the following conditions are met: 1 - the sender is known and the content is ok; 2 - the sender is unknown, but agrees to pay in advance, say 50 cents, for each message which is checked as ok; So, how under the new system, one can send a message to "someone"? a- the sender machine will need to load from the net (one time) the "someone@xyz.com" program; b- the program will ask questions 1 and 2 above and if cleared; c- program contact itself at the receiving side and inform a message is on its way. Point to remember: only the _program_ knows the actual mailbox address of "someone" and he only receives messages from himself. When creating "someone" account, XYZ Corp will ask a few questions on how e-mail should be handled and this will be incorporated and protected inside the program. The default template would be for "someone" to receive e-mail from anyone without requiring payment, as it is today. As soon as "someone" by using a default template gets upset with joe_spammer, he/she modifies his template to only accept e-mail from this guy, if he pays in advance 50 cents per message and violá, no more e-mail from joe_spammer. Or maybe, if joe_spammer accepts it, money will be raining in "someone" mailbox. So, with this new system: 1- a basic template is created and can be easily modified to include/exclude people you want to receive e-mail from or don´t want to receive; 2- you don´t need to hide your e-mail. Sending e-mail directly to "someone@xyz.com" goes nowhere; 3- you control things from your seat - no more garbage thrown your way - unless you want to. As such, when "someone" sees his inbox full of e-mail, he/she will not be mad. Actually, it could mean cash waiting to be spent! _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 14 17:07:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA16531 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 17:07:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2EMMZY15695 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 17:22:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2EMMZO15688 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 17:22:35 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA16517 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 17:06:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2EM96O15087; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 17:09:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2EM8GO15037 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 17:08:16 -0500 Received: from chimta02.algx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA16011 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 16:52:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from JHS ([67.92.23.74]) by chimmx02.algx.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.10 (built Jan 23 2003)) with SMTP id <0HBR0086FE7CL4@chimmx02.algx.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 15:54:49 -0600 (CST) From: Jason Hihn Subject: RE: [Asrg] Thoughts so far In-reply-to: To: Doug Phillips , asrg@ietf.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 16:54:48 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT See this: http://tv.ksl.com/index.php?nid=5&sid=14109 Apparently opt-in is easy and immediate. Opt-out isn't hard and long :-( Slashdot quote: (Michael) "I don't see how signing up with Audiogalaxy establishes a business relationship with Sprint" What this proves is you can't count on laws, even anti-spam ones. IANAL, but the Supreme Court has ruled that we have the right to be left alone. IANAL, but in the beginning spam was cheap. Now it's 40% of email. That has a significant dollar cost, yet we can't use the unsolicited fax laws. I also thing that even slow adoption of tech measures will have much more immediate and wider ranged effects than law. > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Doug > Phillips > Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 2:53 PM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Asrg] Thoughts so far > > > Bringing lawsuits against individual senders of spam is economically > unattractive to most lawyers and potential plaintiffs. Litigation is > expensive, thousands of suits would need to be brought to have > any impact, > and even if substantial damages were awarded, collecting the damages from > individual spammers would be difficult. > > On the other hand, it might well be economical, if appropriate > laws were in > place, to take civil or criminal action against the vendors of > the software > that people use to send spam. Of course, merely creating > software that can > be used for mass mailings is not and should not be illegal (and > making it so > would surely be unconstitutional). But what potentially could be made > illegal is the marketing of software tools for defeating anti-spam > technologies. Such a provision would be analogous to the > anti-circumvention > provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which is enforceable > through both civil and criminal proceedings. > > Anti-circumvention legislation designed to prevent the marketing > of software > for defeating anti-spam technologies could also be challenged on > constitutional grounds, but almost surely could be crafted so as to > withstand constitutional challenge. While by definition such an > approach is > not a solution in and of itself, it could be used to strengthen > technological strategies against spam. > > Doug Phillips > (Vicious Attack Lawyer) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 14 18:17:59 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA19210 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 18:17:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2ENX8P19488 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 18:33:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ENX8O19485 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 18:33:08 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA19196 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 18:17:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ENMPO19118; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 18:22:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ENLbO19091 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 18:21:37 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA17935 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 18:05:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2107981; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 18:08:10 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200303141646.h2EGkLKW007680@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <200303141646.h2EGkLKW007680@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Vernon Schryver From: Kee Hinckley Subject: RE: [Asrg] Thoughts so far Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 18:03:57 -0500 At 9:46 AM -0700 3/14/03, Vernon Schryver wrote: >I'd like to see definitions and to-be-determined ("TBD") words >something like these: Good idea. > forged: envelope or header values involving forgery and that are > fraudulently intended to evade filters or confuse mail recipients. > Header or envelope forgery involves false and fraudulent TBD1. What would you call it when spam software adds headers that make it look like the message was sent by a particular email client? > filter: any mechanism that filters or rejects or discards mail > whether based on IP addresses, envelope values, header absence, > presence or values, words, punctuation, or other patterns in STMP > bodies, STMP authentication mechanims, time of day, or anything > else. I'd replace "filters or rejects" with "categorizes or rejects" to avoid the self-reference. There's another kind of filter. One which, for lack of a better term, looks for "lies in the headers". These can be forged routing information, fake MUA headers or anything else that makes the message different from real mail sent from a real user. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 14 18:42:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA19786 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 18:42:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2ENvcH21036 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 18:57:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ENvcO21033 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 18:57:38 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA19764 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 18:41:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ENe9O20562; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 18:40:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ENdkO20514 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 18:39:46 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA19351 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 18:24:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2108046; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 18:26:19 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: Jason Hihn From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] The proposal to end all proposals ;-) Cc: Asrg Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 18:23:36 -0500 At 9:58 AM -0500 3/14/03, Jason Hihn wrote: >techniques, they all fall under SMTP. If we have some servers that use >verification, while other use certs, other use some hash hand shake, and >other may use dcc, etc. we raise the barrier to entry for spamming while >giving each method a chance to 'do it's thing' and compete (and thrive if it >does well). Eventually we'll be able to see which ones work best. I ran some large mailing lists back in the 80's. It was not fun. Just managing the bounces was hell. To remind me of this fact I keep two books around from those days. Both books describe how, if you are using mail system x and network system y, you can construct a message to get to someone on mail system a and network b. Two whole books. What you describe would take us back there. Furthermore, it is exactly that fragmentation that is keeping anyone from investing in a new architecture--there's too big a risk that some other system will win out. This sounds way too much like "I know, let's make it impossible for anyone to talk to each other. *That* will stop the spammers!" -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 14 19:39:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA20914 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 19:39:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2F0slZ24550 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 19:54:47 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2F0slO24547 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 19:54:47 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA20904 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 19:39:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2F0jKO24299; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 19:45:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2F0i4O24242 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 19:44:04 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id TAA20741 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 19:28:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 8993 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2003 00:28:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.2.100.178?) (10.2.100.178) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 14 Mar 2003 00:28:07 -0000 From: Matt Sergeant X-X-Sender: matt@localhost.localdomain To: "william@elan.net" cc: "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: [RANT] Re: [Asrg] DCC and IP checksums In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 00:45:35 +0000 (GMT) On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, william@elan.net wrote: > > 2. This actually makes life worse for the dialup user in the > > non-virus case. Dialup. Fetch mail. Disconnect. Try to read mail. > > Reconnect. Fetch attachment. > I doubt you receive too many legitimate .exe attachments. I does happen, > but its really rare. It is not rare at all. I have two words for anyone who suggests this: "Elf Bowling". We see hundreds upon hundreds of legitimate .exe's being emailed to people every day. Heck, they even email eachother things like calc.exe and notepad.exe! (hey, I found a use for the RANT tag!) Matt. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 14 19:51:27 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA21274 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 19:51:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2F16ak24990 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 20:06:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2F16aO24987 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 20:06:36 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA21265 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 19:50:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2F118O24797; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 20:01:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2F10fO24767 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 20:00:41 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA21059 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 19:45:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2F0l6T0007520 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 17:47:06 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303150047.h2F0l6T0007520@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Thoughts so far References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 17:47:06 -0700 (MST) > From: Kee Hinckley > > forged: envelope or header values involving forgery and that are > > fraudulently intended to evade filters or confuse mail recipients. > > Header or envelope forgery involves false and fraudulent TBD1. > > What would you call it when spam software adds headers that make it > look like the message was sent by a particular email client? If the intent is fraudulent, then it is "forgery." Otherwise it is no worse than sending an HTTP server other than a completely accurate and specific name for the browser you use or adjusting your HTTP, FTP, rlogin, telnet, BIND or other banner or version string to be less than completely revealing. > > filter: any mechanism that filters or rejects or discards mail > > whether based on IP addresses, envelope values, header absence, > > presence or values, words, punctuation, or other patterns in STMP > > bodies, STMP authentication mechanims, time of day, or anything > > else. > > I'd replace "filters or rejects" with "categorizes or rejects" to > avoid the self-reference. That would be fine, except that I'm trying to appeal to the standard meaning of "filter" and fight the common use of "filter" in spam circles to mean either "wonderful" or "garbage" depending on prejudices. How about mail filter: any mechanism that filters by rejecting or discarding ... > There's another kind of filter. One which, for lack of a better > term, looks for "lies in the headers". These can be forged routing > information, fake MUA headers or anything else that makes the message > different from real mail sent from a real user. That is not "another kind of filter," but "another *specialized* or *specific* kind of filter." How about "malicious forgery filter" to make clear it is intended to be looking for malicious nonsense instead of innocent and proper apparent inconsistencies such as legitimate differences between envelope sender and reverse DNS name? Picking honest terms instead of "forgery=not yet validated" and "filter=whatever I think can't work/is wonderful" seems to me to be the first or at least parallel step toward a taxonomy of bad mail defenses. To finesse the unending controversy over whether "spam" means "unsolicited bulk," don't use the word "spam." When "unsolicited bulk email" is intended, say so. When something else is meant, then say that instead. The idiosyncratic definitions of "filter," "forgery," and "spam" and the resulting arguments are unnecessary and wrong. If a position is valid, then there is no need to redefine words in order to co-opt their connotations. Some people don't want to see "spam" defined as "unsolicited bulk," because they fear that their favorite evil will get short shrift. So let's take "spam" off the table. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 14 21:58:01 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA23644 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 21:58:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2F3DDZ32377 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 22:13:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2F3DDO32374 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 22:13:13 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA23639 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 21:57:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2F36LO31488; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 22:06:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2F35jO31467 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 22:05:45 -0500 Received: from bert.cs.rice.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA23495 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 21:50:01 -0500 (EST) Received: by bert.cs.rice.edu (Postfix, from userid 14314) id 7B9FB26400B; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 20:52:12 -0600 (CST) To: Kee Hinckley Cc: Chuq Von Rospach , "Damien Morton" , "'ASRG'" References: <955EFA36-550A-11D7-902E-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> From: Scott A Crosby Organization: Rice University In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lines: 55 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: [Asrg] deautomation is the key? Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 14 Mar 2003 20:52:12 -0600 On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 10:09:20 -0500, Kee Hinckley writes: > However to be a true spam deterrent, whitelisting needs to do two > other things. > > 1. It needs to *block* non-whitelisted email. Anything that just puts > them in a junk folder isn't a long term solution because you still > have to read the spam every day. It's a helpful tool, just as any > filtering tool is--but it's not a solution, and it won't stop the > spammers. If it blocks the email, then you're back to the question of > how you get past it. Challenge response? Assume that anyone who > tries again is okay? And how you deal with commercial mail systems > that either don't read bounces, assume that the bounce is fatal, or > don't have a system for retrying. So you need some kind of standard > there. > > > 2. It needs authentication. Otherwise the spammers just start forging > email more than they already do. This is a weaker need, because it > more clearly puts spam on the illegal side of the fence, and greatly > reduces the chance that legit companies will spam. > And a third thing: It must not be possible to automate the whitelisting service. If there's a way I can be whitelisted through, say a challenge&response, then thats good for a user, I can program a robot to do it for me, secondly, and much more problematic, if its automatable, it will be automated and someone else will eventually write a program to auto-reply. Although, CAPTCHA could make this work. CAPTCHA (carnegie mellon) is an idea to have an automated challenge that a computer can give to a human, but only humans can correctly reply; a machine cannot. Its done currently on Yahoo, its that swirly text image thats designed to be difficult to OCR. Perhaps thats a key idea: What makes unsolicited commercial email possible is because of extreme automation. If we can de-automate the sending of email, we win. A computer is cheap; for $30k, which is one worker for one year, we can put in 100GHZ of computing power. Human labor is not cheap. If something requires a sender to be forced to spend 3 seconds of their time, thats 8k email/worker/day, tops. Hash-cash doesn't de-automate email sending, it just slows it down a little. How about something like a CAPTCHA-stamp, where you 'prove' to a trusted machine that you are a human, then you get a stamp that you may attach to email. Some policy on how many times a stamp you may reuse, or how many stamps you recieve. And, at any time, a stamp may be checked to see if its been used too many times and the email rejected. How else may we slightly de-automate email sending? Scott _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 14 22:40:21 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA27263 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 22:40:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2F3tYU01645 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 22:55:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2F3tYO01641 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 22:55:34 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA27246 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 22:39:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2F3nGO01455; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 22:49:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2F3mhO01436 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 22:48:43 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA27028 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 22:32:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2108647; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 22:35:11 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200303150047.h2F0l6T0007520@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <200303150047.h2F0l6T0007520@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Vernon Schryver From: Kee Hinckley Subject: RE: [Asrg] Thoughts so far Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 20:09:18 -0500 At 5:47 PM -0700 3/14/03, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > What would you call it when spam software adds headers that make it >> look like the message was sent by a particular email client? > >If the intent is fraudulent, then it is "forgery." Otherwise it Well then we've just moved the question off to a different level and have to define "fraudulent". In this case obviously they are doing it to try and trick spam filters--but that's not technically fraudlent. > > I'd replace "filters or rejects" with "categorizes or rejects" to > > avoid the self-reference. > >That would be fine, except that I'm trying to appeal to the standard >meaning of "filter" and fight the common use of "filter" in spam >circles to mean either "wonderful" or "garbage" depending on prejudices. >How about > > mail filter: any mechanism that filters by rejecting or discarding ... The only thing that I see as confusing is that some people use filter to mean "decide to accept or discard" and others mean "decide to file in the good pile or the bad pile". I think we've seen some of that confusion here. >How about "malicious forgery filter" to make clear it is intended to >be looking for malicious nonsense instead of innocent and proper >apparent inconsistencies such as legitimate differences between envelope >sender and reverse DNS name? That sounds good to me. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 14 23:04:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA27887 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 23:04:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2F4Jnw03159 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 23:19:49 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2F4JmO03156 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 23:19:48 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA27863 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 23:04:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2F4FBO03045; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 23:15:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2F4EEO03015 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 23:14:14 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA27676 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 22:58:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2108701; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 23:00:42 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <955EFA36-550A-11D7-902E-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> To: Scott A Crosby From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] deautomation is the key? Cc: Chuq Von Rospach , "Damien Morton" , "'ASRG'" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 23:00:27 -0500 At 8:52 PM -0600 3/14/03, Scott A Crosby wrote: >auto-reply. Although, CAPTCHA could make this work. CAPTCHA (carnegie >mellon) is an idea to have an automated challenge that a computer can >give to a human, but only humans can correctly reply; a machine >cannot. Its done currently on Yahoo, its that swirly text image thats >designed to be difficult to OCR. As I pointed out on some earlier threads. This needs to be both visual and aural if you want to pass accessibly standards. Doable (and done in some cases). Just keep it in mind. I have heard from one person, who says he read it in Wired, and found one online mention (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/26/tech/main534348.shtml) claiming that some spammers have set up "free porn" sites that occasionally prompt the user to enter a value on a CAPTCHA-style image snarfed from a webmail site. This is sort of the borg approach to distributed computing. I'd love to see a real reference to this. But certainly it seems like a viable countermeasure. In the end, every system has a weakness. Either in terms of deployment, the social cost of using it, or the ability to work around it if you are clever enough. As someone else has pointed out on this list--dealing with spam is really like dealing with security. It's not going to be a on/off thing. It's going to be a question of how much pain you are willing to put up with in order to gain a certain amount of benefit. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 15 07:23:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA14872 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 07:23:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2FCd6L05364 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 07:39:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2FCd6O05361 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 07:39:06 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA14863 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 07:23:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2FCUbO04411; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 07:30:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2FCS0O04344 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 07:28:00 -0500 Received: from im1.sec.tds.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA14774 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 07:12:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from homebrad.mail.tds.net (mdsnwi13-vlan434-6.dsl.tds.net [66.222.28.6]) by im1.sec.tds.net (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h2FCCBQI005814 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 06:12:11 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20030315052353.03014c70@mail.tds.net> X-Sender: brad.madison@mail.tds.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Brad Spencer Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [Asrg] Spam is a security problem Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 06:14:04 -0600 Most spam, that is. There's the small amount of direct spam and the huge amount of abuse spam. That spam is a security problem has been long recognized: the efforts years ago to get all open relays secured were security-based anti-spam measures. They didn't work, spammers still seek and find open relays. Now they also do the same with open proxies. May I suggest that the problem in this approach is the single-minded way in which a solution is attempted? That single-minded way is to secure systems. That works for those systems but it does not solve the overall problem: spammers can so easily find open relays that having almost every system secure does not effectively impact spam or spammers. If simply securing doesn't work there seem to me to be at least two options: give up on trying to combat this kind of abuse or take measures to end this kind of abuse. Effectively, the decision has been to give up. That's the wrong decision, of course. It is necessary to take measures to end this kind of abuse. Let's start with a basic fact: it is incredibly easy to detect the abuse spammers commit when they seek open relays. Most operators of email systems can look in their logs and see entries that show a relay attempt was rejected. Spammers do relay tests every day, the tests that hit secured mail servers get logged. You should realize that spammers do not just test mail servers. If you think about it the concept of "just test mail servers" is bogus - how could someone identify only the mail servers? Instead, spammers test IPs or ranges of IPs. Those with secure mail servers may have unassigned IP numbers and a spare, older system available. That is all you need to detect relay test messages. Here's a recent relay test message: Received: from 213.5.34.135 by X.X.X; Sat, 15 Mar 03 00:46 CST Message-Id: Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 08:55:05 -1000 From: gimohh@aol.com Subject: Hopefully this works... To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.3018.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3018.1300 05004905104605304605105204604905105305811211211205105204504905105304510311904805 20460971161041011101150460970990991011151150460970991100461031140580490550540500 With the undisclosed recipients: admin@sincasino.com admin@videospoker.com I know automatically that this is the work of a spammer. Looking at the registrations sincasino.com and videospoker.com quickly conform that likelihood. The question is: how do I use this information to end the spam-sending abuse? As a single user/operator I'm somewhat constrained. I can track down the spammer's location and try to get the account terminated. For some tests I can try to get the target ISP (for instance, yahoo.com.UK for another recent test) to act in some way to thwart the spammer. I'd prefer those ISPs to simply divert messages addressed to spammer dropboxes to a non-working address but I think most simply terminate the account. This causes the spammer only the difficulty of setting up another dropbox address - hardly likely to stop anything. Recently I trapped tests from a Cox IP and to a Cox email address. Cox was smart enough to realize what I told them and terminated the account, then terminated the next account I reported. Even this slow, one-at-a-time effort has results. Another option is to go further - to deliver the relay test and screw the spammer a different way. Back in mid-February I delivered a test to jela@borovo.net. After that I received a mini-deluge of relay spam, about 200 99-recipient messages/day, ending yesterday. None of that spam got delivered. This morning there's a fresh test from jela@borovo.net in the queue - I have no plans to deliver that one (and already its a little late to do so: I'd think spammers would be suspicious of late arrivals. I realize I'm giving the average spammer too much credit, and this guy must be below average: he puts "meet Russian women" subjects on his MMF spam.) Others do this same thing. An operator elsewhere in the world, using his massive 120 MHz Pentium with 64 Mb, stopped spam to 281 million recipients in his first year of operation. All he does is deliver relay tests and stop spam (which he does archive to CDR.) He makes no complaints to ISPs or anyone. In Germany there's a site with somewhat more power and bandwidth available - they've stopped spam to well over 220 million recipients so far this year. At home I do this same thing on my Windows system. Note this well. Windows typically does not run an MTA, port 25 is not in use. It is possible to run a program designed to interfere with the spammers and that program is available: http://jackpot.uk.net/ After years of effort to secure all open relays there are still enough open relays that spammers actively seek them. securing them all isn't a viable option, didn't work, can't work. I favor a different approach that does work and can work: dilute the pool of true open relays with so many false ones that the spammers can't find the true ones. That's absolutely simple. While this is being ramped up the operators of fake relays who know how can take the information they glean from their false relays and use it to persuade ISPs to take action against the spammers. There are operational considerations I haven't discussed. Many critics assert that all the spammers need do is include a dedicated test address every so often in the addresses they spam and use non-delivery to that address as evidence of a false open relay. Sure, they can. Right now they don't - there's so few false open relays that many spammers don't recognize the possibility. With Jackpot it has to be trivially easy for a spammer to identify a probable Jackpot-IP and treat it just like a secure IP. The basic idea is sound, and some very effective fake open relays are simply standard MTAs, reconfigured. Those aren't going to be easily identified. More to the point is that this entire means of combatting spammers and this entire opportunity to do so are both almost completely ignored. The idea has further extension. An ISP with a customer who is sending out large numbers of relay tests should be easily able to identify that customer strictly by the pattern of his outgoing traffic. A large ISP cannot monitor the entire stream of its packets but surely it can monitor substreams. It could monitor all the traffic form each /24, for instance. this isn't full-time monitoring, just sampling. You don't catch every spammer who does relay tests that way but you catch many, and that's the point. Similarly, an ISP that is the target for such tests can identify the source of such tests by monitoring incoming traffic. Once the source IP is known a complaint can be sent to the ISP of the source, for action. Telesp.br could do this to good effect, as an example. Everything I've written concerns open relays. Exactly the same approach can be taken against open proxy abuse (which is really where telesp.br needs to concentrate effort.) Currently the practice is to wait until the spam hits the destination ISP (or the recipient) before action. All the difficulty with filters stems from this delay. If spam is attacked at the relay/proxy level no filter is needed: the spammer does the filtering for you: he sends only spam by the abuse pathways. What I advocate isn't hard. For several years I ran a combined server/fake open relay. At the relay level it is not hard to separate spam from valid email - the spam is relay mail that doesn't originate at a valid source for you to relay.) It's far simpler to run a fake open relay (or fake open proxy) with no legitimate email function. You know that it has no email function, the spammer doesn't. To him it can look exactly like a system run by a clueless operator who doesn't know enough to secure his relay. That is exactly how you want it to look, of course. The better you fake the clueless operator the better you make the fake indistinguishable from the true open relay. I won't give a long description but this fake open relay, run by Michael Tokarev in Moscow, successfully deceived one of the most blatant of the spammers, Alan Ralsky: http://www.corpit.ru/cgi-bin/h0n5yp0t The fake relay is now stopped (as you can tell from the dates), only the web page remains. In operation this was quite easy to use: send the URL to the ISP implicated by the IPs that were spam sources. The ISP could use this information to terminate the spammers throwaway account and then do a refresh. When the spammers next throwaway IP appeared, terminate that. Ralsky got thrown off 3 ISPs in one weekend that way. That was a 100 MHz 486 DX4. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 15 09:29:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA16596 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 09:29:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2FEisU11483 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 09:44:54 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2FEisO11480 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 09:44:54 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA16588 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 09:28:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2FEYJO10438; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 09:34:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2FEXPO10408 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 09:33:25 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA16417 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 09:17:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (zcard307.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h2FEJci23333 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 09:19:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDFBZXFC; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 09:19:38 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (abrwt16s.ca.nortel.com [47.9.24.201]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBGB6W; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 09:19:37 -0500 Message-ID: <3E73373C.4060004@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Thoughts so far References: <6BAD6599-5604-11D7-B5D3-0003939CB5D8@startechgroup.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 09:22:52 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Matt Sergeant wrote: > On Friday, Mar 14, 2003, at 02:34 Europe/London, David F. Skoll wrote: > >> 2) Legislation is needed, soon >> >> Technology alone won't solve this problem. Laws with real teeth are >> required. >> However, I'm not holding my breath. > > > I have strong hopes for the FTC spam workshop to make some inroads into > this. Anyone else attending? I am. I'm also on the panel list, but they haven't made their final decisions yet. I spoke to a FTC staffer on Thursday... _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 15 09:37:23 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA16838 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 09:37:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2FEqn211701 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 09:52:49 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2FEqnO11698 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 09:52:49 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA16827 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 09:36:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2FEk4O11541; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 09:46:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2FEjPO11519 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 09:45:25 -0500 Received: from zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA16607 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 09:29:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (zcard307.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h2FEVb800521 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 09:31:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDFBZXMC; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 09:31:38 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (abrwt16s.ca.nortel.com [47.9.24.201]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBGB66; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 09:31:37 -0500 Message-ID: <3E733A0C.7070905@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Thoughts so far References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 09:34:52 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit william@elan.net wrote: > The world is not larger then US alone. There is nothing stopping spammers > from buying software in other countries to be used on their servers which > are also mostly based outside us. I do not see how us laws can be applied > in this case. And you're not even trying to go after spammers but software > vendors which is even futher from us soil. No I think this kind of law > will do nothing to effect spam. The majority of spam is to promote US interests. Follow the money. So what if Ralsky purchases software and services the far east to spam for US businesses? Any law passed, unless it has specific clauses otherwise, will naturally be able to go after Ralsky and the US businesses he spams for in the US. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 15 09:58:00 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA17106 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 09:58:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2FFDRT13017 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 10:13:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2FFDRO13014 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 10:13:27 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA17102 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 09:57:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2FF6AO12120; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 10:06:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2FF5xO12105 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 10:05:59 -0500 Received: from xuxa.iecc.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id JAA17051 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 09:50:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 2280 invoked by uid 100); 15 Mar 2003 09:52:10 -0500 To: asrg@ietf.org Path: xuxa.iecc.com!not-for-mail From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Newsgroups: iecc.lists.asrg Subject: Re: [Asrg] Thoughts so far Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA Lines: 13 Message-ID: References: <6BAD6599-5604-11D7-B5D3-0003939CB5D8@startechgroup.co.uk> <3E73373C.4060004@americasm01.nt.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 15 Mar 2003 09:52:10 -0500 >> I have strong hopes for the FTC spam workshop to make some inroads into >> this. Anyone else attending? > >I am. I'm also on the panel list, but they haven't made their final >decisions yet. I spoke to a FTC staffer on Thursday... I spoke to them too and I'll also be going. The FTC staffers are very well informed about spam issues, even though they have frustratingly few legal tools to bash spammers. Regards, John Levine, postmaster@abuse.net, http://www.abuse.net, Trumansburg NY abuse.net postmaster _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 15 09:59:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA17145 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 09:59:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2FFFNi13112 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 10:15:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2FFFNO13109 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 10:15:23 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA17140 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 09:59:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2FF91O12939; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 10:09:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2FF82O12917 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 10:08:02 -0500 Received: from bill.lut.ac.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA17070 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 09:52:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from [158.125.1.117] (helo=studentpop1.lboro.ac.uk ident=root) by bill.lut.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 18uD39-0002kA-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 14:54:15 +0000 Received: from coada by studentpop1.lboro.ac.uk with local (Exim 3.13 #1) id 18uD39-000362-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 14:54:15 +0000 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20030315145330.0093a590@student-mailin.lboro.ac.uk> X-Sender: coada@student-mailin.lboro.ac.uk X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) To: Asrg@ietf.org From: Andrew Akehurst Subject: RE: [Asrg] note to the chair Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Spam-Score: 1.4 (+) X-Scanner: exiscan for exim4 (http://duncanthrax.net/exiscan/) *18uD39-0002kA-00*XXyhrBD0ioY* X-Lboro-Filtered: bill.lut.ac.uk, Sat, 15 Mar 2003 14:54:15 +0000 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 14:53:30 +0000 At 07:13 PM 3/12/2003 -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >Well I just tried to post a research paper on spam and it got bounced as 80K >of research is considered too much it appears. Phillip, Is there a website where you can host your paper instead? If so please send the URL. Alternatively, feel free to email me a copy directly. I'm looking for a paper to present at a group seminar exercise later in the year and would be very interested to see your work. Many thanks Andrew Akehurst Loughborough University, UK _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 15 11:42:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA20184 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 11:42:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2FGvxe18169 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 11:57:59 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2FGvxO18166 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 11:57:59 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA20178 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 11:41:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2FGnKO17960; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 11:49:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2FGmfO17932 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 11:48:41 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA20118 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 11:32:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2109598; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 11:34:53 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20030315052353.03014c70@mail.tds.net> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20030315052353.03014c70@mail.tds.net> To: Brad Spencer From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam is a security problem Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 11:08:13 -0500 At 6:14 AM -0600 3/15/03, Brad Spencer wrote: >Others do this same thing. An operator elsewhere in the world, >using his massive 120 MHz Pentium with 64 Mb, stopped spam to 281 >million recipients in his first year of operation. All he does is >deliver relay You make some good points about the root problems with relay spams, however I think there are a couple problems with your solutions. Most people do not have the time to run around setting up fake relay traps. In addition, speaking as someone who currently bounces a message every two seconds, not all of us can take the risk of increasing our bounce volume. Finally, I don't think you can get enough people running fake relays to make even a dent in spam. 281 million recipients in one year is really very few in the big picture. AOL bounces one billion pieces of spam every day. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 15 11:47:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA20255 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 11:47:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2FH33518494 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 12:03:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2FH32O18491 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 12:03:02 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA20247 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 11:47:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2FGo1O18005; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 11:50:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2FGnvO17982 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 11:49:57 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc01.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA20127 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 11:33:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (h005018086b3b.ne.client2.attbi.com[66.31.45.164]) by sccrmhc01.attbi.com (sccrmhc01) with SMTP id <20030315163609001001jnaue>; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 16:36:09 +0000 X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas Subject: Re: [Asrg] Thoughts so far Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: mathew In-Reply-To: <200303141854.h2EIs7b4022973@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> To: asrg@ietf.org X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to . X-Image-Url: http://meta.ATH0.com/photos/MailPictures/meta@pobox.com Message-Id: <3A913E70-5704-11D7-85DE-00039380F1B6@pobox.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 11:36:10 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Friday, Mar 14, 2003, at 13:54 US/Eastern, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > Don't expect to win on social/economic points unless you have a really > well-bankrolled team of vicious attack lawyers. > > http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/03/11/223248&mode=nocomment > > Executive summary: Microsoft doesn't like Washington's anti-spam laws. This is one of the two unarguable reasons why legislation almost certainly won't work in the USA. The other is that politicians will inevitably draft the laws to give themselves permission to spam. mathew _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 15 12:18:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA20850 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 12:18:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2FHXYT20805 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 12:33:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2FHXYO20802 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 12:33:34 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA20847 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 12:17:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2FHP8O20536; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 12:25:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2FHOeO20512 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 12:24:40 -0500 Received: from im1.sec.tds.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA20695 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 12:08:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from homebrad.mail.tds.net (mdsnwi13-vlan434-6.dsl.tds.net [66.222.28.6]) by im1.sec.tds.net (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h2FH8qQI015695 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 11:08:52 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20030315104354.00e4f9f0@mail.tds.net> X-Sender: brad.madison@mail.tds.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Brad Spencer Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam is a security problem In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20030315052353.03014c70@mail.tds.net> <4.3.2.7.2.20030315052353.03014c70@mail.tds.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 11:10:41 -0600 At 11:08 AM 3/15/2003 -0500, you wrote: >At 6:14 AM -0600 3/15/03, Brad Spencer wrote: >>Others do this same thing. An operator elsewhere in the world, using his >>massive 120 MHz Pentium with 64 Mb, stopped spam to 281 million >>recipients in his first year of operation. All he does is deliver relay > >You make some good points about the root problems with relay spams, >however I think there are a couple problems with your solutions. > >Most people do not have the time to run around setting up fake relay >traps. In addition, speaking as someone who currently bounces a message >every two seconds, not all of us can take the risk of increasing our >bounce volume. Finally, I don't think you can get enough people running >fake relays to make even a dent in spam. 281 million recipients in one >year is really very few in the big picture. AOL bounces one billion pieces >of spam every day. It's an action for those who have the time and inclination and are willing to do it. More importantly the message is that most spam is a security problem - I'm attempting to get the people who can act effectively against it as a security problem to do so. If I trap a relay test from within the Verizon space then it is almost certainly true that the IP traffic from that IP has a pattern that could only be sending relay tests. If they'd sample their traffic they could themselves find the spammers sending tests. This guy: washdc3-ar10-4-60-219-149.washdc3.dsl-verizon.net, to be specific. He tested again a little over 3 hours ago. The Moscow relay spam honeypot was shut down partly for reasons such as you describe, although more basic: the bandwidth used cost real money. I've argued this for two years. It's a neglected area in the fight against spam, you don't have to know anything to uses the technique, it attacks the spammers (although it is a passive technique) where they are vulnerable. People talk about elaborate changes to SMTP or the replacement of SMTP - those would take much more effort than what I describe. Do also note that what I do myself, regularly, is accept relay messages. That's much lower in volume (or should be) since in principle all you trap is a dozen or so relay tests per day, maximum. I did deliver one relay test in February - that brought spam until yesterday. At home I trap spam from an obnoxious Chinese-language spammer who doesn't wait for tests to be delivered - he sends relay spam on the basis of the test being accepted. I delivered another test recently - that one was one sent by an ex-spammer who sells open relay lists to spammers. The spammers apparently send their own tests to check out the relays on the list - I've gotten tests from sources I'd not seen before. I'm aware of the billion pieces AOL bounces/day. That's after the relay level - many spammers still send multiple-recipient spam. What I trapped recently (the MMF spam with the "meet Russian women" subjects) comes as 99-recipient spam. I suppose the spammer thinks that protects him against some law that criminalizes sending to 100 or more recipients. The Chines-language spam has 10 recipients. At the relay level you trap fewer messages to get the same effect AOL does by partially trapping at the destination level. Twenty thousand recipients/day is about 200 spam messages/day. I recognize I'm trapping only a tiny percentage of his total output. This is a dirt-simple technique but to be effective it requires many participants. There have to be enough people willing to do this - most of the spam comes through systems that are abused. Those people are "willing" - they don't suffer enough discomfort to do anything about the abuse with any sense of urgency. The load on the fake relay is much lower, since the spam comes in only, never is delivered. It's as easy for millions of people as downloading Jackpot, downloading a JVM (if there's not already one installed), and starting the program. They don't have to enable relay, they don't have to understand what the program does. If they're on a network segment the spammers test (and that's probably everything but dialup segments, and I'll bet even those get hit) they will trap a relay test. Just that is enough to make a difference, if done by enough people. That will deliver the message to the spammers that their abuse will no longer be ignored and allowed to continue. Continue? It has grown considerably under the policy of neglect. He he he: Cox IS doing something about relay testers, and the Cox relay tester just tested me again (@10:19 & 10:26.) That will be my next email message. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 15 12:57:03 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA21632 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 12:57:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2FICZa23566 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 13:12:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2FICYO23563 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 13:12:34 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA21627 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 12:56:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2FI2FO22470; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 13:02:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2FI1uO22441 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 13:01:57 -0500 Received: from zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA21435 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 12:45:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h2FHm4N05690 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 12:48:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF4XQN8; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 12:48:05 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (abrwt15z.ca.nortel.com [47.9.24.175]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBGB78; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 12:48:04 -0500 Message-ID: <3E736817.7000503@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: "'Asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Position paper, in zipped HTML References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 12:51:19 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Comments: In the Second Order section, the comments regarding blacklists are misleading, oft times factually incorrect, and clearly biased. On the contrary, most blacklists, especially the reputable ones (and there are many), contain dispute/retest mechanisms and contact addresses. List all of China - well, why not, if the person running the MTA has no correspondants in China, why shouldn't they? BL "Listing all of UUNET?" - flat out false. No even remotely respectable blacklist has ever done so. [Oft-stated rumours and claims, but turn out to be just plain wrong. Tend to have their origin in journalists being mislead by spammers.] Re: Email Infrastructure [re: X.400 and UUCP]: "apparently technically sophisticated enough to use email but not sophisticated enough to use 1980s technology.". Ahem. Unnecessary, gratuitous (and IMHO uneducated) insult. There are many reasons why X.400/UUCP are still in use. Several of them good technical ones. Even with SMTP, there are many instances where, for example, active callback verification methods cannot work. Re: Opt-out lists. You skipped several arguments: if every company in the US spammed you just once over the course of a year, you'd have to opt-out 650 times per day. I don't think that's sustainable. Secondly, especially, at that volume, why should the onus be on the recipient to expend effort? I didn't ask for it, why do I need to ask _not_ to get it? Depriving the spammers of excuses doesn't stop them spamming. Even the DMA's eMPS system was a joke. Last paragraph in that section makes no logical sense. I think the comments about "fake originator" addresses isn't in the least sustainable by thorough statistical investigation. 90%? Not in our feed. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 15 15:30:01 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA25886 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 15:30:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2FKjZZ31994 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 15:45:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2FKjZO31991 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 15:45:35 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA25866 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 15:29:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2FKYPO30834; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 15:34:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2FKX6O30798 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 15:33:06 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA25398 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 15:17:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2109979; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 15:19:14 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20030315104354.00e4f9f0@mail.tds.net> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20030315052353.03014c70@mail.tds.net> <4.3.2.7.2.20030315052353.03014c70@mail.tds.net> <4.3.2.7.2.20030315104354.00e4f9f0@mail.tds.net> To: Brad Spencer From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam is a security problem Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 15:09:02 -0500 At 11:10 AM -0600 3/15/03, Brad Spencer wrote: >spam. I suppose the spammer thinks that protects him against some >law that criminalizes sending to 100 or more recipients. The >Chines-language spam has No, it protects him from people who restrict the number of recipients and block the email if it exceeds the number. >He he he: Cox IS doing something about relay testers, and the Cox >relay tester just tested me again (@10:19 & 10:26.) That will be my >next email message. Yes, I've had good success reporting formmail exploits as well. You can automatically report the testing IP. Determining whether it was a test or a real spam message isn't going to be as safe automatically, but if you do it manually then you can also nail them at the recipient address. I'm not denying that these are good ideas. And they probably go more towards hurting spammers than things like filtering--which the spammers never see. As a tool that aids in driving spammers off-shore and to fixed locations, they seem good. And like most things--that makes them a part of a solution, not the solution itself (I know, you weren't claming that.) And that, I think, has been the main lesson of this discussion group. Destroying spam is not a matter of applying a magic solution (those IBM TV ads come to mind, if you've seen them recently). It's going to be a set of various tools, all aimed at driving spammers into a corner where we can hold them off while we apply a bit more accountability to the system. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 15 15:51:53 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA26141 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 15:51:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2FL7RF00791 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 16:07:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2FL7RO00788 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 16:07:27 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA26137 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 15:51:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2FKw7O32289; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 15:58:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2FKvmO32263 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 15:57:48 -0500 Received: from im2.sec.tds.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA26038 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 15:41:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from homebrad.mail.tds.net (mdsnwi13-vlan434-6.dsl.tds.net [66.222.28.6]) by im2.sec.tds.net (8.12.8/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h2FKhr6A013220 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 14:43:53 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20030315142612.02edad40@mail.tds.net> X-Sender: brad.madison@mail.tds.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Brad Spencer Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam is a security problem In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20030315104354.00e4f9f0@mail.tds.net> <4.3.2.7.2.20030315052353.03014c70@mail.tds.net> <4.3.2.7.2.20030315052353.03014c70@mail.tds.net> <4.3.2.7.2.20030315104354.00e4f9f0@mail.tds.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 14:43:53 -0600 At 03:09 PM 3/15/2003 -0500, you wrote: >I'm not denying that these are good ideas. And they probably go more >towards hurting spammers than things like filtering--which the spammers >never see. As a tool that aids in driving spammers off-shore and to fixed >locations, they seem good. And like most things--that makes them a part >of a solution, not the solution itself (I know, you weren't claming that.) All the best results I know of from relay spam honeypots have been offshore systems (280 million, 220 million, Moscow.) There is _nowhere_ for the spammers to escape, if they use abuse to send their spam. The better the domain is for them in terms of having abusable systems the better it is to set up a fake in that domain. Some of us self-nominate ourselves to open relay blocklists - many spammers look there to find open relays. The overall goal (for me) is for there to be no reliable list anywhere of open relays the spammers can safely abuse. That would mean that any list would be unsafe for them to use, and "unsafe" means riddled with fake entries. Block me, I don't mind - I don't send anything anyway. I just run sinks for relay messages (plus occasionally deliver a relay test to a spammer.) There are very good relay spam honeypots from US systems - those are also quite useful. Fixed locations are the bread-and-butter of blocklists. Yes - part of the solution. And don't lose sight of the fact that the top-level management of many domains can handle the illicit traffic to ports that are abused - the action taken does not have to be at the individual IP level. While it is at the individual level home operators can be significant fighters against spam. Or managers in university departments - that's what I was when i started. I'm still just trapping crud from 210.85.168.26 but others might get better stuff. It would probably different if I delivered the relay tests - I captured one from axis.software.powerinternetcr.com [216.25.173.15] on my home system today. Nice rap sheet: http://openrbl.org/ip/216/25/173/15.htm _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 15 15:57:23 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA26221 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 15:57:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2FLCvm00963 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 16:12:57 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2FLCvO00960 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 16:12:57 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA26204 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 15:56:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2FL21O32405; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 16:02:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2FL13O32385 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 16:01:03 -0500 Received: from dogma.slashnull.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA26054 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 15:44:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.jmason.org (ga183055.reshsg.uci.edu [128.195.183.55]) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2FKi3x20392; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 20:44:04 GMT Received: by localhost.jmason.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 1B20A8B7EA; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 15:46:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from jmason.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6A9F8B7E7; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 12:46:57 -0800 (PST) To: Kee Hinckley Cc: Brad Spencer , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam is a security problem In-Reply-To: Message from Kee Hinckley of "Sat, 15 Mar 2003 15:09:02 EST." From: jm@jmason.org (Justin Mason) X-GPG-Key-Fingerprint: 0A48 2D8B 0B52 A87D 0E8A 6ADD 4137 1B50 6E58 EF0A X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to . Message-Id: <20030315204657.1B20A8B7EA@localhost.jmason.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 12:46:51 -0800 Kee Hinckley said: > I'm not denying that these are good ideas. And they probably go more > towards hurting spammers than things like filtering--which the > spammers never see. As a tool that aids in driving spammers > off-shore and to fixed locations, they seem good. And like most > things--that makes them a part of a solution, not the solution itself > (I know, you weren't claming that.) What's the benefit in driving them off-shore? It just seems to be a problem, to me. Sure, you can then use a blackholes.us BL, but that's not a solution -- it just ghettoizes users in those countries. --j. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 15 18:20:12 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA29735 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 18:20:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2FNZok08090 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 18:35:50 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2FNZnO08087 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 18:35:49 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA29723 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 18:19:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2FNQLO07803; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 18:26:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2FNPoO07784 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 18:25:50 -0500 Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id SAA28775 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 18:09:41 -0500 (EST) From: meor@mail.SoftHome.net Received: (qmail 2621 invoked by uid 417); 15 Mar 2003 23:11:53 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 15 Mar 2003 23:11:53 -0000 Received: from Main.mail.SoftHome.net ([24.118.229.120]) (AUTH: LOGIN meor@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 16:11:50 -0700 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030315171040.00b463f0@mail.SoftHome.net> X-Sender: meor@mail.SoftHome.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: asrg@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] A method to eliminate spam Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 17:11:54 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I've set up a web site which outlines my proposal of a new method to send E-Mail. The method makes use of Digital Signature algorithms, white lists, and encryption, but it doesn't use them all in the standard way; please give it a good read. I've spent a lot of time working on this method and think it deserves some good intellectual review by people interested in eliminating spam mail. http://www.xwarzone.com/colin/overview.htm Colin LeMahieu _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 15 20:39:14 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA01199 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 20:39:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2G1ssb15343 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 20:54:54 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2G1srO15340 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 20:54:53 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA01195 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 20:38:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2G1lLO15087; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 20:47:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2G1knO15069 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 20:46:49 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA01131 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 20:30:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2150948; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 20:32:49 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20030315204657.1B20A8B7EA@localhost.jmason.org> References: <20030315204657.1B20A8B7EA@localhost.jmason.org> To: jm@jmason.org (Justin Mason) From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam is a security problem Cc: Brad Spencer , asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 16:34:56 -0500 At 12:46 PM -0800 3/15/03, Justin Mason wrote: >What's the benefit in driving them off-shore? It just seems to be >a problem, to me. Sure, you can then use a blackholes.us >BL, but that's not a solution -- it just ghettoizes users in those >countries. I'm assuming that some of the drive offshore is to fixed locations. However it also helps de-legitimize spam. "Yes, we need to advertise your lumber company, but we can only do it using these servers in Latvia." If the goal is to marginalize spam, that helps. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 15 21:07:01 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA01956 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 21:07:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2G2MfA16936 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 21:22:41 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2G2MfO16933 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 21:22:41 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA01942 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 21:06:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2G2ICO16804; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 21:18:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2G2GTO16719 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 21:16:29 -0500 Received: from mail.hive.scnr.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id VAA01719 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 21:00:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 23680 invoked from network); 16 Mar 2003 02:01:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO storm.hans-spath.de) (217.81.201.89) by 213.147.127.34 with SMTP; 16 Mar 2003 02:01:32 -0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030316024319.01ceb158@mail.generalprotectionfault.de> X-Sender: ml%hans-spath.de@mail.generalprotectionfault.de X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Hans Spath Subject: Re: [Asrg] A method to eliminate spam In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030315171040.00b463f0@mail.SoftHome.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 03:02:10 +0100 At 15.03.2003 17:11 -0600, meor@mail.SoftHome.net wrote: >http://www.xwarzone.com/colin/overview.htm Cool for bad guys who want to do denial of service attacks to freemailsers like hotmail, gmx, etc. You would just have to get an account from one freemailer and send hundrets of mails to several mailboxes at your own pseudo server. Your pseudo server then behaves like the box at the freemailer is unthrusted and replies with a uncrypted random message and a different crypted random message. The freemailer's server will be unable to find the right key. Even if there is a limit, how long the freemailer's server will try to find the right key, it will take more (cpu) time than usual. The situation would be even worse if someone overtakes a normal server and replaces it with such a pseudo server. All servers sending messages to this one would be slowed down. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 15 23:36:08 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA05240 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 23:36:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2G4pqr24445 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 23:51:52 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2G4ppO24442 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 23:51:51 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA05237 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 23:35:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2G4cOO24084; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 23:38:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2G4bYO24046 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 23:37:34 -0500 Received: from mail.hive.scnr.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id XAA04926 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 23:21:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 24063 invoked from network); 16 Mar 2003 04:22:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO storm.hans-spath.de) (217.81.201.89) by 213.147.127.34 with SMTP; 16 Mar 2003 04:22:51 -0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030316041419.01cbd070@mail.generalprotectionfault.de> X-Sender: ml%hans-spath.de@mail.generalprotectionfault.de X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: asrg@ietf.org, meor@mail.SoftHome.net From: Hans Spath Subject: Re: [Asrg] A method to eliminate spam In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030315210111.00b91c48@mail.SoftHome.net> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030316024319.01ceb158@mail.generalprotectionf ault.de> <5.1.0.14.0.20030315171040.00b463f0@mail.SoftHome.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 05:23:29 +0100 At 15.03.2003 21:06 -0600, meor@mail.SoftHome.net wrote: >>Cool for bad guys who want to do denial of service attacks to >>freemailsers like hotmail, gmx, etc. You would just have to get an >>account from one freemailer and send hundrets of mails to several >>mailboxes at your own pseudo server. Your pseudo server then behaves like >>the box at the freemailer is unthrusted and replies with a uncrypted >>random message and a different crypted random message. The freemailer's >>server will be unable to find the right key. Even if there is a limit, >>how long the freemailer's server will try to find the right key, it will >>take more (cpu) time than usual. >> >>The situation would be even worse if someone overtakes a normal server >>and replaces it with such a pseudo server. All servers sending messages >>to this one would be slowed down > >In the case of web clients the computer that would have to do the >computation load would be different. Clearly, as you said, a free mail >server should not have to perform the computations because, as you stated, >that would be open to a DoS attack. A simple solution to this would be >possibly giving the web client an applet the performs the computations on >the server's behalf. If the sender is required to perform some >computation work, the work load could be encapsulated by this applet and >given to the computer that is requesting the mail is sent. Once the >solution is found, the result would be sent to the web mail client, which >would in turn be sent to the destination mail server. [...] First of all the problem is not limited to web clients. It's a problem for everyone who offers a free email service, regardless what clients their "customers" use. Your "simple solution" is bad. Example: Dial-In user ---> ISP's/freemailer's relay relay --> final destination (temporally unreachable) Dial-In user goes offline relay (retrying) --> final destination If the final destination is a malicious pseudo server, the *relay* will have to handle the requested, impossible authentication task. Even if you would solve this, so a original sender would not be able to take down relays by using malicious pseudo servers, there remains a problem. What if a former normal server would be replaced by a malicious pseudo server (by virus/worm or hack)? All clients would try to solve impossible authentication tasks, given from the "new" server, no matter wheter the were whitelisted at the original server or not. In short: If the destination requests an impossible problem solution (in result of error, manipulation or whatever) the sender is the one who suffers. And the sender will not be able to discover this before it has to suffer. >You do bring up an a valid point that web clients would be harder to >implement, but I truly believe the benefits of this method far outweigh a >slightly harder web client implementation. I don't think it's a good idea to "solve" problems of the concept in the implementations. "Needs workaround by design" stinks. Erm ... and what about replying to the list next time? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 16 00:35:06 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA06108 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 00:35:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2G5opF27338 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 00:50:51 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2G5opO27335 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 00:50:51 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA06105 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 00:34:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2G5X9O26039; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 00:33:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2G5WrO26023 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 00:32:53 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA05780 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 00:16:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc02.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2G5InwL013595; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 21:18:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 21:18:49 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Chris Lewis'" Cc: "'Asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Position paper, in zipped HTML MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 21:18:48 -0800 > BL "Listing all > of UUNET?" > - flat out false. No even remotely respectable blacklist has > ever done so. SPEWS listed VeriSign labs because it was on a UUNET address. Case closed, no appeal. SPEWS makes a point of never justifying itself to anyone, if they want to correct any statement they believe false they can speak for themselves. > [Oft-stated rumours and claims, but turn out to be just plain wrong. > Tend to have their origin in journalists being mislead by spammers.] No, irate customers whose email was blocked for reasons that we had no control over. > Re: Email Infrastructure [re: X.400 and UUCP]: "apparently > technically > sophisticated enough to use email but not sophisticated enough to use > 1980s technology.". Ahem. Unnecessary, gratuitous (and IMHO > uneducated) insult. SMTP does have problems, we should fix them. X.400 is not the answer. > Re: Opt-out lists. You skipped several arguments: if every > company in > the US spammed you just once over the course of a year, you'd have to > opt-out 650 times per day. Good point, I was trying to suggest a central opt-out list for that reason but never actually stated it. I think I should be able to opt out once and get off every list. > Last paragraph in that section makes no logical sense. > > I think the comments about "fake originator" addresses isn't in the > least sustainable by thorough statistical investigation. > 90%? Not in > our feed. It depends on the definition of fake. For the sample I examined the emails had not come through the domains that they claimed. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 16 01:48:59 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA07215 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 01:48:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2G74k332706 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 02:04:46 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2G74kO32701 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 02:04:46 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA07206 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 01:48:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2G6uMO30469; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 01:56:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2G6t8O30442 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 01:55:08 -0500 Received: from plaidworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA07050 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 01:38:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.8/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h2G6efZQ026913; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 22:40:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Position paper, in zipped HTML Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: "'Chris Lewis'" , "'Asrg@ietf.org'" To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <33D5B790-577A-11D7-9AED-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 22:40:39 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Saturday, March 15, 2003, at 09:18 PM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > I think I should be able to opt out once and get off every list. I like this idea, but I wonder if it's practical. If you opt out via a central list, what lists have to accept it and what lists don't? If you use the central opt out, would this list have to remove you? Assuming the answer to that is "no", then how do we draw the lines between "these lists have to follow this request" and "these lists don't" such that everyone knows what to expect? How could you implement that on something like yahoogroups? If you have two email addresses and opt out one, am I supposed to know about the other somehow? Because the "typical" user tends to forget what address they subscribed to which when, and sees unsubscribe services as "do what I want" magic repositories. And how do people get validate to get access to it securely? Because if it's open, you just created a massive, pre-authorized and valid list of addresses to suck off and spam. So you have to make it available to almost anyone (because almost anyone can be a home business with an e-marketing newsletter), but protect it from spammers who'll happily agree to whatever you say, suck as many addresses as they can, and skip off into the night... -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 16 05:08:47 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA21322 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 05:08:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2GAObv23637 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 05:24:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2GAObO23634 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 05:24:37 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA21254 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 05:08:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2GAKxO23579; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 05:20:59 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2GAJfO23528 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 05:19:41 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id FAA21213 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 05:03:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 1779 invoked from network); 15 Mar 2003 10:02:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.2.100.178?) (10.2.100.178) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 15 Mar 2003 10:02:55 -0000 From: Matt Sergeant X-X-Sender: matt@localhost.localdomain To: Chuq Von Rospach cc: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , "'Chris Lewis'" , "'Asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Position paper, in zipped HTML In-Reply-To: <33D5B790-577A-11D7-9AED-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 10:20:52 +0000 (GMT) On Sat, 15 Mar 2003, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > And how do people get validate to get access to it securely? Because if > it's open, you just created a massive, pre-authorized and valid list of > addresses to suck off and spam. So you have to make it available to > almost anyone (because almost anyone can be a home business with an > e-marketing newsletter), but protect it from spammers who'll happily > agree to whatever you say, suck as many addresses as they can, and skip > off into the night... Use a database of SHA1 hashes. You can even maintain exceptions in that list (again, as sha1 hashes). Matt. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 16 11:47:58 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA29341 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 11:47:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2GH3u209237 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 12:03:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2GH3uO09234 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 12:03:56 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA29327 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 11:47:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2GGuhO08937; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 11:56:43 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2GGsEO08827 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 11:54:14 -0500 Received: from backbone.midwestcs.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA28917 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 11:37:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from footbone.midwestcs.com ([206.222.212.237] helo=midwestcs.com) by backbone.midwestcs.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18ubAt-0001ql-00 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 10:39:51 -0600 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Position paper, in zipped HTML References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: wayne In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lines: 29 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanner: exiscan *18ubAt-0001ql-00*ey38AwAuMrw* () Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 16 Mar 2003 10:39:48 -0600 In "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" writes: > > BL "Listing all > > of UUNET?" > > - flat out false. No even remotely respectable blacklist has > > ever done so. > > SPEWS listed VeriSign labs because it was on a UUNET address. > > Case closed, no appeal. > > SPEWS makes a point of never justifying itself to anyone, if they want > to correct any statement they believe false they can speak for themselves. Uh, the claim that spews listed one domain means that spews listed ALL UUNET domains? And this is a "case closed, no appeal" evidence of such an action by spews? I realize that verisign is very close to your heart but, personally, I don't consider them to be the whole world. Could you give us some help in tracking down this particular spews listing? What did it say? What IP addresses were involved? (The IP addresses can be used to see if other BLs also reported spam from them.) -wayne _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 16 12:17:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA29828 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 12:17:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2GHXU111302 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 12:33:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2GHXUO11299 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 12:33:30 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA29796 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 12:17:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2GHO9O11121; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 12:24:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2GHNYO11092 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 12:23:34 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA29735 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 12:07:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc02.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2GH9DwL019241; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 09:09:13 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 09:09:13 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Chuq Von Rospach'" , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'Chris Lewis'" , "'Asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Position paper, in zipped HTML MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 09:09:12 -0800 > I like this idea, but I wonder if it's practical. If you opt > out via a > central list, what lists have to accept it and what lists > don't? If you > use the central opt out, would this list have to remove you? That is why I proposed using a database of one-way encrypted hashes of the email addresses in the paper. I actually deployed a test system of this scheme six years ago when I was at MIT, so it is highly unlikely anyone could defend a patent claim on it. Given my recent experience I would not make a proposal of that type to a public list without first applying for a patent to stop a squatter. Yes, I have heard about the quaint theory of prior art, even with cast iron prior art you can end up with a $2 million legal bill. Basically the USPTO is on a par with the 419 scammers in my opinion. At the JamSpam meeting we had a discussion of using honeypots to determine whether bulk senders were observing opt-out lists and to help them detect people wanting them to send to a junk list. I had a go noodling arround trying to extend the one-way opt out list concept to these areas but I don't see a way to make it work since the malefactors objective is to detect honeypots inside their lists... Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 16 13:14:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01235 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 13:14:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2GIUHa14179 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 13:30:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2GIUHO14176 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 13:30:17 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01230 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 13:13:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2GIPLO14066; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 13:25:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2GIOGO14035 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 13:24:16 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01086 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 13:07:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.57] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2GI9swL005709; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 10:09:54 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 10:09:54 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'wayne'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Position paper, in zipped HTML MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 10:09:53 -0800 SPEWS had the whole UUNET sub listed along with us. The point about case closed is that SPEWS have not denied having done it. There is absolutely nobody who has provided any contrary evidence whatsoever. I am sorry but simple gainsaying does not constitute an argument here. If you refuse to believe any of SPEWS victims it is easy to maintain your position that no blacklist ever did anything bad ever. Phill > -----Original Message----- > From: wayne [mailto:wayne@midwestcs.com] > Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 11:40 AM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Position paper, in zipped HTML > > > In > m> "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" writes: > > > > BL "Listing all > > > of UUNET?" > > > - flat out false. No even remotely respectable blacklist has > > > ever done so. > > > > SPEWS listed VeriSign labs because it was on a UUNET address. > > > > Case closed, no appeal. > > > > SPEWS makes a point of never justifying itself to anyone, > if they want > > to correct any statement they believe false they can speak > for themselves. > > Uh, the claim that spews listed one domain means that spews listed ALL > UUNET domains? And this is a "case closed, no appeal" evidence of > such an action by spews? > > I realize that verisign is very close to your heart but, personally, I > don't consider them to be the whole world. > > > Could you give us some help in tracking down this particular spews > listing? What did it say? What IP addresses were involved? (The IP > addresses can be used to see if other BLs also reported spam from > them.) > > > -wayne > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 16 13:16:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01316 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 13:16:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2GIWWj14263 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 13:32:32 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2GIWWO14260 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 13:32:32 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01312 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 13:16:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2GIT2O14133; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 13:29:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2GIS3O14112 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 13:28:03 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01183 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 13:11:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2158235; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 13:13:44 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: RE: [Asrg] Position paper, in zipped HTML Cc: "'Chris Lewis'" , "'Asrg@ietf.org'" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 07:17:18 -0500 At 9:18 PM -0800 3/15/03, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >Good point, I was trying to suggest a central opt-out list for that >reason but never actually stated it. > >I think I should be able to opt out once and get off every list. Actually there's a problem with global opt-out lists. They're global. For instance. Does my putting my address on one keep Adobe from sending me the product updates I asked for? And if not, what keeps every other company from claiming some prior business relationship. I think global phone opt-out lists are easier because people want their phone for personal stuff and not business. So they are happy to nuke all companies. But that's not as true for email. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 16 13:36:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01994 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 13:36:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2GIqjR15479 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 13:52:45 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2GIqjO15476 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 13:52:45 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01988 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 13:36:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2GIi9O15335; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 13:44:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2GIh9O15293 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 13:43:09 -0500 Received: from bert.cs.rice.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01648 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 13:26:37 -0500 (EST) Received: by bert.cs.rice.edu (Postfix, from userid 14314) id 187662640A6; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 12:28:50 -0600 (CST) To: Brad Spencer Cc: asrg@ietf.org References: <4.3.2.7.2.20030315052353.03014c70@mail.tds.net> From: Scott A Crosby Organization: Rice University In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20030315052353.03014c70@mail.tds.net> Message-ID: Lines: 51 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: [Asrg] Re: Spam is a security problem Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 16 Mar 2003 12:28:49 -0600 On Sat, 15 Mar 2003 06:14:04 -0600, Brad Spencer writes: > After years of effort to secure all open relays there are still enough > open relays that spammers actively seek them. securing them all isn't > a viable option, didn't work, can't work. I favor a different > approach that does work and can work: dilute the pool of true open > relays with so many false ones that the spammers can't find the true > ones. That's absolutely simple. While this is being ramped up the > operators of fake relays who know how can take the information they > glean from their false relays and use it to persuade ISPs to take > action against the spammers. However, is it effective? What this means is that a slightly greater percentage of email is denied. However, email sending is as automatable as it was. If we are in a world where bandwidth costs are expected to decrease and where CPU costs are expected to decrease, then even with this, spam becomes more economical, because with the same resources, they can send more messages, even if an increasing percentage get rejected. We need a solution that can continue to work in worlds where Disk/CPU/bandwidth is becoming ever cheaper. A technique that halves the effectiveness of spam will be erased in two years. What do they care if half of the proxies are fake two years from now? The cost per message that goes through a non-fake proxy will be the same then as now. At such a small loss, it may not even be worth the effort to identify the fakes. Computing and bandwidth is cheap enough that you can't win by forcing the spammer to burn cycles or bandwidth, unless you can increase those costs by orders of magnitude. One person's yearly wage of, say, $40,000 can buy 20 $1400 machines and still spend $1000/month for bandwidth/colo. Lets see, 4TB/month. Requiring them to hire one additional employee affects their bottom line more than blocking 10 billion emails. > The basic idea is sound, and some very effective fake open relays are > simply standard MTAs, reconfigured. Those aren't going to be easily > identified. More to the point is that this entire means of combatting > spammers and this entire opportunity to do so are both almost > completely ignored. The idea has further extension. An ISP with a > customer who is sending out large numbers of relay tests should be > easily able to identify that customer strictly by the pattern of his > outgoing traffic. A large ISP cannot monitor the entire stream of its At least as far as outgoing traffic is concerned, wouldn't a server doing relay tests closely resemble any popular mailing list server? It might be identifiable if it gets a huge number of incoming RST's from port 25. Scott _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 16 14:00:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA02826 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 14:00:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2GJGJ317000 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 14:16:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2GJGJO16997 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 14:16:19 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA02808 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 13:59:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2GJBHO16710; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 14:11:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2GJAAO16682 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 14:10:10 -0500 Received: from backbone.midwestcs.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA02503 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 13:53:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from footbone.midwestcs.com ([206.222.212.237] helo=midwestcs.com) by backbone.midwestcs.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18udIM-0002Zq-00 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 12:55:42 -0600 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Position paper, in zipped HTML References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: wayne In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lines: 79 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanner: exiscan *18udIM-0002Zq-00*FNSdTTci5F6* () Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 16 Mar 2003 12:55:42 -0600 In "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" writes: > > From: wayne [mailto:wayne@midwestcs.com] > > > SPEWS listed VeriSign labs because it was on a UUNET address. > > > > Uh, the claim that spews listed one domain means that spews listed ALL > > UUNET domains? > > [...] > > > > Could you give us some help in tracking down this particular spews > > listing? What did it say? What IP addresses were involved? (The IP > > addresses can be used to see if other BLs also reported spam from > > them.) [top quoting fixed and the amount of quoted material trimmed] > SPEWS had the whole UUNET sub listed along with us. > [...] > > I am sorry but simple gainsaying does not constitute an argument here. Yes it does! [*} Ok, more seriously, you are right and that is exactly why I asked for some help tracking down this particular spews listing. Asking people to prove the negative isn't very productive. I am asking you to provide at least some evidence, by sides just your assertions, that spews did list everyone using UUNET. > If you refuse to believe any of SPEWS victims it is easy to maintain your > position that no blacklist ever did anything bad ever. That wasn't my position and to be quit honest, I suspect that there have been some blacklists that at some time blacklisted have blacklisted just about everyone. Tarring all blacklist operators by the worst actions of some is as bad as tarring all ISPs as being spammers because of the way the worst ones operate. -wayne [*] Man: An argument isn't just contradiction. Mr Vibrating: It can be. Man: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. Mr Vibrating: No it isn't. Man: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction. Mr Vibrating: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position. Man: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.' Mr Vibrating: Yes it is! Man: No it isn't! Man: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes. (short pause) Mr Vibrating: No it isn't. Man: It is. http://www.stone-dead.asn.au/tv-series/sketches/fc-29/argument-clinic.html _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 16 15:07:09 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA05030 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 15:07:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2GKNCU20493 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 15:23:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2GKNCO20490 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 15:23:12 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA04973 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 15:06:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2GKJSO20403; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 15:19:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2GKI5O20331 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 15:18:05 -0500 Received: from im2.sec.tds.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA04579 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 15:01:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from homebrad.mail.tds.net (mdsnwi13-vlan434-6.dsl.tds.net [66.222.28.6]) by im2.sec.tds.net (8.12.8/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h2GK3d6A022616; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 14:03:40 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20030316132105.00e55d30@mail.tds.net> X-Sender: brad.madison@mail.tds.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 To: Scott A Crosby From: Brad Spencer Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Spam is a security problem Cc: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20030315052353.03014c70@mail.tds.net> <4.3.2.7.2.20030315052353.03014c70@mail.tds.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 14:03:39 -0600 At 12:28 PM 3/16/2003 -0600, you wrote: >On Sat, 15 Mar 2003 06:14:04 -0600, Brad Spencer > writes: > > > After years of effort to secure all open relays there are still enough > > open relays that spammers actively seek them. securing them all isn't > > a viable option, didn't work, can't work. I favor a different > > approach that does work and can work: dilute the pool of true open > > relays with so many false ones that the spammers can't find the true > > ones. That's absolutely simple. While this is being ramped up the > > operators of fake relays who know how can take the information they > > glean from their false relays and use it to persuade ISPs to take > > action against the spammers. > >However, is it effective? What this means is that a slightly greater >percentage of email is denied. Yes, for small numbers of such systems. The real point is that of considering the abuse aspects of the majority of spam and devising ways to combat that abuse. Spammers don't know anything about a particular IP just form the IP - they have to find out in some manner anything they do know. Currently it is close to 100% safe and reliable for them to test for open relay (or test for open proxy) and find what they seek. That's abuse, it is accepted and tolerated, spam continues to grow as a problem. I'm no internet expert, this is an IETF working group. Some focus, some goal, some something is needed. What's currently being done is demonstrably inadequate. The solutions seem to (1) do much more of something that is already done and (2) do something new. The something news that I see are elaborate and require (I think) a shift in how email is done. There'd have to be a very long transition period - that needs to be well-analyzed in any proposal for a new email protocol, for example. I've already done some analysis (which maybe someone could show to be bogus) by characterizing the transition period as very long I have a great distaste for that - I want spam dead now, and if not now then next week, or the middle of next month. More people could use blocklists, with usage concentrated on the blocklists that are intended to do what blocklists do - prevent delivery of spam (contrasting with SPEWS, if you can't see my intent.) More people could use DCC - it's mostly automatic (there's a whitelisting requirement for sites that have mailing list subscribers), it works, it responds quickly, it scales. Then the approach I emphasize: do something at the abuse level, before the spam is on its way to the final destination. The anti-spammers have the advantage here if they want to claim it (right now, by ignoring the abuse, anti-spammers give the advantage to the spammers.) Anti-spammers far overwhelm spammers in their numbers, anti-spammers can be in any IP space. Practically everyone who reads this message should be able to go to the logs of a mail server and observe that relay email is being rejected. Most have chosen the path of blocking such abuse and then ignoring it. The spammers figuratively knock on the door and ask to have access, the response is to ignore the knocking and then to curse the neighbor who lets the spammers misuse their systems. That approach guarantees that relay spam is sent to systems that will relay it. When it is relayed it then shows up at destinations ISPs to be filtered or otherwise rejected or accepted. Too much is accepted - that's the problem. It would have been easy to stop the spam (like that which advertises http://www.quickmailorderbrides.com/?oc=3D2390 that I'm stopping in small quanttties) but most just let it go to the true open relays. There's no real asrg plan - may I suggest looking at what could be done about the abuse aspects of relay spam and deciding whether its a viable option for significantly helping to defeat spam? I understand that there is direct spam - this approach doesn't touch direct spam. If the result of this approach were the forcing of spammers to send direct spam from overseas wouldn't that be a giant step forward? Then there'd be a relatively small number of IPs to block - it's a situation tailor-made for success by DNSBL. >However, email sending is as >automatable as it was. If we are in a world where bandwidth costs are >expected to decrease and where CPU costs are expected to decrease, >then even with this, spam becomes more economical, because with the >same resources, they can send more messages, even if an increasing >percentage get rejected. And they do. That same argument apples to most or all current techniques. The goal surely is to drive the cost of sending the spam above amount "earned" from the spam. There's no particular reason to pick what I advocate other than the fact that the opportunity is great and that opportunity has been overlooked. It's a cherry-picking situation: almost anyone with a Windows system on a permanent network connection can run Jackpot and do something against spam. How many million people would that be if you assumed just 1% did it successfully? >We need a solution that can continue to work in worlds where >Disk/CPU/bandwidth is becoming ever cheaper. A technique that halves >the effectiveness of spam will be erased in two years. What do they >care if half of the proxies are fake two years from now? The cost per >message that goes through a non-fake proxy will be the same then as >now. At such a small loss, it may not even be worth the effort to >identify the fakes. Good. Now you are in an evaluation discussion but you are doing it (to me) backwards. You are assuming failure and then describing failure in terms of an inadequate approach. I suggest you determine how many fake proxies it would take to hurt them badly enough to force them to quit and then evaluate how difficult it would be to get that number of fake proxies. Make conservative guesses both ways: assume lots are needed, assume difficulty in getting participants. Can it still be done effectively? RFC 2505 flatly stated that securing open relays was not a viable way to fight spam. Nonetheless that was the method of choice for years. Securing all open relays has to be around 99% complete for it to have a visible effect. That seems not to have yet happened. Poisoning the pool of open relays is effective at all levels. If 10% of the pool is fake relays then you'd estimate, I think, that twould give a 10% effectiveness against relay spam, just on the basis of non-delivered spam messages alone. Any further effect you achieve by identifying spam sources or spamvertised URL's is a bonus. Any extra work you force the spammers to do to avoid fake relays is a bonus. It works now. I think it deserves further analysis, further amplifcation. >Computing and bandwidth is cheap enough that you can't win by forcing >the spammer to burn cycles or bandwidth, unless you can increase those >costs by orders of magnitude. One person's yearly wage of, say, >$40,000 can buy 20 $1400 machines and still spend $1000/month for >bandwidth/colo. Lets see, 4TB/month. Requiring them to hire one >additional employee affects their bottom line more than blocking 10 >billion emails. The guy spending his entire yearly wage in order to spam would need, I'd think, to earn more than that yearly wage to make spamming worthwhile. Earning that wage takes him around 2000 hours/year - that's his primary job. Make spamming hard enough that it takes 2000 hours of work to earn $40,000 and any sane spammer would give up - he's putting in 4000 hours to clear what he already is earning. > > The basic idea is sound, and some very effective fake open relays are > > simply standard MTAs, reconfigured. Those aren't going to be easily > > identified. More to the point is that this entire means of combatting > > spammers and this entire opportunity to do so are both almost > > completely ignored. The idea has further extension. An ISP with a > > customer who is sending out large numbers of relay tests should be > > easily able to identify that customer strictly by the pattern of his > > outgoing traffic. A large ISP cannot monitor the entire stream of its > >At least as far as outgoing traffic is concerned, wouldn't a server >doing relay tests closely resemble any popular mailing list server? It >might be identifiable if it gets a huge number of incoming RST's from >port 25. I think it would look exactly like a mailing list server, if that server is busy 24 hours/day. That would be some mailing list server. I don't doubt there are such but I couldn't name any. If the TOS allow packet examination then it's a different story - the spam and/or the relay tests will stick out. If you DCC'd outgoing email then relay tests would be personalized for every recipient (because most relay tests have the tested IP either encoded or in plain text.) If you simply look at destination IP's and compare that with the target addresses of the email then relay tests and relay spam stick out instantly. Probably other statistical measures that avoid actual examination of the contents of outgoing messages would also serve to distinguish the valid form the invalid. Here's some HTTP lines from a spam run I'm capturing - would a legitimate mailer ever have such content in its messages? Let me know and I won't wrice lady wants to corr= Let me know and I won't w= A nints to correspond with you.Let me know and I won't wrice lady wants to corresp= Let me know a= The messages are all to people not in my domain. How many legitimate mailing lists are sent through relays? r;boQbj@acnet.net r;danQielle@a-o.com r;rhQunt@americanleaseline.com r;mcQg@acnet.net r;jchQriste@addr.com r;cgQsecor@aol.com r;rolQf.hay@address.com r;mvickQers@abimarketinggroup.com r;benloQken@alltel.net r;alexQica@agis.net r;gcQook@aaawv.com r;webQsite@addr.com r;beaQnt@airnet.net r;rQev@alt.net r;stQarr@acuson.com I munged the addresses slightly... The point is not what I'm doing, the point is that more thought could be given to fighting back against the spammers at the abuse level. There's probably several unexplored ideas - what are they? (One guy got so tired of the relay spam volume that he programmed a very long response packet - to cause a buffer overflow in the sending system - to the spamware. Just like that, after one such response, the flow stopped...) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 16 16:12:13 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA07847 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 16:12:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2GLSGc25283 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 16:28:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2GLSGO25277 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 16:28:16 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA07822 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 16:11:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2GLLNO24066; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 16:21:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2GLBHO23592 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 16:11:17 -0500 Received: from plaidworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07112 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 15:54:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.8/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h2GKufZQ006628; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 12:56:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Position paper, in zipped HTML Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , "'Chris Lewis'" , "'Asrg@ietf.org'" To: Matt Sergeant From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 12:56:39 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> And how do people get validate to get access to it securely? Because >> if >> it's open, you just created a massive, pre-authorized and valid list >> of >> addresses to suck off and spam. So you have to make it available to >> almost anyone (because almost anyone can be a home business with an >> e-marketing newsletter), but protect it from spammers who'll happily >> agree to whatever you say, suck as many addresses as they can, and >> skip >> off into the night... > > Use a database of SHA1 hashes. You can even maintain exceptions in that > list (again, as sha1 hashes). > So, as a spammer, I still have the ability to verify my addresses as valid, but can't suck addresses out. but if I'm the primary target of this, the e-market mass mailer, how does this work? I have a database of, say, 15 million e-mail addresses. If someone opts out in this central repository, how is that SHA1 hash going to get to all of the places it's supposed to be? Are you really expecting every e-marketer to test its database against the central server every (how often? week? bi-weekly? daily?) -- how do you scale this to handle thousands or tens of thousands of sites and their billions of lookups every week? Does it get pushed out to marketers? if so, how do you maintain control of it? How do you build this infrastructure? manage it? pay for it? control it? secure it? Convince all of the e-marketers to use it? keep the spammers out of it? And a key aspect of my original note was lost in this geeky stuff: how do you set it up in the first place so that users who use it get what they expect out of it? How do you define what lists ought to be managed with it and what lists don't so that both sides of the equation (the subscribers and the subscription managers) understand what is going to happen? I mean, seriously --- I get the occasional spam report through spamcop for the double-opt-in mailing list from a user who doesn't understand filing spam reports isn't how you unsubscribe. I won't even start with how AOL's set some of their stuff up (we had another user this week unsubscribed from a list because they'd blocked mail from a poster on the list, which generated enough bounces to remove them from the list -- and then they complained about being removed). one way hashes are the EASY part. Now scale it to the real world. -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 16 16:14:15 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA07876 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 16:14:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2GLUJT25429 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 16:30:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2GLUGO25425 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 16:30:16 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA07873 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 16:13:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2GLQ2O25120; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 16:26:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2GLPIO25095 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 16:25:18 -0500 Received: from plaidworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA07718 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 16:08:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.8/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h2GLAkZQ006767; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 13:10:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Position paper, in zipped HTML Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , "'Chris Lewis'" , "'Asrg@ietf.org'" To: Kee Hinckley From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 13:10:45 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Actually there's a problem with global opt-out lists. They're global. > > For instance. Does my putting my address on one keep Adobe from > sending me the product updates I asked for? And if not, what keeps > every other company from claiming some prior business relationship. > I think this is a key point. there's a group of people who see all e-marketing stuff (company to user in some form or another) as junk mail to be nuked, just as there's a group in the paper world who see paper junk mail as something to be dumped (even though in the paper world, the commercial mailings subsidize a lot of the postal service costs). Most people, though, aren't that polarized. There are things they want. This stuff isn't part of a binary world of "all good" or "all bad", so these global opt-outs or simplistic definitions. So how do you turn this into a "do what I want" system? I dunno. Because I want my Amazon updates, I want my vendor info. I don't want to go to a global site in an attempt to get the spam out of my life and find the spam still coming, but all of the companies I want to hear from disappearing. As an alternative for this kind of e-marketing chaos, I'd think about some kind of central site for managing unsubscriptions. E-marketing publications can be registered there and carry a unique identifier for the publication. So if a user wants off a list, they could go to www.unsubscribme.com, plop in their identifier and the publication identifier, and the unsubscribe happens. In return for signing up, that site manages an e-marketing whitelist for the publications, and a complaint management/conflict resolution process for those publications. The e-marketer gets whitelisted by being part of it, but has to keep their complaint volume down, and has to manage the unsubscribe requests accurately and timely, or risk losing the whitelisting. Users get a consistent subscription management interface and a third party to help with problem resolutionl. Lots of carrots, with sticks in the closet if needed. ISPs get someone pre-screening e-mail, so it can route around the spam processing sstuff and reduce their processing/server needs, simplifying their life. e-marketing e-mail bonding. Funded through fees on the e-marketers, and fines on ones that go out of spec on their complaint levels. That could work, be scaleable, and help get the chaos in the e-mrketing world (on both sides, since the e-marketers are being driven crazy by stupid spam filtering and would love to see this stuff cleaned up, too) under control -- which makes it easier to go and work on some other part of this whole problem... IMHO, there's no "single" solution here, since there's no "single" problem. So grab a chunk of the problem, find a solution, and move on to the next... all IMHO... -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 16 17:09:15 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA09859 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 17:09:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2GMPKI29746 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 17:25:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2GMPKO29743 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 17:25:20 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA09832 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 17:08:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2GMKAO29540; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 17:20:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2GMEUO29355 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 17:14:30 -0500 Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA09535 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 16:57:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from cotopaxi.demon.co.uk ([212.229.181.150] helo=bogart.jackdaw.org) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 18ugAn-0007ZT-0V for Asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 22:00:05 +0000 Received: from [192.168.100.21] (helo=bacall.jackdaw.org ident=mail) by bogart.jackdaw.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18ufui-0000GS-00 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 21:43:28 +0000 Received: from ral by bacall.jackdaw.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18ufv7-0000PZ-00 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 21:43:53 +0000 From: asrg-ietf@jackdaw.org To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Opt-out lists and legislation Message-ID: <20030316214343.GA1536@bacall.jackdaw.org> Reply-To: ral@jackdaw.org Mail-Followup-To: Asrg@ietf.org References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 21:43:43 +0000 On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 12:56:05PM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > The problem with opt-in for anti-spam campaigners is that the spam senders > get a ready made list of people to spam. So the legislative trick to finesse > this is to have an opt-out list that can be used to check to see if someone > has opted out but not to see how to email them. > > This requirement is met by a one-way function, as I have previously observed > (and published in a very prior-art sense) in 1995 or so. There are a bunk of > tweaks that can be applied to make processing more efficient but the upshot > is that anyone can check against the list without the list being a source of > spam addresses. While such a list would not provide email addresses, it would allow email addresses to be validated. If I am a spammer in Elbonia with a 1,000,000 email address CD, then I could submit each address in turn to the Opt-Out list. Is abc@example.com in the Opt-Out list? Yes Is def@example.com in the Opt-Out list? No Is ghi@example.com in the Opt-Out list? Yes abc@example.com and ghi@example.com must be valid email addresses, so I'll send them some spam. This is why one does not respond to Opt-Out requests in spam; it validates the email address to the spammer. This system would allow them to do this automatically. -- Richard Laysell _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 16 19:53:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA14270 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 19:53:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2H19nT06732 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 20:09:49 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H19nO06729 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 20:09:49 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA14252 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 19:53:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H14TO05755; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 20:04:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H10fO05601 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 20:00:41 -0500 Received: from im2.sec.tds.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA14081 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 19:44:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from homebrad.mail.tds.net (mdsnwi13-vlan434-6.dsl.tds.net [66.222.28.6]) by im2.sec.tds.net (8.12.8/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h2H0kA6A029064; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 18:46:11 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20030316184357.02f5ce40@mail.tds.net> X-Sender: brad.madison@mail.tds.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" From: Brad Spencer Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Spam is a security problem Cc: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <12683.1047849250@monkeys.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 18:46:09 -0600 At 01:14 PM 3/16/2003 -0800, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: >In message <4.3.2.7.2.20030316132105.00e55d30@mail.tds.net>, you wrote: > > > Anti-spammers far overwhelm spammers in their numbers, ... > >What makes you think so? I guess it depends on how you count them. If you count the people who JHD then I think the anti-spammers outnumber the spammers. If you count the people who don't like spam then they outnumber the spammers. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 16 20:30:03 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA15035 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 20:30:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2H1kDZ08580 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 20:46:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H1kCO08577 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 20:46:12 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA15022 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 20:29:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H1g8O08459; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 20:42:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H1fbO08442 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 20:41:37 -0500 Received: from im1.sec.tds.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA14969 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 20:24:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from homebrad.mail.tds.net (mdsnwi13-vlan434-6.dsl.tds.net [66.222.28.6]) by im1.sec.tds.net (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h2H1P8QI011659; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 19:25:08 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20030316190747.00bf7750@mail.tds.net> X-Sender: brad.madison@mail.tds.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 To: Kee Hinckley From: Brad Spencer Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Spam is a security problem Cc: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20030316132105.00e55d30@mail.tds.net> <4.3.2.7.2.20030315052353.03014c70@mail.tds.net> <4.3.2.7.2.20030315052353.03014c70@mail.tds.net> <4.3.2.7.2.20030316132105.00e55d30@mail.tds.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 19:27:03 -0600 At 03:39 PM 3/16/2003 -0500, Kee Hinckley wrote: >Okay. A practical question. > >Let's say I extract from my logs a list of IP addresses that are >attempting to relay through my server. > >1. There is no way I'm going to set up a relay tarpit. I'm already >bouncing one message every two seconds--I can't handle any additional hits >on my bandwidth. It's been doubling every year since '96. OK. Do what makes sense for you. I used to emphasize trapping spam, now I concentrate on passively capturing relay tests (although I did deliver some to one particular tester just to see what he spams. Its' a MMF scheme and some "MEet Russian Women" crap.) I also delivered one for someone I'm told now sells lists of open relays to spammers. >2. But I'd be happy to auto-report those relay attempts. Do you have >tools to do that? No, I don't. >Are they safe (e.g. no more than N reports about the same IP address in a >certain amount of time, consolidate multiple IP reports to the same report >address)? How do I keep from auto-reporting my own users when they forget >to authenticate, or when they are using pop-before-smtp and the >authentication has timed out? > >Keep in mind that there are always border cases. For instance >194.100.84.20 tries to relay through me (always to >anssi.karhu@skynetworks.fi) a thousand times or more a day. How do you >auto-determine who owns that IP? The reverse DNS lookup doesn't match. I favor a conservative approach: if in doubt do whatever is least likely to cause any harm. If you have doubts about a relay attempt then you could either not report it or you could tell the ISP you rejected the attempt but you don't know the nature of the email you rejected - t could be spam related. It would seem worth your time to try to track down what is going on with 194.100.84.20 - that's a lot of attempts. Another option would be a central location that accepts reports of attempted relay and correlates them. Many relay tests now come through open proxies, I think some destinations are false and that the tester actually relies on the bounces rather than on delivery (the destination is a particularly vulgar: Cripes - that was 2 months ago. Keep in mind that this is the ASRG mailing list of the IETF. It is my impression that the goal is to seek effective ways to combat spam, the E in the parent group's name makes me think it is to be engineered. There's plenty of opportunity in taking the approach I suggest, I do not suggest simply doing what I do. There could be alternative IETF recommendations: a really good blocklist, suitable for even large ISPs (like AOL, although I doubt AOL would ever trust any list from outside unless it's use is completely voluntary on the part of the user.) It's my impression that the desire is to move, as opposed to remain static. I'm for that, I put forth my suggestion, I can see it might be chosen as the basis for further and wider action. This is not (I hope) a place to have religious wars about which approach is best, it's a place for the planning of effective action. Spam is a strange crime (insofar as it is a crime, and I don't mean to trigger discussion on that question.) In principle every step taken by a relay spammer can be fully logged, once it is known where he connects to the internet. All the spam that originates on a major ISPs network could be monitored, if it is determined to be a crime somewhere and if the proper search warrant is issued. That's an important consideration but the point I wish to make is that spammers are able to operate secretly largely because people who could watch them don't. I believe that watching them is worth doing, in particular watching their abuse attempts. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 16 22:35:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA17573 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 22:35:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2H3pf716096 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 22:51:41 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H3pfO16093 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 22:51:41 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA17570 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 22:34:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H3kGO15945; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 22:46:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H3ifO15906 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 22:44:41 -0500 Received: from zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA17459 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 22:27:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (zcard307.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h2H3U8l17511 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 22:30:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDFB5ZT0; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 22:30:08 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (acart4vf.ca.nortel.com [47.129.10.19]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBGCF3; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 22:30:07 -0500 Message-ID: <3E754204.5040101@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "'Asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Position paper, in zipped HTML References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 22:33:24 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >> BL "Listing all >>of UUNET?" >>- flat out false. No even remotely respectable blacklist has >>ever done so. > SPEWS listed VeriSign labs because it was on a UUNET address. If that were true, that hardly implies that _all_ of UUNET space was blacklisted, now does it? But in this case, it's different - Verisign _itself_ has spammed more than once. No need to look any deeper than that. [A simple google search for "verisign spam" will yield a number of samples. ie: "partner marketing" with Roving Software. Or the "Vice President, Customer Experience, Verisign" with Network Solutions spam. Etc.] > Case closed, no appeal. > SPEWS makes a point of never justifying itself to anyone, if they want > to correct any statement they believe false they can speak for themselves. Not necessary. >>Re: Email Infrastructure [re: X.400 and UUCP]: "apparently >>technically >>sophisticated enough to use email but not sophisticated enough to use >>1980s technology.". Ahem. Unnecessary, gratuitous (and IMHO >>uneducated) insult. > SMTP does have problems, we should fix them. > X.400 is not the answer. Nobody's suggesting that X.400 or UUCP is an answer to anything. What I'm suggesting is that we shouldn't be so cavalier about completely disenfranchising other email infrastructures which still have considerable life in them, and good sound technical reasons for their continued use. >>Re: Opt-out lists. You skipped several arguments: if every >>company in >>the US spammed you just once over the course of a year, you'd have to >>opt-out 650 times per day. > Good point, I was trying to suggest a central opt-out list for that > reason but never actually stated it. > I think I should be able to opt out once and get off every list. That would be obviously necessary for opt-out being viable at _all_. However, short of legislative enforcement, that will never happen, because it's not in the marketer's best interests. Even with the "incentive" of "if you don't do it voluntarily, it'll be forced on you", it won't work. Eg: the complete failure of the eMPS. Secondly, as an absolute requirement, domains should be able to opt-out. When we met with the DMA a few years ago, we seemed to have managed to get them to reluctantly accept that notion (my corporate domain being the principle example). They reneged on that position less than 48 hours later. >>I think the comments about "fake originator" addresses isn't in the >>least sustainable by thorough statistical investigation. >>90%? Not in >>our feed. > It depends on the definition of fake. For the sample I examined the > emails had not come through the domains that they claimed. As Vernon has commented a few times, there's no way to tell whether that is legitimate or not. If I mailed from here using a hotmail address, is it fake? You can't tell, short of determining whether I own the hotmail address in question. Certainly, given things like the abysmal lack of proper rDNS setups in small-business setups (eg: wanadoo, BT, China, Korea, telesp) there's no way to tell what the right domain _is_ for a given mail server. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 16 22:48:55 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA17884 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 22:48:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2H457716589 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:05:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H457O16586 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:05:07 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA17871 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 22:48:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H3w4O16302; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 22:58:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H3v2O16268 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 22:57:02 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA17774 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 22:40:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h2H3gT029885 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 22:42:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF4XVTG; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 22:42:29 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (acart4vf.ca.nortel.com [47.129.10.19]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBGCFR; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 22:42:28 -0500 Message-ID: <3E7544E9.3010507@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "'Asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Position paper, in zipped HTML References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 22:45:45 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > but if I'm the primary target of this, the e-market mass mailer, how > does this work? I have a database of, say, 15 million e-mail addresses. > If someone opts out in this central repository, how is that SHA1 hash > going to get to all of the places it's supposed to be? Are you really > expecting every e-marketer to test its database against the central > server every (how often? week? bi-weekly? daily?) -- how do you scale > this to handle thousands or tens of thousands of sites and their > billions of lookups every week? Does it get pushed out to marketers? if > so, how do you maintain control of it? Rodney Joffe (who built/ran some of the DMA's opt-out systems for direct surface mail marketing) built a prototype of an opt-out system where you'd run your list against his, and get back a cleaned one (this can in effect be reverse mined). He built this specifically to prod the DMA into moving forward on one of their own (or use his). When the DMA finally announced they were going to build one, Rodney dumped his. Rodney's had the obviously necessary feature of "domain-wide" opt-out - why _shouldn't_ a corporate domain be able to opt out? Rodney's list immediately showed why no-one will ever accept a global opt-out list: within a week, domains comprising on the order of 60 million email address had opted out. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 16 22:51:13 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA17935 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 22:51:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2H47Oo17246 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:07:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H47OO17243 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:07:24 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA17929 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 22:50:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H432O16483; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:03:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H40SO16378 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:00:28 -0500 Received: from xuxa.iecc.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id WAA17817 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 22:43:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 14773 invoked by uid 100); 16 Mar 2003 22:45:58 -0500 To: asrg@ietf.org Path: xuxa.iecc.com!not-for-mail From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Newsgroups: iecc.lists.asrg Subject: Re: [Asrg] Position paper, in zipped HTML Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA Lines: 53 Message-ID: References: <33D5B790-577A-11D7-9AED-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 16 Mar 2003 22:45:57 -0500 In article <33D5B790-577A-11D7-9AED-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com>, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > >On Saturday, March 15, 2003, at 09:18 PM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >> I think I should be able to opt out once and get off every list. > >I like this idea, but I wonder if it's practical. Considering the number of times it's already failed, including Rodney Joffe's safeEPS and the Direct Marketing Association's e-MPS, I think we can safely say that it's not practical. Technically it's no big deal, the central source compiles its list of addresses and then sends out hashcodes of all of them every week or month or whatever. The problem is one of the crucial differences between postal addresses and phone numbers on the one hand, and e-mail addresses on the other. The post office has a master list of every valid postal address in the U.S., and an outfit called NANPA has a list of every valid NXX-NXX in North America. That makes it posssible to test in a straightforward way whether an address or phone number exists and if so whether it's in the list. E-mail addresses aren't like that. There's no master list of e-mail addresses and there never will be since it's up to the management of every domain to define the structure of its mailboxes. What with ISPs that offer multiple mailboxes, vanity domains, tagged subaddresses, and fuzzy match LDAP servers, it's common for users to have more than one address, and some of us have way, way more than one address. In my case, I have about a dozen addresses in my primary domain iecc.com, (various misspellings of my name, plus postmaster, hostmaster, webmaster and abuse), I'm every address in a bunch of private domains like johnlevine.com and abuse.net, and I'm postmaster, hostmaster, webmaster, and abuse at about 150 customer domains. What's more, there are hundreds if not thousands of addresses in iecc.com and gurus.com that have been misscraped over the years and get lots of spam even though they've never been valid mailboxes. My situation is perhaps extreme but it's not unique, and plenty of people at companies with LDAP mail can be addressed as john.smith, john.q.smith, john-smith, j.smith, and a whole bunch of other variant addresses. Are supposed to enumerate every possible permuation of our addresses for the convenience of spammers? Even if we permit domain wildcards (something the DMA strenuously resists with e-MPS), it's still an absurd task, and given the reality of dictionary attacks, spammers will still make up addresses faster than we can opt them out. See my next message for a per-server opt-out technique that I think is workable. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 16 22:55:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA18059 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 22:55:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2H4BGM17591 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:11:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H4BGO17587 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:11:16 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA18056 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 22:54:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H42ZO16457; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:02:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H3xTO16330 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 22:59:29 -0500 Received: from zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA17814 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 22:42:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (zcard307.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h2H3iul17626 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 22:44:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDFB5Z8D; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 22:44:56 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (acart4vf.ca.nortel.com [47.129.10.19]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBGCFT; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 22:44:55 -0500 Message-ID: <3E75457C.2030404@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: "'Asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Position paper, in zipped HTML References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 22:48:12 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Chuq Von Rospach wrote: >> Actually there's a problem with global opt-out lists. They're global. >> For instance. Does my putting my address on one keep Adobe from >> sending me the product updates I asked for? And if not, what keeps >> every other company from claiming some prior business relationship. > I think this is a key point. there's a group of people who see all > e-marketing stuff (company to user in some form or another) as junk mail > to be nuked, just as there's a group in the paper world who see paper > junk mail as something to be dumped (even though in the paper world, the > commercial mailings subsidize a lot of the postal service costs). Much simpler than that. "opt-out", whether global or otherwise, is clearly only intended for unsolicited email. Why would opting out of unsolicited email affect that which you have solicited? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 16 23:10:27 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA18510 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:10:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2H4QdY18179 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:26:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H4QcO18176 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:26:39 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA18497 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:09:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H4O7O18121; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:24:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H4NsO18103 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:23:54 -0500 Received: from tom.iecc.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id XAA18431 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:07:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 9564 invoked from network); 16 Mar 2003 23:09:23 -0500 Received: (ofmipd 208.31.42.38); 17 Mar 2003 04:09:01 -0000 Message-ID: From: "John R Levine" To: "Anti-Spam Research Group" Cleverness: None detected MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Asrg] Server banner tags Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 16 Mar 2003 23:09:23 -0500 A couple of years ago Paul Hoffman and I worked out a scheme of SMTP banner tags that server owners could use to publish their spam policies. Laws about bulk mail could then require that mailers obey the tags. Every SMTP transaction starts with the server sending a banner like this: 220 some random text RFC 2821 says nothing about the text other than that the total line length including the CRLF at the end can't be longer than 512 characters. Our proposal defines some simple strings that a server puts in the banner to specify both the policy and the location of the server so any clients can tell what law applies. For example: 220 MAIL.EXAMPLE.COM NO UCE C=US L=CA NO UCE means no unsolicited commercial email accepted, C=US L=CA specify the country and state in X.500-ese. Or it could say 220 MAIL.EXAMPLE.COM NO UBE C=US L=NY NO UBE means no unsolicited bulk mail, this time in New York. That's it. When sending mail through relays, the banner from the MX server for the recipient's domain is the one that matters. If a domain has multiple MX servers, it's up to the domain's management to make the banners consistent. Mailers can either test the banners on the fly while sending mail, or they can use a listwashing program that checks the banners for the domains in a list. We have both the draft proposal and some sample listwashing code (not because we think it's a particularly good idea, but to show how easy it is) at http://www.cauce.org/proposal/ Some people have suggested making the banner an ESMTP extension rather than putting it in the initial tag. We don't like that idea both because there are still plenty of servers that don't do ESMTP and because it requires more work from the server to display the tag, at least three round trips rather than just one. Some have asked what if mail goes through either an ISP's mail server or stolen relays so the sender doesn't see the recipient's tag. The answer is tough luck, it's the sender's job to check the tag, either by using a mailing service that checks tags or by listwashing. The point of the tags is to strengthen the property rights approach to mail management, that the server's owner gets to make the rules. In effect this is a global opt-out list, but one that scales in the number of servers rather than the number of mailboxes and that distributes the opt-out info rather than requiring a central registry. We've had considerable interest from state legislators in California and Ohio to refer to this in state law, and I hope to plug it at the FTC spam fest next month. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 16 23:17:53 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA18736 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:17:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2H4Y6C18546 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:34:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H4Y5O18543 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:34:05 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA18726 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:17:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H4W4O18399; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:32:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H4TqO18275 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:29:52 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA18594 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:13:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (zcard307.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h2H4FJ000775 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:15:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDFB553X; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:15:19 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (acart4vf.ca.nortel.com [47.129.10.19]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBGCGP; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:15:17 -0500 Message-ID: <3E754C9A.90007@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Position paper, in zipped HTML References: <33D5B790-577A-11D7-9AED-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:18:34 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit John R. Levine wrote: > Are supposed to enumerate every possible permuation of our addresses > for the convenience of spammers? Even if we permit domain wildcards > (something the DMA strenuously resists with e-MPS), it's still an > absurd task, and given the reality of dictionary attacks, spammers > will still make up addresses faster than we can opt them out. We have a similar situation - our spamtrap domains were previously used by our company. For a variety of reasons, we "leaked" literally thousands of variations on the theme "user@.domain", but ignored "" in our mail infrastructure. Thus, any user had a virtually infinite number of aliases. In practise, many people had as many as 30 or more get scraped and spammed. Not to mention @domain, @domain etc. Domain-wide opt-out is crucially necessary for this to fly at all. Enumerating even one variation of each user's email address in an opt-out list would both be impractical (dozens, if not hundreds of updates per day), and get me shot by Security. But domain-wide opt-out is the most problematic getting acceptance. John remembers our trip to the DMA... _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 16 23:20:08 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA18857 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:20:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2H4aK718680 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:36:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H4aKO18677 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:36:20 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA18811 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:19:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H4XRO18518; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:33:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H4V2O18353 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:31:02 -0500 Received: from plaidworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA18652 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:14:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.8/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h2H4GSZQ012205; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 20:16:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Position paper, in zipped HTML Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: "'Asrg@ietf.org'" To: "Chris Lewis" From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <3E7544E9.3010507@americasm01.nt.com> Message-Id: <38866278-582F-11D7-BE71-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 20:16:26 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sunday, March 16, 2003, at 07:45 PM, Chris Lewis wrote: > Rodney's had the obviously necessary feature of "domain-wide" opt-out > - why _shouldn't_ a corporate domain be able to opt out? All my systems have one. There's no reason not to, and many good reasons to allow it, IMHO. especially with the proliferation of personal domains where all addresses are valid and forwarded to a single real email address, usually with no clean way of finding out what address it went to. > Rodney's list immediately showed why no-one will ever accept a global > opt-out list: within a week, domains comprising on the order of 60 > million email address had opted out. > (shrug). that's the wrong attitude, but I've seen it. Better attitude: why worry about people who don't want your mail anyway? All you do is piss them off and make them less likely, not more likely. -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 16 23:20:46 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA18897 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:20:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2H4axQ18714 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:36:59 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H4axO18711 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:36:59 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA18879 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:20:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H4Z4O18599; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:35:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H4YOO18572 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:34:24 -0500 Received: from zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA18730 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:17:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h2H4Jpq16418 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:19:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF4XVW9; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:19:51 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (acart4vf.ca.nortel.com [47.129.10.19]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBGCGS; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:19:50 -0500 Message-ID: <3E754DAA.9030709@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: "'Asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Position paper, in zipped HTML References: <38866278-582F-11D7-BE71-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:23:06 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > > On Sunday, March 16, 2003, at 07:45 PM, Chris Lewis wrote: > >> Rodney's had the obviously necessary feature of "domain-wide" opt-out >> - why _shouldn't_ a corporate domain be able to opt out? > > > All my systems have one. There's no reason not to, and many good reasons > to allow it, IMHO. especially with the proliferation of personal domains > where all addresses are valid and forwarded to a single real email > address, usually with no clean way of finding out what address it went to. Or corporate ones, where the corporation gets to decide how the email system gets used. >> Rodney's list immediately showed why no-one will ever accept a global >> opt-out list: within a week, domains comprising on the order of 60 >> million email address had opted out > (shrug). that's the wrong attitude, but I've seen it. Better attitude: > why worry about people who don't want your mail anyway? All you do is > piss them off and make them less likely, not more likely. The "pissing in the community swimming pool" argument has never deterred spammers before, why should it now? :-( The DMA was dead-set against it. We seemed to have changed their mind in the meeting we had with them. They reneged almost immediately thereafter. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 16 23:40:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA19419 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:40:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2H4ufd20188 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:56:41 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H4ufO20185 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:56:41 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA19407 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:39:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H4rLO20073; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:53:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H4oZO19944 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:50:35 -0500 Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id XAA19217 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:33:49 -0500 (EST) From: meor@mail.SoftHome.net Received: (qmail 24454 invoked by uid 417); 17 Mar 2003 04:35:59 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 17 Mar 2003 04:35:59 -0000 Received: from Main.mail.SoftHome.net ([24.118.229.120]) (AUTH: LOGIN meor@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 21:35:58 -0700 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030316221304.00b4eee8@mail.SoftHome.net> X-Sender: meor@mail.SoftHome.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] A method to eliminate spam In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030316041419.01cbd070@mail.generalprotectionf ault.de> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030315210111.00b91c48@mail.SoftHome.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20030316024319.01ceb158@mail.generalprotectionf ault.de> <5.1.0.14.0.20030315171040.00b463f0@mail.SoftHome.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 22:36:04 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >First of all the problem is not limited to web clients. It's a problem for >everyone who offers a free email service, regardless what clients their >"customers" use. No, the "problem" is that you're applying the current E-Mail system to a different method. If you read the method through, you'll see that there are no relay agents in the protocol. There are send clients(computer users trying to send mail), mail hosts(server which houses mail messages for later retrieval by an end user), and end users(people who are getting the mail). When you send mail, you're sending to the mail host, you do not send to an ISP SMTP server which in turn relays the message to the final server. Like every other server/client setup on the Internet, if the mail host is down, your message cannot be sent at that time it does not get "cached" somewhere until the SMTP server decides to bounce it back. >Your "simple solution" is bad. I think you're misunderstanding it. >Example: >Dial-In user ---> ISP's/freemailer's relay >relay --> final destination (temporally unreachable) >Dial-In user goes offline >relay (retrying) --> final destination > >If the final destination is a malicious pseudo server, the *relay* will >have to handle the requested, impossible authentication task. There are no relay servers. If the mail host gives you an impossible task, only the send client will be tied up. Why would a mail host give a mail sender an impossible task? and if they did, who's to say that the mail sender cannot push a "Cancel" button? These tasks are designed to take on an order of 10 seconds to 1 minutes max, it will be very apparent to a mail sender that the task is not completing correctly. First of all, it's not practical for a mail host to give out impossible tasks; mail hosts want mail to go through, not to be bounced. Second of all, with no relays how is erroneous problems debilitating in any way? when only the mail sender has the remote possibility of getting an impossible task, how is it not possible to cancel or retry sending? >Even if you would solve this, so a original sender would not be able to >take down relays by using malicious pseudo servers, there remains a problem. >What if a former normal server would be replaced by a malicious pseudo >server (by virus/worm or hack)? All clients would try to solve impossible >authentication tasks, given from the "new" server, no matter wheter the >were whitelisted at the original server or not. No relay servers. Yes, what if a server was replaced by a malicious pseudo server and all clients were given impossible tasks? This question is analogous to asking what if a site's web server was replaced with a fake one and was giving out bogus web pages. No admin would should allow his server to be replaced by a "malicious pseudo server"; and even if it was, how is this problem specifically related to the implementation? This is a problem with any un trusted network and has no bearing on what the overview trying to implement. >In short: If the destination requests an impossible problem solution (in >result of error, manipulation or whatever) the sender is the one who >suffers. And the sender will not be able to discover this before it has to >suffer. Yes, it is the sender who suffers, how is this an issue? No bandwidth is being used, no CPU time is being used by the mail host when the send client is working, only sender computation time, which could be stopped with the infamous "Cancel" button. Yes the sender can discover errors within a finite period of time. I'm sorry for not giving out explicit details in the overview as it was trying to portray an idea, not a specific implementation. In the case of a mail sender not knowing when to stop searching for a key; the mail host would be able to give parameters to the mail sender as to how large the key is. If the sender is unwilling/unable to find the key of a specified size, it knows there was an error and only a few seconds of CPU time was lost. >>You do bring up an a valid point that web clients would be harder to >>implement, but I truly believe the benefits of this method far outweigh a >>slightly harder web client implementation. > >I don't think it's a good idea to "solve" problems of the concept in the >implementations. "Needs workaround by design" stinks.' This is not a work around, you're misunderstanding the idea. >Erm ... and what about replying to the list next time? My mistake. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 16 23:47:55 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA19663 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:47:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2H548r20508 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 00:04:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H548O20505 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 00:04:08 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA19652 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:47:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H4x3O20301; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:59:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H4wXO20267 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:58:33 -0500 Received: from plaidworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA19510 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:41:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.8/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h2H4hxZQ012579; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 20:43:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Position paper, in zipped HTML Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: "'Asrg@ietf.org'" To: "Chris Lewis" From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <3E75457C.2030404@americasm01.nt.com> Message-Id: <104C0E8C-5833-11D7-BE71-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 20:43:57 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sunday, March 16, 2003, at 07:48 PM, Chris Lewis wrote: > Much simpler than that. "opt-out", whether global or otherwise, is > clearly only intended for unsolicited email. Why would opting out of > unsolicited email affect that which you have solicited? > You'd be amazed at the number of people who sign up for something, then complain about the spam when they get their first copy. Or forget that they agreed to accept postings when they (a) went to a web site, (b) registered a product, (c) name your favorite. And these aren't deceptive forms like some sites. some are "not subscribed unless they get selected" -- and I've still spent time with people who acknowledge going through the forms and still say things are unsolicited. (shrug). and people forget what they did, too. Unsolicited is a lot less well-defined than I'd like, unfortunately... I wish it was. -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 00:00:47 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA19959 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 00:00:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2H5H0321721 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 00:17:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H5H0O21718 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 00:17:00 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA19949 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 00:00:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H5D5O21587; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 00:13:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H5CPO21548 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 00:12:25 -0500 Received: from zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA19893 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:55:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (zcard307.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h2H4vp718238 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:57:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDFB56JN; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:57:51 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (acart4vf.ca.nortel.com [47.129.10.19]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBGCGY; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:57:49 -0500 Message-ID: <3E755692.1000903@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] A method to eliminate spam References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030315210111.00b91c48@mail.SoftHome.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20030316024319.01ceb158@mail.generalprotectionf ault.de> <5.1.0.14.0.20030315171040.00b463f0@mail.SoftHome.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20030316221304.00b4eee8@mail.SoftHome.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 00:01:06 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit meor@mail.SoftHome.net wrote: > >> First of all the problem is not limited to web clients. It's a problem >> for everyone who offers a free email service, regardless what clients >> their "customers" use. > > > No, the "problem" is that you're applying the current E-Mail system to a > different method. If you read the method through, you'll see that there > are no relay agents in the protocol. There are send clients(computer > users trying to send mail), mail hosts(server which houses mail messages > for later retrieval by an end user), and end users(people who are > getting the mail). When you send mail, you're sending to the mail host, > you do not send to an ISP SMTP server which in turn relays the message > to the final server. Like every other server/client setup on the > Internet, if the mail host is down, your message cannot be sent at that > time it does not get "cached" somewhere until the SMTP server decides to > bounce it back. > >> Your "simple solution" is bad. > > > I think you're misunderstanding it. > >> Example: >> Dial-In user ---> ISP's/freemailer's relay >> relay --> final destination (temporally unreachable) >> Dial-In user goes offline >> relay (retrying) --> final destination >> >> If the final destination is a malicious pseudo server, the *relay* >> will have to handle the requested, impossible authentication task. > > > There are no relay servers. If the mail host gives you an impossible > task, only the send client will be tied up. Every mail client would have to become a full mail server with MX'ing, queuing and the rest of the 9 yards. Sending an email to large numbers of recipients (especially mailing lists) would become extremely unreliable. There goes any chance for rate limiting, send filtering, or even logging (especially in a corporate environment). Legitimate bulk mailing would become excrutiatingly painful. I think this cure is worse than the disease. It'd never fly in a corporate environment. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 00:31:51 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA21221 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 00:31:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2H5m5x24266 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 00:48:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H5m5O24263 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 00:48:05 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA21032 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 00:31:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H5j8O24125; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 00:45:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H5iaO24095 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 00:44:36 -0500 Received: from segfault.monkeys.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA20913 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 00:27:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by segfault.monkeys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D083D41F81 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 21:30:02 -0800 (PST) To: "'Asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Position paper, in zipped HTML In-reply-to: Your message of Sun, 16 Mar 2003 22:33:24 -0500. <3E754204.5040101@americasm01.nt.com> Message-ID: <44719.1047879002@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 21:30:02 -0800 In message <3E754204.5040101@americasm01.nt.com>, "Chris Lewis" wrote: >But in this case, it's different - Verisign _itself_ has spammed more >than once. No need to look any deeper than that. > >[A simple google search for "verisign spam" will yield a number of >samples. ie: "partner marketing" with Roving Software. Or the "Vice >President, Customer Experience, Verisign" with Network Solutions spam. Etc.] I still have a few of the spams they sent me, in my archives, if anybody needs them for anything. (Apparently, if you were unlucky enough to be foced into doing business with them back in the bad old days when they ran the one and only domain name monopoly, they later decided that that they had a ``prexisting business relationship'' with you which made it OK for them to spam you, even though you only ever wanted a domain name registration, WITHOUT the side-order of spam.) >As Vernon has commented a few times, there's no way to tell whether that >is legitimate or not. If I mailed from here using a hotmail address, is >it fake? You can't tell, short of determining whether I own the hotmail >address in question. Certainly, given things like the abysmal lack of >proper rDNS setups in small-business setups (eg: wanadoo, BT, China, >Korea, telesp) there's no way to tell what the right domain _is_ for a >given mail server. Two points: First, by and large Wanadoo space, BT space, and Telesp space almost all _does_ have at least _some_ inverse DNS. It's only the jerks in China, Korea, and other parts of the far east that never managed to make it to the chapter on reverse DNS in their copies of the Cricket book. Second, I have to disagree with the view that rDNS is necessary to definitively identify a given mail server. If you can get the given mail server to act as an SMTP client to you, then there is another way. In a nutshell, if some SMTP client says to you `HELO foo.bar.com' then 6 times out of 10 a forward lookup on `foo.bar.com' will get you the IP address of that same SMTP client and another 3 times out of 10, looking up the MX records for `bar.com' will get you the IP address of that same SMTP client. So 9 times out of 10 you can accurately associate a domain name with a given SMTP client, even in the total absence of rDNS. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 00:58:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA21898 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 00:58:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2H6ExW26105 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 01:14:59 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H6EwO26102 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 01:14:58 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA21892 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 00:58:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H6CDO26021; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 01:12:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H6BaO25979 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 01:11:36 -0500 Received: from zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA21859 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 00:54:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h2H5v1K19343 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 00:57:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF4XWNX; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 00:57:01 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (acart4vf.ca.nortel.com [47.129.10.19]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBGCH2; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 00:57:00 -0500 Message-ID: <3E75646F.5070709@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "'Asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Position paper, in zipped HTML References: <104C0E8C-5833-11D7-BE71-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 01:00:15 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > > On Sunday, March 16, 2003, at 07:48 PM, Chris Lewis wrote: > >> Much simpler than that. "opt-out", whether global or otherwise, is >> clearly only intended for unsolicited email. Why would opting out of >> unsolicited email affect that which you have solicited? >> > > You'd be amazed at the number of people who sign up for something, then > complain about the spam when they get their first copy. Or forget that > they agreed to accept postings when they (a) went to a web site, (b) > registered a product, (c) name your favorite. I'm quite well aware of that. All the more reason that a generic "opt-out" strategy explicitly exclude solicited material - otherwise, users are faced with the unenviable position of having to either get bombarded with _everything_ _anyone_ wants to send them, or get nothing whatsoever, solicited or not. If we're going to go the route of legitimizing _any_ unsolicited email and at the same time, letting anyone do anything about spam, we have to provide means of differentiating between solicited and unsolicited in the opt-out strategy. > And these aren't deceptive forms like some sites. some are "not > subscribed unless they get selected" -- and I've still spent time with > people who acknowledge going through the forms and still say things are > unsolicited. (shrug). and people forget what they did, too. > Unsolicited is a lot less well-defined than I'd like, unfortunately... I > wish it was. The solution is simple (at least conceptually) - mailers of solicited material have to keep good records. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 01:01:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA21991 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 01:01:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2H6HnV26203 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 01:17:49 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H6HnO26200 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 01:17:49 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA21977 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 01:01:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H6D2O26057; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 01:13:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H6CKO26033 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 01:12:20 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA21876 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 00:55:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2H5vgAl018118 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 22:57:42 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303170557.h2H5vgAl018118@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Position paper, in zipped HTML References: <33D5B790-577A-11D7-9AED-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 22:57:42 -0700 (MST) > From: "Chris Lewis" > ... > But domain-wide opt-out is the most problematic getting acceptance. > John remembers our trip to the DMA... I hope "problematic" was sarcastic. Members of DMA are not stupid. They know how many domains would choose to not opt-out. Even bulk mail senders would opt-out by domain if they could. Almost no one wants unsolicited bulk mail. An majority of users at almost every domain would a prior opt-out if they could, which is to say that they'd demand their domain be opted-out. Can you name a single domain with any real users that would not opt-out?--I can't. The only domain-wide opt-out that will ever be honored will be implmented on the SMTP servers of the domain. The same applies to any sort of opt-out. The experience with the Colorado do-not-call list (a large part of the state signed up long before with live) and the screams of outrage about the new Federal do-not-call list from the telemarketers are relevant. That fact gives me an excuse to write about a problem with the charter for this mailing list. The problem involves what seems to be some idea of convey consent to receive mail to mail senders. It is unrealistic bordering on insane to depend on anything that requires marketing and sales people to not act on the hope that you made a mistake when you opted out 6 months ago or that you might now be interested. The nature of the job requires semi-cold calling, or testing whether prospects are still uninterested and really meant to opt-out. For example, that's why two years after some accounts @rhyolite.com opted-out of Dell Computer junk mail and then were disabled and turned into spam traps, Dell decided to give them "free subscriptions" to a monthly newsletter about special deals. Consent to receive mail will only be honored by agents of the user. Agents of mail senders will always err on the side of sending given any excuse, no matter how unlikely. There's no point in telling mail senders what mail you don't want, because they'll be driven to find a way to understand any refusal as not applying to them. If you say you don't want to hear about X, they'll discover that what they have to say is unrelated to X. If you say you don't want to hear from outfit Y, they'll point out that they're now sending from Z. If you say you want to hear nothing at all, they'll say they must have misunderstood because you wouldn't have a public mailbox if you didn't want to receive mail from strangers. It would be crazy to convey indications of consent to advertisers and expect them to honor anything except "sure, tell me more." ... Should this mailing list be considered shut down until next week? Is there any hope that new drafts proposed taxonomies will be written during the excitement of the IETF meetng? Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 01:07:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA22145 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 01:07:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2H6NhA26566 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 01:23:43 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H6NhO26563 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 01:23:43 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA22134 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 01:06:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H6K2O26353; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 01:20:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H6FdO26150 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 01:15:39 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA21917 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 00:58:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (zcard307.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h2H614n04532 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 01:01:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDFB58GP; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 01:01:04 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (acart4vf.ca.nortel.com [47.129.10.19]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBGCHL; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 01:01:03 -0500 Message-ID: <3E756563.9090407@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "'Asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Position paper, in zipped HTML References: <44719.1047879002@monkeys.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 01:04:19 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: >>As Vernon has commented a few times, there's no way to tell whether that >>is legitimate or not. If I mailed from here using a hotmail address, is >>it fake? You can't tell, short of determining whether I own the hotmail >>address in question. Certainly, given things like the abysmal lack of >>proper rDNS setups in small-business setups (eg: wanadoo, BT, China, >>Korea, telesp) there's no way to tell what the right domain _is_ for a >>given mail server. > Two points: > First, by and large Wanadoo space, BT space, and Telesp space almost all > _does_ have at least _some_ inverse DNS. I said "proper" DNS - that doesn't include those with pool ids instead of proper name assignment. > In a nutshell, if some SMTP client says to you `HELO foo.bar.com' then > 6 times out of 10 a forward lookup on `foo.bar.com' will get you the > IP address of that same SMTP client and another 3 times out of 10, > looking up the MX records for `bar.com' will get you the IP address > of that same SMTP client. So 9 times out of 10 you can accurately > associate a domain name with a given SMTP client, even in the total > absence of rDNS. That presumes, for example, that every mail server is only authoritive for one domain. That breaks even for us. Breaks hugely for people with their own domains mailing thru ISP servers - which we want them to do if they're DHCP (for example). _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 01:09:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA22173 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 01:09:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2H6PiG26625 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 01:25:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H6PiO26622 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 01:25:44 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA22169 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 01:08:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H6K4O26369; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 01:20:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H6GfO26175 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 01:16:41 -0500 Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id AAA21940 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 00:59:54 -0500 (EST) From: meor@mail.SoftHome.net Received: (qmail 31398 invoked by uid 417); 17 Mar 2003 06:01:55 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 17 Mar 2003 06:01:55 -0000 Received: from Main.mail.SoftHome.net ([24.118.229.120]) (AUTH: LOGIN meor@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 22:58:05 -0700 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030316235730.00b89ea0@mail.SoftHome.net> X-Sender: meor@mail.SoftHome.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] A method to eliminate spam In-Reply-To: <3E755692.1000903@americasm01.nt.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030315210111.00b91c48@mail.SoftHome.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20030316024319.01ceb158@mail.generalprotectionf ault.de> <5.1.0.14.0.20030315171040.00b463f0@mail.SoftHome.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20030316221304.00b4eee8@mail.SoftHome.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:58:12 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Every mail client would have to become a full mail server with MX'ing, queuing and the rest of the 9 yards. Sending an email to large numbers of recipients (especially mailing lists) would become extremely unreliable. I believe these problems are a large result of comparing this technique to how E-Mail is currently handled right now. Every sending client would not have to become a mail server. The sending clients could use normal A-record lookups to resolve DNS names instead of using MX records. The sending client would not have to implement server queues as it would only be sending mail from one user. >There goes any chance for rate limiting, send filtering, or even logging (especially in a corporate environment). I don't see how rate limiting would be affected with this method, I would like to know exactly what you mean by this. Send filtering and logging however are different topics, both of these are easy to get around by any knowledgeable computer user. Could you give some examples of how send filtering and logging are beneficial to corporations? Is this logging any different than just normal usage logging that administrators perform? Logging like to see what users are doing with HTTP, FTP, messaging systems, etc. Could logging programs not be adapted, if people wanted to, to log new protocols like this one? >Legitimate bulk mailing would become excrutiatingly painful. Well, right now legitimate bulk mailing is kind of broken. In order for myself to sign up to this list I had to send and receive 3 pieces of E-Mail. In the overview I did address bulk mailing. If a bulk mailer is on a white list of someone(legitimate), then the bulk mailer does not have to use any CPU time to send the message, it is allowed to be sent as simply as it is right now. This makes it perfectly possible for a bulk mailer to send out hundreds of thousands of E-Mail messages to users who want to receive them. I don't see how legitimate bulk mailing would be hindered by this method. On the contrary; I think this method could help out bulk mailers as end users would clearly know who they've placed on their list of accepted senders and would eliminate users accidentally reporting legitimate or solicited bulk mail as unsolicited. >I think this cure is worse than the disease. I don't see how this is true. I believe this method is a more robust method opposed to simple E-Mail system we use right now. As such it requires slightly different methods, but even the current E-Mail system has it's own methods to get used to. Different is not the same as worse. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 01:42:26 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA22839 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 01:42:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2H6wg328527 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 01:58:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H6wgO28524 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 01:58:42 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA22836 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 01:41:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H6r8O28317; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 01:53:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H6qMO28296 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 01:52:22 -0500 Received: from zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA22667 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 01:35:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h2H6bkK21404 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 01:37:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF4XWSF; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 01:37:47 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (acart4vf.ca.nortel.com [47.129.10.19]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBGCHQ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 01:37:45 -0500 Message-ID: <3E756DFD.1090502@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] A method to eliminate spam References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030315210111.00b91c48@mail.SoftHome.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20030316024319.01ceb158@mail.generalprotectionf ault.de> <5.1.0.14.0.20030315171040.00b463f0@mail.SoftHome.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20030316221304.00b4eee8@mail.SoftHome.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20030316235730.00b89ea0@mail.SoftHome.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 01:41:01 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit meor@mail.SoftHome.net wrote: > >Every mail client would have to become a full mail server with MX'ing, > queuing and the rest of the 9 yards. Sending an email to large numbers > of recipients (especially mailing lists) would become extremely unreliable. > > I believe these problems are a large result of comparing this technique > to how E-Mail is currently handled right now. Every sending client > would not have to become a mail server. The sending clients could use > normal A-record lookups to resolve DNS names instead of using MX > records. Why on earth would you want to abandon MXes? MXes serve an extremely useful purpose even if your "solution" was adopted - failover, prioritization, enabling systems not on the Internet to receive email (hint: my home machine doesn't have, and has no need for, an A record. Couldn't use one even if it had one. It's not Internet-connected.). There's also the issue of having to expose internal email topology (eg: which machine holds my mailbox? You can't tell. We don't want you to be able to tell. We don't want anyone to be able to connect to it directly at _all_.) > The sending client would not have to implement server queues > as it would only be sending mail from one user. When faced with the option of not being able to hit send unless the recipient's mailbox machine was currently online, sending clients would have to. Dealing with sporadic machine outages would make mailing lists (or even modest receiver lists) extremely unpleasant to operate if you couldn't queue. Imagine the world-wide grief if a backhoe took out AOL's connectivity for a short time, or an individual mailbox server went down. My home machine would never get another email again... > >There goes any chance for rate limiting, send filtering, or even > >logging (especially in a corporate environment). > I don't see how rate limiting would be affected with this method, I > would like to know exactly what you mean by this. How would ISP (or a corporation) block outbound mailbombs and the like if they don't get to see the traffic? Legal liabilities galore. > Send filtering and > logging however are different topics, both of these are easy to get > around by any knowledgeable computer user. Huh? I'd like to see any of our users get around our send filtering and logging. Hint: we block direct outbound email simply by denying outbound port 25. As do many ISPs with dialup pool router blocks. Short of active collusion with outside entities (eg: port forwarding ala open proxies) they can't. > Could you give some examples > of how send filtering and logging are beneficial to corporations? Blocking outbound klez. I wish Verizon would do that... Logging all email is becoming a legal necessity these days [Patriot Act plus others, mutter]. > Is > this logging any different than just normal usage logging that > administrators perform? Logging like to see what users are doing with > HTTP, FTP, messaging systems, etc. Could logging programs not be > adapted, if people wanted to, to log new protocols like this one? Yeah, by implementing proxies as they do for HTTP and FTP. Which defeats your proposal because they're nothing more than intermediate mail servers. Packet logging is impractical or useless - it shows nothing of the details of the email, such as recipient address. > >Legitimate bulk mailing would become excrutiatingly painful. > Well, right now legitimate bulk mailing is kind of broken. In order for > myself to sign up to this list I had to send and receive 3 pieces of > E-Mail. In the overview I did address bulk mailing. If a bulk mailer > is on a white list of someone(legitimate), then the bulk mailer does not > have to use any CPU time to send the message, it is allowed to be sent > as simply as it is right now. So now we have two email protocols, one for bulk and one for non-bulk. Ouch. > I don't see how this is true. I believe this method is a more robust > method opposed to simple E-Mail system we use right now. As such it > requires slightly different methods, but even the current E-Mail system > has it's own methods to get used to. Different is not the same as worse. Requiring the recipient mailbox machine to be online and operational at the time of sending a piece of email is, by itself, considerably worse than the status quo. Race conditions. Etc. Vastly more unreliable. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 02:20:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA05248 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 02:20:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2H7b1O08915 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 02:37:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H7b0O08903 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 02:37:00 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA05196 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 02:20:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H7WFO08778; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 02:32:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H7VrO08758 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 02:31:53 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA04708 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 02:15:04 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2H7HGOo003158; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 02:17:16 -0500 Message-Id: <200303170717.h2H7HGOo003158@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.2 03/12/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Cc: "'Asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Position paper, in zipped HTML In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 16 Mar 2003 21:30:02 PST." <44719.1047879002@monkeys.com> References: <44719.1047879002@monkeys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_273421704P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 02:17:16 -0500 --==_Exmh_273421704P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Sun, 16 Mar 2003 21:30:02 PST, "Ronald F. Guilmette" said: > In a nutshell, if some SMTP client says to you `HELO foo.bar.com' then > 6 times out of 10 a forward lookup on `foo.bar.com' will get you the > IP address of that same SMTP client and another 3 times out of 10, > looking up the MX records for `bar.com' will get you the IP address > of that same SMTP client. So 9 times out of 10 you can accurately > associate a domain name with a given SMTP client, even in the total > absence of rDNS. Probably true of well-behaved SMTP transactions. I've noticed an annoying tendency of late for spammers to say 'HELO your.host.here', to the point where I'm THIS close to telling RFC2821, section 4.1.4 to stuff it: An SMTP server MAY verify that the domain name parameter in the EHLO command actually corresponds to the IP address of the client. However, the server MUST NOT refuse to accept a message for this reason if the verification fails: the information about verification failure is for logging and tracing only. If the EHLO has one of my names on it, but not one of my IP addresses, they can take a flying leap as far as I'm concerned. --==_Exmh_273421704P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+dXZ8cC3lWbTT17ARAoMzAKC9zUZ/OGA/SHJ0xDkjYTFCQ2c0XQCgjstG K+hy7acNSL5/p+skCtabaIM= =NUQH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_273421704P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 03:09:10 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA06426 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 03:09:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2H8PSo12046 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 03:25:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H8PRO12043 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 03:25:27 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA06400 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 03:08:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H8KCO11947; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 03:20:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H8JHO11890 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 03:19:17 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA06360 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 03:02:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2159748; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 03:04:41 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3E7544E9.3010507@americasm01.nt.com> References: <3E7544E9.3010507@americasm01.nt.com> To: "Chris Lewis" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Position paper, in zipped HTML Cc: "'Asrg@ietf.org'" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 02:53:40 -0500 At 10:45 PM -0500 3/16/03, Chris Lewis wrote: >Rodney's list immediately showed why no-one will ever accept a >global opt-out list: within a week, domains comprising on the order >of 60 million email address had opted out. Actually opted out, or had someone wrote a program to do it? Massachusetts has a new opt-out web interface for phone spam. It verifies the phone number using your address. Writing software to opt-out virtually everyone in the state would not be that hard. Unfortunately (or not) it turns out that opt-out lists have the same problem as email in general. No authentication. I assume that's why opting out of phone spam (the marketing opt-out list, not the one the feds are setting up) is free if you send them a letter, but costs $5 if you do it on-line. Authentication by level of effort. Although the claim is that the $5 is to cover costs. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 04:33:26 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA08262 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 04:33:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2H9niD18633 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 04:49:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H9niO18630 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 04:49:44 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA08259 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 04:32:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H9lJO18498; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 04:47:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2H9kjO18472 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 04:46:45 -0500 Received: from segfault.monkeys.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA08204 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 04:29:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by segfault.monkeys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E9CA41F73 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 01:32:07 -0800 (PST) To: "'Asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Position paper, in zipped HTML In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 17 Mar 2003 01:04:19 -0500. <3E756563.9090407@americasm01.nt.com> Message-ID: <46758.1047893527@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 01:32:07 -0800 In message <3E756563.9090407@americasm01.nt.com>, "Chris Lewis" wrote: >> In a nutshell, if some SMTP client says to you `HELO foo.bar.com' then >> 6 times out of 10 a forward lookup on `foo.bar.com' will get you the >> IP address of that same SMTP client and another 3 times out of 10, >> looking up the MX records for `bar.com' will get you the IP address >> of that same SMTP client. So 9 times out of 10 you can accurately >> associate a domain name with a given SMTP client, even in the total >> absence of rDNS. > >That presumes, for example, that every mail server is only authoritive >for one domain. It does? How? I think that you may perhaps have misunderstood what I actually said, and/or the limits thereof. > That breaks even for us. Breaks hugely for people with >their own domains mailing thru ISP servers - which we want them to do if >they're DHCP (for example). Please note that I never said a word about envelope sender addresses, or about the domain parts thereof. I only said that given a random mail server `M' which says `HELO x.y.z' when it is acting as an SMTP client, the odds are very high (as I myself have confirmed, empirically) that a forward DNS lookup on x.y.z will yield the IP address of the SMTP client in question, or that forward DNS lookups on one or more of the MX names for the domain `y.z' will yield the IP address of the SMTP client in question. This is simply a way to validate the name/ownership of a given specific mail server. It is entirely independent of, and orthogonal to the possible transmission of any actual message or messages. The mail server in question may perhaps be programmed to receive and accept incoming messages for a number of different domains, and/or it may be programmed to send outgoing mail for a number of different users whose return addresses are in different domains, but none of that relates in any direct way to the mail server's own identity and/or ownership, which is all I was speaking about in my prior message. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 04:52:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA08919 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 04:52:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2HA8o320461 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 05:08:50 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HA8oO20458 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 05:08:50 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA08907 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 04:52:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HA54O19494; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 05:05:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HA4SO19463 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 05:04:28 -0500 Received: from segfault.monkeys.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA08772 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 04:47:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by segfault.monkeys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FB4641F73 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 01:49:50 -0800 (PST) To: "'Asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Position paper, in zipped HTML In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 17 Mar 2003 02:17:16 -0500. <200303170717.h2H7HGOo003158@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: <46880.1047894590@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 01:49:50 -0800 In message <200303170717.h2H7HGOo003158@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: >On Sun, 16 Mar 2003 21:30:02 PST, "Ronald F. Guilmette" sai >d: > >> In a nutshell, if some SMTP client says to you `HELO foo.bar.com' then >> 6 times out of 10 a forward lookup on `foo.bar.com' will get you the >> IP address of that same SMTP client and another 3 times out of 10, >> looking up the MX records for `bar.com' will get you the IP address >> of that same SMTP client. So 9 times out of 10 you can accurately >> associate a domain name with a given SMTP client, even in the total >> absence of rDNS. > >Probably true of well-behaved SMTP transactions. I've noticed an annoying >tendency of late for spammers to say 'HELO your.host.here', to the point >where I'm THIS close to telling RFC2821, section 4.1.4 to stuff it: > > An SMTP server MAY verify that the domain name parameter in the EHLO > command actually corresponds to the IP address of the client. > However, the server MUST NOT refuse to accept a message for this > reason if the verification fails: the information about verification > failure is for logging and tracing only. I and at least a few others already _have_ ``told RFC2821, section 4.1.4 to stuff it''. (That RFC doesn't pay my monthly connectivity bills.) If you did that, you would instantly rid yourself of about 99.9% of all open-proxy spam. (Virtually all of this stuff comes in with blatantly forged HELO names, usually something in the *.yahoo.com domain.) I predict that there will come a point in time, not too far into the future, where just as most sane admins today refuse incoming e-mail from known open relays, most sane admins with any brains will no longer accept incoming e-mail unless the HELO name _does_ in fact ``verify'' back to the SMTP client IP address via a forward lookup. I mean when you think about it, it is actually kind-of ludicrous to accept mail from servers that (a) you don't know and that (b) have declined to identify themselves (or their ownership) to you using the standard RFC-defined and RFC-*mandated* method for server self- identification. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 06:38:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA10932 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 06:38:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2HBt3X26381 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 06:55:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HBt3O26374 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 06:55:03 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA10922 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 06:38:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HBoQO26212; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 06:50:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HBnJO26146 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 06:49:19 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id GAA10744 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 06:32:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 2104 invoked from network); 16 Mar 2003 11:32:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO startechgroup.co.uk) (10.2.100.157) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 16 Mar 2003 11:32:00 -0000 Subject: Re: [Asrg] A method to eliminate spam Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: asrg@ietf.org To: meor@mail.SoftHome.net From: Matt Sergeant In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030316235730.00b89ea0@mail.SoftHome.net> Message-Id: <71804AD0-586C-11D7-B0D9-0003939CB5D8@startechgroup.co.uk> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 11:34:41 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Monday, Mar 17, 2003, at 05:58 Europe/London, meor@mail.SoftHome.net wrote: > >Legitimate bulk mailing would become excrutiatingly painful. > > Well, right now legitimate bulk mailing is kind of broken. In order > for myself to sign up to this list I had to send and receive 3 pieces > of E-Mail. In the overview I did address bulk mailing. If a bulk > mailer is on a white list of someone(legitimate), then the bulk mailer > does not have to use any CPU time to send the message, it is allowed > to be sent as simply as it is right now. This makes it perfectly > possible for a bulk mailer to send out hundreds of thousands of E-Mail > messages to users who want to receive them. I don't see how > legitimate bulk mailing would be hindered by this method. On the > contrary; I think this method could help out bulk mailers as end users > would clearly know who they've placed on their list of accepted > senders and would eliminate users accidentally reporting legitimate or > solicited bulk mail as unsolicited. If you sign up for C|Net's daily newsletters, who do you whitelist? *@cnet.com? *@news.com? Or do you have to wait for the newsletter to come in before you can create a whitelist entry for them? I ask because C|Net's newsletter doesn't come from anywhere you might expect it to come from. Matt. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 07:04:04 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA11275 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 07:04:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2HCKQH27995 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 07:20:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HCKQO27992 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 07:20:26 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA11255 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 07:03:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HCI5O27828; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 07:18:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HCHFO27803 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 07:17:15 -0500 Received: from mail.hive.scnr.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id HAA11170 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 07:00:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 27103 invoked from network); 17 Mar 2003 12:01:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO storm.hans-spath.de) (80.132.95.212) by 213.147.127.34 with SMTP; 17 Mar 2003 12:01:50 -0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030317125651.01d505e8@mail.generalprotectionfault.de> X-Sender: ml%hans-spath.de@mail.generalprotectionfault.de X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Hans Spath Subject: Re: [Asrg] A method to eliminate spam In-Reply-To: <71804AD0-586C-11D7-B0D9-0003939CB5D8@startechgroup.co.uk> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030316235730.00b89ea0@mail.SoftHome.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 13:02:27 +0100 At 17.03.2003 11:34 +0000, you wrote: >On Monday, Mar 17, 2003, at 05:58 Europe/London, meor@mail.SoftHome.net wrote: > >> >Legitimate bulk mailing would become excrutiatingly painful. >> >>Well, right now legitimate bulk mailing is kind of broken. In order for >>myself to sign up to this list I had to send and receive 3 pieces of >>E-Mail. In the overview I did address bulk mailing. If a bulk mailer is >>on a white list of someone(legitimate), then the bulk mailer does not >>have to use any CPU time to send the message, it is allowed to be sent as >>simply as it is right now. This makes it perfectly possible for a bulk >>mailer to send out hundreds of thousands of E-Mail messages to users who >>want to receive them. I don't see how legitimate bulk mailing would be >>hindered by this method. On the contrary; I think this method could help >>out bulk mailers as end users would clearly know who they've placed on >>their list of accepted senders and would eliminate users accidentally >>reporting legitimate or solicited bulk mail as unsolicited. > >If you sign up for C|Net's daily newsletters, who do you whitelist? >*@cnet.com? *@news.com? > >Or do you have to wait for the newsletter to come in before you can create >a whitelist entry for them? > >I ask because C|Net's newsletter doesn't come from anywhere you might >expect it to come from. I suppose average users would soon become annoyed if they had to whitelist every newsletter they subscribe to. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 09:05:13 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA13642 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 09:05:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2HELcE03097 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 09:21:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HELcO03094 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 09:21:38 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA13586 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 09:04:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HEETO02768; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 09:14:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HEBVO02656 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 09:11:31 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA13395 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 08:54:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2160148; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 08:56:49 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: "John R Levine" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Server banner tags Cc: "Anti-Spam Research Group" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 08:55:55 -0500 At 11:09 PM -0500 3/16/03, John R Levine wrote: >A couple of years ago Paul Hoffman and I worked out a scheme of SMTP >banner tags that server owners could use to publish their spam policies. >Laws about bulk mail could then require that mailers obey the tags. The U.S. courts have already ruled that there is an assumption of knowledge by the spammer. They are expected to understand that the recipient's AUP does not allow spamming--even if they have not read it. This has been instrumental in a number of spammer court cases. For more details, see the legal talk by Jon Praed at the MIT Spam Conference (http://www.spamconference.org/praed.pdf) or better yet, watch the video http://web.mit.edu/webcast/spamconf03/mit-spamconf-s4-26100-17jan03-1600-80k.ram (34 minutes into the webcast). Spamming is already illegal (at least from the standpoint of the ISP/Spammer relationship it constitutes trespassing--an illegal use of property). Unfortunately I suspect it costs more to bring a case to suit than you get in return. The existing cases I think have been prosecuted mainly as a deterrent. (I asked Jon Praed what an average suit cost, but he wouldn't give me a direct answer.) -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 09:11:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA13746 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 09:11:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2HERU303308 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 09:27:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HERUO03305 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 09:27:30 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA13736 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 09:10:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HEGgO02859; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 09:16:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HEBfO02680 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 09:11:41 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA13398 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 08:54:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2HDusrD029513 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 06:56:54 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303171356.h2HDusrD029513@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] A method to eliminate spam References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030316235730.00b89ea0@mail.SoftHome.net> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 06:56:54 -0700 (MST) > From: Hans Spath > ... > >If you sign up for C|Net's daily newsletters, who do you whitelist? > >*@cnet.com? *@news.com? > > > >Or do you have to wait for the newsletter to come in before you can create > >a whitelist entry for them? > > > >I ask because C|Net's newsletter doesn't come from anywhere you might > >expect it to come from. Users of the DCC have mentioned that problem. > I suppose average users would soon become annoyed if they had to whitelist > every newsletter they subscribe to. Judging from the actions of the ISPs using the DCC, that does not seem to be a problem. Users are amazingly tolerant of false positives on bulk mail. It seems to be the non-bulk mail that they must receive. However, there are schemes that could without any user action whitelist every legitimate newsletter, or every newsletter that does not offer unsolicited "gift subscriptions" and "sample issues." (Those with experience as spam filter wranglers on behalf of well known users has probably had the pleasure of arguing with newsletter publishers about "gifts" and "samples;" I have.) Those schemes involve third parties that attest bulk mail legitimacy. For example, if you think spammers would respect legal threats, then the scheme of http://habeas.com/ would work. Spammers have so far, and Habeas claim that it's header whitelists mail for about half of all Internet mailboxes in http://habeas.com/about/debunk.htm sounds like a powerful tempation. If not, then you could replace Habeas's haiku with a public key. That does not resolve all problems, as witness the recent controversy about Habeas headers in some unsolicited bulk mail from Topica, but problems like that would be tolerable if only most legitimate bulk mail were marked. Of course, the major problem for such a solution is the transition. Until almost all legitimate bulk is marked, there's no reason for legitimate bulk senders to pay Habeas or whomever would bond (http://www.google.com/search?q=bond+spam ) or certify their mail. .... About central whitelists: yes, many users have had many addresses, and some of us have not abandoned them to spammers. However, if there were a central whitelist, what would you do? I would abandon and wire as spam traps many of my extra or old addresses and do whatever is necessary to whitelist the rest. Fuzzy name matching, whether sendmail's ancient or newfangled LDAP, would be turned off for senders outside your corporate firewalls, as is already often the case. Central whitelists could be enforced with marking (e.g. Habeas or public key) or bonding or with laws. Without laws, they have the major transition problem. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 09:55:20 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA14638 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 09:55:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2HFBlB06498 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:11:47 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HFBlO06495 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:11:47 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA14631 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 09:54:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HF66O05514; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:06:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HF3ZO05394 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:03:35 -0500 Received: from tom.iecc.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id JAA14517 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 09:46:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 14736 invoked from network); 17 Mar 2003 09:48:52 -0500 Received: (ofmipd 208.31.42.38); 17 Mar 2003 14:48:30 -0000 Message-ID: From: "John R Levine" To: "Kee Hinckley" Cc: "Anti-Spam Research Group" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Server banner tags In-Reply-To: Cleverness: None detected MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 17 Mar 2003 09:48:52 -0500 > >Laws about bulk mail could then require that mailers obey the tags. > > The U.S. courts have already ruled that there is an assumption of > knowledge by the spammer. They are expected to understand that the > recipient's AUP does not allow spamming--even if they have not read > it. This has been instrumental in a number of spammer court cases. > For more details, see the legal talk by Jon Praed at the MIT Spam > Conference I'm pretty sure that in all the cases listed in his slides, the ISP had sent a regular paper notice to the spammer telling him to stop. I've helped draft a few state anti-spam laws, and the issue of notice to the spammer is definitely an open one. A couple of proposed laws, one of which may have been passed, had much uglier notice provisions, like putting it on the home page with the same name as the email address, for some ill-defined definition of "same name". Banner tags are way better than that. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 09:55:23 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA14651 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 09:55:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2HFBnJ06514 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:11:49 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HFBnO06511 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:11:49 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA14635 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 09:54:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HF2EO05353; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:02:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HExwO05255 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 09:59:58 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id JAA14413 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 09:43:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 13696 invoked from network); 16 Mar 2003 14:42:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO startechgroup.co.uk) (10.2.100.157) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 16 Mar 2003 14:42:34 -0000 Subject: Re: [Asrg] Server banner tags Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: "John R Levine" , "Anti-Spam Research Group" To: Kee Hinckley From: Matt Sergeant In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <11AF541C-5887-11D7-B0D9-0003939CB5D8@startechgroup.co.uk> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:45:17 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Monday, Mar 17, 2003, at 13:55 Europe/London, Kee Hinckley wrote: > Spamming is already illegal (at least from the standpoint of the > ISP/Spammer relationship it constitutes trespassing--an illegal use of > property). Unfortunately I suspect it costs more to bring a case to > suit than you get in return. The existing cases I think have been > prosecuted mainly as a deterrent. (I asked Jon Praed what an average > suit cost, but he wouldn't give me a direct answer.) I asked him if it was profit making, and he said yes (just). But he did qualify it with that wasn't the point - the point was to stop the spammer permanently. Matt. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 10:06:07 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA15291 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:06:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2HFLTX07045 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:21:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HFLSO07042 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:21:28 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA15107 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:04:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HFC7O06553; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:12:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HF91O06381 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:09:01 -0500 Received: from toad.date.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA14597 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 09:52:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from date.com (unknown [216.130.219.81]) by toad.date.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F3D11C3818 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 09:49:36 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3E75E07F.F6568264@date.com> From: Michael Ellis X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Opt-out lists and legislation References: <20030316214343.GA1536@bacall.jackdaw.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 09:49:35 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > tweaks that can be applied to make processing more efficient but the upshot > > is that anyone can check against the list without the list being a source of > > spam addresses. > > > While such a list would not provide email addresses, it would allow email > addresses to be validated. > > If I am a spammer in Elbonia with a 1,000,000 email address CD, then I > could submit each address in turn to the Opt-Out list. > > Is abc@example.com in the Opt-Out list? Yes > Is def@example.com in the Opt-Out list? No > Is ghi@example.com in the Opt-Out list? Yes > > abc@example.com and ghi@example.com must be valid email addresses, so > I'll send them some spam. > > This is why one does not respond to Opt-Out requests in spam; it > validates the email address to the spammer. This system would allow > them to do this automatically. I was at the IAPP conference a few weeks ago and there the FTC revealed that there unsubscribe test campaign resulted in no increase in spam to those addresses at all. Which was amusing to here since the TRUSTe rep just before him said never do this as you will get more spam -- Michael Ellis Privacy Manager Date.com Phone (416) 306-0022 ext 620 Fax (416) 306-0023 Date.com - "The New Way To Date" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 10:15:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA16429 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:15:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2HFVgb07424 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:31:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HFVgO07421 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:31:42 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA16370 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:14:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HFLOO07033; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:21:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HFIhO06902 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:18:43 -0500 Received: from chimta01.algx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA14904 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:01:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from JHS ([67.92.23.74]) by chimmx01.algx.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.10 (built Jan 23 2003)) with SMTP id <0HBW00DNBF6L1K@chimmx01.algx.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 09:03:58 -0600 (CST) From: Jason Hihn Subject: RE: [Asrg] The proposal to end all proposals ;-) In-reply-to: To: Kee Hinckley Cc: Asrg Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:03:57 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Kee > Hinckley > Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 6:24 PM > To: Jason Hihn > Cc: Asrg > Subject: Re: [Asrg] The proposal to end all proposals ;-) ... > I ran some large mailing lists back in the 80's. It was not fun. > Just managing the bounces was hell. To remind me of this fact I keep > two books around from those days. Both books describe how, if you > are using mail system x and network system y, you can construct a > message to get to someone on mail system a and network b. Two whole > books. I have no idea what I suggested has to do with mailing lists and bounces. Furthermore, there is nothing that says our x's,y's,a's and b's are the same as in the book. Two books? Maybe the author was just long winded? ;-) > What you describe would take us back there. Furthermore, it is > exactly that fragmentation that is keeping anyone from investing in a > new architecture--there's too big a risk that some other system will > win out. Indeed. But what you fail to see is that fragmentation is good, as long as it's compatible. When it's trivial to replace your protocol and maintain backwards compatibility, then there's no risk. We all are running a really spam-happy protocol, SMTP. It can't be fixed without some modification. Something will have to be done about it. What I suggest is that we all stop running SMTP universally, and penalize those that run it. > This sounds way too much like "I know, let's make it impossible for > anyone to talk to each other. *That* will stop the spammers!" What I am suggesting is no more complicated than two modems negotiation what protocols to use. Lets do a sample: S: I have mail for you, what are your protocols? R: sender_vfy,1; site_cert,2; smtp,3; (protocol,preference) S: (checks his own capabilities) sender_vfy R: (applies penalties applicable at the time) ok (or "ok, port#") S: {message} R: {passes message off to sender_vfy daemon) I don't see what is so hard about that! Then people can run multiple protocols, and negotiate the preferred one of the site. This will eliminate the problem of needing everyone to commit to a new protocol and needing significant adoption of it. Furthermore, protocol revisions are much easily tolerated (ex.: sender_vfy_99b,1; sender_vfy_99a,2; etc) Also configurable are penalties. The preference number can also carry with it a penalty: speed or filtering. For the time being, everyone will need to run SMTP, but we can penalize it with a tar proxy or something of the sort while letting less spam happy protocols thrive. A picture is worth a thousands words, so here's a sample config file: #negotiator config file protocols{ sender_vfy_99a { daemon_port=35423 preference=1 } sender_vfy_99b { daemon_port=35422 preference=0 } smtp { daemon_port=25 #tar proxy runs here preference=100 } } preferences { 0,1 { } 100 { filters { fail_on 1 #(as opposed to 2, 3, or all) pre_delivery{ ip_blacklist ip_whitelist } post_delivery{ word sender_blacklist crc_blacklist sender_whitelist } } actions { pre_delivery_delay 2 #two second fixed delay } } } #end of file What this also allows us to do is wrap SMTP (and other protocols) with enough armor that it might not suck so much. If we are ever to replace SMTP, I don't how we can't afford to not have this software function! In case I wasn't clear, I'm only suggesting that we replace the equivalent of the transport layer, not the application, network or media. sender_vfy can be SMTP at the core (application layer) for all I care (it probably has to be anyway). _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 10:33:52 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA17382 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:33:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2HFoHp09197 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:50:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HFoHO09194 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:50:17 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA17332 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:33:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HFiFO08900; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:44:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HFfrO08752 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:41:53 -0500 Received: from xuxa.iecc.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA17019 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:24:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 15183 invoked by uid 100); 17 Mar 2003 10:27:05 -0500 To: asrg@ietf.org Path: xuxa.iecc.com!not-for-mail From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Newsgroups: iecc.lists.asrg Subject: Re: [Asrg] Position paper, in zipped HTML Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA Lines: 36 Message-ID: References: <3E7544E9.3010507@americasm01.nt.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 17 Mar 2003 10:27:04 -0500 >>Rodney's list immediately showed why no-one will ever accept a >>global opt-out list: within a week, domains comprising on the order >>of 60 million email address had opted out. > >Actually opted out, or had someone wrote a program to do it? Actually opted out. SafeEPS accepted domain-wide opt-out and as I recall, the first two entries were from aol.com and hotmail.com, legitimately sent by network managers there. >Massachusetts has a new opt-out web interface for phone spam. It >verifies the phone number using your address. Writing software to >opt-out virtually everyone in the state would not be that hard. That could be a problem in theory, but is it in practice? Here in New York there's a very successful do-not-call list with web sign up at www.nynocall.com. I've never heard any complaints about fake entries on this or any other do-not-call list. >I assume that's why opting out of phone spam (the marketing opt-out >list, not the one the feds are setting up) is free if you send them a >letter, but costs $5 if you do it on-line. Authentication by level >of effort. Although the claim is that the $5 is to cover costs. That's the DMA's TPS list. They charge the $5 purely to discourage people from signing up. Authentication has nothing to do with it; if they get a paper letter purporting to be from you they'll put your number (or any numbers listed in the letter) into the TPS, no questions asked. In any event, for reasons I outlined in a previous message opt-out lists for phone and paper mail are a bad model for e-mail, and I don't know anyone who's pondered the issue for very long and still thinks that lists of addresses not to spam are workable. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 10:46:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA17741 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:46:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2HG31G09834 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 11:03:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HG30O09831 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 11:03:01 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA17730 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:46:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HFwhO09521; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:58:43 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HFnUO09138 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:49:30 -0500 Received: from zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA17294 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:32:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h2HFYhK22165 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:34:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF4X8GD; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:34:44 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBGCQC; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:34:44 -0500 Message-ID: <3E75EBD9.9060501@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: "'Asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Position paper, in zipped HTML References: <3E7544E9.3010507@americasm01.nt.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:38:01 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kee Hinckley wrote: > At 10:45 PM -0500 3/16/03, Chris Lewis wrote: > >> Rodney's list immediately showed why no-one will ever accept a global >> opt-out list: within a week, domains comprising on the order of 60 >> million email address had opted out. > Actually opted out, or had someone wrote a program to do it? Actually opted-out. AOL had opted out (there's half in one swell foop) as did several other major ISPs. So did we (only(!) half a million addresses). There was a confirmation method wired in for domains, but I forget the details. SafeEPS was decommissioned some time ago in favour of the DMA eMPS system, but the eMPS system was never as good as SafeEPS. Eg: despite eMPS at one point supporting domain-wide opt-out (perhaps specifically to shut me up), it's not clear that it was ever generally available - last I looked the _possibility_ of doing it isn't visible _anywhere_ on eMPS. One questions whether eMPS has ever blocked a single piece of email... eMPS is 100% incontrovertible evidence that a voluntary opt-out list will _NEVER_ work to reduce spam. > Massachusetts has a new opt-out web interface for phone spam. It > verifies the phone number using your address. Writing software to > opt-out virtually everyone in the state would not be that hard. Unless you did confirmation properly. Why wouldn't you use confirmation techniques? Marketers would insist on it - and I have no problem with granting them that wish. > Unfortunately (or not) it turns out that opt-out lists have the same > problem as email in general. No authentication. And the same solutions. Ie: confirmation. With only one (or a few) _useful_ opt-out lists, implementing and deploying is trivial. SafeEPS was about as perfect as an opt-out list could _ever_ be. But it died. Its replacement hasn't made a difference to anyone's mailbox as far as anyone can determine. Hence my original point, opt-out lists will never fly if the marketers have anything to say about it. > I assume that's why opting out of phone spam (the marketing opt-out > list, not the one the feds are setting up) is free if you send them a > letter, but costs $5 if you do it on-line. Authentication by level of > effort. Although the claim is that the $5 is to cover costs. There are regulatory issues, where a system may be predicated upon the idea of a "free" snail mail unsubscribe is legally required, whereas an online one "for convenience" is fair game for a (modest) processing fee. The $5 fee also short-cuts authentication requirements, but a confirmation mechanism would serve just as well. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 10:51:55 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA17896 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:51:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2HG8Lt10792 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 11:08:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HG8LO10789 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 11:08:21 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA17887 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:51:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HG22O09731; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 11:02:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HFrsO09371 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:53:54 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA17478 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:36:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h2HFd7n08467 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:39:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF4X8LL; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:39:07 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBGCQG; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:39:07 -0500 Message-ID: <3E75ECE0.9010709@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Opt-out lists and legislation References: <20030316214343.GA1536@bacall.jackdaw.org> <3E75E07F.F6568264@date.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:42:24 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Michael Ellis wrote: > I was at the IAPP conference a few weeks ago and there the FTC revealed that there > unsubscribe test campaign resulted in no increase in spam to those addresses at > all. There have been other tests of this that show the opposite. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 10:58:02 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA18021 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:58:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2HGESB11082 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 11:14:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HGESO11079 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 11:14:28 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA18017 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:57:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HGCAO10974; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 11:12:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HG92O10835 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 11:09:02 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA17911 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:52:04 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2HFrjkX003515; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:53:45 -0500 Message-Id: <200303171553.h2HFrjkX003515@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.2 03/12/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Position paper, in zipped HTML In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:27:04 EST." References: <3E7544E9.3010507@americasm01.nt.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_483849397P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:53:45 -0500 --==_Exmh_483849397P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:27:04 EST, johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) said: > That could be a problem in theory, but is it in practice? Here in New > York there's a very successful do-not-call list with web sign up at > www.nynocall.com. I've never heard any complaints about fake entries > on this or any other do-not-call list. This would require a spoofed opt-out on behalf of somebody who actually *WANTED* phone spam and noticed its absence.... --==_Exmh_483849397P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+de+JcC3lWbTT17ARAtL5AJ4jQxR+Y9bVXJHx52a/TR0AcqXNNgCdH/aC ZyY6aj+5Zpp1+N9wjE4uD9w= =Cp3C -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_483849397P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 12:05:08 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA20589 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 12:05:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2HHLae16268 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 12:21:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HHLaO16265 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 12:21:36 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA20560 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 12:04:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HHDIO15901; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 12:13:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HH3LO14306 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 12:03:21 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA19991 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 11:46:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18uszX-00033l-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 06:41:19 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] Experience with "soliciting" spam In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 16 Mar 2003 20:43:57 PST." <104C0E8C-5833-11D7-BE71-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 06:41:19 -0500 Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > And these aren't deceptive forms like some sites. some are "not > subscribed unless they get selected" -- and I've still spent time with > people who acknowledge going through the forms and still say things are > unsolicited. (shrug). and people forget what they did, too. I've used a number of on-line forms for allegedly reputable business, where they give an "opt-in" checkbox on their forms. That would helkp, except that they make every effort to set the "opt-in" checkbox. If you miss a field in the form, they give you a chance to re-enter, and reset *only* the opt-in checkbox. When you get to the "verify information" stage, you discover that it's been checked again. To me, "opt-out" means "I opt out once, and you listen". Not "I've got to opt out 5 times in a row before you believe me." In response to your comment, this means that if I miss *one* of those "magic re-sets" of the checkbox, that I've "opted in", and the company is surprised when they get angry email from me, telling them to stop spamming me. Clueless users are a small part of the problem. There's always a few, they cause only small amounts of problems, and there' little you can do to get rid of all of them. Clueless site creators have the ability to annoy *all* of the people accessing their site. That's a bigger problem than a few people forgetting that they opted in. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 12:26:13 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA21410 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 12:26:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2HHgfa18429 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 12:42:41 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HHgfO18426 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 12:42:41 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA21343 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 12:25:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HHU9O16904; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 12:30:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HHTFO16835 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 12:29:15 -0500 Received: from gorgoroth.localnet (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA20896 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 12:12:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from unternet.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gorgoroth.localnet (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2HHEFgT001998 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:14:20 +0100 Message-ID: <3E760267.7050804@unternet.org> From: Frank de Lange User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4a) Gecko/20030310 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Position paper, in zipped HTML References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:14:15 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit wayne wrote: >In "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" writes: > > > >>> BL "Listing all >>>of UUNET?" >>>- flat out false. No even remotely respectable blacklist has >>>ever done so. >>> >>> >>SPEWS listed VeriSign labs because it was on a UUNET address. >> >>Case closed, no appeal. >> >>SPEWS makes a point of never justifying itself to anyone, if they want >>to correct any statement they believe false they can speak for themselves. >> >> Uh, on the subject of verisign and spam, a quick look at one of the popular search engines brings up quite a stir. Lots of people seem to feel that verisign is itself guilty of spamming, or having others spam in their name. I have received several unsolicited commercial messages from verisign, even though I expressly told them not to send me anything I did not ask for. This is one of the reasons why took my business elsewhere. So I am not that surprised that verisign showed up in a blacklist. This aside, I don't use blacklists because I do not want to give away access control to my mail servers to others. Frank _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 13:39:52 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA24362 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 13:39:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2HIuMU24199 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 13:56:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HIuMO24196 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 13:56:22 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA24351 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 13:39:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HIoRO23984; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 13:50:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HInOO23941 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 13:49:24 -0500 Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA24175 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 13:32:22 -0500 (EST) From: meor@mail.SoftHome.net Received: (qmail 4581 invoked by uid 417); 17 Mar 2003 18:34:36 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 17 Mar 2003 18:34:36 -0000 Received: from Main.mail.SoftHome.net ([24.118.229.120]) (AUTH: LOGIN meor@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 11:34:35 -0700 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030317122650.00b904b8@mail.SoftHome.net> X-Sender: meor@mail.SoftHome.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] A method to eliminate spam In-Reply-To: <71804AD0-586C-11D7-B0D9-0003939CB5D8@startechgroup.co.uk> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030316235730.00b89ea0@mail.SoftHome.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 12:34:42 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit At 11:34 3/17/2003 +0000, you wrote: >On Monday, Mar 17, 2003, at 05:58 Europe/London, meor@mail.SoftHome.net wrote: > >> >Legitimate bulk mailing would become excrutiatingly painful. >> >>Well, right now legitimate bulk mailing is kind of broken. In order for >>myself to sign up to this list I had to send and receive 3 pieces of >>E-Mail. In the overview I did address bulk mailing. If a bulk mailer is >>on a white list of someone(legitimate), then the bulk mailer does not >>have to use any CPU time to send the message, it is allowed to be sent as >>simply as it is right now. This makes it perfectly possible for a bulk >>mailer to send out hundreds of thousands of E-Mail messages to users who >>want to receive them. I don't see how legitimate bulk mailing would be >>hindered by this method. On the contrary; I think this method could help >>out bulk mailers as end users would clearly know who they've placed on >>their list of accepted senders and would eliminate users accidentally >>reporting legitimate or solicited bulk mail as unsolicited. > >If you sign up for C|Net's daily newsletters, who do you whitelist? >*@cnet.com? *@news.com? > >Or do you have to wait for the newsletter to come in before you can create >a whitelist entry for them? > >I ask because C|Net's newsletter doesn't come from anywhere you might >expect it to come from. > >Matt. This is a good question but there is an answer. When you sign up for a list, you would do it similar to how you signed up for this mailing list to the IRTF group. Each of you would send an E-Mail back to each other which would in turn add each other to your respective white lists. When you white list someone, you are white listing a single digital signature. This digital signature ensures that you are getting E-Mail from the same person each time. This digital signature is not for guaranteeing identity, it only for guaranteeing that you receive E-Mail from the same person every subsequent time you receive mail. So if cnet was sending out a news letter, you would exchange E-Mails(slowly the first time because neither of you are white listed with each other) and add each other to your white lists(indexed by public keys). At this point you will be able to receive any E-Mail signed by someone with the public key you received at full speed(the speed at which mail is sent right now). Also it is worth pointing out that these public keys can be hidden from end users, this will not add complexity to E-Mailing. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 13:40:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA24386 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 13:40:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2HIvCt24266 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 13:57:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HIvBO24263 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 13:57:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA24378 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 13:40:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HIs1O24101; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 13:54:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HIrpO24080 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 13:53:51 -0500 Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA24267 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 13:36:49 -0500 (EST) From: meor@mail.SoftHome.net Received: (qmail 22317 invoked by uid 417); 17 Mar 2003 18:39:02 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 17 Mar 2003 18:39:02 -0000 Received: from Main.mail.SoftHome.net ([24.118.229.120]) (AUTH: LOGIN meor@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 11:39:02 -0700 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030317123516.00b909e8@mail.SoftHome.net> X-Sender: meor@mail.SoftHome.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] A method to eliminate spam In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030317125651.01d505e8@mail.generalprotectionf ault.de> References: <71804AD0-586C-11D7-B0D9-0003939CB5D8@startechgroup.co.uk> <5.1.0.14.0.20030316235730.00b89ea0@mail.SoftHome.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 12:39:09 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit At 13:02 3/17/2003 +0100, you wrote: >At 17.03.2003 11:34 +0000, you wrote: >>On Monday, Mar 17, 2003, at 05:58 Europe/London, meor@mail.SoftHome.net >>wrote: >> >>> >Legitimate bulk mailing would become excrutiatingly painful. >>> >>>Well, right now legitimate bulk mailing is kind of broken. In order for >>>myself to sign up to this list I had to send and receive 3 pieces of >>>E-Mail. In the overview I did address bulk mailing. If a bulk mailer >>>is on a white list of someone(legitimate), then the bulk mailer does not >>>have to use any CPU time to send the message, it is allowed to be sent >>>as simply as it is right now. This makes it perfectly possible for a >>>bulk mailer to send out hundreds of thousands of E-Mail messages to >>>users who want to receive them. I don't see how legitimate bulk mailing >>>would be hindered by this method. On the contrary; I think this method >>>could help out bulk mailers as end users would clearly know who they've >>>placed on their list of accepted senders and would eliminate users >>>accidentally reporting legitimate or solicited bulk mail as unsolicited. >> >>If you sign up for C|Net's daily newsletters, who do you whitelist? >>*@cnet.com? *@news.com? >> >>Or do you have to wait for the newsletter to come in before you can >>create a whitelist entry for them? >> >>I ask because C|Net's newsletter doesn't come from anywhere you might >>expect it to come from. > >I suppose average users would soon become annoyed if they had to whitelist >every newsletter they subscribe to. White listing isn't a complex operation. The ease and complexity of adding someone to your white list is dependant on your E-Mail client. If, for instance, Outlook tied white lists with your address book, the user would hardly know they're even white listing someone. The simple act of sending an E-Mail to someone could add them to your white list. As I said earlier, I had to send and receive 3 E-Mails to sign up for this list. If the proposed method was implemented, only one would have to be sent. The one E-Mail would add the list's public key to my white list(implicitly by sending them an E-Mail), and the list owner would know that I signed up for it(no one signed me up for it out of spite), because of my public key. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 14:08:12 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25379 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:08:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2HJOhi26342 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:24:43 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HJOgO26339 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:24:42 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25361 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:07:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HJFGO25867; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:15:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HJE9O25807 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:14:09 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA24945 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 13:57:07 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2HIxJVG002027; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 13:59:19 -0500 Message-Id: <200303171859.h2HIxJVG002027@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.2 03/12/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: meor@mail.SoftHome.net Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] A method to eliminate spam In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 17 Mar 2003 12:39:09 CST." <5.1.0.14.0.20030317123516.00b909e8@mail.SoftHome.net> References: <71804AD0-586C-11D7-B0D9-0003939CB5D8@startechgroup.co.uk> <5.1.0.14.0.20030316235730.00b89ea0@mail.SoftHome.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20030317123516.00b909e8@mail.SoftHome.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_-888449388P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 13:59:19 -0500 --==_Exmh_-888449388P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 12:39:09 CST, meor@mail.SoftHome.net said: > I had to send and receive 3 E-Mails to sign up for this list. If the > proposed method was implemented, only one would have to be sent. The one > E-Mail would add the list's public key to my white list(implicitly by > sending them an E-Mail), and the list owner would know that I signed up for > it(no one signed me up for it out of spite), because of my public key. This assumes the existence of a PKI. Without that, it's fairly trivial for me to crank out a bogus digital signature claiming to be from meor@mail.softhome.net and forge subscriptions for you. And without any mailback confirmation, you'd not even know what happened until you started getting 300+ pieces of mail a day from linux-kernel mailing list. ;) Yes, a self-signed cert *will* prove that two somethings have the same source, but that doesn't help in trying to confirm a subscription to an e-mail list... --==_Exmh_-888449388P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+dhsHcC3lWbTT17ARAoJ5AKDSLMDQGPEHQtnGVzbIkxquTNm1vgCfbKe7 VUlQJCtt4aD/DqGS6yX/dfw= =PePY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_-888449388P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 14:11:06 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25484 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:11:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2HJRcj26554 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:27:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HJRbO26551 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:27:37 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25468 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:10:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HJOwO26376; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:24:58 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HJL2O26167 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:21:02 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc01.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25172 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:03:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from art.lextek.com (12-254-130-29.client.attbi.com[12.254.130.29]) by sccrmhc01.attbi.com (sccrmhc01) with SMTP id <2003031719061300100cfvoje>; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:06:13 +0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030317114856.03bf2538@mail.lextek.com> X-Sender: PollardA@mail.lextek.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: Asrg@ietf.org From: Art Pollard Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [Asrg] Giving Public Notice .... Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 12:06:10 -0700 One thing that would probably go a long way for many of the state anti-spam laws would be a way that one could give public notice that the people at a company / organization / ISP do or do not want spam. The use of the file as a "public notice" file would go a long way towards allowing people to collect via the courts. Of course, we all know the answer to whether they do or not. However, there currently exists no method for a company to say that they do or do not want spam for a certain set or subset of users. What I would like to see is something akin to the robots.txt that is available on every website. The spammer could be required (perhaps by law) to download this file and to use it to check against the addresses in their mailing list. To hide the user's identity, the e-mail addresses could be hashed to say an 8 byte hash value. This way the list could be checked against the e-mail addresses in the spammer's mailing list without divulging any one address. Furthermore, there could be a price specified per e-mail that is sent to that address. For example, the following could be a line from the file: 0x4348C54233AB4D9C,n,$25U.S.,$500U.S., 0x4348C54233AB4D9C: Hash of the e-mail address n -- This person does not want unsolicited e-mail. $25U.S If spam is sent that is relevant (in the opinion of the reader) to their job, the spam will be assessed at a price of: $25 U.S. $500U.S If the spam is sent and it is _not_ relevant (in the opinion of the recipient) to their job then the price of $500 U.S. is assessed. Keywords and phrases of things that the user is interested in receiving e-mail regarding. (For most, this would simply be left empty.) If there were a standard way to give public notice that spam is or is not wanted at a specific address, it makes it much easier to go to the courts and make the claim that you gave public notice that you would collect for all e-mail sent to a given address. -Art -- Art Pollard http://www.lextek.com/ Suppliers of High Performance Text Retrieval Engines. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 14:11:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25504 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:11:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2HJS0g26584 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:28:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HJRxO26581 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:27:59 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25477 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:10:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HJP3O26404; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:25:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HJMsO26226 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:22:54 -0500 Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id OAA25262 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:05:51 -0500 (EST) From: meor@mail.SoftHome.net Received: (qmail 11979 invoked by uid 417); 17 Mar 2003 19:08:04 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 17 Mar 2003 19:08:04 -0000 Received: from Main.mail.SoftHome.net ([24.118.229.120]) (AUTH: LOGIN meor@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 12:08:03 -0700 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030317130658.00b3bd48@mail.SoftHome.net> X-Sender: meor@mail.SoftHome.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] A method to eliminate spam In-Reply-To: <3E756DFD.1090502@americasm01.nt.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030315210111.00b91c48@mail.SoftHome.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20030316024319.01ceb158@mail.generalprotectionf ault.de> <5.1.0.14.0.20030315171040.00b463f0@mail.SoftHome.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20030316221304.00b4eee8@mail.SoftHome.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20030316235730.00b89ea0@mail.SoftHome.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 13:08:11 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Why on earth would you want to abandon MXes? MXes serve an extremely useful purpose even if your "solution" was adopted - failover, prioritization, enabling systems not on the Internet to receive email (hint: my home machine doesn't have, and has no need for, an A record. Couldn't use one even if it had one. It's not Internet-connected.). There are other methods of fail safe and redundancy besides MX records. Every other type of network communication that needs 24/7 up time, but does not make use of MX records has ways of keeping up time despite machines failing. Every other type of network communication does not have special records for it's specific protocol, yet people are still able to full up time. I don't know the personal situation with your machine at home but I don't see how it is able to send/receive mail if it isn't connected to the Internet ever. I also may be naive but I don't see a resounding reason to have a mail server that is not connected to the network which it is receiving mail from. >When faced with the option of not being able to hit send unless the recipient's mailbox machine was currently online, sending clients would have to. Dealing with sporadic machine outages would make mailing lists (or even modest receiver lists) extremely unpleasant to operate if you couldn't queue. Imagine the world-wide grief if a backhoe took out AOL's connectivity for a short time, or an individual mailbox server went down. My home machine would never get another email again... If a backhoe took out AOL's connectivity, there are going to be more issues at stake than just this method. If no one can connect to AOL's servers AOL itself will be down. None of it's users will be able to use it's services, no one will be able to get to it's web page, nothing. Maybe I overlooked it, but do you believe that this method should protect against catastrophic failures of this kind? >How would ISP (or a corporation) block outbound mailbombs and the like if they don't get to see the traffic? Legal liabilities galore. Unless you're mail bombing someone who has white listed you(someone who trusts you), your mail bomb isn't going to be able to nearly as effective as they are right now. I also don't see why a filter could not be developed for this protocol as well. Just because it isn't SMTP, doesn't mean it cannot be monitored by administrators. >Huh? I'd like to see any of our users get around our send filtering and logging. Hint: we block direct outbound email simply by denying outbound port 25. As do many ISPs with dialup pool router blocks. Short of active collusion with outside entities (eg: port forwarding ala open proxies) they can't. Yes, I was implying outside assistance. >Blocking outbound klez. I wish Verizon would do that... Logging all email is becoming a legal necessity these days [Patriot Act plus others, mutter]. Again, I don't see how a filter could not be developed for this protocol if one was so desired. Is this logging any different than just normal usage logging that administrators perform? Logging like to see what users are doing with HTTP, FTP, messaging systems, etc. Could logging programs not be adapted, if people wanted to, to log new protocols like this one? >Yeah, by implementing proxies as they do for HTTP and FTP. Which defeats your proposal because they're nothing more than intermediate mail servers. Packet logging is impractical or useless - it shows nothing of the details of the email, such as recipient address. I think packet logging is useful. If you monitor communications between the client and the destination mail host, how could you not reconstruct who it was to, who it was from, what public keys were exchanged, etc? In the case of mail bombing it would be very obvious if someone is opening several hundred communications with the destination mail box(public key) within a short period of time. I would say this method would actually help you because you _can_ find the recipient address. >So now we have two email protocols, one for bulk and one for non-bulk. Ouch. No, there are no two protocols. White listing is built in to the protocol. It is the basis for fast mail sending. Trusted users do not have to compute a cipher key every time they send mail, only if you are not on the white list. White lists can be tied to address books and sending mail. There are not two protocols for this, this was outlined in the overview. >Requiring the recipient mailbox machine to be online and operational at the time of sending a piece of email is, by itself, considerably worse than the status quo. Race conditions. Etc. Vastly more unreliable. I don't see how the mail server being off-line is worse than any other server going off-line that needs 24/7 up time. If your web server goes down and you have no redundancy, you have a problem. If your Internet router box goes down and you have no redundancy, you have a problem. I believe this method succumbs to the same issues as every other network service. The difference with this method opposed to the current E-Mail system is that you are not wasting gigabytes worth of bandwidth and disk space transferring and storing unsolicited junk mail because no one can make money off of sending it anymore. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 14:37:16 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA26863 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:37:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2HJrla28797 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:53:47 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HJrlO28794 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:53:47 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA26813 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:36:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HJf9O28179; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:41:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HJeTO28158 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:40:29 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA26026 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:23:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from sputnik (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h2HJPcXd031405; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:25:38 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sputnik.mobil.danisch.de (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-8) id h2HJP3bc001824; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:25:03 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Art Pollard Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Giving Public Notice .... Message-ID: <20030317192502.GA1792@danisch.de> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030317114856.03bf2538@mail.lextek.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030317114856.03bf2538@mail.lextek.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 11:25:03 -0800 On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 12:06:10PM -0700, Art Pollard wrote: > > One thing that would probably go a long way for many of the state anti-spam > laws would be a way that one could give public notice that the people at a > company / organization / ISP do or do not want spam. This is only good if such a flag contains some entropy, i.e. there are some flags set to "I want" and some to "I don't want". Do you really believe that anyone would set the flag to "I want spam"? And I really don't believe that a significant number of spam senders will care about such a flag. Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 14:43:46 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA27168 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:43:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2HK0Iw29243 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:00:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HK0IO29240 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:00:18 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA27127 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:43:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HJsDO28861; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:54:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HJrHO28787 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:53:18 -0500 Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id OAA26778 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:36:14 -0500 (EST) From: meor@mail.SoftHome.net Received: (qmail 10505 invoked by uid 417); 17 Mar 2003 19:38:27 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 17 Mar 2003 19:38:27 -0000 Received: from Main.mail.SoftHome.net ([24.118.229.120]) (AUTH: LOGIN meor@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 12:38:27 -0700 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030317133307.00b88ef0@mail.SoftHome.net> X-Sender: meor@mail.SoftHome.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] A method to eliminate spam In-Reply-To: <200303171859.h2HIxJVG002027@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> References: <71804AD0-586C-11D7-B0D9-0003939CB5D8@startechgroup.co.uk> <5.1.0.14.0.20030316235730.00b89ea0@mail.SoftHome.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20030317123516.00b909e8@mail.SoftHome.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 13:38:34 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit At 13:59 3/17/2003 -0500, you wrote: >On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 12:39:09 CST, meor@mail.SoftHome.net said: > > > I had to send and receive 3 E-Mails to sign up for this list. If the > > proposed method was implemented, only one would have to be sent. The one > > E-Mail would add the list's public key to my white list(implicitly by > > sending them an E-Mail), and the list owner would know that I signed up > for > > it(no one signed me up for it out of spite), because of my public key. > >This assumes the existence of a PKI. Without that, it's fairly trivial >for me to crank out a bogus digital signature claiming to be from >meor@mail.softhome.net and forge subscriptions for you. And without any >mailback confirmation, you'd not even know what happened until you started >getting 300+ pieces of mail a day from linux-kernel mailing list. ;) > >Yes, a self-signed cert *will* prove that two somethings have the same source, >but that doesn't help in trying to confirm a subscription to an e-mail list... Actually this method would not need a PKI. Upon the first attempt to send mail to the end user by the Mail list, the mail list would be told that the public key/signature is not recognized at which point it would be known that the recipient mail box did not request list subscription. Even if you did have to send 3 E-Mails with the new method, like you do with the current method, this does not disprove the ability to subscribe to bulk mailing lists. The point I was trying to demonstrate was that white lists are easy to implement, and digital signatures verify origin. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 15:00:13 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27542 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:00:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2HKGjD30654 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:16:45 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HKGjO30651 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:16:45 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA27488 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:59:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HK77O29673; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:07:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HK6UO29510 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:06:30 -0500 Received: from mail.cdt.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA27313 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:49:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from tosh (cdt [206.112.85.61]) by mail.cdt.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2159D49007B; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:41:34 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20030317113736.0096c3b0@localhost> X-Sender: john@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 To: Hadmut Danisch , Art Pollard From: John Morris Subject: Re: [Asrg] Giving Public Notice .... Cc: Asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20030317192502.GA1792@danisch.de> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030317114856.03bf2538@mail.lextek.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030317114856.03bf2538@mail.lextek.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 11:52:04 -0800 At 11:25 AM 3/17/03 -0800, Hadmut Danisch wrote: >On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 12:06:10PM -0700, Art Pollard wrote: > > > > One thing that would probably go a long way for many of the state > anti-spam > > laws would be a way that one could give public notice that the people at a > > company / organization / ISP do or do not want spam. > > > >And I really don't believe that a significant number of spam >senders will care about such a flag. But that truth does not necessarily negate the value of such a notice system. Look at the telephone "do not call" list situation in the U.S. A bunch of states (and now the federal FTC) have developed or are developing "do not call" lists -- usually self developed and not interoperable. If there were a pre-existing sound and secure system for opting out of phone calls, states could have simply referenced that method (as they have in fact have done with the DMS opt out list, which many feel is lacking). If the Internet community develops a scalable, secure public notice method, it could end up being the method (or a method) adopted by governments that choose to legislate against spam. And even in the absence of legislation, a clear notice in a standardized format and place can greatly help private legal actions. So the fact that (a) spammers would not care about such a system, and (b) in year two of implementation such a system might in fact have little impact on spam, does not mean the proposal lacks value. John Morris _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 15:04:14 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27860 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:04:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2HKKkW30894 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:20:46 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HKKkO30891 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:20:46 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27773 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:03:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HKI6O30748; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:18:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HKHkO30706 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:17:46 -0500 Received: from chimta04.algx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27571 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:00:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from JHS ([67.92.23.74]) by chimmx04.algx.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.10 (built Jan 23 2003)) with SMTP id <0HBW00LBQT0PFJ@chimmx04.algx.net> for Asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:02:50 -0600 (CST) From: Jason Hihn Subject: RE: [Asrg] Giving Public Notice .... In-reply-to: <5.1.0.14.2.20030317114856.03bf2538@mail.lextek.com> To: Art Pollard , Asrg@ietf.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:02:49 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Lol. This seems damn simple and right under our noses! What about re-drafting 'finger' for this use? It sounds something like a .plan file... However I don't understand how/why you can hide their address. Besides what's the point if they are already querying for you (they know it already)? And it seems to me that you'd want to be able to prove that indeed you asked NOT to be sent mail, and obfuscating your address would run counter to that. (IANAL, but it legally it looks like you're engaging in questionable conduct) -J > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Art > Pollard > Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 2:06 PM > To: Asrg@ietf.org > Subject: [Asrg] Giving Public Notice .... > > > > One thing that would probably go a long way for many of the state > anti-spam > laws would be a way that one could give public notice that the > people at a > company / organization / ISP do or do not want spam. The use of the file > as a "public notice" file would go a long way towards allowing people to > collect via the courts. > > Of course, we all know the answer to whether they do or not. However, > there currently exists no method for a company to say that they do or do > not want spam for a certain set or subset of users. > > What I would like to see is something akin to the robots.txt that is > available on every website. The spammer could be required > (perhaps by law) > to download this file and to use it to check against the > addresses in their > mailing list. > > To hide the user's identity, the e-mail addresses could be hashed > to say an > 8 byte hash value. This way the list could be checked against the e-mail > addresses in the spammer's mailing list without divulging any one address. > > Furthermore, there could be a price specified per e-mail that is sent to > that address. For example, the following could be a line from the file: > > 0x4348C54233AB4D9C,n,$25U.S.,$500U.S., > > 0x4348C54233AB4D9C: Hash of the e-mail address > n -- This person does not want unsolicited e-mail. > $25U.S If spam is sent that is relevant (in the opinion of the reader) to > their job, the spam will be assessed at a price of: $25 U.S. > $500U.S If the spam is sent and it is _not_ relevant (in the > opinion of the > recipient) to their job then the price of $500 U.S. is assessed. > Keywords and phrases of things that the user is interested in > receiving e-mail regarding. (For most, this would simply be left empty.) > > If there were a standard way to give public notice that spam is or is not > wanted at a specific address, it makes it much easier to go to the courts > and make the claim that you gave public notice that you would collect for > all e-mail sent to a given address. > > -Art > > -- > Art Pollard > http://www.lextek.com/ > Suppliers of High Performance Text Retrieval Engines. > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 15:50:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA00704 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:50:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2HL7BN01536 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:07:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HL7BO01525 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:07:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA00695 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:50:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HL1DO00919; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:01:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HL0ZO00873 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:00:35 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA00479 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:43:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from sputnik (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h2HKjfAG000645; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 21:45:41 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sputnik.mobil.danisch.de (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-8) id h2HKjWs5002445; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 21:45:32 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: John Morris Cc: Art Pollard , Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Giving Public Notice .... Message-ID: <20030317204532.GA2343@danisch.de> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030317114856.03bf2538@mail.lextek.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030317114856.03bf2538@mail.lextek.com> <4.2.0.58.20030317113736.0096c3b0@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20030317113736.0096c3b0@localhost> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 12:45:32 -0800 On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 11:52:04AM -0800, John Morris wrote: > > But that truth does not necessarily negate the value of such a notice > system. Look at the telephone "do not call" list situation in the U.S. A > bunch of states (and now the federal FTC) have developed or are developing > "do not call" lists -- usually self developed and not interoperable. Since I live in Europe, I'm not familiar with that "do not call" list. However, what works with phone calls doesn't work with spam. Calling someone by phone causes real costs, because of the phone costs, the employee, and the time. For an advertising phone caller it is an advantage to have such a list which allows him to save that money he would have spent to call someone who'd just say "get off". And phone callers usually have to take care of the companies public credit. How often did you get an annoying phone call asking you to visit a porn website? And phone callers usually call from within the same country, i.e. from within the same legislation. In contrast, a spammer doesn't have any advantage in paying attention to such a list. Checking such a list is more expensive than just drop and forget an email. Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 15:51:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA00737 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:51:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2HL85U02092 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:08:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HL84O02089 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:08:04 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA00729 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:51:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HL41O01028; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:04:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HL3LO01003 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:03:21 -0500 Received: from chimta04.algx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA00504 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:46:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from JHS ([67.92.23.74]) by chimmx04.algx.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.10 (built Jan 23 2003)) with SMTP id <0HBW00LSOV4UGQ@chimmx04.algx.net> for Asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:48:30 -0600 (CST) From: Jason Hihn Subject: RE: [Asrg] Giving Public Notice .... In-reply-to: <20030317192502.GA1792@danisch.de> To: Hadmut Danisch , Art Pollard Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:48:30 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Agreed. Though he does have a 'good' idea. Could we send across the wire and agreement to pay the recipient $50,000 if the message is unsolicited. Specifically, I am thinking after the RCPT-TO: you could post "RECEIVER allows this message to be delivered under the following conditions: 1) This message is not unsolicited; as the sender and receiver have a verifiable pre-existing relationship or receiver has expressed interest in starting a relationship or 2) This message is unsolicited and will be accompanied by payment of $50,000 US within 14 days." out over the SMTP socket. I don't know what this would break though. IANAL, but I'd like to think it was binding. I think the problem though would be who would it be binding to? The remote outgoing network (AOL-TW in the advent of it coming from an aol server?) or the sender? Either way it's good, but I like it if the network (AOL) is liable. It'll make them make sure no spam leaves their domain. Technically it's useless, and will do nothing to stop the flow of spam, but I could help grow my bank account! Just a thought... > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of > Hadmut Danisch > Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 2:25 PM > To: Art Pollard > Cc: Asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Giving Public Notice .... > > > On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 12:06:10PM -0700, Art Pollard wrote: > > > > One thing that would probably go a long way for many of the > state anti-spam > > laws would be a way that one could give public notice that the > people at a > > company / organization / ISP do or do not want spam. > > This is only good if such a flag contains some entropy, > i.e. there are some flags set to "I want" and some to "I don't want". > > Do you really believe that anyone would set the flag to > "I want spam"? > > > And I really don't believe that a significant number of spam > senders will care about such a flag. > > Hadmut > > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 15:58:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA00992 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:58:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2HLFJb02454 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:15:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HLFJO02451 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:15:19 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA00942 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:58:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HLC3O02302; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:12:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HLBBO02259 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:11:11 -0500 Received: from zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA00820 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:54:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h2HKuGK05828; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:56:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF4YGYV; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:56:17 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBGC5P; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:56:16 -0500 Message-ID: <3E763735.10308@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Art Pollard CC: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Giving Public Notice .... References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030317114856.03bf2538@mail.lextek.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:59:33 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Art Pollard wrote: > > One thing that would probably go a long way for many of the state > anti-spam laws would be a way that one could give public notice that the > people at a company / organization / ISP do or do not want spam. The > use of the file as a "public notice" file would go a long way towards > allowing people to collect via the courts. Please examine Paul Hoffman and John Levine's SMTP banner proposal which does exactly what you want. Trivial to implement. Our mail servers are already doing it. Search for John's messages here. He described the whole thing in a very recent message to ASRG. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 16:12:20 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA01447 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:12:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2HLSsZ03156 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:28:54 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HLSsO03153 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:28:54 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA01437 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:11:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HLK6O02703; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:20:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HLFKO02467 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:15:20 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA00938 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:58:06 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2HL0KVG004365; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:00:20 -0500 Message-Id: <200303172100.h2HL0KVG004365@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.2 03/12/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: Jason Hihn Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Giving Public Notice .... In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:48:30 EST." References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_-853456188P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:00:20 -0500 --==_Exmh_-853456188P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:48:30 EST, Jason Hihn said: > out over the SMTP socket. I don't know what this would break though. IANAL, > but I'd like to think it was binding. I think the problem though would be > who would it be binding to? The remote outgoing network (AOL-TW in the > advent of it coming from an aol server?) or the sender? Either way it's > good, but I like it if the network (AOL) is liable. It'll make them make > sure no spam leaves their domain. I'm not sure you could possibly make it binding - the only thing that usually looks at SMTP replies are SMTP client software. So unless you create an RFC describing the format so it can be *parsed* by software, it's the ones-and-zeros equivalent of urinating into the wind. Backward compatibility becomes an issue - what happens if the sender's SMTP doesn't have support for the extension and the parsing it involves? And given that the spam probably came in through an open proxy server, it's basically a lost cause - if the proxy site couldn't afford to hire a sysadmin with enough clue to close the proxy, they're probably effectively judgment proof. Kinda like suing somebody for $3M when they live in a tar paper shack and can't afford a telephone or running water. I suppose if you made it like a click-through EULA, it would be OK.. except for the minor detail that almost all our outbound mail is gatewayed through a machine that won't be able to click.... ;) --==_Exmh_-853456188P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+djdjcC3lWbTT17ARAqkaAKCUFcijN4ZLduKKaKHSnf9adB0iXwCcDr5g V/fE24lZpFGDWiAd6lAc2M0= =QkuV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_-853456188P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 16:28:20 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA02204 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:28:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2HLitJ04859 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:44:55 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HLitO04856 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:44:55 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA02163 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:27:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HLc9O04468; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:38:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HLb3O03736 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:37:03 -0500 Received: from chimta04.algx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA01773 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:19:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from JHS ([67.92.23.74]) by chimmx04.algx.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.10 (built Jan 23 2003)) with SMTP id <0HBW00HGJWP0H6@chimmx04.algx.net> for Asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:22:12 -0600 (CST) From: Jason Hihn Subject: RE: [Asrg] Giving Public Notice .... In-reply-to: <200303172100.h2HL0KVG004365@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:22:12 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT My points exactly! It would be cool and could be made to work, but in the end, it's futile/pointless/a lost cause. > -----Original Message----- > From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu [mailto:Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu] > Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 4:00 PM > To: Jason Hihn > Cc: Asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Giving Public Notice .... > > > On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:48:30 EST, Jason Hihn said: > > > out over the SMTP socket. I don't know what this would break > though. IANAL, > > but I'd like to think it was binding. I think the problem > though would be > > who would it be binding to? The remote outgoing network (AOL-TW in the > > advent of it coming from an aol server?) or the sender? Either way it's > > good, but I like it if the network (AOL) is liable. It'll make them make > > sure no spam leaves their domain. > > I'm not sure you could possibly make it binding - the only thing > that usually > looks at SMTP replies are SMTP client software. So unless you > create an RFC > describing the format so it can be *parsed* by software, it's the > ones-and-zeros > equivalent of urinating into the wind. > > Backward compatibility becomes an issue - what happens if the > sender's SMTP > doesn't have support for the extension and the parsing it involves? > > And given that the spam probably came in through an open proxy > server, it's > basically a lost cause - if the proxy site couldn't afford to > hire a sysadmin > with enough clue to close the proxy, they're probably effectively > judgment proof. > Kinda like suing somebody for $3M when they live in a tar paper > shack and can't > afford a telephone or running water. > > I suppose if you made it like a click-through EULA, it would be > OK.. except > for the minor detail that almost all our outbound mail is > gatewayed through > a machine that won't be able to click.... ;) > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 16:52:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA03694 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:52:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2HM9GQ07767 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:09:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HM9GO07764 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:09:16 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA03678 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:52:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HM4OO06352; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:04:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HLs3O05545 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:54:03 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA02905 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:36:59 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2HLdCVG004786; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:39:12 -0500 Message-Id: <200303172139.h2HLdCVG004786@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.2 03/12/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: Jason Hihn Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Giving Public Notice .... In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:22:12 EST." References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_-847805004P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:39:12 -0500 --==_Exmh_-847805004P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:22:12 EST, Jason Hihn said: > My points exactly! It would be cool and could be made to work, but in the > end, it's futile/pointless/a lost cause. I didn't say it was a lost cause.. ;) I pointed out that there were problems - many of which are fixable. For instance, *IF* you have a technically workable SMTP extension, you could then conceivably codify that "a UCE sender must check the extension and pay any indemnification as a result". The nice thing there is that if you don't send any UCE, you can just ignore the extension and nothing changes. ;) Yes, this does require some coding, some RFCs, and some legal tapdancing similar to what's already in 17 USC 512 for an ISP safe-harbor, so if one of our users does something stupid and relays it through our server, it's their problem not mine. But not anything fundamentally not fixable. --==_Exmh_-847805004P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+dkB/cC3lWbTT17ARAo/6AKCWVnkKYDGOAsmQ28DuiLSM9vIB+wCg+lpN hPvgcsNqox2YRr3ITmaP+o0= =+puu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_-847805004P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 17:06:27 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA04320 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:06:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2HMN0508482 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:23:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HMN0O08479 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:23:00 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA04310 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:05:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HMK7O08346; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:20:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HMJbO08307 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:19:37 -0500 Received: from chimta03.algx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA04179 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:02:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from JHS ([67.92.23.74]) by chimmx03.algx.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.10 (built Jan 23 2003)) with SMTP id <0HBW000N7YNVUI@chimmx03.algx.net> for Asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:04:44 -0600 (CST) From: Jason Hihn Subject: RE: [Asrg] Giving Public Notice .... In-reply-to: <200303172139.h2HLdCVG004786@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:04:43 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Well, I prefer tech to legal-ese.. It's just my nature. I don't doubt that you could make things scary and binding enough (legally speaking), but I want it backed up with technical measures. I want sender tracability incase they do send spam anyway. Then you get in a whole new can of worms working out ways on how you can verify the sender is legit and traceable. Then you have to be able to make that determination in real-time while you still have them on a socket, before you accept the message. Otherwise I'll lie about who I am, and that my message is not spam. Or I'll agree to the $50,000 spam fee and poof! disappear. Those are the measures whose defense must be built in as well. Remember: "Locks only keep honest people honest." Most spammers are not honest. I doubt Amber is horny for me, wants me to see her naked, or even that she knows who I am. I bet it's really Frank, who looks like the uni-bomber that's really typing that in and inviting me over! Until we eliminate (much less discover) the ways around it, we only create more work for everyone. > -----Original Message----- > From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu [mailto:Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu] > Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 4:39 PM > To: Jason Hihn > Cc: Asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Giving Public Notice .... > > > On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:22:12 EST, Jason Hihn said: > > My points exactly! It would be cool and could be made to work, > but in the > > end, it's futile/pointless/a lost cause. > > I didn't say it was a lost cause.. ;) > > I pointed out that there were problems - many of which are fixable. > > For instance, *IF* you have a technically workable SMTP > extension, you could > then conceivably codify that "a UCE sender must check the > extension and pay > any indemnification as a result". > > The nice thing there is that if you don't send any UCE, you can > just ignore > the extension and nothing changes. ;) > > Yes, this does require some coding, some RFCs, and some legal tapdancing > similar to what's already in 17 USC 512 for an ISP safe-harbor, so if one > of our users does something stupid and relays it through our server, it's > their problem not mine. But not anything fundamentally not fixable. > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 17:14:26 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA04534 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:14:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2HMV0J08809 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:31:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HMV0O08806 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:31:00 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA04507 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:13:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HMT2O08719; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:29:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HMSVO08696 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:28:31 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA04475 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:11:26 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2HMDdVG005293; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:13:39 -0500 Message-Id: <200303172213.h2HMDdVG005293@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.2 03/12/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: Jason Hihn Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Giving Public Notice .... In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:04:43 EST." References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_-837019548P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:13:39 -0500 --==_Exmh_-837019548P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:04:43 EST, Jason Hihn said: > Well, I prefer tech to legal-ese.. It's just my nature. I don't doubt that > you could make things scary and binding enough (legally speaking), but I > want it backed up with technical measures. I want sender tracability incase > they do send spam anyway. Then you get in a whole new can of worms working > out ways on how you can verify the sender is legit and traceable. Then you > have to be able to make that determination in real-time while you still have > them on a socket, before you accept the message. The guys at cluelessmailers estimated that some 90% of the problem is the result of only 100 to 150 people. Now if we took up a collection of $500 from every ISP that has a inbound spam problem, and hired a few "enforcers" from any one of several ethnically-based entrepreneur organizations that work somewhat outside conventional legality, and had them "explain our position" to the offenders, I'd not be surprised if a lot of spammers took the hint Or we could just hire a few RIAA lawyers - *THEY* don't seem to have *ANY* trouble in tracking down miscreants.... Some days, I can't tell which of the two solutions is which... ;) --==_Exmh_-837019548P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+dkiTcC3lWbTT17ARAuD+AKCNydWhqpururoPxkBH4hvFuLhWVgCg0Q+Q 0Mg2SDOS8kFMelWqEYLoAEM= =7r1N -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_-837019548P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 17:30:51 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA04969 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:30:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2HMlQi10320 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:47:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HMlPO10317 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:47:25 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA04956 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:30:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HMhLO10139; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:43:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HMedO10038 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:40:39 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA04762 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:23:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from rmf19 (h00055df0474a.ne.client2.attbi.com[65.96.217.174]) by rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (rwcrmhc52) with SMTP id <2003031722254505200psunae>; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 22:25:45 +0000 From: To: Message-ID: <009201c2ecd4$26fecd50$66e237c0@rmf19> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0093_01C2ECAA.3E28C550" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal Subject: [Asrg] Spam cannot be solved at the source Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:25:44 -0500 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0093_01C2ECAA.3E28C550 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Spam is not an intrinsic property of the bits or the message. It is a property of the relationship between the sender and the recipient. The problem is that the recipients have give up all control because they have one magic name that can be used to reach them 24x7. Actually there are a few of them, the phone number being another example. One way to find a balance is to take control over our exposure by getting past the current model of email which is based on the old timesharing user account mixed in with a confused model of the post office and phone number. The result is a system with all the limits of their physical predecessors but without the controls (which were often just the degree of inconvenience). Rather than email addresses we would have access tokens or capabilities that we can manage. The equivalent of the current email address would be the lookup handle in a database that yields a unique capability that contains information such as its source (a directory). As with MIME, one can implement this scheme fairly transparently by using the existing address string as a capability handle with routing information. The @ is just noise since the final delivery point is not the first SMTP server. If we couple this with removing the semantics from the DNS (as William the Conqueror did for surnames in the Domesday book) we'd get added benefits such as stable email handles. More on this in http://www.frankston.com/public/writing.asp?name=spamfixation A related issue is getting rid of the semantics that have befouled the DNS - http://www.frankston.com/public/writngs.asp?name=dotdns. The goal is to separate the mechanisms from the policies. You can have whatever policy you want once you have some control over your exposure. You can do things like charging for priority access or you can keep some capabilities very secret. By separating the problem of finding you (the human memorable email address and far better ways to find and remember you) from the mechanics of the address we can do a lot more than dealing spam, we can start to explore the potential of email instead of settling for a recycled hack from the 60's. Bob Frankston rmf19@bobf.frankston.com ------=_NextPart_000_0093_01C2ECAA.3E28C550 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Spam is not an intrinsic property of the bits or the message. It is a = property of the relationship between the sender and the recipient. The problem is = that the recipients have give up all control because they have one magic name = that can be used to reach them 24x7. Actually there are a few of them, the phone = number being another example.

 

One way to find a balance is to take control over our exposure by getting = past the current model of email which is based on the old timesharing user account mixed = in with a confused model of the post office and phone number. The result is a = system with all the limits of their physical predecessors but without the = controls (which were often just the degree of inconvenience).

 

Rather than email addresses we would have access tokens or capabilities that we = can manage. The equivalent of the current email address would be the lookup = handle in a database that yields a unique capability that contains information = such as its source (a directory).

 

As with MIME, one can implement this scheme fairly transparently by using = the existing address string as a capability handle with routing information. The @ is = just noise since the final delivery point is not the first SMTP server. If we = couple this with removing the semantics from the DNS (as William the Conqueror = did for surnames in the Domesday book) we’d get added benefits such as = stable email handles.

 

More on this in = http://www.frankston.com/public/writing.asp?name=3Dspamfixation

A related issue is getting rid of the semantics that have befouled the DNS = – http:/= /www.frankston.com/public/writngs.asp?name=3Ddotdns.

 

The goal is to separate the mechanisms from the policies. You can have = whatever policy you want once you have some control over your exposure. You can = do things like charging for priority access or you can keep some = capabilities very secret.

 

By separating the problem of finding you (the human memorable email address and far = better ways to find and remember you) from the mechanics of the address we can = do a lot more than dealing spam, we can start to explore the potential of = email instead of settling for a recycled hack from the = 60’s.

 

 

 

 

Bob = Frankston

rmf19@bobf.frankston.com

 

------=_NextPart_000_0093_01C2ECAA.3E28C550-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 17:44:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA05311 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:44:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2HN0do10888 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:00:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HN0dO10885 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:00:39 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA05275 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:43:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HMu2O10675; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:56:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HMtaO10654 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:55:36 -0500 Received: from loki (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA05172 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:38:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from bigfoot.jmrtech.com ([216.231.46.95] ident=user) by loki with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18v3Hf-0002cC-00 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:40:43 -0800 Received: from dhcp-219 ([2.0.0.219] helo=othala) by bigfoot.jmrtech.com with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #2) id 18v3He-0007n6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:40:42 -0800 From: "John Rumpelein" To: Subject: RE: [Asrg] A method to eliminate spam Message-ID: <003d01c2ecd6$41884000$db000002@othala> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 In-Reply-To: <200303171859.h2HIxJVG002027@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:40:48 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > This assumes the existence of a PKI. Without that, it's > fairly trivial > for me to crank out a bogus digital signature claiming to be > from meor@mail.softhome.net and forge subscriptions for you. It is already more or less required that organizations buy a CA-issued SSL cert to operate a web site dealing in credit card transactions. Maybe it is not so farfetched that they should do this (or maybe use the same cert) to also operate a mail server? -J _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 17:45:13 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA05342 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:45:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2HN1lM10958 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:01:47 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HN1lO10955 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:01:47 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA05337 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:44:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HMrVO10531; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:53:31 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HMpWO10454 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:51:32 -0500 Received: from loki (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA05046 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:34:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from bigfoot.jmrtech.com ([216.231.46.95] ident=user) by loki with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18v3Dj-0002b4-00 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:36:39 -0800 Received: from dhcp-219 ([2.0.0.219] helo=othala) by bigfoot.jmrtech.com with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #2) id 18v3Di-0007mI-01 for Asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:36:38 -0800 From: "John Rumpelein" To: Subject: RE: [Asrg] Giving Public Notice .... Message-ID: <002401c2ecd5$afe64c50$db000002@othala> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:36:44 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Specifically, I am thinking after the RCPT-TO: you could post > "RECEIVER allows this message to be delivered under the following > conditions: I'm no lawyer, but it is hard to understand how a message which no human will ever see could be considered binding on the people who operate the company. -J _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 17:58:09 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA05763 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:58:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2HNEiY12544 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:14:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HNEiO12540 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:14:44 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA05755 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:57:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HN9DO12227; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:09:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HN6ZO11369 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:06:35 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA05569 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:49:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from sputnik (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h2HMpcon003064; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:51:38 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sputnik.mobil.danisch.de (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-8) id h2HMpTeW004616; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:51:29 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: John Rumpelein Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Giving Public Notice .... Message-ID: <20030317225127.GA4526@danisch.de> References: <002401c2ecd5$afe64c50$db000002@othala> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <002401c2ecd5$afe64c50$db000002@othala> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:51:28 -0800 On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 02:36:44PM -0800, John Rumpelein wrote: > > Specifically, I am thinking after the RCPT-TO: you could post > > "RECEIVER allows this message to be delivered under the following > > conditions: > > I'm no lawyer, but it is hard to understand how a message which no human > will ever see could be considered binding on the people who operate the > company. Even if it did, of what use could it be? Do you want to sue every single sender of spam? How do you sue the sender if you don't know his identity? How do you sue a spammer sending from a random country? In which language would you like to post the message? What if the spammer claims to not understand english? What should I post? German? English? Turkish? If I receive spam from US, which law should apply on the agreement? German law? US law? Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 17:59:53 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA05801 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:59:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2HNGSo12643 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:16:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HNGSO12640 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:16:28 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA05792 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:59:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HNC2O12362; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:12:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HNAKO12275 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:10:20 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA05627 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:53:14 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2HMtRVG005818; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:55:27 -0500 Message-Id: <200303172255.h2HMtRVG005818@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.2 03/12/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: John Rumpelein Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] A method to eliminate spam In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:40:48 PST." <003d01c2ecd6$41884000$db000002@othala> References: <003d01c2ecd6$41884000$db000002@othala> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_-830938572P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:55:27 -0500 --==_Exmh_-830938572P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:40:48 PST, John Rumpelein said: > It is already more or less required that organizations buy a CA-issued SSL > cert to operate a web site dealing in credit card transactions. Now, is that *legally* required, or is that simply the guys at Visa and Mastercard saying "We won't clear transactions for you unless you...." I believe it to be the latter. > Maybe it is not so farfetched that they should do this (or maybe use the > same cert) to also operate a mail server? Hmm.. if AOL and Hotmail and Yahoo were to insist on it, it might have a snowball's chance of flying. The big question is whether there's enough supply of SSL accelerator cards, and if certs were economically feasible. Remember there's a lot of .com's and .org's that are 1 or 2 boxes in a colo, or a box or two in a closet in somebody's basement (literally half my personal mail goes to places that are at the skinny end of an ADSL or cable modem). If you can think of a way to deploy this without bankrupting those places (they'd not need an SSL card for 100 smtp-over-ssl a day, but a full-blown .COM cert may put their budget over the edge). Any ideas? --==_Exmh_-830938572P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+dlJfcC3lWbTT17ARAt3jAJ0QPLcYVNr/BGTiMgE17MRtR+F1UQCgzm3b L4xabeGUHJmcDq0s4r2x11A= =8wta -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_-830938572P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 18:37:10 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA08071 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:37:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2HNrkO15022 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:53:46 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HNrkO15019 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:53:46 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA08035 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:36:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HNk8O14772; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:46:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HNjRO14748 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:45:27 -0500 Received: from hotmail.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA07812 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:28:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:30:33 -0800 Received: from 63.118.24.242 by pv1fd.pav1.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:30:33 GMT X-Originating-IP: [63.118.24.242] From: "Doug Phillips" To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Giving Public Notice .... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Mar 2003 23:30:33.0829 (UTC) FILETIME=[34D7F150:01C2ECDD] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:30:33 -0500 >I'm no lawyer, but it is hard to understand how a message which no human >will ever see could be considered binding on the people who operate the company. Actually, the federal E-Sign Act (enacted in 2000) provides that a contract may not be denied legal effect because it was created by one or more electronic agents (computer programs designed to act independently without contemporaneous human participation). _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 18:39:23 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA08174 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:39:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2HNtx815176 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:55:59 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HNtwO15173 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:55:58 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA08157 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:38:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HNm1O14836; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:48:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HNl4O14797 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:47:04 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA07828 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:29:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (h005018086b3b.ne.client2.attbi.com[66.31.45.164]) by rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (rwcrmhc51) with SMTP id <2003031723320805100egqune>; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:32:08 +0000 X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas Subject: Re: [Asrg] Position paper, in zipped HTML Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: mathew In-Reply-To: To: asrg@ietf.org X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to . X-Image-Url: http://meta.ATH0.com/photos/MailPictures/meta@pobox.com Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:32:08 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sunday, Mar 16, 2003, at 07:17 US/Eastern, Kee Hinckley wrote: > For instance. Does my putting my address on one keep Adobe from > sending me the product updates I asked for? And if not, what keeps > every other company from claiming some prior business relationship. > > I think global phone opt-out lists are easier because people want > their phone for personal stuff and not business. So they are happy to > nuke all companies. But that's not as true for email. It's not really true for phone either. A lot of people would like to be called if the company can't ship their overnight order on time, for example. One of the problems with MacWarehouse is that they don't allow you to say "use this information to contact me about my order, but don't use it to send me spam". Personally, I don't want telemarketing calls from anyone--except Apple. If Apple wants to call me up and ask me to take part in market research, that's fine. (They did once.) mathew _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 18:45:58 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA08427 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:45:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2I02Ye15645 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:02:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I02YO15642 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:02:34 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA08419 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:45:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I004O15511; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:00:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2HNxeO15458 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:59:40 -0500 Received: from nycsmtp3out.rdc-nyc.rr.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA08354 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:42:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from damien (66-108-13-38.nyc.rr.com [66.108.13.38]) by nycsmtp3out.rdc-nyc.rr.com (8.12.1/Road Runner SMTP Server 1.0) with ESMTP id h2HNj4Hx028235; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:45:04 -0500 (EST) From: "Damien Morton" To: , "'John Rumpelein'" Cc: Subject: RE: [Asrg] A method to eliminate spam Message-ID: <003b01c2ecde$4c5be1a0$6401a8c0@damien> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 In-Reply-To: <200303172255.h2HMtRVG005818@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:38:21 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Would all data between mail servers needs to be encrypted? I would imagine that only a secure handshake on conection would be required. > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu > Sent: Monday, 17 March 2003 17:55 > To: John Rumpelein > Cc: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] A method to eliminate spam > > > On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:40:48 PST, John Rumpelein > said: > > It is already more or less required that organizations buy > a CA-issued > > SSL cert to operate a web site dealing in credit card transactions. > > Now, is that *legally* required, or is that simply the guys > at Visa and Mastercard saying "We won't clear transactions > for you unless you...." > > I believe it to be the latter. > > > Maybe it is not so farfetched that they should do this (or > maybe use > > the same cert) to also operate a mail server? > > Hmm.. if AOL and Hotmail and Yahoo were to insist on it, it > might have a snowball's chance of flying. The big question > is whether there's enough supply of SSL accelerator cards, > and if certs were economically feasible. > > Remember there's a lot of .com's and .org's that are 1 or 2 > boxes in a colo, or a box or two in a closet in somebody's > basement (literally half my personal mail goes to places that > are at the skinny end of an ADSL or cable modem). If you can > think of a way to deploy this without bankrupting those > places (they'd not need an SSL card for 100 smtp-over-ssl a > day, but a full-blown .COM cert may put their budget over the > edge). Any ideas? > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 18:56:01 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA08793 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:56:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2I0Cc416998 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:12:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I0CcO16995 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:12:38 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA08785 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:55:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I0ABO16775; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:10:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I09DO16720 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:09:13 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA08642 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:52:06 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2HNsJVG006485; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:54:19 -0500 Message-Id: <200303172354.h2HNsJVG006485@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.2 03/12/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: Damien Morton Cc: "'John Rumpelein'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] A method to eliminate spam In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:38:21 EST." <003b01c2ecde$4c5be1a0$6401a8c0@damien> References: <003b01c2ecde$4c5be1a0$6401a8c0@damien> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_-816575388P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:54:19 -0500 --==_Exmh_-816575388P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:38:21 EST, Damien Morton said: > Would all data between mail servers needs to be encrypted? I would > imagine that only a secure handshake on conection would be required. Strictly speaking, yes. However, once you've done the handshake, keeping the data connection encrypted is a relatively low overhead issue - all the CPU cost is front-loaded on the handshake. Plus there's non-spam reasons for encrypting the whole transaction - it makes life difficult for Echelon-like systems. Some of us don't trust our governments, and may not want to use crypto for only our sensitive data, as if only 5% of your traffic is encrypted it's a red flag. But if it's ALL encrypted, their traffic analysis gets much harder. Question: How many Nobel Peace Prize winners have terrorists and organized crime wiretapped? And how many has the US government confessed to wiretapping? --==_Exmh_-816575388P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+dmArcC3lWbTT17ARAuViAKDtKzISFCmdwlPPOK0QmhyytSXedgCg7aXT oIsTgs7puX/dpA36L0IhbIk= =2KX7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_-816575388P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 18:56:47 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA08816 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:56:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2I0DO517071 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:13:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I0DOO17068 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:13:24 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA08808 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:56:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I074O15920; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:07:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I06VO15843 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:06:31 -0500 Received: from maillist.grax.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA08544 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:49:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (grax_web1 [127.0.0.1]) by maillist.grax.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8323D2C5D5 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 13:51:29 -0600 (CST) From: David Walker Organization: Vorteon, LLC To: asrg@ietf.org User-Agent: KMail/1.5 X-Hockey: Colorado Avalanche MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200303171753.59571@grx> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Per domain blacklists Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:53:59 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit My scheme for improving smtp and reducing abusive spams that contain fake headers basically amounts to a per domain blacklist implemented in DNS. The mail server receiving the message will contact the DNS server of the "MAIL FROM" domain with a lookup of (reversed IP address).example.com The DNS server will respond with OK or DENIED or nothing based on it's configuration. Specific entries allow an IP or set of IPs and a wildcard entry disallows the rest of the internet. OK means "Yes, send the message" DENIED means "No, that IP address is not authorized to send mail from my domain" nothing means "timeout or admin has not configured their dns to support this so send the message" This method is completely backwards compatible, useful when as little as 2 admins configure support, capable of stopping klez type messages. I have a further writeup at http://www.vorteon.com/papers/spam_reduction_through_dns.html _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 18:56:53 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA08832 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:56:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2I0DTD17088 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:13:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I0DTO17085 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:13:29 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA08812 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:56:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I0B1O16903; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:11:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I0AtO16869 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:10:55 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA08669 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:53:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (h005018086b3b.ne.client2.attbi.com[66.31.45.164]) by rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (rwcrmhc52) with SMTP id <2003031723560005200rui8se>; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:56:00 +0000 X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas Subject: Re: [Asrg] Giving Public Notice .... Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: mathew In-Reply-To: <200303172213.h2HMDdVG005293@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> To: asrg@ietf.org X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to . X-Image-Url: http://meta.ATH0.com/photos/MailPictures/meta@pobox.com Message-Id: <00C64A78-58D4-11D7-BC10-00039380F1B6@pobox.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:56:00 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Monday, Mar 17, 2003, at 17:13 US/Eastern, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > Or we could just hire a few RIAA lawyers - *THEY* don't seem to have > *ANY* > trouble in tracking down miscreants... Funny you should mention that. Just this morning I got spam from some guy selling CD recordings of obscure music recorded from rare vinyl LPs and other sources. He had his name and address right in the e-mail. I forwarded it to the RIAA piracy hotline. I feel dirty... but it feels so good... mathew _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 19:13:04 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA09496 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:13:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2I0Tf317862 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:29:41 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I0TfO17859 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:29:41 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA09489 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:12:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I0Q7O17696; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:26:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I0PwO17667 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:25:58 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA09386 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:08:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from sputnik (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h2I0B1Y0004118; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 01:11:01 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sputnik.mobil.danisch.de (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-8) id h2I0AZNn002485; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 01:10:35 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Doug Phillips Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Giving Public Notice .... Message-ID: <20030318001035.GA2309@danisch.de> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:10:35 -0800 On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 06:30:33PM -0500, Doug Phillips wrote: > > Actually, the federal E-Sign Act (enacted in 2000) provides that a contract > may not be denied legal effect because it was created by one or more > electronic agents (computer programs designed to act independently without > contemporaneous human participation). > Nice. To which countries does this act apply to? Do both the sender and recipient have to be covered by that act? What if one part the of communcation is in a different legislation? Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 19:13:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA09548 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:13:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2I0UHn17911 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:30:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I0UHO17904 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:30:17 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA09511 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:13:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I0S2O17770; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:28:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I0RZO17749 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:27:35 -0500 Received: from mail.cdt.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA09417 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:10:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from tosh (cdt [206.112.85.61]) by mail.cdt.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9D7B490110; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:02:33 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20030317155632.018f6d10@localhost> X-Sender: john@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 To: Hadmut Danisch , John Rumpelein From: John Morris Subject: Re: [Asrg] Giving Public Notice .... Cc: Asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20030317225127.GA4526@danisch.de> References: <002401c2ecd5$afe64c50$db000002@othala> <002401c2ecd5$afe64c50$db000002@othala> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:12:11 -0800 At 02:51 PM 3/17/03 -0800, Hadmut Danisch wrote: >On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 02:36:44PM -0800, John Rumpelein wrote: > > > Specifically, I am thinking after the RCPT-TO: you could post > > > "RECEIVER allows this message to be delivered under the following > > > conditions: > > > > I'm no lawyer, but it is hard to understand how a message which no human > > will ever see could be considered binding on the people who operate the > > company. > >Even if it did, of what use could it be? Do you want to >sue every single sender of spam? How do you sue the sender if >you don't know his identity? How do you sue a spammer >sending from a random country? > >In which language would you like to post the message? What if >the spammer claims to not understand english? > >What should I post? German? English? Turkish? > >If I receive spam from US, which law should apply on the agreement? >German law? US law? Let's step back and recognize that there are at least two possible distinct technology research and design goals: 1. Create technology that, by itself and independent of any legal norm or law, is (a) effective in stopping spam, (b) scalable, and (c) likely actually to get widely deployed. 2. Create technology that can be used in conjunction with existing or proposed legal norms or laws to reduce or stop spam. Obviously it would be wonderful if this RG can accomplish goal 1, and I assume there will be lots of effort toward that goal. But I for one think that a robust solution to spam will likely require existing or new laws, and so I think there is value in considering goal 2 as well, even if the technology itself would not be self-enforcing. John _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 19:32:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA10127 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:32:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2I0nCp19576 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:49:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I0nCO19573 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:49:12 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA10093 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:32:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I0l5O19470; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:47:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I0kiO19444 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:46:44 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA10031 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:29:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from sputnik (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h2I0VmtV004468 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 01:31:48 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sputnik.mobil.danisch.de (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-8) id h2I0VfF4002874 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 01:31:41 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <20030318003140.GA2862@danisch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Subject: [Asrg] Who's in San Francisco? Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:31:40 -0800 Ah, btw, who is here in San Francisco? regards Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 19:49:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA10660 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:49:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2I167L20495 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:06:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I166O20492 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:06:06 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA10633 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:48:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I0p3O19674; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:51:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I0oZO19650 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:50:35 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA10166 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:33:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from video.attbi.com (12-235-20-211.client.attbi.com[12.235.20.211]) by rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (rwcrmhc52) with SMTP id <2003031800354005200pt5f8e>; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:35:40 +0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030317162233.048c73e8@mail.attbi.com> X-Sender: schear@mail.attbi.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: Jason Hihn , Doug Phillips , asrg@ietf.org From: Steve Schear Subject: RE: [Asrg] Thoughts so far In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:38:35 -0800 At 04:54 PM 3/14/2003 -0500, Jason Hihn wrote: >IANAL, but the Supreme Court has ruled that we have the right to be left >alone. Unfortunately, it is not a "right" and I don't think they ever did. The quote you are referring to was from SC judge Louis Brandeis' minority opinion in Olmstead v. United States (1928), a wiretap case. Unfortunately, Olmstead lost. Brandeis argued that allowing wiretaps intruded on the privacy of the callers, who generally weren't the object of the wiretap order. This made excellent sense, but the court reasoned that the government's need to listen outweighed our right to privacy. Prrivacy, what right to privacy? steve Experience teaches us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purpose is beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. -Louis Dembitz Brandeis, lawyer, judge, and writer (1856-1941) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 19:59:57 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA11127 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:59:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2I1GZc21726 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:16:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I1GZO21723 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:16:35 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA11097 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:59:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I1D1O21502; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:13:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I1BdO21448 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:11:39 -0500 Received: from mail.cdt.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA10817 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:54:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from tosh (cdt [206.112.85.61]) by mail.cdt.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F0B24900FF for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:46:38 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20030317164641.00a0ccb0@localhost> X-Sender: john@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 To: asrg@ietf.org From: John Morris Subject: RE: [Asrg] Thoughts so far In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030317162233.048c73e8@mail.attbi.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:57:04 -0800 At 04:38 PM 3/17/03 -0800, Steve Schear wrote: >At 04:54 PM 3/14/2003 -0500, Jason Hihn wrote: >>IANAL, but the Supreme Court has ruled that we have the right to be left >>alone. > >Unfortunately, it is not a "right" and I don't think they ever did. Not to drag us too far into a discussion of U.S. law (relevant, obviously, to only a subset of the IETF and the world in general), but Steve is right. Indeed, last year, in Watchtower Bible & Tract Society v. Village of Stratton, http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-1737.ZS.html, the Supreme Court rejected a blanket ban on door-to-door solicitation on First Amendment grounds. The Court hinted that a ban limited to COMMERCIAL solicitation might have more chance of success. Of course, spam is different in that it imposes concrete costs on the recipient, and that will affect the constitutional analysis. But it is likely that any spam legislation in the U.S. -- to be upheld in the long run -- will be limited to restrictions on commercial spam. (And I'd suggest that discussions of the meaning of "commercial" in this context take place off list.) John (fwiw, IAAL) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 20:06:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA11377 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:06:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2I1NYj22037 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:23:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I1NYO22034 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:23:34 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA11347 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:06:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I1K3O21894; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:20:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I1JpO21857 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:19:51 -0500 Received: from mail-out2.apple.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA11258 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:02:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailgate2.apple.com (A17-129-100-225.apple.com [17.129.100.225]) by mail-out2.apple.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2I14tsJ022132 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:04:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from scv3.apple.com (scv3.apple.com) by mailgate2.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:04:54 -0800 Received: from plaidworks.com (vg0602e-dhcp175.apple.com [17.216.21.175]) by scv3.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h2I14sj03276; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:04:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Thoughts so far Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: asrg@ietf.org To: John Morris From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20030317164641.00a0ccb0@localhost> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:04:55 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Monday, March 17, 2003, at 04:57 PM, John Morris wrote: > will affect the constitutional analysis. But it is likely that any > spam legislation in the U.S. -- to be upheld in the long run -- will > be limited to restrictions on commercial spam. (And I'd suggest that > discussions of the meaning of "commercial" in this context take place > off list.) > I think a better approach at least for the first cut is to work towards attacks on spam for the fraudulent aspects, as in making it illegal to send e-mail with fraudulent return addresses to try to give ISPs a hatchet to go after the folks using open relays. Worry about how to deal with badly behaving mass mailers using real addresses through other means, or as a second round of legislation. -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 20:12:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA11644 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:12:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2I1TD622291 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:29:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I1TDO22288 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:29:13 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA11622 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:12:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I1R4O22194; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:27:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I1QIO22154 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:26:18 -0500 Received: from mail.hive.scnr.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id UAA11493 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:09:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 29166 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2003 01:10:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO storm.hans-spath.de) (80.132.78.195) by 213.147.127.34 with SMTP; 18 Mar 2003 01:10:39 -0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030318013514.01d4e550@mail.generalprotectionfault.de> X-Sender: ml%hans-spath.de@mail.generalprotectionfault.de X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Hans Spath Subject: Re: [Asrg] A method to eliminate spam In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030317130658.00b3bd48@mail.SoftHome.net> References: <3E756DFD.1090502@americasm01.nt.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20030315210111.00b91c48@mail.SoftHome.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20030316024319.01ceb158@mail.generalprotectionf ault.de> <5.1.0.14.0.20030315171040.00b463f0@mail.SoftHome.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20030316221304.00b4eee8@mail.SoftHome.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20030316235730.00b89ea0@mail.SoftHome.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 02:11:19 +0100 At 17.03.2003 13:08 -0600, meor@mail.SoftHome.net wrote: > >Why on earth would you want to abandon MXes? MXes serve an extremely > useful purpose even if your "solution" was adopted - failover, > prioritization, enabling systems not on the Internet to receive email > (hint: my home machine doesn't have, and has no need for, an A record. > Couldn't use one even if it had one. It's not Internet-connected.). > >There are other methods of fail safe and redundancy besides MX >records. Every other type of network communication that needs 24/7 up >time, but does not make use of MX records has ways of keeping up time >despite machines failing. Every other type of network communication does >not have special records for it's specific protocol, yet people are still >able to full up time. >I don't know the personal situation with your machine at home but I don't >see how it is able to send/receive mail if it isn't connected to the >Internet ever. I also may be naive but I don't see a resounding reason to >have a mail server that is not connected to the network which it is >receiving mail from. What if you're a dial-in internet user? What if there is a temporally routing problem, which makes the sender unable to reach your mailbox-"server"? BTW. Does "every other type network communication" that hasn't special records for it's specific protocol make use of *static* adresses (like mail adresses) which are independend from what FQDN the *real* destination host has? The good thing with your "solution" is that it could fix the bad things that came up with SMTP. But it would also "fix" the good things of it, stop ignoring that. > >When faced with the option of not being able to hit send unless the > recipient's mailbox machine was currently online, sending clients would > have to. Dealing with sporadic machine outages would make mailing lists > (or even modest receiver lists) extremely unpleasant to operate if you > couldn't queue. Imagine the world-wide grief if a backhoe took out AOL's > connectivity for a short time, or an individual mailbox server went > down. My home machine would never get another email again... > >If a backhoe took out AOL's connectivity, there are going to be more >issues at stake than just this method. If no one can connect to AOL's >servers AOL itself will be down. None of it's users will be able to use >it's services, no one will be able to get to it's web page, nothing. >Maybe I overlooked it, but do you believe that this method should protect >against catastrophic failures of this kind? Damn, yes, it really should. Say, a network administrator at AOL makes a "little" mistake while configuring the main routers, so AOL will be completely down for ... 10 minutes. Even in this 10 minutes *lots* of mail *would* have been delivered to some of the millions(?) of AOL users. So your protocol would force thousands of mail clients to retry their delivery. If the clients were dial-in users, they wourd be forced to be online for each retry. With a protocol that allows relay servers (like SMTP) they can go offline and lay back without worrying what happens to their mail. And even when the relay server is unable to deliver the mail, it is not lost - the sender will recieve an notify when the relay server gives up (after a reasonable period of time). > >How would ISP (or a corporation) block outbound mailbombs and the like > if they don't get to see the traffic? Legal liabilities galore. > >Unless you're mail bombing someone who has white listed you(someone who >trusts you), your mail bomb isn't going to be able to nearly as effective >as they are right now. I also don't see why a filter could not be >developed for this protocol as well. Just because it isn't SMTP, doesn't >mean it cannot be monitored by administrators. > > >Huh? I'd like to see any of our users get around our send filtering and > logging. Hint: we block direct outbound email simply by denying outbound > port 25. As do many ISPs with dialup pool router blocks. Short of active > collusion with outside entities (eg: port forwarding ala open proxies) > they can't. > >Yes, I was implying outside assistance. > > > >Blocking outbound klez. I wish Verizon would do that... >Logging all email is becoming a legal necessity these days [Patriot Act >plus others, mutter]. > >Again, I don't see how a filter could not be developed for this protocol >if one was so desired. The problem is, that it has to be installed on *every* concerned client. In a corporate environment you really want to have one central mail relay server because it's no problem to update the filter rules for *all* incoming and outgoing mail at this point. >[...] > >Requiring the recipient mailbox machine to be online and operational at > the time of sending a piece of email is, by itself, considerably worse > than the status quo. Race conditions. Etc. Vastly more unreliable. > >I don't see how the mail server being off-line is worse than any other >server going off-line that needs 24/7 up time. If your web server goes >down and you have no redundancy, you have a problem. If your Internet >router box goes down and you have no redundancy, you have a problem. I >believe this method succumbs to the same issues as every other network service. >The difference with this method opposed to the current E-Mail system is >that you are not wasting gigabytes worth of bandwidth and disk space >transferring and storing unsolicited junk mail because no one can make >money off of sending it anymore. AGIAN. What if TWO dial-in users want to send each other email? Both have to be online at the same time! THIS SUCKS!!! And you don't see how this all ever could be a problem because you become f*cking ignorant when someone criticises your protocol. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 20:14:14 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA11709 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:14:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2I1UrO22396 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:30:53 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I1UrO22393 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:30:53 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA11696 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:13:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I1T2O22279; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:29:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I1SDO22232 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:28:13 -0500 Received: from mail.hive.scnr.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id UAA11593 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:11:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 29169 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2003 01:12:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO storm.hans-spath.de) (80.132.78.195) by 213.147.127.34 with SMTP; 18 Mar 2003 01:12:36 -0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030318021207.01d5ad00@mail.generalprotectionfault.de> X-Sender: ml%hans-spath.de@mail.generalprotectionfault.de X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Hans Spath Subject: Re: [Asrg] A method to eliminate spam In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030317133307.00b88ef0@mail.SoftHome.net> References: <200303171859.h2HIxJVG002027@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <71804AD0-586C-11D7-B0D9-0003939CB5D8@startechgroup.co.uk> <5.1.0.14.0.20030316235730.00b89ea0@mail.SoftHome.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20030317123516.00b909e8@mail.SoftHome.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 02:13:15 +0100 At 17.03.2003 13:38 -0600, meor@mail.SoftHome.net wrote: >At 13:59 3/17/2003 -0500, you wrote: >>On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 12:39:09 CST, meor@mail.SoftHome.net said: >> >> > I had to send and receive 3 E-Mails to sign up for this list. If the >> > proposed method was implemented, only one would have to be sent. The one >> > E-Mail would add the list's public key to my white list(implicitly by >> > sending them an E-Mail), and the list owner would know that I signed >> up for >> > it(no one signed me up for it out of spite), because of my public key. >> >>This assumes the existence of a PKI. Without that, it's fairly trivial >>for me to crank out a bogus digital signature claiming to be from >>meor@mail.softhome.net and forge subscriptions for you. And without any >>mailback confirmation, you'd not even know what happened until you started >>getting 300+ pieces of mail a day from linux-kernel mailing list. ;) >> >>Yes, a self-signed cert *will* prove that two somethings have the same >>source, >>but that doesn't help in trying to confirm a subscription to an e-mail >>list... > >Actually this method would not need a PKI. Upon the first attempt to send >mail to the end user by the Mail list, the mail list would be told that >the public key/signature is not recognized at which point it would be >known that the recipient mail box did not request list subscription. >Even if you did have to send 3 E-Mails with the new method, like you do >with the current method, this does not disprove the ability to subscribe >to bulk mailing lists. The point I was trying to demonstrate was that >white lists are easy to implement, and digital signatures verify origin. How would a newsletter sender find out, if he tried to send a mail to an unsubscribed user or to an user who has forgotten to whitelist the sender yet? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 20:20:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA11823 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:20:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2I1bH623096 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:37:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I1bGO23093 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:37:16 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA11814 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:20:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I1Z2O22533; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:35:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I1YmO22508 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:34:48 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA11744 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:17:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2161931; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:19:53 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200303172255.h2HMtRVG005818@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> References: <003d01c2ecd6$41884000$db000002@othala> <200303172255.h2HMtRVG005818@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] A method to eliminate spam Cc: John Rumpelein , asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:12:22 -0500 At 5:55 PM -0500 3/17/03, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: >(they'd not need an SSL card for 100 smtp-over-ssl a day, but a full-blown >.COM cert may put their budget over the edge). Any ideas? A .com cert goes for $99 semi-wholesale. QuickCerts are even cheaper. That would be a per-year cost. Not too bad. As for the encryption hit. A lot of sites are already using TLS and self-signed certs. I use it for the hundreds of messages I download/send every day, and other sites that support it use it connecting to my server. Not a huge cost. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 20:28:08 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA12021 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:28:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2I1ilE23681 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:44:47 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I1ilO23678 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:44:47 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA12012 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:27:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I1e4O23552; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:40:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I1dLO23457 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:39:21 -0500 Received: from mail.hive.scnr.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id UAA11918 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:22:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 29223 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2003 01:23:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO storm.hans-spath.de) (80.132.78.195) by 213.147.127.34 with SMTP; 18 Mar 2003 01:23:43 -0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030318021732.01d6b008@mail.generalprotectionfault.de> X-Sender: ml%hans-spath.de@mail.generalprotectionfault.de X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: From: Hans Spath Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam cannot be solved at the source In-Reply-To: <009201c2ecd4$26fecd50$66e237c0@rmf19> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 02:24:23 +0100 At 17.03.2003 17:25 -0500, asrg@bobf.frankston.com wrote: >Spam is not an intrinsic property of the bits or the message. It is a >property of the relationship between the sender and the recipient. The >problem is that the recipients have give up all control because they have >one magic name that can be used to reach them 24x7. Actually there are a >few of them, the phone number being another example. *Usually*, I regard every HTML mail as spam, even when it comes from people I know. Would you mind sending plain text mails when there is absolutely no reason to use HTML. (Having chosen a crappy MUA is no reason.) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 20:34:10 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA12357 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:34:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2I1onf24093 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:50:49 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I1onO24090 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:50:49 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA12323 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:33:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I1h2O23633; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:43:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I1gFO23599 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:42:15 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA11971 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:25:05 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2HNWIiX019761 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:32:18 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2HNWIAg019757 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:32:18 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Asrg] FYI: CNN article Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:32:18 -0800 (PST) http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/03/17/halting.spam.ap/index.html _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 20:37:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA12429 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:37:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2I1rim24256 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:53:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I1riO24253 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:53:44 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA12426 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:36:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I1n5O23975; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:49:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I1mSO23918 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:48:28 -0500 Received: from ernie.mail-abuse.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA12158 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:31:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from dhcp-180.isc.org (dhcp-180.isc.org [204.152.187.180]) by ernie.mail-abuse.org (8.12.0.Beta19/8.12.0) with ESMTP id h2I1XVeS098494 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:33:31 -0800 (PST) From: Margie Arbon Reply-To: Margie Arbon To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Thoughts so far Message-ID: <30659295.1047922410@dhcp-180.isc.org> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030317162233.048c73e8@mail.attbi.com> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030317162233.048c73e8@mail.attbi.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.0.0 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:33:31 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --On Monday, March 17, 2003 4:38 PM -0800 Steve Schear wrote: > At 04:54 PM 3/14/2003 -0500, Jason Hihn wrote: >> IANAL, but the Supreme Court has ruled that we have the right to be left >> alone. > > Unfortunately, it is not a "right" and I don't think they ever did. The quote you are referring > to was from SC judge Louis Brandeis' minority opinion in Olmstead v. United States (1928), a > wiretap case. Try the ruling in: ROWAN v. U. S. POST OFFICE DEPT. , 397 U.S. 728 (1970)397 U.S. 728 "We therefore categorically reject the argument that a vendor has a right under the Constitution or otherwise to send unwanted material into the home of another. If this prohibition operates to impede the flow of even valid ideas, the answer is that no one has a right to press even 'good' ideas on an unwilling recipient. That we are often 'captives' outside the sanctuary of the home and subject to objectionable speech and other sound does not mean we must be captives everywhere. See Public Utilities Comm. of District of Columbia v. Pollak, 343 U.S. 451 (1952). The asserted right of a mailer, we repeat, stops at the outer boundary of every person's domain." as delivered by Chief Justice Burger. it's closer, but seems to speak to the limitations and lack of certain "rights" of the sender or speaker rather than the affirmative granting or acknowledgement of the "rights" of the recipient or listener...but IANAL either. The rulings of the US Supreme Court don't tend to be internationally applicable, so I'm not sure of the relevancy to this forum. -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Margie Arbon Mail Abuse Prevention System, LLC margie@mail-abuse.org http://mail-abuse.org _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 20:47:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA12675 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:47:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2I24FF24739 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 21:04:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I24EO24736 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 21:04:14 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA12669 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:47:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I1v4O24403; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:57:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I1uuO24389 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:56:56 -0500 Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id UAA12469 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:39:45 -0500 (EST) From: meor@mail.SoftHome.net Received: (qmail 30834 invoked by uid 417); 18 Mar 2003 01:41:59 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 18 Mar 2003 01:41:59 -0000 Received: from Main.mail.SoftHome.net ([24.118.229.120]) (AUTH: LOGIN meor@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:41:58 -0700 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030317193148.00b5f0e8@mail.SoftHome.net> X-Sender: meor@mail.SoftHome.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] A method to eliminate spam In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030318013514.01d4e550@mail.generalprotectionf ault.de> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030317130658.00b3bd48@mail.SoftHome.net> <3E756DFD.1090502@americasm01.nt.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20030315210111.00b91c48@mail.SoftHome.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20030316024319.01ceb158@mail.generalprotectionf ault.de> <5.1.0.14.0.20030315171040.00b463f0@mail.SoftHome.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20030316221304.00b4eee8@mail.SoftHome.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20030316235730.00b89ea0@mail.SoftHome.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:42:06 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >The problem is, that it has to be installed on *every* concerned client. >In a corporate environment you really want to have one central mail relay >server because it's no problem to update the filter rules for *all* >incoming and outgoing mail at this point. No it would not. Although you would not be able to _stop_ the E-Mails from being sent(unless the filter is on the Internet router and is able to block communication), you would be able to track the sender through the use of passive packet analyzing, and probably terminate the employment of the perpetrator. >AGIAN. What if TWO dial-in users want to send each other email? Both have >to be online at the same time! THIS SUCKS!!! >And you don't see how this all ever could be a problem because you become >f*cking ignorant when someone criticises your protocol. Again, I don't think you've read my outline thoroughly. I said there are three entities in this protocol. Mail senders, mail hosts, and end users. Mail hosts house the E-Mail for end users until they are ready to retrieve it. The retrieval process is a simple authentication based retrieval. In the case of a dial-up user sending to another dial up user, the communication would go something like this(Keep in mind the encryption key finding section of this protocol is only used if the sender is _not whitelisted_ by the receiver so the only time this would happen is if a dial up user was sending a piece of mail to an unknown person): Dial-up user composes the E-Mail. Dial-up user connects to the mail host. Mail hosts requests the Dial-up user to find the encryption key to the cipher. Dial-up user can disconnect while this computation is being performed. Dial-up user connects to the mail host. Dial-up user sends the cipher key and sends the E-Mail message. Please do not continue to address me as you have been. I've spend a lot of time working on this idea and would appreciate constructive criticism instead of cursing and name-calling. I believe this method is a _very_ good solution to our E-Mail problems and would appreciate some possible brain storming as to how to work out all the details. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 20:57:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA12867 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:57:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2I2EBP25846 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 21:14:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I2EBO25843 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 21:14:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA12845 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:57:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I221O24642; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 21:02:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I21iO24620 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 21:01:44 -0500 Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id UAA12629 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:44:34 -0500 (EST) From: meor@mail.SoftHome.net Received: (qmail 14948 invoked by uid 417); 18 Mar 2003 01:46:48 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 18 Mar 2003 01:46:48 -0000 Received: from Main.mail.SoftHome.net ([24.118.229.120]) (AUTH: LOGIN meor@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:46:46 -0700 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030317194213.00b44d28@mail.SoftHome.net> X-Sender: meor@mail.SoftHome.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] A method to eliminate spam In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030318021207.01d5ad00@mail.generalprotectionf ault.de> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030317133307.00b88ef0@mail.SoftHome.net> <200303171859.h2HIxJVG002027@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <71804AD0-586C-11D7-B0D9-0003939CB5D8@startechgroup.co.uk> <5.1.0.14.0.20030316235730.00b89ea0@mail.SoftHome.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20030317123516.00b909e8@mail.SoftHome.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:46:54 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >How would a newsletter sender find out, if he tried to send a mail to an >unsubscribed user or to an user who has forgotten to whitelist the sender yet? The white list exchange, as covered in my overview, works like this: List subscriber obtains the address of the E-Mail list distributor from a web site(Ex: news@cnn.com). List subscriber sends a subscription request E-Mail to the list's address. This sending of E-Mail places the address news@cnn.com in the white list of the list subscriber. The mailing list attempts to send an E-Mail to the list subscriber. The mail host sees that news@cnn.com has been added to the white list and allows mail to be sent without computation time. Keep in mind, as covered in the overview, white lists do not exclude people from sending mail to an end user, but rather slows the ability to rapidly send mail to unknown persons. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 21:03:26 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA13023 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 21:03:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2I2K6T26132 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 21:20:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I2K6O26129 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 21:20:06 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA12989 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 21:02:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I2HGO25957; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 21:17:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I2GFO25918 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 21:16:15 -0500 Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id UAA12902 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:59:04 -0500 (EST) From: meor@mail.SoftHome.net Received: (qmail 495 invoked by uid 417); 18 Mar 2003 02:01:18 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 18 Mar 2003 02:01:18 -0000 Received: from Main.mail.SoftHome.net ([24.118.229.120]) (AUTH: LOGIN meor@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:01:17 -0700 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030317195349.00b4b9f8@mail.SoftHome.net> X-Sender: meor@mail.SoftHome.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] A method to eliminate spam In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030318013514.01d4e550@mail.generalprotectionf ault.de> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030317130658.00b3bd48@mail.SoftHome.net> <3E756DFD.1090502@americasm01.nt.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20030315210111.00b91c48@mail.SoftHome.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20030316024319.01ceb158@mail.generalprotectionf ault.de> <5.1.0.14.0.20030315171040.00b463f0@mail.SoftHome.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20030316221304.00b4eee8@mail.SoftHome.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20030316235730.00b89ea0@mail.SoftHome.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:01:25 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Damn, yes, it really should. Say, a network administrator at AOL makes a >"little" mistake while configuring the main routers, so AOL will be >completely down for ... 10 minutes. Even in this 10 minutes *lots* of mail >*would* have been delivered to some of the millions(?) of AOL users. So >your protocol would force thousands of mail clients to retry their >delivery. If the clients were dial-in users, they wourd be forced to be >online for each retry. With a protocol that allows relay servers (like >SMTP) they can go offline and lay back without worrying what happens to >their mail. And even when the relay server is unable to deliver the mail, >it is not lost - the sender will recieve an notify when the relay server >gives up (after a reasonable period of time). On the opposite side of that, with the current SMTP/POP protocols Say a network administrator at AOL makes a "little" mistake while configuring the main routers, so AOL will be completely down for ... 10 minutes. Even in this 10 minutes *lots* of mail *would* be unable to be sent by some of the millions(?) of AOL users because their SMTP server is down. So the current protocol would force thousands of mail clients to retry their delivery. If the clients were dial-in users, they wourd be forced to be online for each retry. The current protocol is just as susceptible to server outages as the proposed would be. With the proposed protocol the user would be at the mercy of the receiving server instead of the sending server. In a preemptive response to "If the SMTP server is down, use a different SMTP server" *Very few* E-Mail users would or know how to re-configure their SMTP server. The response to server outages should not be "Re configure your SMTP server", but rather should be "Why did the server go down" and "Why isn't there a backup"? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 22:58:18 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA15932 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 22:58:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2I4Ewf01405 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:14:58 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I4EwO01402 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:14:58 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA15914 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 22:57:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I4AIO01222; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:10:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I49PO01180 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:09:25 -0500 Received: from segfault.monkeys.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA15638 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 22:52:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by segfault.monkeys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D88741F73 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:54:22 -0800 (PST) To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] FYI: CNN article In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:32:18 -0800. Message-ID: <16737.1047959662@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:54:22 -0800 In message , william@elan.net wrote: > >http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/03/17/halting.spam.ap/index.html ``So an international organization best known for creating the Internet's plumbing has decided to explore fundamental changes in its architecture that would effect a fix. This would ultimately require a global consensus -- and software updates for everybody.'' It would??? Who says so? I myself have some rather different ideas... ideas that DON'T involve everybody on the planet trashing all of the existing infrastructure that they have in place already. And I'm not alone. Not by any means. There's a lot of people working on evolutionary ideas, rather than revolutionary ones. The evolutionary ones have one helluva lot more chance of actually being adopted. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 22:59:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA15987 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 22:59:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2I4GK201513 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:16:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I4GKO01510 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:16:20 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA15979 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 22:59:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I4D2O01330; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:13:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I4CVO01281 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:12:31 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA15698 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 22:55:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2I3vUrN002677 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:57:30 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303180357.h2I3vUrN002677@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org References: <3E760267.7050804@unternet.org> Subject: [Asrg] SPEWS listing all of UUNET Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:57:30 -0700 (MST) A day or two ago I asked in NANAE if anyone has heard of SPEWS listing all of UUNET. The only responses have been negative. So far the most comprehensive response is: ] From: pacman@manson.clss.net (Alan Curry) ] ... ] Since 24 Jul 2002 I have downloaded spews_level_1.txt about once every other ] day, and saved the parts that relate to the UUNET65 netblock (65.192.0.0/11). ] As a customer in that netblock, I want to keep track of how fast the listings ] are approaching my /24. ] ] None have ever come very close. ] ] For a while there was a /15 listed under S971 (Worldreach). It was the ] biggest block listed in SPEWS level 1, it generated n.a.n-a.e traffic from ] the human shields, but compared to the idea of listing all of UUNET, it was ] tiny. I don't pay much attention to SPEWS level 2, but it usually seems to ] list the same size netblocks as level 1, for a longer period of time, so I ] doubt it has listed all of UUNET either. ] ] Furthermore, as a customer since 12 Oct 2001, with a traffic level of about ] 1000 messages per day, I'm not aware of any outgoing messages being rejected ] due to a SPEWS listing. See http://spews.org/ to ask SPEWS about SPEWS's records for IP addresses and S-records. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 23:02:22 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA16074 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:02:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2I4J3w01614 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:19:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I4J3O01611 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:19:03 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA16062 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:01:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I4G2O01497; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:16:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I4FkO01483 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:15:46 -0500 Received: from segfault.monkeys.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA15959 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 22:58:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by segfault.monkeys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C32E441F73 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:00:46 -0800 (PST) To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] A method to eliminate spam In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:46:54 -0600. <5.1.0.14.0.20030317194213.00b44d28@mail.SoftHome.net> Message-ID: <16768.1047960046@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:00:46 -0800 In message <5.1.0.14.0.20030317194213.00b44d28@mail.SoftHome.net>, meor@mail.SoftHome.net wrote: > >>How would a newsletter sender find out, if he tried to send a mail to an >>unsubscribed user or to an user who has forgotten to whitelist the sender yet >? > >The white list exchange, as covered in my overview, works like this: > >List subscriber obtains the address of the E-Mail list distributor from a >web site(Ex: news@cnn.com). >List subscriber sends a subscription request E-Mail to the list's >address. This sending of E-Mail places the address news@cnn.com in the >white list of the list subscriber. >The mailing list attempts to send an E-Mail to the list subscriber. >The mail host sees that news@cnn.com has been added to the white list and >allows mail to be sent without computation time... ... after which the mose astute portion of the spammer community figures out that they will increase their odds of delivery dramatically, simply by sending out their spams with the forged envelope sender address of . >Keep in mind, as covered in the overview, white lists do not exclude people >from sending mail to an end user, but rather slows the ability to rapidly >send mail to unknown persons. Except for the trusted ones... or anybody masquerading as trusted one. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 23:12:26 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA16553 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:12:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2I4T7102299 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:29:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I4T6O02296 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:29:06 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA16516 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:11:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I4R5O02109; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:27:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I4Q6O02041 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:26:06 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA16367 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:08:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from sputnik (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h2I4B6m8007102 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 05:11:06 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sputnik.mobil.danisch.de (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-8) id h2I4AxYW004572 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 05:10:59 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <20030318041058.GA4538@danisch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Subject: [Asrg] SMTP & NNTP ? Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:10:59 -0800 Just a simple question: Are we bound to focus on e-mail/SMTP transport or do we cover News/NNTP as well? (Sorry if this question was already discussed, I couldn't track all messages, especially after I've been offline for a few days.) Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 23:12:51 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA16573 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:12:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2I4TWD02324 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:29:32 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I4TWO02321 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:29:32 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA16525 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:12:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I4RAO02128; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:27:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I4QIO02048 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:26:18 -0500 Received: from morpehus.saintandreas.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA16370 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:09:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from giles (adsl-67-112-11-150.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [67.112.11.150]) by morpehus.saintandreas.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D0BA11F932 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 07:44:51 -0800 (PST) From: "Brad Davis" To: Subject: RE: [Asrg] FYI: CNN article & Kneejerk reaction from LawMeme Message-ID: <967CC8FA686BDE4F974953CBCA6CBE6808494F@mail3.aligntech.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:11:14 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit http://research.yale.edu/lawmeme/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid= 1001 -----Original Message----- From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of william@elan.net Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 3:32 PM To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] FYI: CNN article http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/03/17/halting.spam.ap/index.html _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 23:14:01 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA16616 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:14:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2I4Ug402380 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:30:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I4UgO02377 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:30:42 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA16592 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:13:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I4S2O02194; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:28:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I4RDO02142 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:27:13 -0500 Received: from loki (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA16419 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:10:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from bigfoot.jmrtech.com ([216.231.46.95] ident=user) by loki with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18v8SS-0003f4-00 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:12:13 -0800 Received: from dhcp-219 ([2.0.0.219] helo=othala) by bigfoot.jmrtech.com with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #2) id 18v8SR-00009P-02 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:12:11 -0800 From: "John Rumpelein" To: Subject: RE: [Asrg] Thoughts so far Message-ID: <007301c2ed04$90ff7cb0$db000002@othala> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h2I4RDO02143 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:12:18 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Chuq, > I think a better approach at least for the first cut is to > work towards > attacks on spam for the fraudulent aspects, as in making it > illegal to > send e-mail with fraudulent return addresses to try to give ISPs a > hatchet to go after the folks using open relays. Worry about how to > deal with badly behaving mass mailers using real addresses through > other means, or as a second round of legislation. I live in Washington State, where we have already passed the legislation you propose. I can tell you, unfortunately, that I don't receive any less spam than you do. We can theoretically pursue lawsuits against spammers in small claims court to the tune of $500 per offense, but I have not heard of one single spammer (not one) who has actually been forced to pay under this law. One questions the usefulness of a legal solution to the problem, and even whether the court system is designed to handle this volume of lawsuits. (Do we need spammers clogging up our court system also?) -J _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 23:19:20 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA16785 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:19:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2I4a1a02683 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:36:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I4a1O02680 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:36:01 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA16751 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:18:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I4S1O02178; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:28:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I4RDO02136 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:27:13 -0500 Received: from loki (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA16418 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:10:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from bigfoot.jmrtech.com ([216.231.46.95] ident=user) by loki with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18v8SS-0003f3-00 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:12:12 -0800 Received: from dhcp-219 ([2.0.0.219] helo=othala) by bigfoot.jmrtech.com with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #2) id 18v8SR-00009P-01 for Asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:12:11 -0800 From: "John Rumpelein" To: Subject: RE: [Asrg] Giving Public Notice .... Message-ID: <007201c2ed04$90e0f830$db000002@othala> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h2I4RDO02137 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:12:18 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Doug, > >I'm no lawyer, but it is hard to understand how a message which no > >human will ever see could be considered binding on the people who > >operate the > company. > > Actually, the federal E-Sign Act (enacted in 2000) provides > that a contract > may not be denied legal effect because it was created by one or more > electronic agents (computer programs designed to act > independently without > contemporaneous human participation). The point is not whether or not a "contract" can be in electronic form (I agree this is possible) but whether two people can enter into a contract when only one of them is aware of its existence. The answer, I think, is no. Your argument, if I understand it correctly, is that a mail server can enter into legal agreements on its owner's behalf without his prior knowledge. This seems... problematic. -J _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 23:24:07 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA16935 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:24:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2I4enj03615 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:40:49 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I4enO03612 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:40:49 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA16919 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:23:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I4Z3O02649; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:35:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I4Y2O02598 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:34:02 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA16719 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:16:48 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2I4J0qD003272; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:19:00 -0500 Message-Id: <200303180419.h2I4J0qD003272@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.2 03/12/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: Kee Hinckley Cc: John Rumpelein , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] A method to eliminate spam In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:12:22 EST." References: <003d01c2ecd6$41884000$db000002@othala> <200303172255.h2HMtRVG005818@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_-2071763246P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:18:59 -0500 --==_Exmh_-2071763246P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:12:22 EST, Kee Hinckley said: > A .com cert goes for $99 semi-wholesale. QuickCerts are even > cheaper. That would be a per-year cost. Not too bad. And how much do said certs prove? What verification does QuickCert do to make sure that they're issuing a cert to an actually identified user? At $100 a pop, what's stopping spammers and other miscreants from getting bogus certs? > As for the encryption hit. A lot of sites are already using TLS and > self-signed certs. I use it for the hundreds of messages I > download/send every day, and other sites that support it use it > connecting to my server. Not a huge cost. As I said, it's not a hit when you're doing several hundred pieces of mail a day. You do several hundred thousand, you'll be wanting an SSL card.. ;) (And yes, I have a listserv box that cranks about 500K msgs/day, and it will do SSL with a self-signed cert if the other end says STARTTLS. Not many sites do.) --==_Exmh_-2071763246P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+dp4zcC3lWbTT17ARAtbQAKD6bYGPHa17nkur9qoh8wCUWfJA0gCgxpCP RquY61selmSU50VlUsWdW5Q= =XelY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_-2071763246P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 23:33:01 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA17271 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:33:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2I4ngg04141 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:49:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I4ngO04138 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:49:42 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA17249 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:32:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I4j9O03830; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:45:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I4iSO03785 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:44:28 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA17023 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:27:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from sputnik (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h2I4TSSx007327 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 05:29:28 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sputnik.mobil.danisch.de (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-8) id h2I4THIi005003 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 05:29:17 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Giving Public Notice .... Message-ID: <20030318042916.GA4823@danisch.de> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030317114856.03bf2538@mail.lextek.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030317114856.03bf2538@mail.lextek.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:29:16 -0800 Another question: In most legislations, you can conclude a legally binding contract only after you reached full age. Such a solution (w|c)ould not cover spam sent from youngsters. Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 23:44:10 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA17598 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:44:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2I50qr04604 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:00:52 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I50qO04601 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:00:52 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA17594 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:43:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I4w3O04499; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:58:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I4vmO04476 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:57:48 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA17558 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:40:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18v48l-0003zp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:35:35 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] Content versus conversation In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:57:04 PST." <4.2.0.58.20030317164641.00a0ccb0@localhost> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:35:35 -0500 As a non-US resident, I won't get into U.S. laws. I would say, though, that content filtering (which may be useful1 on an individual level) should be outside of the scope of this group. The problem with spam is not the content, but the conversation. Spam is unwanted conversation, not unwanted content. That alone means that any recipient-based filtering scheme will never be a solution to the spam problem. Those methods may help individuals deal with their spam problem, but they will never help the network deal with it. As conversation and not content, spam is like getting flowers from a stalker. It's nice in a normal relationship, but in the context of stalking, it's creepy and often illegal. The idea of "free speech" similarly relates to content, not to conversation. Anyone is free to say anything they want, but if they follow me around and yell in my ear, it's harassment. On the other extreme, if every day I was receiving 100,000 legitimate offers to give me $10, I probably wouldn't treat them as spam. (And I wouldn't be on this list.) Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 17 23:58:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA17862 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:58:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2I5ExO05869 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:14:59 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I5ExO05866 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:14:59 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA17838 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:57:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I5CIO05779; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:12:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I5AAO05658 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:10:10 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA17777 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:52:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from sputnik (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h2I4t65S008350; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 05:55:06 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sputnik.mobil.danisch.de (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-8) id h2I4t16K005910; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 05:55:01 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Alan DeKok Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Content versus conversation Message-ID: <20030318045501.GA5844@danisch.de> References: <4.2.0.58.20030317164641.00a0ccb0@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:55:01 -0800 Excellent statement. I do fully agree. Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 00:00:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA18048 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:00:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2I5HJF05979 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:17:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I5HJO05976 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:17:19 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA17971 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:00:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I5D1O05812; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:13:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I5CLO05782 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:12:21 -0500 Received: from mail.sirinet.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA17814 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:55:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (jjohn@localhost) by mail.sirinet.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2I4vKLm007052; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 22:57:20 -0600 From: John Johnson To: Alan DeKok cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Content versus conversation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 22:57:20 -0600 (CST) > The problem with spam is not the content, but the conversation. No, I disagree. I perceive the content to be spam, much in thw way tools like SpamAssasin and Vipul's Razor judge the *content* in an automated fashion. Or, an ISP client. They could care less about the "envelope". They care that the content is objectionable. Based upon the track records of senders of objectionable material, I can decide to all out ban their connections to my mail server. After I get a message from a client complaining about content. It's just like junk snail mail - you don't always throw it away just because the envelope looks like the mail inside may be an unrequested commercial advertisement. --- John Johnson - System Administrator; Sirius Systems Group jjohn@sirinet.net KJ5AA (580) 355-6436 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 00:11:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA16787 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:19:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2I4a2f02699 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:36:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I4a2O02696 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:36:02 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA16753 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:18:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I4S3O02210; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:28:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I4RDO02141 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:27:13 -0500 Received: from loki (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA16416 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:10:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from bigfoot.jmrtech.com ([216.231.46.95] ident=user) by loki with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18v8SS-0003f2-00 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:12:12 -0800 Received: from dhcp-219 ([2.0.0.219] helo=othala) by bigfoot.jmrtech.com with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #2) id 18v8SR-00009P-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:12:11 -0800 From: "John Rumpelein" To: Subject: RE: [Asrg] A method to eliminate spam Message-ID: <007101c2ed04$90c273b0$db000002@othala> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 In-Reply-To: <200303172255.h2HMtRVG005818@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h2I4RDO02144 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:12:18 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Valdis, > > It is already more or less required that organizations buy > a CA-issued > > SSL cert to operate a web site dealing in credit card transactions. > > Now, is that *legally* required, or is that simply the guys > at Visa and Mastercard saying "We won't clear transactions > for you unless you...." > > I believe it to be the latter. Actually, I'm not sure it is either of these. But people with a brain will not use an e-commerce site which is not using encryption, and the vendor is (theoretically at least) liable for negligence if someone manages to intercept the credit card info because it was sent in the clear. I say "theoretically" because 1) it seems more likely that credit cards are stolen by server machines being broken into and 2) I've never heard of a lawsuit happening because of this. > > Maybe it is not so farfetched that they should do this (or > maybe use > > the same cert) to also operate a mail server? > > Hmm.. if AOL and Hotmail and Yahoo were to insist on it, it > might have a snowball's chance of flying. The big question > is whether there's enough supply of SSL accelerator cards, > and if certs were economically feasible. The question of CPU load is interesting. I'm not sure how much trouble this would cause for anyone except the largest ISPs. Arguably it may decrease the load on servers, since many (most? all? ;) spammers sending mail these days would not be able to send mail at all under this scheme. I am aware that some MTAs have support for this sort of thing currently, but I have to confess ignorance of how it is actually implemented... this is something I should read up on. > Remember there's a lot of .com's and .org's that are 1 or 2 > boxes in a colo, or a box or two in a closet in somebody's > basement (literally half my personal mail goes to places that > are at the skinny end of an ADSL or cable modem). If you can > think of a way to deploy this without bankrupting those > places (they'd not need an SSL card for 100 smtp-over-ssl a > day, but a full-blown .COM cert may put their budget over the > edge). Any ideas? CA-issued SSL certs are around $100/yr. Little guys like this could get around the requirement by relaying mail through their ISP, maybe (who could have a list of allowed relays by IP). If an ISP can't afford $100/yr for an SSL cert, they have bigger problems. (Most ISPs will have one already for doing secure HTTP anyway.) Remember, I'm talking about requiring an SSL cert to *initiate* an SMTP session; you could still receive mail without one. -J _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 00:15:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA18433 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:15:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2I5Wd206591 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:32:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I5WcO06588 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:32:38 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA18430 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:15:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I5R6O06427; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:27:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I5R0O06412 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:27:00 -0500 Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id AAA18360 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:09:46 -0500 (EST) From: meor@mail.SoftHome.net Received: (qmail 7841 invoked by uid 417); 18 Mar 2003 05:11:59 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 18 Mar 2003 05:11:59 -0000 Received: from Main.mail.SoftHome.net ([24.118.229.120]) (AUTH: LOGIN meor@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 22:11:59 -0700 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030317231031.00b396d0@mail.SoftHome.net> X-Sender: meor@mail.SoftHome.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] A method to eliminate spam In-Reply-To: <16768.1047960046@monkeys.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:12:07 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >... after which the mose astute portion of the spammer community figures >out that they will increase their odds of delivery dramatically, simply >by sending out their spams with the forged envelope sender address of >. No, you are wrong. Digital signatures are used to assert identity. Digital signatures are verifiable and unforgable. >Except for the trusted ones... or anybody masquerading as trusted one. Digital signatures... please review my overview. http://meor.xwarzone.com/overview.htm _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 00:17:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA18457 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:17:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2I5YAm06659 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:34:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I5YAO06656 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:34:10 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA18452 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:16:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I5T2O06479; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:29:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I5S4O06452 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:28:04 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA18368 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:10:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2I5D2xu015236 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 22:13:02 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303180513.h2I5D2xu015236@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] A method to eliminate spam References: <200303180419.h2I4J0qD003272@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 22:13:02 -0700 (MST) > From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu >... > (And yes, I have a listserv box that cranks about 500K msgs/day, and it will > do SSL with a self-signed cert if the other end says STARTTLS. Not many > sites do.) I think I'e seen sendmail Received headers saying the SMTP clients of some spammers agree to STARTTLS when sending to my SMTP server. I've no idea if they're using self-signed or commercial certs. In this case, I'm talking about "whack-a-mole" spammers instead of big outfits that are senders of unsolicted bulk mail and that might be expected to use commercial certs such as Verisign. Please consider the implications if they are using commercial certs. Please note there is no reason except cost that they aren't using commercial certs. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 00:21:47 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA18647 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:21:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2I5cUa07570 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:38:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I5cUO07567 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:38:30 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA18643 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:21:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I5Y2O06646; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:34:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I5XEO06620 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:33:14 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA18447 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:16:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18v4h4-00040o-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:11:02 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Content versus conversation In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 17 Mar 2003 22:57:20 CST." Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:11:02 -0500 John Johnson wrote: > > The problem with spam is not the content, but the conversation. > > No, I disagree. I perceive the content to be spam, That's *your* decision, and as such, should be outside of the scope of this group. That's what the rest of my message was trying to explain. I had hoped people would read past the firsdt sentence... > much > in thw way tools like SpamAssasin and Vipul's Razor judge > the *content* in an automated fashion. Or, an ISP > client. They could care less about the "envelope". > They care that the content is objectionable. I think you missed my point. You're judging that the conversation is unacceptable based on it's content. If the content filters worked perfectly, then they would filter out (for example) posts on a mailing list from people telling you they didn't like you, or your mother. They would filter out posts from your best friend who occasionally sends you an angry message. Content filters can't do that, and shouldn't. You occasionally *do* care to receive inappropriate content, because in the right context, it's OK. Offers of sex for money from unwanted strangers is spam. A message from your wife sending you email at work saying "hurry home, I'm ovulating!" contains a similar content, but your response will be significantly different. The only reason you're using content filters to delete spam is because the methods to stop the conversation from the spammer aren't working well enough. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 00:27:52 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA18928 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:27:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2I5iZq07875 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:44:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I5iZO07872 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:44:35 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA18923 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:27:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I5b2O06816; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:37:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I5arO06756 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:36:53 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA18597 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:19:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18v4ka-000412-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:14:40 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Rant: [Asrg] digital nonsense In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:12:07 CST." <5.1.0.14.0.20030317231031.00b396d0@mail.SoftHome.net> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:14:40 -0500 meor@mail.SoftHome.net wrote: > No, you are wrong. Digital signatures are used to assert > identity. Digital signatures are verifiable and unforgable. Digital signatures mean that software you didn't write performed a mathematical operation you didn't understand, and produced output you can't verify. (Yes, I would describe myself that way, too.) Even if you believed them, you still have no idea what they mean. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 00:31:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA19040 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:31:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2I5mS207999 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:48:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I5mSO07996 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:48:28 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA19037 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:31:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I5f4O07721; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:41:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I5edO07674 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:40:39 -0500 Received: from backbone.midwestcs.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA18693 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:23:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from footbone.midwestcs.com ([206.222.212.237] helo=midwestcs.com) by backbone.midwestcs.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18v9bQ-0002Oc-00 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:25:32 -0600 To: asrg@ietf.org (IRTF Anti-Spam Research Group) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Per domain blacklists References: <200303171753.59571@grx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: wayne In-Reply-To: <200303171753.59571@grx> Message-ID: Lines: 55 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanner: exiscan *18v9bQ-0002Oc-00*Q5HzsDmmG0s* () Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 17 Mar 2003 23:25:31 -0600 In <200303171753.59571@grx> David Walker writes: > My scheme for improving smtp and reducing abusive spams that contain fake > headers basically amounts to a per domain blacklist implemented in DNS. Variations of these two solutions have been discussed extensively on this mailing list. See: https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg00001.html RMX records (Yes, this was the very first message to this mailing list) https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg00048.html domain specific DNS blacklists (or whitelists) https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg00686.html pros and cons of RMX (Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world) Summary: 1) DNS currently has certain security flaws that allow people to spoof it and therefore let spammers get around these systems. IMHO, this is more of a theoretical concern that a practical one. Spammers haven't used these security flaws to spoof other DNSBLs, and that would be a much bigger payoff for them. 2) Many people, especially those that travel a lot, like to be able to "forge" email headers and such so that they can send email from anywhere and make it look like it is coming from their home system. IMHO, there are better solutions to this kind of problem, such as SMTP AUTH or SMTP TLS, but there are a lot of people out there that are "forging" email for legitimate reasons. 3) Checking the SMTP HELO and MAIL FROM domain information is only mildly useful. End users generally don't see this envelope information, and spammers can simply switch to RFC "MUST" deliver domains such as the local host or <>. 4) Checking the mail from: header would break a lot of things like mailing lists. I think that per domain blacklists can be very easily implemented, as I demonstrated in the third post I mentioned above. I am not, however, convince that it would hinder spammers more than it would hinder legitimate email users. -wayne _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 00:35:58 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA19281 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:35:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2I5qfC08133 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:52:41 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I5qfO08130 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:52:41 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA19245 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:35:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I5h3O07817; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:43:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I5gvO07802 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:42:57 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA18871 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:25:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from sputnik (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h2I5RtSN008995 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 06:27:55 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sputnik.mobil.danisch.de (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-8) id h2I5RTBp006490 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 06:27:29 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] A method to eliminate spam Message-ID: <20030318052728.GA6405@danisch.de> References: <200303180419.h2I4J0qD003272@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <200303180513.h2I5D2xu015236@calcite.rhyolite.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200303180513.h2I5D2xu015236@calcite.rhyolite.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 21:27:28 -0800 On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 10:13:02PM -0700, Vernon Schryver wrote: > Please note there is no reason except cost that they aren't using > commercial certs. On the contrary. If a spammer used a commercial cert, this cert could be tracked back to the senders identity, and that's what the spammer hates like the devil hates holy water. And a commercial certificate contains informations the spammer cannot arbitrarily change. So these certs could very easily be blacklisted. That's also something the spammer fears. Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 00:51:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA19742 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:51:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2I68It09532 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 01:08:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I68IO09529 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 01:08:18 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA19697 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:51:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I607O08447; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 01:00:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I5x5O08371 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:59:05 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA19392 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:41:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from rmf19 (h00055df0474a.ne.client2.attbi.com[65.96.217.174]) by rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (rwcrmhc51) with SMTP id <2003031805440205100sgf7ne>; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 05:44:02 +0000 From: To: "'Alan DeKok'" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] Content versus conversation Keywords: asrg;filename=20030318-002104-984.mht;x-sender=asrg-admin@ietf.org;List-ID=Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF asrg.ietf.org Message-ID: <01d301c2ed11$6209edc0$66e237c0@rmf19> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h2I5x5O08372 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:44:01 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Very good point and consistent with my approach of managing my own exposure. We should separate any discussion of content into a legacy hack category -- what do you do after your one true name is revealed. Sort of like firewalls for naïve systems that predate the awareness of the Internet. We can then focus on managing our exposure and messaging without having to second guess the intent of a message -- a task that should be left to poets and philosophers and sophomores. -----Original Message----- From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alan DeKok Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 18:36 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] Content versus conversation As a non-US resident, I won't get into U.S. laws. I would say, though, that content filtering (which may be useful1 on an individual level) should be outside of the scope of this group. The problem with spam is not the content, but the conversation. Spam is unwanted conversation, not unwanted content. That alone means that any recipient-based filtering scheme will never be a solution to the spam problem. Those methods may help individuals deal with their spam problem, but they will never help the network deal with it. As conversation and not content, spam is like getting flowers from a stalker. It's nice in a normal relationship, but in the context of stalking, it's creepy and often illegal. The idea of "free speech" similarly relates to content, not to conversation. Anyone is free to say anything they want, but if they follow me around and yell in my ear, it's harassment. On the other extreme, if every day I was receiving 100,000 legitimate offers to give me $10, I probably wouldn't treat them as spam. (And I wouldn't be on this list.) Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 00:51:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA19755 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:51:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2I68MW09548 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 01:08:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I68MO09545 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 01:08:22 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA19701 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:51:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I614O08517; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 01:01:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I5xrO08391 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:59:53 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA19410 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:42:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from rmf19 (h00055df0474a.ne.client2.attbi.com[65.96.217.174]) by rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (rwcrmhc52) with SMTP id <2003031805445105200ef1gne>; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 05:44:51 +0000 From: To: "'John Johnson'" , "'Alan DeKok'" Cc: Subject: RE: [Asrg] Content versus conversation Keywords: asrg;filename=20030318-000006-671.mht;x-sender=asrg-admin@ietf.org;List-ID=Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF asrg.ietf.org Message-ID: <01d401c2ed11$7ed83240$66e237c0@rmf19> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:44:48 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Presume that all email traffic is encrypted and you can't read the content ... -----Original Message----- From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John Johnson Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 23:57 To: Alan DeKok Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Content versus conversation > The problem with spam is not the content, but the conversation. No, I disagree. I perceive the content to be spam, much in thw way tools like SpamAssasin and Vipul's Razor judge the *content* in an automated fashion. Or, an ISP client. They could care less about the "envelope". They care that the content is objectionable. Based upon the track records of senders of objectionable material, I can decide to all out ban their connections to my mail server. After I get a message from a client complaining about content. It's just like junk snail mail - you don't always throw it away just because the envelope looks like the mail inside may be an unrequested commercial advertisement. --- John Johnson - System Administrator; Sirius Systems Group jjohn@sirinet.net KJ5AA (580) 355-6436 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 01:31:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA20424 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 01:31:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2I6mGi11315 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 01:48:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I6mGO11312 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 01:48:16 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA20399 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 01:31:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I6bOO10895; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 01:37:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I6axO10277 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 01:36:59 -0500 Received: from mail.sirinet.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA20221 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 01:19:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (jjohn@localhost) by mail.sirinet.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2I6Lsak018261; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:21:54 -0600 From: John Johnson To: asrg@bobf.frankston.com cc: "'Alan DeKok'" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] Content versus conversation In-Reply-To: <01d401c2ed11$7ed83240$66e237c0@rmf19> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:21:54 -0600 (CST) On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 asrg@bobf.frankston.com wrote: > Presume that all email traffic is encrypted and you can't read the > content ... Am I to also assume the recipient has no means to decrypt it? I have seen obfuscated spam, but I have never seen encrypted spam. But I do get your point. Any fix of the situation should be flexible enough to handle situations outside of simple content matches. I was just pointing out that content matches of a human nature generate the complaints. To try to divorce content from the definition of spam is like receiving an empty envelope in snail mail. No time wasted, nothing to read. --- John Johnson - System Administrator; Sirius Systems Group jjohn@sirinet.net KJ5AA (580) 355-6436 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 01:41:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA20697 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 01:41:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2I6wQq11577 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 01:58:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I6wPO11574 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 01:58:25 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA20690 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 01:41:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I6l3O11285; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 01:47:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I6kmO11269 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 01:46:48 -0500 Received: from mail.sirinet.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA20395 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 01:29:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (jjohn@localhost) by mail.sirinet.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2I6Vgx0001127; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:31:43 -0600 From: John Johnson To: Hadmut Danisch cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] A method to eliminate spam In-Reply-To: <20030318052728.GA6405@danisch.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:31:42 -0600 (CST) On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, Hadmut Danisch wrote: > If a spammer used a commercial cert, this cert could be tracked > back to the senders identity, and that's what the spammer hates > like the devil hates holy water. Thats the truth. With so much work to forge headers, set up return DNS for 127.0.0.x, and using anonymous proxies, these things hate the light. That appears to be a good challenge, make senders authenticated in a trackable, nonreputable fashion. --- John Johnson - System Administrator; Sirius Systems Group jjohn@sirinet.net KJ5AA (580) 355-6436 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 01:50:12 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA20838 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 01:50:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2I76vx15237 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 02:06:57 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I76uO15234 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 02:06:56 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA20833 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 01:49:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I6tBO11480; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 01:55:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I6sdO11451 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 01:54:39 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA20568 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 01:37:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from rmf19 (h00055df0474a.ne.client2.attbi.com[65.96.217.174]) by rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (rwcrmhc53) with SMTP id <20030318063935053005vutte>; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 06:39:36 +0000 From: To: "'Kee Hinckley'" , Cc: Subject: RE: [Asrg] Spam cannot be solved at the source Keywords: asrg;filename=20030318-012707-781.mht;x-sender=products@somewhere.com Message-ID: <01ec01c2ed19$2468f9e0$66e237c0@rmf19> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 01:39:35 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Not if the addresses only work once or in the appropriate context. These are not names, they are capabilities. (I'll try to write more tomorrow) -----Original Message----- From: Kee Hinckley [mailto:products@somewhere.com] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 23:57 To: asrg@bobf.frankston.com Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam cannot be solved at the source At 5:25 PM -0500 3/17/03, wrote: >Rather than email addresses we would have access tokens or >capabilities that we can manage. The Keep in mind that while this gives the user control, it gives the owner of the mail server hives. Unless the costs significantly change the volume of email simply increases dramatically as the spammers try and figure out which of the many addresses you have published might be willing to receive their email. Sure, *you* don't get them--but that doesn't mean the traffic isn't there. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 01:57:07 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA21008 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 01:57:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2I7DqX22786 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 02:13:52 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I7DpO22783 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 02:13:51 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA20999 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 01:56:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I766O14424; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 02:06:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I75LO13829 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 02:05:21 -0500 Received: from plaidworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA20785 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 01:48:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.8/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h2I6o1ZQ002172; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 22:50:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Thoughts so far Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: To: "John Rumpelein" From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <007301c2ed04$90ff7cb0$db000002@othala> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 22:50:01 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Monday, March 17, 2003, at 08:12 PM, John Rumpelein wrote: > I live in Washington State, where we have already passed the > legislation you > propose. I can tell you, unfortunately, that I don't receive any less > spam > than you do. We can theoretically pursue lawsuits against spammers in > small > claims court to the tune of $500 per offense, but I have not heard of > one > single spammer (not one) who has actually been forced to pay under > this law. it's a problem of jurisdiction. Washington is simply too small. To me, it has to be national legislation to be useful, for that very reason: the chance of both you and the spammer being in washington jurisdiction is tiny, and even if you get washington small claims to issue a judgement, collection is problematic. But with a national law, we can do two things: we can finally stop the argument about whether spam is legal or not (yes, I know about trespass and other hacks, they're hacks, like getting someone for driving without a license when they ran over someone becuase manslaughter isn't provable), and give the national ISPs a good hook to go after the domestic spammers. But it also does something else: it sets an example and model legislation that the US can then use to influence other countries to adopt. Eventually, I see the spam issue as one that's resolved internationally in a way similar to the way copyright has been, but someone has to start the process and to me, that means starting at home. it's hard to argue with a straight face that Korea or china needs to fix their spam problem if we aren't dealing with ours here. > One questions the usefulness of a legal solution to the problem, and > even > whether the court system is designed to handle this volume of > lawsuits. (Do > we need spammers clogging up our court system also?) > I don't think there need be a huge number of small lawsuits, although there will be some. I think the big thing is enabling the big ISPs and the justice department to deal with this on a criminal basis, and not on the civil suit basis they have to try now. some of the US spammers will likely move offshore, but others will move into other lines of business once the line is drawn in the sand, and until we get started cleaning up our own house, we have little hope of really making a dent on international spam. -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 02:00:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA21405 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 02:00:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2I7H2X23224 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 02:17:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I7H1O23221 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 02:17:01 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA21127 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 01:59:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I794O17005; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 02:09:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I78WO16818 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 02:08:32 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA20869 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 01:51:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2162594; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 01:53:31 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200303180419.h2I4J0qD003272@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> References: <003d01c2ecd6$41884000$db000002@othala> <200303172255.h2HMtRVG005818@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <200303180419.h2I4J0qD003272@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] A method to eliminate spam Cc: John Rumpelein , asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 01:46:53 -0500 At 11:18 PM -0500 3/17/03, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: >And how much do said certs prove? What verification does QuickCert do to >make sure that they're issuing a cert to an actually identified user? Basically they seem to do a credit check and make sure that the whois and contact information matches the organization information. I assume Phillip could address that more completely. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 02:09:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA00970 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 02:09:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2I7QOq23998 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 02:26:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I7QOO23995 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 02:26:24 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA00408 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 02:09:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I7J7O23300; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 02:19:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I7IKO23253 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 02:18:20 -0500 Received: from hotmail.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA22245 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 02:01:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:03:16 -0800 Received: from 138.88.62.101 by pv1fd.pav1.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 07:03:16 GMT X-Originating-IP: [138.88.62.101] From: "Doug Phillips" To: jmr@jmrtech.com, Asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Giving Public Notice .... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Mar 2003 07:03:16.0731 (UTC) FILETIME=[7331DCB0:01C2ED1C] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 02:03:16 -0500 I wasn't making an argument, just pointing out that (contrary to what was stated in the prior post) U.S. federal law specifically states that a message is not prevented from being considered binding just because no human ever sees it. It's also true that the E-Sign Act requires that the action of an electronic agent, to be covered by this provision, must be "legally attributable to the person to be bound." So (presumably) you would need to get the person at some point to agree to be bound by the actions of the agent. Once that happens, the agent can bind without further human participation. > >I'm no lawyer, but it is hard to understand how a message which no > >human will ever see could be considered binding on the people who > >operate the > company. > > Actually, the federal E-Sign Act (enacted in 2000) provides > that a contract > may not be denied legal effect because it was created by one or more > electronic agents (computer programs designed to act > independently without > contemporaneous human participation). The point is not whether or not a "contract" can be in electronic form (I agree this is possible) but whether two people can enter into a contract when only one of them is aware of its existence. The answer, I think, is no. Your argument, if I understand it correctly, is that a mail server can enter into legal agreements on its owner's behalf without his prior knowledge. This seems... problematic. -J _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 02:13:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA02330 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 02:13:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2I7UKX24413 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 02:30:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I7UJO24410 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 02:30:19 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA02271 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 02:13:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I7M2O23853; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 02:22:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I7LAO23443 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 02:21:10 -0500 Received: from maillist.grax.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA25153 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 02:03:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (grax_web1 [127.0.0.1]) by maillist.grax.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF8392C5D5; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 21:05:58 -0600 (CST) From: David Walker Reply-To: asrg@ietf.org Organization: Vorteon, LLC To: wayne , asrg@ietf.org (IRTF Anti-Spam Research Group) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Per domain blacklists User-Agent: KMail/1.5 References: <200303171753.59571@grx> In-Reply-To: X-Hockey: Colorado Avalanche MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200303180108.30075@grx> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 01:08:30 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks for catching me up. I am new to the list. Hopefully I don't retread too much. Parts of this are re-hash. The ideas I think are "new" are in points 3 and 4. 1. As you mentioned, more of a theoretical concern. This isn't a security system per se. 2. DNS blacklists only prevent forging from domains that have it configured, so those that "legitimately" forge email headers may continue to do so as long as their domain's administrator allows it either by not configuring DNS or by whitelisting *. At its worst, whitelisting the entire internet is the same as what we have today. At its best, whitelisting only those servers that send mail from your domain, it is a significant improvement. Travelers should use other solutions such as reply-to headers, VPN connections, SMTP after POP or SMTP authentication with their home servers. Although I do feel that allowing just anyone to forge headers because it is convenient is very bad form. 3. Mail users should be seeing this information. Some already do see it via the "on behalf of" message and "SENDER" or "X-SENDER" headers. In my mail server I have exposed the envelope from and envelope to addresses and found it quite useful in rulemaking and the like. In my mail server I add special warnings to messages sent with "must deliver" rules. It wouldn't stop the message from being delivered but it would make it more difficult to use SMTP frailties to impersonate users or the various kinds of fraud as seen in spam messages. 4. The check on the "from" header should be optional and/or non-fatal and and a "from" header that differs from the "mail from" envelope sender should be noted and visible to the user. I believe that with my additions that no user would see reduced functionality except for those that want to send messages with a return address of a domain they are not in charge of. My biggest concerns are with the rampant fraudulent headers that are out there. If a company is mailing from their own domain name at least they are taking a minimum amount of responsibility and if you don't like it you can block mail from their domain. On Monday 17 March 2003 11:25 pm, wayne wrote: > In <200303171753.59571@grx> David Walker writes: > > My scheme for improving smtp and reducing abusive spams that contain fake > > headers basically amounts to a per domain blacklist implemented in DNS. > > Variations of these two solutions have been discussed extensively on > this mailing list. > > See: > > https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg00001.htm >l RMX records > (Yes, this was the very first message to this mailing list) > > https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg00048.htm >l domain specific DNS blacklists (or whitelists) > > https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg00686.htm >l pros and cons of RMX (Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world) > > > Summary: > > 1) DNS currently has certain security flaws that allow people to spoof > it and therefore let spammers get around these systems. > > IMHO, this is more of a theoretical concern that a practical one. > Spammers haven't used these security flaws to spoof other DNSBLs, > and that would be a much bigger payoff for them. > > 2) Many people, especially those that travel a lot, like to be able to > "forge" email headers and such so that they can send email from > anywhere and make it look like it is coming from their home system. > > IMHO, there are better solutions to this kind of problem, such as > SMTP AUTH or SMTP TLS, but there are a lot of people out there that > are "forging" email for legitimate reasons. > > 3) Checking the SMTP HELO and MAIL FROM domain information is only > mildly useful. End users generally don't see this envelope > information, and spammers can simply switch to RFC "MUST" deliver > domains such as the local host or <>. > > 4) Checking the mail from: header would break a lot of things like > mailing lists. > > > I think that per domain blacklists can be very easily implemented, as > I demonstrated in the third post I mentioned above. I am not, > however, convince that it would hinder spammers more than it would > hinder legitimate email users. > > > -wayne _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 02:20:25 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA03147 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 02:20:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2I7bBv24913 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 02:37:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I7bAO24902 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 02:37:10 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA03096 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 02:19:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I7S2O24290; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 02:28:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I7R3O24260 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 02:27:03 -0500 Received: from hotmail.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA01107 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 02:09:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:11:59 -0800 Received: from 138.88.62.101 by pv1fd.pav1.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 07:11:59 GMT X-Originating-IP: [138.88.62.101] From: "Doug Phillips" To: hadmut@danisch.de Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Giving Public Notice .... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Mar 2003 07:11:59.0706 (UTC) FILETIME=[AAE983A0:01C2ED1D] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 02:11:59 -0500 The E-Sign Act is U.S. federal law, so it applies to the United States. But there are also laws in other countries that may be relevant. For example, the European Union has issued a directive on electronic signatures, and at least some of the member states have implemented it. I don't know what they've all done about electronic agents, but as the law in this area evolves, it likely to me that many if not most countries will allow electronic agents to form binding contracts as long as at some point in the process the person to be bound has agreed to let the agent bind him or her. > Actually, the federal E-Sign Act (enacted in 2000) provides that a contract > may not be denied legal effect because it was created by one or more > electronic agents (computer programs designed to act independently without > contemporaneous human participation). > Nice. To which countries does this act apply to? Do both the sender and recipient have to be covered by that act? What if one part the of communcation is in a different legislation? Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 02:55:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA03761 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 02:55:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2I8C3c27623 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 03:12:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I8C3O27620 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 03:12:03 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA03758 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 02:54:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I7wJO26330; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 02:58:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I7v1O26309 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 02:57:01 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA03579 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 02:39:43 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2I7ftqD005065; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 02:41:55 -0500 Message-Id: <200303180741.h2I7ftqD005065@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.2 03/12/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: asrg@ietf.org Cc: wayne Subject: Re: [Asrg] Per domain blacklists In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 18 Mar 2003 01:08:30 CST." <200303180108.30075@grx> References: <200303171753.59571@grx> <200303180108.30075@grx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_-1179637950P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 02:41:55 -0500 --==_Exmh_-1179637950P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 01:08:30 CST, David Walker said: > 4. The check on the "from" header should be optional and/or non-fatal and an d > a "from" header that differs from the "mail from" envelope sender should be > noted and visible to the user. Note well - this "check" will trip for *EVERY SINGLE* posting from a properly configured mailing list (as the From: will be either the list or the person who posted to the list, but 'mail from' will point at the bounce-collection address like it's supposed to) For that matter, this message left my laptop with mismatched From: and MAIL FROM. --==_Exmh_-1179637950P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+ds3DcC3lWbTT17ARAs1ZAJ9vzCE5WXjAptqhkYvggOwSXV84xQCfSbDe iNVMsAtqNRdE84UMLZ7+jR8= =rXSd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_-1179637950P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 03:21:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA04145 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 03:21:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2I8cXb29075 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 03:38:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I8cWO29072 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 03:38:32 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA04128 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 03:21:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I8K7O27842; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 03:20:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I8JZO27792 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 03:19:35 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA03866 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 03:02:16 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2I84TqD005210; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 03:04:29 -0500 Message-Id: <200303180804.h2I84TqD005210@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.2 03/12/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: Kee Hinckley Cc: John Rumpelein , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] A method to eliminate spam In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 18 Mar 2003 01:46:53 EST." References: <003d01c2ecd6$41884000$db000002@othala> <200303172255.h2HMtRVG005818@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <200303180419.h2I4J0qD003272@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_-1172574552P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 03:04:28 -0500 --==_Exmh_-1172574552P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 01:46:53 EST, Kee Hinckley said: > At 11:18 PM -0500 3/17/03, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > >And how much do said certs prove? What verification does QuickCert do to > >make sure that they're issuing a cert to an actually identified user? > > Basically they seem to do a credit check and make sure that the whois > and contact information matches the organization information. I > assume Phillip could address that more completely. How proof is the system against identity theft? There's 50M .coms, a large portion of them are probably vanity domains - JoeRandom.com, the Whois probably gives enough info to start, if you can score an SSN to match, you could probably get a cert. Might even be able to do it without the SSN. I admit ignorance of this stuff - does the $100-and-under segment at least involve a phone callback or snail-mail exchange (both of which go a long way to nailing down physical location and all that). If I have to answer the phone at the number listed in the 'whois' for the domain, that raises the stakes a lot, because there's a lot more paper trail then (telcos and real estate rental offices both dislike people who skip out.. ;) --==_Exmh_-1172574552P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+dtMMcC3lWbTT17ARAlthAJ41UexwM1BHupXrCBHJCUVl1SjBwgCgu3A0 bju/ILkV5D48hMGPuXLXBKU= =Qzuq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_-1172574552P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 03:53:07 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA04484 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 03:53:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2I99u231061 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 04:09:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I99tO31058 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 04:09:55 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA04477 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 03:52:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I8oMO29360; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 03:50:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I8mcO29288 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 03:48:39 -0500 Received: from segfault.monkeys.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA04249 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 03:31:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by segfault.monkeys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDB2541F73 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:33:25 -0800 (PST) To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] A method to eliminate spam In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:12:07 -0600. <5.1.0.14.0.20030317231031.00b396d0@mail.SoftHome.net> Message-ID: <18417.1047976405@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:33:25 -0800 In message <5.1.0.14.0.20030317231031.00b396d0@mail.SoftHome.net>, meor@mail.SoftHome.net wrote: > >>... after which the mose astute portion of the spammer community figures >>out that they will increase their odds of delivery dramatically, simply >>by sending out their spams with the forged envelope sender address of >>. > >No, you are wrong. Digital signatures are used to assert >identity. Digital signatures are verifiable and unforgable. Hint: CNN does not use digital signatures to identify any of its outgoing mail at the present time. Unless you have a plan to change that, your scheme isn't worth the electrons it is written on. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 03:59:18 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA04540 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 03:59:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2I9G7m31284 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 04:16:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I9G6O31281 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 04:16:06 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA04532 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 03:58:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I92GO30047; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 04:02:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I91lO29758 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 04:01:47 -0500 Received: from loki (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA04423 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 03:44:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from bigfoot.jmrtech.com ([216.231.46.95] ident=user) by loki with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18vCk6-0004Sq-00; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:46:42 -0800 Received: from dhcp-219 ([2.0.0.219] helo=othala) by bigfoot.jmrtech.com with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #2) id 18vCk2-0000ox-00; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:46:38 -0800 From: "John Rumpelein" To: , "'Kee Hinckley'" Cc: Subject: RE: [Asrg] A method to eliminate spam Message-ID: <011801c2ed2a$e8a63050$db000002@othala> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 In-Reply-To: <200303180804.h2I84TqD005210@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h2I91lO29759 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:46:46 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Valdis, [CA issued SSL certs] > How proof is the system against identity theft? There's 50M > .coms, a large portion of them are probably vanity domains - > JoeRandom.com, the Whois probably gives enough info to start, > if you can score an SSN to match, you could probably get a > cert. Might even be able to do it without the SSN. Certificates are generally not issued to individuals, and I am not sure what kind of hoops you have to jump through to do that. I have only done it for corporations, and I can tell you what is involved there. The biggest requirement is paperwork on the establishment of the corp. as a legal entity -- generally the Certificate of Incorporation issued by the state that the corp. is set up in. Second you need to have an agreement signed by an authorized person at the company (these, granted, could be faked, but now you're committing fraud) saying that they are requesting an SSL cert on behalf of the company. Third, of course, is the actual payment, which creates a paper trail of its own. I'm not saying this is a perfect solution. There are some companies out there that would go through all this and then spam people anyway. But at least then we'd know exactly who they were and where to find them. -J _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 04:08:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA04721 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 04:08:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2I9PR031602 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 04:25:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I9PRO31599 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 04:25:27 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA04712 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 04:08:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I9B4O31141; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 04:11:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I9AOO31102 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 04:10:24 -0500 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA04482 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 03:53:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 18vCsL-0002u1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 08:55:13 +0000 In-Reply-To: <20030317192502.GA1792@danisch.de> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Giving Public Notice .... To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.4.11] Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 08:55:13 +0000 > On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 12:06:10PM -0700, Art Pollard wrote: > > > > One thing that would probably go a long way for many of the state > anti-spam > > laws would be a way that one could give public notice that the people > at a > > company / organization / ISP do or do not want spam. > > > This is only good if such a flag contains some entropy, > i.e. there are some flags set to "I want" and some to "I don't want". > > Do you really believe that anyone would set the flag to > "I want spam"? > Strangely, I get occasional complaints from my users saying things like "Why aren't you sending me free offers etc." Also, end users may not trust the classification (spam/not spam) made at some upstream point and therefore may choose to publish a "wide-open" consent. > > And I really don't believe that a significant number of spam > senders will care about such a flag. > No, probably not, but the suggestion was that this would support legislation, which seems reasonable. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 04:22:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA04864 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 04:22:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2I9dWn00434 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 04:39:32 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I9dWO00431 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 04:39:32 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA04847 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 04:22:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I9Q6O31649; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 04:26:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I9PWO31615 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 04:25:32 -0500 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA04716 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 04:08:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 18vD74-0004nO-00; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 09:10:26 +0000 In-Reply-To: <20030318001035.GA2309@danisch.de> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Giving Public Notice .... To: "Hadmut Danisch" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.4.11] Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 09:10:26 +0000 > On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 06:30:33PM -0500, Doug Phillips wrote: > > > > Actually, the federal E-Sign Act (enacted in 2000) provides that a > contract > > Nice. To which countries does this act apply to? > > Do both the sender and recipient have to be covered by > that act? > > What if one part the of communcation is in a different legislation? > If that different legislation is Spain, it's probably covered by articles 1262 of the Civil Code and 54 of the Commercial Code (but I am not a Spanish lawyer). Anyone know what's the status of this issue in the EU generally? WTO? GATT? -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 04:30:03 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA04978 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 04:30:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2I9kqw00703 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 04:46:52 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I9kqO00700 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 04:46:52 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA04975 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 04:29:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I9W2O31908; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 04:32:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I9VHO31876 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 04:31:17 -0500 Received: from loki (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA04783 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 04:13:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from bigfoot.jmrtech.com ([216.231.46.95] ident=user) by loki with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18vDCc-0004YK-00; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 01:16:11 -0800 Received: from dhcp-219 ([2.0.0.219] helo=othala) by bigfoot.jmrtech.com with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #2) id 18vDCb-0000tW-01; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 01:16:09 -0800 From: "John Rumpelein" To: "'Chuq Von Rospach'" Cc: Subject: RE: [Asrg] Thoughts so far Message-ID: <013501c2ed2f$0861fb00$db000002@othala> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h2I9VHO31877 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 01:16:17 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Chuq, > To me, it has to be national legislation to be useful, for that very > reason: the chance of both you and the spammer being in washington > jurisdiction is tiny, and even if you get washington small claims to > issue a judgement, collection is problematic. *Identification* is often problematic. How do you identify the individual responsible for sending you a piece of spam? This is a non-trivial problem. What happens when the person is in China? Do we ("we" meaning Americans) really want to try to subject the rest of the world to US laws? Sidestepping the issue of whether we can ethically and legally do that (note the furor the DMCA arrest of a Russian caused), I would argue we shouldn't even bother trying, because it is going to be ineffective. The idea of battling spam by criminalizing it seems a little bit to me like leaving all your doors and windows open and trying to prosecute everyone who steals things out of your house. Sure, you might catch them all. (I doubt it, but OK.) You might even get your stuff back. But you're going to spend all your time doing that, when surely you have better things to do. Why not lock the doors and windows? We can do this by requiring strict authentication. -J _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 04:40:50 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA05316 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 04:40:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2I9vda01064 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 04:57:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I9vdO01061 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 04:57:39 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA05274 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 04:40:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I9b4O32130; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 04:37:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2I9aiO32056 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 04:36:44 -0500 Received: from ciphertrust.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA04817 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 04:19:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.com with ESMTP ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 04:20:33 -0500 (EST) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 04:10:50 -0500 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)'" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Subject: [Asrg] Taxonomy of anti-spam systems version 2 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 04:10:50 -0500 After more thought and feeedback from some people on the list, here is a second draft of the taxonomy of anti-spam systems. The systems are classified into prevention, deterrence, and reaction approaches. 1. Spam Prevention Approaches - These systems aim to prevent the spread of spam messages. There are fail-open and fail-closed systems. Fail-open systems aim to detect unwanted messages; just as in intrusion detection, there are signature-based and anomaly detection-based schemes. I've marked them below as either [SB] or [AD]. Another useful view would be whether systems are implemented at the ingress vs. egress and MTA vs. MUA. a) Fail-Open (determine unwanted messages) i) Human determination (1) Collaborative filtering (i.e., razor) [SB] ii) System Determination (1) Who is it from? (Blacklists) [SB] (a) Blacklists (b) Reputation systems (2) What's in it? (Content Filtering) (a) Static lists [SB] (b) Learning methods [AD] (3) How was it sent? (a) Forged info? [AD] (i.e. reverse DNS, domain lookup, verify email address on calling server, verify message on sending server, reverse MX record) (b) Envelope characteristics; delivery path information [SB/AD] (c) Quantity? [AD] (i.e. DCC) b) Fail-Closed (determine wanted messages) i) Whitelists (1) Basic (2) Verified (a) Authenticated sender identity (b) Token supported (c) Disposable email addresses ii) Challenge/Response systems (1) Basic (2) Human verification (i.e. turing tests) iii) Consent Tokens (a priori consent) (1) Proof-of-work (i.e. hashcash) (2) Stamps (3) Payment upon misbehavior (a) Confirmed payment (i.e. Bonded Sender, Trusted Sender) (b) Pursue payment (i.e.Habeas) iv) Don't receive messages, just notification (i.e. IM2000) 2) Spam Deterrence Approaches - These systems aim to deter spamming activities. In most areas of life, deterrence is achieved by introducing the ability to identify and track wrongdoers. These systems can provide input to spam prevention systems. Also, these systems are useful with the presence of laws to prosecute the wrongdoers that are identified and tracked. a) Authentication b) Tracking c) Non-repudiation 3) Spam Reaction Approaches - These are the different approaches that can be taken upon receipt of a spam message. a) Accept b) Quarantine c) Reject d) Drop e) Label f) Charge g) Challenge h) Limit Rate i) Ingress ii) Egress i) Feedback _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 08:14:11 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA10254 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 08:14:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IDV4a13302 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 08:31:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IDV4O13299 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 08:31:04 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA10240 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 08:13:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IDEWO12697; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 08:14:32 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IDDvO12669 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 08:13:57 -0500 Received: from backbone.midwestcs.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA09860 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 07:56:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from footbone.midwestcs.com ([206.222.212.237] helo=midwestcs.com) by backbone.midwestcs.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18vGfx-0004EE-00 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 06:58:41 -0600 To: asrg@ietf.org (IRTF Anti-Spam Research Group) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Per domain blacklists References: <200303171753.59571@grx> <200303180108.30075@grx> <200303180741.h2I7ftqD005065@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: wayne In-Reply-To: <200303180741.h2I7ftqD005065@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: Lines: 16 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanner: exiscan *18vGfx-0004EE-00*QD.twrcFlng* () Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 18 Mar 2003 06:58:37 -0600 In <200303180741.h2I7ftqD005065@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu writes: > On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 01:08:30 CST, David Walker said: > > > 4. The check on the "from" header should be optional and/or non-fatal and > > Note well - this "check" will trip for *EVERY SINGLE* posting from a properly > configured mailing list Right. my point 4) was about the problems with mailing lists. As David said, this checking should be optional and/or non-fatal. If you are going to use this kind of system, it is very important to identify mailing lists and deal with them correctly. -wayne _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 09:18:04 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA11227 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 09:18:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IEYwT16795 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 09:34:58 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IEYwO16792 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 09:34:58 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA11223 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 09:17:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IEKTO16423; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 09:20:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IEJ8O16327 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 09:19:08 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA11103 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 09:01:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2163326; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 09:03:58 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: Chuq Von Rospach From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Thoughts so far Cc: "John Rumpelein" , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 08:52:04 -0500 At 10:50 PM -0800 3/17/03, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: >On Monday, March 17, 2003, at 08:12 PM, John Rumpelein wrote: > >>I live in Washington State, where we have already passed the legislation you >>propose. I can tell you, unfortunately, that I don't receive any less spam >>than you do. We can theoretically pursue lawsuits against spammers in small >>claims court to the tune of $500 per offense, but I have not heard of one >>single spammer (not one) who has actually been forced to pay under this law. > >it's a problem of jurisdiction. Washington is simply too small. Actually one of the speakers at the MIT Spam Conference described someone who actually did take half a dozen spammers to court on the basis of one of the state laws (either Washington's or one like it). The results sounded pretty similar to the big suits. If you could get them to court, you could find them guilty. If you found them guilty, they might have the money to pay. And when you were done you found that the return on your time was not worth the effort. The problem with spamming is not that there is no legal recourse. There is. The courts have held that spamming is equivalent to trespassing--it's an unauthorized use of your equipment. (Can anyone site a case in which the spammer won?) The legal problem is that the penalties are not great enough to make suits worthwhile. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 09:39:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA11605 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 09:39:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IEuU218273 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 09:56:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IEuUO18270 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 09:56:30 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA11583 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 09:39:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IEd5O17670; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 09:39:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IEcPO17645 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 09:38:25 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA11267 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 09:20:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2IEN9dm014693 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 07:23:09 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303181423.h2IEN9dm014693@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Content versus conversation References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 07:23:09 -0700 (MST) > From: John Johnson > > Presume that all email traffic is encrypted and you can't read the > > content ... > > Am I to also assume the recipient has no means to decrypt it? > I have seen obfuscated spam, but I have never seen encrypted > spam. If your SMTP server offers to do STARTTLS, then even if you and a few spammers don't have any certs or CAs in common, you could receive encrypted spam and never notice unless you look closely at logs or headers. I think I have. Perhaps this is a quibble of definitions, but perhaps not. Both STARTTLS and PGP or S/MIME involve encryption. It is not clear to me that which sort was intended by the other people. > But I do get your point. Any fix of the situation should be > flexible enough to handle situations outside of simple > content matches. I was just pointing out that content matches > of a human nature generate the complaints. To try to divorce > ... That is another example of why we need definitions as much or more than taxonomy and before talk of solutions. Some people define "content filtering" (or "matching") as looking for bad words. Others would have it cover fairly simple checksums of SMTP bodies like Vipul's Razor. Still others limit it reading and understanding. I need to go back and re-read Pual's new taxonomy, but I think it suffers from this problem. It's hard for me to see because I think I agree with most of his definitions and he has not used many the sloppy words. It's only uses that make no sense with your own definitions that stand out. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 09:50:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA11784 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 09:50:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IF7YQ19439 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:07:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IF7YO19436 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:07:34 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA11772 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 09:50:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IF0BO18477; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:00:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IEvtO18346 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 09:57:55 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id JAA11627 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 09:40:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 3664 invoked from network); 17 Mar 2003 14:39:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO startechgroup.co.uk) (10.2.100.157) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 17 Mar 2003 14:39:58 -0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed From: Matt Sergeant To: asrg@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Testing content filters Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:17:59 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit One thing the anti-virus people got right is the ability to test anti-virus engines by passing through a non-viral file that is by de-facto detected as a virus by the vendors engines. This file is called EICAR, and is a simple .COM executable that does nothing but trigger AV engines. In order to provide something similar for spam content filters, I created something similar for spam. We put support for this into the SpamAssassin project and notified some other creators of spam content filters. Unfortunately they all ignored us. I think this would be a good thing to support in content filters. We called this thing "GTUBE" (Generic Test for UBE), and you can find the email that should be stopped at http://spamassassin.planetmirror.com/dist/t/data/spam/gtube.eml (note the headers are abitrary - it is the long string in the body of the message that should be detected). The email is designed in such a way that it should not be munged by any gateways. I urge other vendors of anti-spam content filters to support this. It's trivial, but it gives users the power to test that their filter is working. I also think this would be something worth standardising through the IETF. Matt. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 09:53:54 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA11836 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 09:53:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IFAoL19661 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:10:50 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IFAnO19658 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:10:49 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA11829 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 09:53:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IF0HO18494; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:00:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IEvtO18344 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 09:57:55 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id JAA11625 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 09:40:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 3653 invoked from network); 17 Mar 2003 14:39:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO startechgroup.co.uk) (10.2.100.157) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 17 Mar 2003 14:39:58 -0000 Subject: Re: [Asrg] Thoughts so far Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: "'Chuq Von Rospach'" , To: "John Rumpelein" From: Matt Sergeant In-Reply-To: <013501c2ed2f$0861fb00$db000002@othala> Message-Id: <7EB228CE-5930-11D7-9A7B-0003939CB5D8@startechgroup.co.uk> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:58:04 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tuesday, Mar 18, 2003, at 09:16 Europe/London, John Rumpelein wrote: > The idea of battling spam by criminalizing it seems a little bit to me > like > leaving all your doors and windows open and trying to prosecute > everyone who > steals things out of your house. Sure, you might catch them all. (I > doubt > it, but OK.) You might even get your stuff back. But you're going to > spend > all your time doing that, when surely you have better things to do. > Why not > lock the doors and windows? We can do this by requiring strict > authentication. Every legal restriction requires a technical solution too - breaking into houses is illegal, but you don't leave your windows and doors open. But you wouldn't want them to make it *legal* to break into houses. The law is there as a deterrent, not as a perfect means of stopping the crime. Criminalising spam would have the effect of stopping the mainsleaze spammers, while giving you an extra weapon in your battle against the underground spammers. It would by no means stop spam, but then neither do any of the current workable solutions either. Matt. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 10:24:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA13745 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:24:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IFfTb21533 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:41:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IFfTO21530 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:41:29 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA13741 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:24:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IFWLO20382; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:32:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IFVxO20358 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:31:59 -0500 Received: from hotmail.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA13339 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:14:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 07:16:46 -0800 Received: from 63.118.24.242 by pv1fd.pav1.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:16:46 GMT X-Originating-IP: [63.118.24.242] From: "Doug Phillips" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Thoughts so far Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Mar 2003 15:16:46.0521 (UTC) FILETIME=[64014290:01C2ED61] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:16:46 -0500 I agree with Kee. The prospective recovery from suits against spammers is not high enough to make suits worthwhile--not only because the penalties are too low, but also because many individual spammers are judgment proof. In my view, this is why it would be helpful to have laws that could be enforced against vendors of software that circumvents anti-spam technology. ----Original Message Follows---- From: Kee Hinckley To: Chuq Von Rospach CC: "John Rumpelein" , Subject: Re: [Asrg] Thoughts so far Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 08:52:04 -0500 At 10:50 PM -0800 3/17/03, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: >On Monday, March 17, 2003, at 08:12 PM, John Rumpelein wrote: > >>I live in Washington State, where we have already passed the legislation >>you >>propose. I can tell you, unfortunately, that I don't receive any less >>spam >>than you do. We can theoretically pursue lawsuits against spammers in >>small >>claims court to the tune of $500 per offense, but I have not heard of one >>single spammer (not one) who has actually been forced to pay under this >>law. > >it's a problem of jurisdiction. Washington is simply too small. Actually one of the speakers at the MIT Spam Conference described someone who actually did take half a dozen spammers to court on the basis of one of the state laws (either Washington's or one like it). The results sounded pretty similar to the big suits. If you could get them to court, you could find them guilty. If you found them guilty, they might have the money to pay. And when you were done you found that the return on your time was not worth the effort. The problem with spamming is not that there is no legal recourse. There is. The courts have held that spamming is equivalent to trespassing--it's an unauthorized use of your equipment. (Can anyone site a case in which the spammer won?) The legal problem is that the penalties are not great enough to make suits worthwhile. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 10:39:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA14165 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:39:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IFucr22287 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:56:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IFucO22272 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:56:38 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA14153 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:39:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IFm6O21876; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:48:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IFlWO21785 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:47:32 -0500 Received: from oreo.couchpotato.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA13862 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:30:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 2206 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2003 15:32:19 -0000 Received: from david.couchpotato.net (green@208.147.134.100) by oreo.couchpotato.net with SMTP; 18 Mar 2003 15:32:19 -0000 Subject: RE: [Asrg] Thoughts so far From: David Green To: John Rumpelein Cc: "'Chuq Von Rospach'" , asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <013501c2ed2f$0861fb00$db000002@othala> References: <013501c2ed2f$0861fb00$db000002@othala> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-41aib1SWYgzso9BEHNoS" X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.8 Message-Id: <1048001539.8984.44.camel@david.couchpotato.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 18 Mar 2003 10:32:19 -0500 --=-41aib1SWYgzso9BEHNoS Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 2003-03-18 at 04:16, John Rumpelein wrote: > *Identification* is often problematic. How do you identify the individua= l > responsible for sending you a piece of spam? This is a non-trivial probl= em. If you're not talking about digital signatures, you need only identify the ISP IMO. The ISP can further sub-identify it's users if it so chooses, since only it knows who really sent the email. David Green --=-41aib1SWYgzso9BEHNoS Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQA+dzwCCi6CzkbyeRQRAlt9AJ4/1jY04WkVVhv1yoiV/yTVDJVFIwCbBLrQ B0JKz+V9/rEscmzyF6rFpxo= =5qf+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-41aib1SWYgzso9BEHNoS-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 10:39:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA14164 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:39:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IFuc222277 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:56:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IFucO22273 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:56:38 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA14155 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:39:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IFmDO21903; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:48:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IFlvO21835 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:47:57 -0500 Received: from toad.date.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA13878 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:30:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from date.com (unknown [216.130.219.81]) by toad.date.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A2521C36E2 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:32:44 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3E773C1C.A37966D7@date.com> From: Michael Ellis X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Thoughts so far References: <007301c2ed04$90ff7cb0$db000002@othala> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:32:44 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I live in Washington State, where we have already passed the legislation you > propose. I can tell you, unfortunately, that I don't receive any less spam > than you do. We can theoretically pursue lawsuits against spammers in small > claims court to the tune of $500 per offense, but I have not heard of one > single spammer (not one) who has actually been forced to pay under this law. > _ I've been studying the various states laws and I believe the reason that the Washington law looks strong but acts weak is that the spammers that you can find easily (and serve legally) are not falsifying headers, routers, email addresses,etc and therefore do not fall afoul of the laws. The ones that do, can't be found or can't be served. -- Michael Ellis Privacy Manager Date.com Phone (416) 306-0022 ext 620 Fax (416) 306-0023 Date.com - "The New Way To Date" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 10:45:47 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA14307 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:45:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IG2it22615 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:02:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IG2iO22612 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:02:44 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA14282 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:45:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IFt1O22208; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:55:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IFsiO22171 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:54:44 -0500 Received: from hotmail.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA14105 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:37:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 07:39:30 -0800 Received: from 63.118.24.242 by pv1fd.pav1.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:39:30 GMT X-Originating-IP: [63.118.24.242] From: "Doug Phillips" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Thoughts so far Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Mar 2003 15:39:30.0826 (UTC) FILETIME=[9131AEA0:01C2ED64] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:39:30 -0500 This is exactly right. Look at piracy. Laws alone don't work, but neither does copy-protection technology. The stongest approach to piracy is to back up copy-protection technology with anti-circumvention laws. When it comes to spam, the trick, at least under U.S. law, is to make sure the law won't be struck down as violating free speech rights. >Every legal restriction requires a technical solution too - breaking >into houses is illegal, but you don't leave your windows and doors >open. But you wouldn't want them to make it *legal* to break into houses. >The law is there as a deterrent, not as a perfect means of stopping the >crime. >Criminalising spam would have the effect of stopping the mainsleaze > >spammers, while giving you an extra weapon in your battle against the >underground spammers. It would by no means stop spam, but then neither do >any of the current workable solutions either. >Matt. _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 10:47:09 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA14440 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:47:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IG46l22751 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:04:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IG46O22748 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:04:06 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA14350 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:46:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IFs3O22141; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:54:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IFqaO22054 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:52:36 -0500 Received: from maillist.grax.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA14020 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:35:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (grax_web1 [127.0.0.1]) by maillist.grax.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 886A62C5D5 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 05:37:15 -0600 (CST) From: David Walker Reply-To: asrg@ietf.org Organization: Vorteon, LLC To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Per domain blacklists User-Agent: KMail/1.5 References: <200303171753.59571@grx> <200303180108.30075@grx> <200303180741.h2I7ftqD005065@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> In-Reply-To: <200303180741.h2I7ftqD005065@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Hockey: Colorado Avalanche MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200303180939.48152@grx> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 09:39:48 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In my way of thinking we shouldn't be checking the from header using the blacklist records. We should be checking the envelop from and making sure that the client displays "'envelope from' on behalf of 'from'" to their users. (I think this is already the behavior of Outlook.) That makes it hard to exploit the system for silent forging but easy to use with mailing lists. On Tuesday 18 March 2003 01:41 am, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 01:08:30 CST, David Walker said: > > 4. The check on the "from" header should be optional and/or non-fatal > > and an > > d > > > a "from" header that differs from the "mail from" envelope sender should > > be noted and visible to the user. > > Note well - this "check" will trip for *EVERY SINGLE* posting from a > properly configured mailing list (as the From: will be either the list or > the person who posted to the list, but 'mail from' will point at the > bounce-collection address like it's supposed to) > > For that matter, this message left my laptop with mismatched From: > and MAIL FROM. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 10:49:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA14740 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:49:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IG6U722920 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:06:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IG6UO22917 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:06:30 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA14716 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:49:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IFx4O22437; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:59:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IFwsO22390 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:58:54 -0500 Received: from oreo.couchpotato.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA14223 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:41:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 2249 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2003 15:43:38 -0000 Received: from david.couchpotato.net (green@208.147.134.100) by oreo.couchpotato.net with SMTP; 18 Mar 2003 15:43:38 -0000 From: David Green To: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-ee0wUO5ft5YmWDYoRC0N" X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.8 Message-Id: <1048002218.8984.53.camel@david.couchpotato.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: [Asrg] Domain-Authorized SMTP Mail Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 18 Mar 2003 10:43:38 -0500 --=-ee0wUO5ft5YmWDYoRC0N Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I posted this to the namedroppers list 1-Jun-2002. It describes a method of ensuring that only the owner of a domain can authorize the use of that domain for email purposes, without restricting those who do not wish to comply. This is the first step in authenticating email without the use of digital signatures. June 1, 2002 Domain-Authorized SMTP Mail Copyright Notice Copyright (C) David N. Green (2002). All Rights Reserved. Abstract This document describes when and how to specify Mail Transmitter (MT) resource records (RRs) in the Domain Name System (DNS), how to configure SMTP servers to query them effectively, and how to configure Mail User Agents (MUAs) to filter based on them. 1. Introduction Historically, Internet mail has been plagued by forgeries. This has become more problematic as the practice of sending Unsolicited Commericial Email (UCE) has gained popularity. The addition of MT RRs to DNS will solve the problem of forgery of domain, without placing undue burden on any Internet Service Provider. This allows the Internet Service Provider to begin the process of prevention of forgery of user. The use of MT RRs at any site is RECOMMENDED. The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119. 2. Mail Transmitter Resource Records =20 All hosts which are authorized transmitters of mail for a domain, including any authorized forwarders, SHOULD be designated as Mail=20 Transmitters through the use of an MT RR. 3. MT DNS queries and Authorized-By SMTP headers SMTP servers SHOULD remove any Authorized-By SMTP headers of incoming mail. They MAY be configurable to preserve Authorized-By headers on incoming mail from a set of trusted servers. SMTP servers SHOULD perform an MT DNS query on the domain of the From header. If the incoming mail was sent by a server returned in the query, the SMTP server SHOULD attach an Authorized-By header to the message, whose value is the hostname of the server performing the MT authorization. 4. Mail User Agent handling of Authorized-By headers Mail User Agents (MUAs) MAY allow the user to filter incoming messages based on the presence of an Authorized-By header. MUAs MAY allow the user to further filter authorized messages based on the domain of the From header. 5. Security Considerations If a user's ISP does not support at least the removal of Authorized-By headers as stated in section 3, incoming mail may be easily forged. Additionally, any host between the sender and recipient, or who can otherwise masquerade as the sender, can also masquerade as an authorized transmitter for the domain of the sender. Author's Address David N. Green 563 Bill Rutledge Rd Winder, GA 30680 USA Phone: +1-770-868-0754 (w) +1-770-868-1572 (h) Fax +1-770-220-1937 EMail: green@couchpotato.net --=-ee0wUO5ft5YmWDYoRC0N Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQA+dz6qCi6CzkbyeRQRArTnAJ42rLVDSw00/gpE+Im6xaXPtsOMDgCghy5V uQNSy7UwZcatdFX3r3lofVc= =fEeu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-ee0wUO5ft5YmWDYoRC0N-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 10:55:49 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA14904 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:55:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IGCkm23999 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:12:46 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IGCkO23996 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:12:46 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA14883 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:55:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IG54O22857; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:05:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IG4AO22765 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:04:10 -0500 Received: from mail.neosinteractive.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA14354 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:46:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from tthompson ([217.35.105.173] unverified) by mail.neosinteractive.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:53:31 +0000 From: "Tom Thomson" To: Subject: RE: [Asrg] Taxonomy of anti-spam systems version 2 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 In-Reply-To: <20030318150001.18433.42554.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Mar 2003 15:53:31.0589 (UTC) FILETIME=[8653EF50:01C2ED66] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:48:15 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message: 44 From: Paul Judge To: "'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)'" Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 04:10:50 -0500 Subject: [Asrg] Taxonomy of anti-spam systems version 2 > After more thought and feeedback from some people on the list, here is a > second draft of the taxonomy of anti-spam systems. > > The systems are classified into prevention, deterrence, and reaction > approaches. I like the idea of getting a good classification, but there are a few things wrong with this attempt. I think you've left out an important option in the reaction approaches list. Why not add j) Try to punish Without this as a reaction, why bother considering deterrence at all? It can have a lot of subheadings - punish finacially (either civil charges like the Washington State law, or fines at criminal law), punich through non-financial criminal penalties, maybe punish by damage to reputation, punish by withdrawing ISP services, and so on. All your deterrence mechanisms amount to just 1 thing - reliable identification of the source (it matters little whether you call it "authentication", "non-repudiation", or "Tracking". Some spammers don't mind being identified (most of the big players in IT have spammed, anyone who is going to blcaklist them is someone they probably don't want to talk to anyway so they did it identifiably) so it's not a very good deterrent. Dterrence requires not only being caught, but some effective punishment for being caught (OK, that punishment can be "damage to reputation" in some case). Several of the things represented as "prevention" mechanisms depend on that source identification: at least blacklists, whitelists, reputation systems (and don't these last give a fail closed option as well as a fail open option?) so the things you list as deterrents aren't just dubious deterrents, they are components of some of the prevention actions. And some of the preve Some things listed as prevention are actually deterrence, not prevention: any payment system, for example, is a deterrent not a prevention (of course a sufficiently strong deterrent amounts to a prevention). Some things listed under prevention are actually Spam reactions (and properly a component of deterrence) rather than prevention: "payment upon misbehaviour" for example. Tom Thomson _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 11:20:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA15852 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:20:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IGbrE25870 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:37:53 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IGbrO25867 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:37:53 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA15802 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:20:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IGU5O24806; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:30:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IGTIO24760 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:29:18 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA15428 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:11:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h2IGE1720000 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:14:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF4YSKR; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:14:01 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBGDJY; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:14:01 -0500 Message-ID: <3E77468F.4060806@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] A method to eliminate spam References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030317130658.00b3bd48@mail.SoftHome.net> <3E756DFD.1090502@americasm01.nt.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20030315210111.00b91c48@mail.SoftHome.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20030316024319.01ceb158@mail.generalprotectionf ault.de> <5.1.0.14.0.20030315171040.00b463f0@mail.SoftHome.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20030316221304.00b4eee8@mail.SoftHome.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20030316235730.00b89ea0@mail.SoftHome.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20030317195349.00b4b9f8@mail.SoftHome.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:17:19 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit meor@mail.SoftHome.net wrote: > The current protocol is just as susceptible to server outages as the > proposed would be. What you have completely failed to realize is that there are far more active players in delivering a piece of email than just the servers. Your proposal forces the user to be "aware" of the state of every single router-hop and piece of wire along the way. Router crashes in backbone? Users can't even hit "SEND" for _any_ email that would traverse that router, either side. Certainly, that's at first glance "no worse than web". I fail to see how decreasing the reliability of email to the same (not that good) level as the web does anyone any good. What you're also completely failing to see is that server administrators don't _want_ to expose their mailbox servers to the Internet. That's where all the email sits, right? All your email ripe for plucking by hackers. That's why there are gateways and firewalls. You couldn't email to sites behind gateways. You couldn't email to sites with intermittent connectivity (either by design or accident). Senders would have to take evasive action if the link went down in the middle of transmission. Etc. Trying to send to two people whose server's connectivity was intermittent exactly out of sync? Impossible. We're trying to build things that isolate the user from the low-level behaviour of the Internet, not the opposite. Requiring end-to-end instant (especially reverse) connectivity is totally impractical in a one-to-many transmission scheme - which is what email is - unlike web (except in the rare and unusual case of webcasting). And finally, as described before, trying to do any sort of centralized logging or filtering becomes impossible, unless you want to make your routers SMTP-aware - which is a gross violation of the layering principle inherent in any well-designed and built networking stack. They're flakey enough as it is :-( Your "fix" would break many of the desirable (and in some circumstances _critical_) characteristics of email that we rely on. It really is a total non-starter. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 11:26:53 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA16330 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:26:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IGhpK26377 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:43:51 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IGhpO26374 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:43:51 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA16306 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:26:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IGdFO25987; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:39:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IGY5O24966 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:34:05 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA15569 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:16:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (zcard307.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h2IGIm720524 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:18:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDFB97BL; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:18:48 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBGDJ0; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:18:48 -0500 Message-ID: <3E7747AE.7090109@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] SMTP & NNTP ? References: <20030318041058.GA4538@danisch.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:22:06 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hadmut Danisch wrote: > Just a simple question: Are we bound to focus > on e-mail/SMTP transport or do we cover > News/NNTP as well? I would strongly recommend that we avoid News/NNTP issues. The dynamics and issues are considerably different, and News/NNTP spam generally is already under reasonable control. From a practical standpoint, News/NNTP spamming is less of a problem than it was in the mid-late 90's. The IETF is far less interested in fiddling around with a protocol that is mature and declining in relative importance. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 11:29:08 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA16486 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:29:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IGk6A26544 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:46:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IGk6O26541 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:46:06 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA16413 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:28:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IGg3O26214; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:42:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IGeqO26090 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:40:52 -0500 Received: from zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA16138 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:23:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (zcard307.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h2IGPaw12733 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:25:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDFB9789; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:25:37 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBGDK3; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:25:37 -0500 Message-ID: <3E774947.9070001@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Giving Public Notice .... References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030317114856.03bf2538@mail.lextek.com> <20030318042916.GA4823@danisch.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:28:55 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hadmut Danisch wrote: > Another question: > In most legislations, you can conclude a legally binding > contract only after you reached full age. In many jurisdictions, the parents of the child become legally liable for contracts made by the child (where the type of contract is explicitly permitted for children, or the other party acted in good faith). > Such a solution (w|c)ould not cover spam sent from youngsters. You cannot make anywhere near this strong a blanket statement. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 11:31:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA16621 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:31:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IGmUj26707 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:48:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IGmUO26704 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:48:30 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA16597 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:31:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IGfxO26138; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:41:59 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IGc6O25893 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:38:06 -0500 Received: from zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA15822 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:20:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (zcard307.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h2IGMnw12725 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:22:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDFB97R9; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:22:50 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBGDKG; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:22:50 -0500 Message-ID: <3E77489F.8000602@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Giving Public Notice .... References: <007201c2ed04$90e0f830$db000002@othala> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:26:07 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit John Rumpelein wrote: > Doug, > > >>>I'm no lawyer, but it is hard to understand how a message which no >>>human will ever see could be considered binding on the people who >>>operate the >> >>company. >> >>Actually, the federal E-Sign Act (enacted in 2000) provides >>that a contract >>may not be denied legal effect because it was created by one or more >>electronic agents (computer programs designed to act >>independently without >>contemporaneous human participation). > > > The point is not whether or not a "contract" can be in electronic form (I > agree this is possible) but whether two people can enter into a contract > when only one of them is aware of its existence. The answer, I think, is > no. No, only insofar as the "contract" not being an official recognized standard with requirements for compliance and methods for interrogating it. If the standards evolve to make asking and answering the question feasible in an automated fashion, then laws can evolve to make compliance mandatory. And remember as well, law is already evolving to recognize that "spamming" is universally frowned upon, and that "senders of spam" can no longer evade responsibility by saying "I never read the recipient server's AUP". [See Verizon vs. Ralsky, and comments at the MIT spam forum from the lawyer who does spam cases.] _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 11:33:21 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA16693 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:33:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IGoHo26932 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:50:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IGoHO26929 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:50:17 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA16689 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:32:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IGh3O26311; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:43:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IGgcO26249 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:42:38 -0500 Received: from xuxa.iecc.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA16207 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:25:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 17490 invoked by uid 100); 18 Mar 2003 11:27:23 -0500 To: asrg@ietf.org Path: xuxa.iecc.com!not-for-mail From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Newsgroups: iecc.lists.asrg Subject: Re: [Asrg] Giving Public Notice .... Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA Lines: 12 Message-ID: References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030317114856.03bf2538@mail.lextek.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 18 Mar 2003 11:27:23 -0500 >One thing that would probably go a long way for many of the state anti-spam >laws would be a way that one could give public notice that the people at a >company / organization / ISP do or do not want spam. The use of the file >as a "public notice" file would go a long way towards allowing people to >collect via the courts. Yes indeed. Didn't anyone read the message about NO UCE banners that I posted here a couple of days ago? They're already well defined and at least two states have put them or are thinking about putting them into anti-spam laws. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 11:41:47 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA17146 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:41:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IGwhM27456 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:58:43 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IGwhO27453 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:58:43 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA17121 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:41:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IGoBO26917; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:50:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IGnZO26816 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:49:35 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA16650 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:32:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (zcard307.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h2IGYJ722368 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:34:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDFB988V; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:34:20 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBGDK5; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:34:20 -0500 Message-ID: <3E774B51.9020306@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Content versus conversation References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:37:37 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit John Johnson wrote: > >>The problem with spam is not the content, but the conversation. > > > No, I disagree. I perceive the content to be spam, much > in thw way tools like SpamAssasin and Vipul's Razor judge > the *content* in an automated fashion. Or, an ISP > client. They could care less about the "envelope". > They care that the content is objectionable. SpamAssassin and Vipul's Razor don't work that way at all. SpamAssassin works by scoring messages based upon how "spammy" a message looks. Not "content" per-se, but more along the lines of "things that look like spammer behaviour" (ie: fingerprints of extreme hard sell behaviour mostly unique to spammers, forged headers, fingerprints in envelopes, appearance in blacklists (if feature turned on) etc.). Vipul's Razor, on the other hand, works more along the ways of "this is extremely similar to what we've previously judged as being spam" - this is more of an identification of the sender and his pitch, not the pitch "instance" itself (because a different sender would be using a different pitch). In neither case are they trying to intuit what the content _is_, but rather an approximation of either "this looks like spammer tricks" or "we've seen this one before" respectively. While SpamAssassin can be forced into looking for generic "types" of content, that's not its intent or default configuration. Spamming is a behaviour, not a content. As an extreme example, a "consumer" of porn could very well be quite happy to receive _solicited_ advertisements from a porn site, but be quite adamant about refusing unsolicited ones. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 11:45:02 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA17360 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:45:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IH1w627793 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:01:58 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IH1wO27790 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:01:58 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA17307 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:44:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IGo4O26876; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:50:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IGnEO26776 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:49:14 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA16639 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:31:47 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2IGXNis004737; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:33:23 -0500 Message-Id: <200303181633.h2IGXNis004737@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.2 03/12/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: David Green Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Domain-Authorized SMTP Mail In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:43:38 EST." <1048002218.8984.53.camel@david.couchpotato.net> References: <1048002218.8984.53.camel@david.couchpotato.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_1526970971P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:33:22 -0500 --==_Exmh_1526970971P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:43:38 EST, David Green said: > SMTP servers SHOULD remove any Authorized-By SMTP headers of > incoming mail. They MAY be configurable to preserve Authorized-By > headers on incoming mail from a set of trusted servers. This goes against a long-standing design principle that SMTP servers should NOT be screwing around with the contents of the headers other than to add a Received: tag. That 'MAY be configurable' is a bug. See below. There's no hint of what an Authorized-By: header would look like. What defense(s) does this protocol have against DNS cache poisoning? Note that a large domain may have many MT records. This will cause a dropback to TCP if the DNS reply exceeds 512 bytes. Take a look at the games that AOL uses with round-robin on their MX listings so they can have 24 IP addresses listed and still get it to fit in a UDP packet (basically, they have 4 advertised MX names that round-robin, and they only return a set of 6 IP addresses for 1 or 2 of the MX's in the 'additional info'. Hotmail does similar things. And forcing a drop-back to TCP is *expensive*. Figure out what's the minimum number of RTT's (including the 3-packet handshake and FIN processing) needed to deliver a piece of mail, both with and without SMTP PIPELINE. Then add an RTT for a UDP lookup - and then figure out how many MORE you add if that fails and DNS over TCP is needed.... What domain do you do the query on? You can't just blindly go 2 levels, as that will piss the admins of 'co.uk' off quite thoroughly. You may have to go 3 levels in the US - we have departmental mail servers that you'd have to look under some-dept.vt.edu to find an MT for, since they're only "authorized" to send mail for their department... oh, and for vt.edu because that's what many people put on their From:. You *DID* know that RFC822 and RFC2822 allow a From: to be a *LIST* of addresses, right? See section A.2 of RFC822 for several examples with different semantics. > SMTP servers SHOULD perform an MT DNS query on the domain of > the From header. If the incoming mail was sent by a server returned > in the query, the SMTP server SHOULD attach an Authorized-By > header to the message, whose value is the hostname of the server > performing the MT authorization. Combined with the above, you're left with only the last hop information. Let's say the mail starts at a Unix workstation, which sends it to a mail hub. The Auth-By: now lists the workstation. The hub tries to send it to your server, fails, and sends it to your off-site backup MX service. The MX nukes the previous AUth-by, and adds one pointing to the originating mail hub. Your server comes up, the mail starts arriving. If you don't implement the 'MAY preserve' for mail coming from your MX, then bad things happen: 1) You remove the Auth-by. 2) You look up the MT RR. 3) Your MX is certainly NOT listed in the MT. Game Over. Note that it's *quite* possible for mail to trickle through 3 or 4 MX servers if there's a widespread net-burp. > Mail User Agents (MUAs) MAY allow the user to filter incoming > messages based on the presence of an Authorized-By header. What would be *most* useful here is the *original* value of the Auth-by: header, which almost certainly got wiped out by some host due to the first part of section 3. --==_Exmh_1526970971P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+d0pQcC3lWbTT17ARAvD8AKC10nJAocp+jzv2uRyTPdE69aY8DQCgqaZZ ZkkzCmT8P4X4X4UOf5DN4eo= =YB4A -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_1526970971P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 11:45:19 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA17384 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:45:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IH2FC27842 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:02:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IH2FO27839 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:02:15 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA17338 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:44:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IGq5O27033; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:52:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IGpjO26988 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:51:45 -0500 Received: from maillist.grax.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA16754 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:34:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (grax_web1 [127.0.0.1]) by maillist.grax.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C0CB2C5D5; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 06:36:23 -0600 (CST) From: David Walker Reply-To: asrg@ietf.org Organization: Vorteon, LLC To: David Green , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Domain-Authorized SMTP Mail User-Agent: KMail/1.5 References: <1048002218.8984.53.camel@david.couchpotato.net> In-Reply-To: <1048002218.8984.53.camel@david.couchpotato.net> X-Hockey: Colorado Avalanche MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200303181038.55937@grx> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:38:55 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I believe there are a number of us interested in this type of solution but for it to work we would have to distill the ideas together. Checking the from header has serious implications with mailing lists and I proposed that we do not check the from header but check the envelope from and require that MUAs expose the envelope from in the form of "from 'envelope from' on behalf of 'from header'" https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg01533.html wayne wrote: See: https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg00001.html RMX records (Yes, this was the very first message to this mailing list) https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg00048.html domain specific DNS blacklists (or whitelists) https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg00686.html pros and cons of RMX (Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 11:52:58 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA17794 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:52:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IH9t629659 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:09:55 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IH9sO29656 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:09:54 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA17749 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:52:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IH63O28540; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:06:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IH1FO27735 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:01:15 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA17294 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:43:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (zcard307.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h2IGjw723499 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:45:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDFB90JX; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:45:59 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBGDLK; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:45:59 -0500 Message-ID: <3E774E0C.4060408@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Thoughts so far References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:49:16 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Doug Phillips wrote: > I agree with Kee. The prospective recovery from suits against spammers > is not high enough to make suits worthwhile--not only because the > penalties are too low, but also because many individual spammers are > judgment proof. Remember to distinguish between civil and criminal proceedings. Few spammers are "judgement proof" against incarceration. In some cases, rather than inventing new laws or other "entirely new" procedures, just moving the bar a bit can be helpful. Ie: as state-specific anti-spam legislation isn't all that helpful, a national one helps to shift the balance and make critical mass in dealing with specific spammers easier to achieve. This is not a fight with a "single solution", but needs moving forward on many different fronts - some technical, some socio-legal. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 11:53:03 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA17807 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:53:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IH9xZ29675 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:09:59 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IH9xO29672 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:09:59 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA17777 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:52:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IH69O28607; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:06:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IH3XO28117 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:03:33 -0500 Received: from oreo.couchpotato.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA17464 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:46:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 2668 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2003 16:48:17 -0000 Received: from david.couchpotato.net (green@208.147.134.100) by oreo.couchpotato.net with SMTP; 18 Mar 2003 16:48:17 -0000 Subject: Re: [Asrg] Domain-Authorized SMTP Mail From: David Green To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Cc: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <200303181633.h2IGXNis004737@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> References: <1048002218.8984.53.camel@david.couchpotato.net> <200303181633.h2IGXNis004737@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-hZU535G0YElNxluhN7BS" X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.8 Message-Id: <1048006097.8984.67.camel@david.couchpotato.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 18 Mar 2003 11:48:17 -0500 --=-hZU535G0YElNxluhN7BS Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 2003-03-18 at 11:33, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:43:38 EST, David Green sa= id: >=20 > > SMTP servers SHOULD remove any Authorized-By SMTP headers of > > incoming mail. They MAY be configurable to preserve Authorized-By > > headers on incoming mail from a set of trusted servers. >=20 > This goes against a long-standing design principle that SMTP servers shou= ld > NOT be screwing around with the contents of the headers other than to add > a Received: tag. The fact that they add a Received tag means that modifying headers is not against their design. > There's no hint of what an Authorized-By: header would look like. Authorized-By: FQDN goes here > What defense(s) does this protocol have against DNS cache poisoning? If DNS is broken, that needs to be addressed separately. > What domain do you do the query on? You can't just blindly go 2 levels, > as that will piss the admins of 'co.uk' off quite thoroughly. You may > have to go 3 levels in the US - we have departmental mail servers that > you'd have to look under some-dept.vt.edu to find an MT for, since they'r= e > only "authorized" to send mail for their department... oh, and for vt.edu > because that's what many people put on their From:. If the email is From: foo@bar.baz.biz.buz.co.uk, you would query the MT for "bar.baz.biz.buz.co.uk". You would never drop any parts of the name. > > SMTP servers SHOULD perform an MT DNS query on the domain of > > the From header. If the incoming mail was sent by a server returned > > in the query, the SMTP server SHOULD attach an Authorized-By > > header to the message, whose value is the hostname of the server > > performing the MT authorization. >=20 > Combined with the above, you're left with only the last hop information. That is all that matters. It will be up to your POP/IMAP server's SMTP implementation to do the final checking, even if that checking simply involves trusting another SMTP server. > Let's say the mail starts at a Unix workstation, which sends it to a mail > hub. The Auth-By: now lists the workstation. The hub tries to send it t= o > your server, fails, and sends it to your off-site backup MX service. > The MX nukes the previous AUth-by, and adds one pointing to the originati= ng > mail hub. Your server comes up, the mail starts arriving. Authorized-By would not list the workstation, as MUAs would not be configured to add this header. If it did, the hub would remove it. The only reason the MUA would be sending to the hub at all is if the MUA is associated with that hub or if the hub is an open relay. Assuming the prior, the hub must be a registered MT for the sender's domain, or it's not compliant. The hub sends it to your server, fails, sends it to your off-site backup MX service. The MX nukes any previous Authorized-By header, checks an MT for the hub, finds one, and adds its own Authorized-By header. Your server comes up, your MUA pops the mail, and there's the Authorized-By header. > Note that it's *quite* possible for mail to trickle through 3 or 4 MX ser= vers > if there's a widespread net-burp. Every MX either sends to a server that trusts it (a relay), or to the recipient's MX. The only restriction here is that the MX that initiates the final hop to the recipient's MX must be listed as an MT for the sender's domain. > > Mail User Agents (MUAs) MAY allow the user to filter incoming > > messages based on the presence of an Authorized-By header. >=20 > What would be *most* useful here is the *original* value of the Auth-by: > header, which almost certainly got wiped out by some host due to the firs= t > part of section 3. Why? You couldn't trust it anyway. Just like Received lines. David Green --=-hZU535G0YElNxluhN7BS Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQA+d03RCi6CzkbyeRQRArllAKCKDfQztRvicz7oJXvJxgqsMzYTCgCgm1LL Bc9URg/7VllOqOfoQ8FyHoI= =maY/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-hZU535G0YElNxluhN7BS-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 11:54:16 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA17929 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:54:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IHBDx29792 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:11:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IHBDO29785 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:11:13 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA17870 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:53:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IH68O28575; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:06:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IH30O27992 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:03:00 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA17423 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:45:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from sputnik (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h2IGlh3n018889; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:47:43 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sputnik.mobil.danisch.de (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-8) id h2IGevs3008190; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:40:57 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Doug Phillips Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Giving Public Notice .... Message-ID: <20030318164056.GA8072@danisch.de> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 08:40:56 -0800 On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 02:11:59AM -0500, Doug Phillips wrote: > The E-Sign Act is U.S. federal law, so it applies to the United > States. I know. This was a rhetorical question. > But there are also laws in other countries that may be relevant. That's what I wanted to say. > For > example, the European Union has issued a directive on electronic > signatures, and at least some of the member states have implemented > it. Yes, Germany was one of the first countries having a local law about digital signatures. Such a SMTP declaration as it was discussed over here would not be compatible with that law. But if you bother to use electronic signatures to sign a contract about the recipients mail acceptance policy, wouldn't it be much easier to simply sign the message itself and don't need to worry which laws apply to contracts? This sounds like solving a medium size problem by creating a huge one. Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 11:56:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA18127 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:56:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IHDXf29951 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:13:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IHDWO29948 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:13:32 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA18106 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:56:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IH6BO28625; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:06:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IH4YO28334 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:04:34 -0500 Received: from zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA17497 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:47:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h2IGnHx13462 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:49:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF4YTMQ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:49:18 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBGDL3; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:49:18 -0500 Message-ID: <3E774ED3.2060707@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Taxonomy of anti-spam systems version 2 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:52:35 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Tom Thomson wrote: > Message: 44 > From: Paul Judge >>After more thought and feeedback from some people on the list, here is a >>second draft of the taxonomy of anti-spam systems. >>The systems are classified into prevention, deterrence, and reaction >>approaches. > I like the idea of getting a good classification, but there are a few things > wrong with this attempt. > I think you've left out an important option in the reaction approaches list. > Why not add > j) Try to punish I agree partially, but for a different reason. The taxonomy _should_ include socio-legal techniques - a) to recognize that some laws do exist b) provide a basis for the ASRG to hang discussions on laws - while it's outside of our direct purview, some of the practises we may end up recommending will _require_ legal teeth to be effective. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 12:06:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA18672 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:06:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IHNb530788 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:23:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IHNbO30785 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:23:37 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA18663 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:06:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IHGTO30236; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:16:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IHBBO29773 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:11:11 -0500 Received: from oreo.couchpotato.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA17856 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:53:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 2717 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2003 16:55:56 -0000 Received: from david.couchpotato.net (green@208.147.134.100) by oreo.couchpotato.net with SMTP; 18 Mar 2003 16:55:56 -0000 Subject: Re: [Asrg] Domain-Authorized SMTP Mail From: David Green To: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <200303181038.55937@grx> References: <1048002218.8984.53.camel@david.couchpotato.net> <200303181038.55937@grx> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-TXUcu5/tkDfVsB39gGWL" X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.8 Message-Id: <1048006557.8984.73.camel@david.couchpotato.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 18 Mar 2003 11:55:56 -0500 --=-TXUcu5/tkDfVsB39gGWL Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 2003-03-18 at 11:38, David Walker wrote: > Checking the from header has serious implications with mailing lists and = I=20 > proposed that we do not check the from header but check the envelope from= and=20 > require that MUAs expose the envelope from in the form of "from 'envelope= =20 > from' on behalf of 'from header'" Or the From: could be changed to the mailing list address and an Originally-From: header could be added. David Green --=-TXUcu5/tkDfVsB39gGWL Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQA+d0+cCi6CzkbyeRQRAvoyAJ43Bn5i9jDx/iKuVJoTAVftSjgCdACaAli8 E/b32jnSLeXPueyuC3WRz30= =DDoU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-TXUcu5/tkDfVsB39gGWL-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 12:16:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA18980 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:16:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IHXg931418 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:33:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IHXgO31415 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:33:42 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA18971 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:16:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IHO6O30836; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:24:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IHNtO30805 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:23:55 -0500 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA18667 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:06:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 18vKZq-0005mA-00; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:08:38 +0000 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Asrg] Taxonomy of anti-spam systems version 2 To: "Paul Judge" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.4.12] Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:08:38 +0000 > After more thought and feeedback from some people on the list, here is a > second draft of the taxonomy of anti-spam systems. > > > The systems are classified into prevention, deterrence, and reaction > approaches. I wonder if it might be useful to separately attempt a classification of message classification systems? Something like this (way incomplete): 1 Transport 1.1 Source IP 1.2 Rate 1.3 Envelope (MAIL FROM) 1.4 Bounce ratios 1.5 ... 2. Content 2.1 Header consideration 2.2 Body consideration 2.3 Composite content analysis 2.4 ... 3. Context 3.1 Challenge/Response 3.2 Consent Tokens 3.3 ... It might be convenient to describe anti-spam systems in terms of the message classifications they employ, as well as the other considerations you identify. Such a classification would be useful in your taxonomy and elsewhere. Maybe? -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 12:18:04 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19045 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:18:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IHZ1w31497 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:35:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IHZ1O31494 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:35:01 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19005 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:17:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IHP2O30908; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:25:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IHODO30848 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:24:13 -0500 Received: from simmts6-srv.bellnexxia.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA18688 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:06:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from f4n8i1 ([156.34.215.22]) by simmts6-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.19 201-253-122-122-119-20020516) with SMTP id <20030318170856.JHJM18224.simmts6-srv.bellnexxia.net@f4n8i1> for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:08:56 -0500 Message-ID: <001101c2ed70$e6852240$60cefea9@f4n8i1> From: "Ian Wilson" To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0008_01C2ED4F.49B6A0E0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Subject: [Asrg] New To The List Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:07:11 -0400 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C2ED4F.49B6A0E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, I'm new to this list, and certainly not as well versed in the technical = aspects of the SPAM problem as those whose posts I've read seem to be, = which brings me to my question, It seems rather easy for me to use = filters in Outlook Express to filter a great deal of this trash, which = makes me wonder if it isn't just as easy to do at the Mail Server. = Could my ISP filter as much of this junk as I now do, and if so isn't = putting pressure on our ISP's a good place to start. =20 A couple of other questions that I am sure could be answered by someone. = It seems to me that a lot of SPAMMERS forge return addresses. For = instance a message might say that it comes from *spammer@yahoo.com* and = when I contact *abuse@yahoo.com* I usually get a return message that = indicates the SPAMMERS didn't actually send the message using Yahoo. = This makes me wonder is it possible, at the mail server level to check = and see if a return address is forged? Also I have been using a program called Mail Washer, which I like a lot. = Recently they sent me a message that alerted me to a new subscription = service they are offering. It seemed to indicate that it would use the = resources of everyone who subscribes to gather a database of SPAMMERS. = When one arrives at my mail box I bounce it in the normal way, and that = bounced message is examined, and if it is determined to be SPAM it will = be added to a database, and I won't see mail from them again. Clearly = this list is populated by persons who know a lot more about this than I = do, and I wonder if anyone has any thoughts on Mail Washer in general. ian ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C2ED4F.49B6A0E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,
 
I'm new to this list, and certainly not = as well=20 versed in the technical aspects of the SPAM problem as those whose posts = I've=20 read seem to be, which brings me to my question,   It seems = rather=20 easy for me to use filters in Outlook Express to filter a great deal of = this=20 trash, which makes me wonder if it isn't just as easy to do at the Mail=20 Server.  Could my ISP filter as much of this junk as I now do, and = if so=20 isn't putting pressure on our ISP's a good place to start.  =
 
A couple of other questions that I am = sure could be=20 answered by someone.  It seems to me that a lot of SPAMMERS forge = return=20 addresses.  For instance a message might say that it comes from *spammer@yahoo.com* and when I = contact *abuse@yahoo.com* I usually get a = return=20 message that indicates the SPAMMERS didn't actually send the message = using=20 Yahoo.  This makes me wonder is it possible, at the mail server = level to=20 check and see if a return address is forged?
 
Also I have been using a program called = Mail=20 Washer, which I like a lot.  Recently they sent me a message that = alerted=20 me to a new subscription service they are offering.  It seemed to = indicate=20 that it would use the resources of everyone who subscribes to gather a = database=20 of SPAMMERS.  When one arrives at my mail box I bounce it in the = normal=20 way, and that bounced message is examined, and if it is determined to be = SPAM it=20 will be added to a database, and I won't see mail from them again.  = Clearly=20 this list is populated by persons who know a lot more about this than I = do, and=20 I wonder if anyone has any thoughts on Mail Washer in = general.
 
ian
------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C2ED4F.49B6A0E0-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 12:22:51 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19130 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:22:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IHdmL32443 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:39:48 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IHdmO32440 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:39:48 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19117 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:22:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IHZ7O31518; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:35:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IHYrO31479 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:34:53 -0500 Received: from fl-webmail02.durocom.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19002 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:17:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from dlampert ([65.35.47.235]) by fl-webmail02.durocom.com with ESMTP id <20030318171938.CUWK17103.fl-webmail02@dlampert> for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:19:38 -0500 From: "Dave Lampert" To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: [Asrg] Gray list: rating of associates Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:19:01 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Here's a solution that, together with many other solutions, may reduce the economical value of spam to the spammers. PATENT NOTICE (My lawyers made me do it!): This solution is part of a patent-pending technology ("Prioritized communication") available upon request by emailing . We intend to make this technology widely available through numerous vendors under paid license as per http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2026.txt sections 10.3.2 and 10.3.3, so I'd like to see this addressed in the ASRG recommendation for standards. In short, this doesn't block spam, but rather relegates it (and other unsolicited email) to a low or zero priority (you pick it up when YOU want to). Email from people you know have a higher priority rating. You get to rate each person and the system issues them a unique contact email address (usually a base name plus a GUID like the one listed above) just for them. The system makes it easy to manage these and easy for your friend to update his/her address book. If the unique address falls into the wrong hands and spam begins, you can lower the rating on it, and possibly issue a new unique address to the friend (if he/she is STILL your friend!). The technology goes well beyond this, such as computing the product of the importance of the email (the "importance" tag as set by the sender) and the rating of the sender by the recipient, and using this to rank priority of all messages (including non-email messages such as IM chat, voice mail, etc.). You only get lower priority messages when you're good and ready for them, but still get extremely urgent messages even when you're sitting in a movie theatre. I've browsed through the boards and found two different, but related threads: [Asrg] Random thought (Jason Hihn) https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg01252.html [Asrg] Peer to Peer MTA network (Claus Färber) https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg00826.html Please tell me if there are other related threads that I've missed. This system is well developed already but not yet commercially available. I look forward to all our your feedback on how this will fit into the anti-spam mission. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 12:27:10 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19311 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:27:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IHi8q32682 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:44:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IHi8O32679 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:44:08 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19251 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:26:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IHd1O32425; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:39:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IHclO32409 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:38:47 -0500 Received: from maillist.grax.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19112 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:21:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (grax_web1 [127.0.0.1]) by maillist.grax.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51A042C5D5; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 07:23:19 -0600 (CST) From: David Walker Reply-To: asrg@ietf.org Organization: Vorteon, LLC To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, David Green Subject: Re: [Asrg] Domain-Authorized SMTP Mail User-Agent: KMail/1.5 Cc: asrg@ietf.org References: <1048002218.8984.53.camel@david.couchpotato.net> <200303181633.h2IGXNis004737@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> In-Reply-To: <200303181633.h2IGXNis004737@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Hockey: Colorado Avalanche MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200303181125.50704@grx> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:25:50 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Your DNS request/reply need only contain the MT/RMX/MS record of the IP address that is connected to your mail server. You should not need to transfer all MT/RMX/MS records. On Tuesday 18 March 2003 10:33 am, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > Note that a large domain may have many MT records. This will cause a > dropback to TCP if the DNS reply exceeds 512 bytes. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 12:27:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19338 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:27:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IHia232715 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:44:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IHiZO32712 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:44:35 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19308 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:27:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IHgCO32589; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:42:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IHftO32563 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:41:55 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19173 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:24:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from sputnik (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h2IHQcTA019764; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:26:38 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sputnik.mobil.danisch.de (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-8) id h2IHPtei009194; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:25:55 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Doug Phillips Cc: jmr@jmrtech.com, Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Giving Public Notice .... Message-ID: <20030318172554.GA8713@danisch.de> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 09:25:54 -0800 On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 02:03:16AM -0500, Doug Phillips wrote: > I wasn't making an argument, just pointing out that (contrary to what was > stated in the prior post) U.S. federal law specifically states that a > message is not prevented from being considered binding just because no > human ever sees it. Under german law, a message can't be binding if it has not been sent and received by both a 'person'. Law distinguishes between 'natural' persons (=humans) and 'juristical' persons (=companies, associations, etc.) which also involves a human. Machines can't have contracts under german law. Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 12:39:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19764 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:39:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IHuSC00827 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:56:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IHuSO00824 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:56:28 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19722 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:38:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IHl7O00443; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:47:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IHkFO00393 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:46:15 -0500 Received: from dogma.slashnull.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19370 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:28:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.jmason.org (ga183055.reshsg.uci.edu [128.195.183.55]) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IHRqx23149 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:27:52 GMT Received: by localhost.jmason.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 097D98C689; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:30:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from jmason.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 046348C688 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 09:30:15 -0800 (PST) To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] A method to eliminate spam In-Reply-To: Message from "Ronald F. Guilmette" of "Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:00:46 PST." <16768.1047960046@monkeys.com> From: jm@jmason.org (Justin Mason) X-GPG-Key-Fingerprint: 0A48 2D8B 0B52 A87D 0E8A 6ADD 4137 1B50 6E58 EF0A X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to . Message-Id: <20030318173015.097D98C689@localhost.jmason.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 09:30:09 -0800 Ronald F. Guilmette said: > >The mail host sees that news@cnn.com has been added to the white list and > >allows mail to be sent without computation time... > > ... after which the mose astute portion of the spammer community figures > out that they will increase their odds of delivery dramatically, simply > by sending out their spams with the forged envelope sender address of > . Yep. This is exactly what's happened with some default whitelists, such as the Amazon.com one distributed in early versions of SpamAssassin; the concept was that spammers would be unlikely to fake the sender as , since they're a big, well-funded, litigious company, and there's a legal precedent for such a co suing a spammer (ie flowers.com). I was wrong, it turned out. Spammers had *no* problem faking their From addresses that way, and we've seen lots of examples. I don't think Amazon have taken any cases either :( The other anti-whitelisting technique spammers use, is to fake your address as both From and To, on the basis that you usually appear in your own whitelist. This is quite reliable, it seems. > >Keep in mind, as covered in the overview, white lists do not exclude people > >from sending mail to an end user, but rather slows the ability to rapidly > >send mail to unknown persons. > > Except for the trusted ones... or anybody masquerading as trusted one. Yep. And solve the masquerading problem, as has been said before here, and you're halfway there anyway. --j. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 12:41:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA17148 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:41:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IGwhQ27472 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:58:43 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IGwhO27469 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:58:43 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA17123 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:41:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IGq3O27017; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:52:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IGpiO26984 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:51:44 -0500 Received: from xuxa.iecc.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA16752 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:34:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 19564 invoked by uid 100); 18 Mar 2003 11:36:30 -0500 To: asrg@ietf.org Path: xuxa.iecc.com!not-for-mail From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Newsgroups: iecc.lists.asrg Subject: Re: certs aren't the answer, was [Asrg] A method to eliminate spam Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA Lines: 38 Message-ID: References: <003d01c2ecd6$41884000$db000002@othala> <200303172255.h2HMtRVG005818@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 18 Mar 2003 11:36:29 -0500 >> It is already more or less required that organizations buy a CA-issued SSL >> cert to operate a web site dealing in credit card transactions. > >Now, is that *legally* required, or is that simply the guys at Visa and >Mastercard saying "We won't clear transactions for you unless you...." > >I believe it to be the latter. Neither, it's the defacto implementation of web servers that accept credit card orders, mostly to enrich cert vendors. As someone else pointed out, it defends against card numbers being intercepted in transit which is not a significant risk compared to bad guys breaking into databases at the merchant and stealing all the numbers, or phishers putting up fake sites with certs that correctly identify the fake site and collecting credit card info directly from suckers. Someone else asked how hard it is to get an SSL cert. It used to be a pain in the neck requiring notarized letters and faxed copies of business licenses and the like, but it's not any more. The last cert I got required only that the WHOIS domain contact click through a "was that really you?" challenge, and we all know how utterly valid WHOIS info is. The wholesale price is now about $69/yr which isn't enormous but I'm not eager to pay yet another nuisance fee for faux security. (I brought up POP and IMAP servers yesterday with SSL certs and all of my MUAs moan and groan about the self-signed certs. Phooey.) It's certainly worth thinking about ways to make it easier to check that mail is coming from a valid source, along the lines of Habeas or Trusted Sender, but it's implausible to come up with a mail system that would be forgery-proof and still be usable to communicate with an interestingly large set of other people. If you want a closed system that only communicates with people whose PGP keys are on your keyring, you can have that now. But I don't know many people who'd want that. -- John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl, Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 12:44:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA20014 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:44:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2II1bl01229 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:01:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2II1aO01226 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:01:36 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA20004 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:44:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IHwEO01000; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:58:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IHvtO00944 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:57:55 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19882 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:40:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from sputnik (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h2IHgcv0020094; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:42:38 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sputnik.mobil.danisch.de (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-8) id h2IHfr1X009381; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:41:53 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Chris Lewis Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Giving Public Notice .... Message-ID: <20030318174151.GC8713@danisch.de> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030317114856.03bf2538@mail.lextek.com> <20030318042916.GA4823@danisch.de> <3E774947.9070001@americasm01.nt.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E774947.9070001@americasm01.nt.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 09:41:51 -0800 On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 11:28:55AM -0500, Chris Lewis wrote: > > In many jurisdictions, the parents of the child become legally liable > for contracts made by the child (where the type of contract is > explicitly permitted for children, or the other party acted in good > faith). No. At least in Germany (and as far as I am informed in most european countries) a contract made by children is just not valid (unless explicitely confirmed by parents or by a judge). Parents cannot be liable for a non-valid contract. Parents can be held liable for any harm caused by children, but that's a completely different thing. > >Such a solution (w|c)ould not cover spam sent from youngsters. > > You cannot make anywhere near this strong a blanket statement. Sure I can. In Germany, children under age of 14 cannot be prosecuted. Some of them commit crime in knowledge of their immunity. This could be abused for sending spam. There are hackers under the age of 14, so why shouldn't there be spammers as well? Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 12:46:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA20105 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:46:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2II3SN01380 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:03:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2II3SO01376 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:03:28 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA20089 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:45:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IHwCO00983; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:58:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IHvpO00939 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:57:51 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19874 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:40:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from sputnik (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h2IHgXqG020091; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:42:33 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sputnik.mobil.danisch.de (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-8) id h2IHYakj009303; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:34:36 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Paul Judge Cc: "'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Taxonomy of anti-spam systems version 2 Message-ID: <20030318173428.GB8713@danisch.de> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 09:34:28 -0800 On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 04:10:50AM -0500, Paul Judge wrote: > > a) Fail-Open (determine unwanted messages) > i) Human determination > (1) Collaborative filtering (i.e., razor) [SB] > ii) System Determination Sorry, but I still don't agree with that hierarchie. I don't think that Fail-Open/Fail-Close is a suitable criterion of such a high level. That's just a low level property, not a taxonomy criterion. The taxonomy should distinguish methods by what they do and in what way they do not, not what happens if they fail. This and the question of human/system determination are properties of the particular implementation, not of the method in principle. Therefore they should be kept out of the main taxonomy hierarchie. We should care about the main principles, not implementation details. Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 12:46:59 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA20138 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:46:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2II3uZ01406 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:03:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2II3uO01403 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:03:56 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA20102 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:46:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IHw6O00966; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:58:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IHvKO00922 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:57:20 -0500 Received: from hotmail.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19834 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:39:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 09:42:04 -0800 Received: from 63.118.24.242 by pv1fd.pav1.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:42:04 GMT X-Originating-IP: [63.118.24.242] From: "Doug Phillips" To: hadmut@danisch.de Cc: jmr@jmrtech.com, Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Giving Public Notice .... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Mar 2003 17:42:04.0627 (UTC) FILETIME=[B066AA30:01C2ED75] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:42:04 -0500 The law will need to evolve, just as Internet architecture needs to evolve. Ideally the evolution of the two would be somewhat coordinated. ----Original Message Follows---- From: Hadmut Danisch To: Doug Phillips CC: jmr@jmrtech.com, Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Giving Public Notice .... Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 09:25:54 -0800 On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 02:03:16AM -0500, Doug Phillips wrote: > I wasn't making an argument, just pointing out that (contrary to what was > stated in the prior post) U.S. federal law specifically states that a > message is not prevented from being considered binding just because no > human ever sees it. Under german law, a message can't be binding if it has not been sent and received by both a 'person'. Law distinguishes between 'natural' persons (=humans) and 'juristical' persons (=companies, associations, etc.) which also involves a human. Machines can't have contracts under german law. Hadmut _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 12:54:15 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA20492 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:54:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IIBDn02727 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:11:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IIBDO02724 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:11:13 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA20471 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:53:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2II31O01347; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:03:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2II2wO01324 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:02:58 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA20065 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:45:29 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2IFqwiX003559; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 07:52:58 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2IFqwgo003555; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 07:52:58 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: Doug Phillips cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Thoughts so far In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 07:52:57 -0800 (PST) How about criminal charges for spammers (after somebody won civil suite) with pentaly being that judge orders that spammer may not use computer or have anything to do with advertising business for set period of time? On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, Doug Phillips wrote: > I agree with Kee. The prospective recovery from suits against spammers is > not high enough to make suits worthwhile--not only because the penalties are > too low, but also because many individual spammers are judgment proof. In > my view, this is why it would be helpful to have laws that could be enforced > against vendors of software that circumvents anti-spam technology. > > > ----Original Message Follows---- > From: Kee Hinckley > To: Chuq Von Rospach > CC: "John Rumpelein" , > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Thoughts so far > Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 08:52:04 -0500 > > At 10:50 PM -0800 3/17/03, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > >On Monday, March 17, 2003, at 08:12 PM, John Rumpelein wrote: > > > >>I live in Washington State, where we have already passed the legislation > >>you > >>propose. I can tell you, unfortunately, that I don't receive any less > >>spam > >>than you do. We can theoretically pursue lawsuits against spammers in > >>small > >>claims court to the tune of $500 per offense, but I have not heard of one > >>single spammer (not one) who has actually been forced to pay under this > >>law. > > > >it's a problem of jurisdiction. Washington is simply too small. > > Actually one of the speakers at the MIT Spam Conference described someone > who actually did take half a dozen spammers to court on the basis of one of > the state laws (either Washington's or one like it). The results sounded > pretty similar to the big suits. If you could get them to court, you could > find them guilty. If you found them guilty, they might have the money to > pay. And when you were done you found that the return on your time was not > worth the effort. > > The problem with spamming is not that there is no legal recourse. There is. > The courts have held that spamming is equivalent to trespassing--it's an > unauthorized use of your equipment. (Can anyone site a case in which the > spammer won?) The legal problem is that the penalties are not great enough > to make suits worthwhile. > -- > Kee Hinckley > http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering > http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society > > I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept > responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate > everyone else's. > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > _________________________________________________________________ > The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > -- William Leibzon Elan Communications Inc. Office & Support: 408-519-6243 Sales: 877-ELAN-NET or 650-333-7658 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 12:54:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA20574 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:54:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IIBXu02756 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:11:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IIBXO02753 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:11:33 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA20478 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:54:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2II83O02502; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:08:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2II7eO02441 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:07:40 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA20332 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:50:11 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2IFvZiX003666; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 07:57:35 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2IFvZO0003662; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 07:57:35 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: Michael Ellis cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Thoughts so far In-Reply-To: <3E773C1C.A37966D7@date.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 07:57:35 -0800 (PST) So the best way to resolve this is to make it hard/impossible for spamemrs to deliver email if they are falsifying headers. Then we end up with spamemrs that have to buy service directly from ISP and get ip block listed (under their name) in whois and have correct name in whois server, etc. So we know who spammer is, where they are and can black-list the block or domain (they will get a new one - I know...) and laws can take care of closing their business at some future time. On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, Michael Ellis wrote: > > I live in Washington State, where we have already passed the legislation you > > propose. I can tell you, unfortunately, that I don't receive any less spam > > than you do. We can theoretically pursue lawsuits against spammers in small > > claims court to the tune of $500 per offense, but I have not heard of one > > single spammer (not one) who has actually been forced to pay under this law. > > _ > > I've been studying the various states laws and I believe the reason that the > Washington law looks strong but acts weak is that the spammers that you can find > easily (and serve legally) are not falsifying headers, routers, email > addresses,etc and therefore do not fall afoul of the laws. The ones that do, > can't be found or can't be served. > > -- > Michael Ellis > Privacy Manager > Date.com > Phone (416) 306-0022 ext 620 > Fax (416) 306-0023 > > Date.com - "The New Way To Date" > > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 13:04:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21081 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:04:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IILht03450 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:21:43 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IILhO03447 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:21:43 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21050 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:04:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IIJ1O03225; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:19:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IIIYO03193 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:18:34 -0500 Received: from zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20962 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:01:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h2II3Fx08933 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:03:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF4YVJ8; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:03:15 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBGD35; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:03:16 -0500 Message-ID: <3E776029.2070104@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Giving Public Notice .... References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030317114856.03bf2538@mail.lextek.com> <20030318042916.GA4823@danisch.de> <3E774947.9070001@americasm01.nt.com> <20030318174151.GC8713@danisch.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:06:33 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hadmut Danisch wrote: > On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 11:28:55AM -0500, Chris Lewis wrote: >>>Such a solution (w|c)ould not cover spam sent from youngsters. >>You cannot make anywhere near this strong a blanket statement. > Sure I can. > In Germany, children under age of 14 cannot be prosecuted. That's Germany. The law in the US and Canada is different. Different age limits, different caveats and exceptions. Like I said, you can't make that strong a blanket statement. As for "prosecution". Well, certainly, a 4 year old can't be "prosecuted for murder" either, but they could certainly be put in state care or otherwise stopped from doing it again. [I won't go into the minimum age for capital punishment in the US other than to say it's been less than 14.] Ie: what if a child of 8 years old was "caught" spamming pornography ads? Don't suggest that the law has no recourse - the child may well be taken into custody by "Children's Aid"/"Foster care" (or local equivalent), or the courts may refuse to accept the child is doing it on their own, and promptly charge the person who talked the child into doing it. You can't use "the computer did it, not me" as a defence. You can't use "the 14 month old pushed the enter key" defence either. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 13:07:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21241 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:07:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IIOWO03626 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:24:32 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IIOVO03623 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:24:31 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21226 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:07:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IIG6O03094; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:16:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IID7O02899 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:13:07 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc02.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA20635 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:55:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from video.attbi.com (12-235-20-211.client.attbi.com[12.235.20.211]) by sccrmhc02.attbi.com (sccrmhc02) with SMTP id <2003031817575100200rpvb6e>; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:57:51 +0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030318094728.04804d40@mail.attbi.com> X-Sender: schear@mail.attbi.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: Margie Arbon From: Steve Schear Subject: RE: [Asrg] Thoughts so far Cc: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <30659295.1047922410@dhcp-180.isc.org> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030317162233.048c73e8@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030317162233.048c73e8@mail.attbi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:00:48 -0800 At 05:33 PM 3/17/2003 -0800, you wrote: >--On Monday, March 17, 2003 4:38 PM -0800 Steve Schear >wrote: > >>At 04:54 PM 3/14/2003 -0500, Jason Hihn wrote: >>>IANAL, but the Supreme Court has ruled that we have the right to be left >>>alone. >> >>Unfortunately, it is not a "right" and I don't think they ever did. The >>quote you are referring >>to was from SC judge Louis Brandeis' minority opinion in Olmstead v. >>United States (1928), a >>wiretap case. > >Try the ruling in: >ROWAN v. U. S. POST OFFICE DEPT. , 397 U.S. 728 (1970)397 U.S. 728 > >"We therefore categorically reject the argument that a vendor has a right >under the Constitution or otherwise to send unwanted material into the >home of another. If this prohibition operates to impede the flow of even >valid ideas, the answer is that no one has a right to press even 'good' >ideas on an unwilling recipient. That we are often 'captives' outside the >sanctuary of the home and subject to objectionable speech and other sound >does not mean we must be captives everywhere. See Public Utilities Comm. >of District of Columbia v. Pollak, 343 U.S. 451 (1952). The asserted right >of a mailer, we repeat, stops at the outer boundary of every person's domain." > >as delivered by Chief Justice Burger. > >it's closer, but seems to speak to the limitations and lack of certain >"rights" of the sender or speaker rather than the affirmative granting or >acknowledgement of the "rights" of the recipient or listener...but IANAL >either. Right on the money. We all get 4th Class adverts in our postal boxes but few seem to complain even though we are forced to spend a few valuable seconds of our time each day dealing with it. How is this markedly different, financially, from email spam? Following along the apparent line of reasoning of the above decision no commercial entity would be able to contact me w/o prior authorization, and we know this will never become the law of the land. Because many spammers may not be repeat offenders to the same party, opt-out systems won't work. Opt-in might but who's laws will prevail in enforcing them. I'm dead center in the sender-pays camp, Proof-of_work initially and anonymous bearer stamps later. Its the same tried and true system that limits the spam in my postal box to a small amount, almost all from credible parties. It doesn't require major changes to the email infrastructure, though clients would need to be enhanced (web-based email could add this almost immediately, plug-ins may suffice for some, like Eudora), nor new legislation. Initial users may find they become less "reachable" to casual contacts, but that should only last a short while if sender-pays becomes popular. steve _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 13:08:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21301 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:08:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IIPbA03674 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:25:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IIPbO03671 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:25:37 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21274 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:08:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2III3O03174; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:18:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IIHnO03152 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:17:49 -0500 Received: from mail-out1.apple.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20897 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:00:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailgate1.apple.com (A17-128-100-225.apple.com [17.128.100.225]) by mail-out1.apple.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2II2WOr022066 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:02:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from scv1.apple.com (scv1.apple.com) by mailgate1.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:02:23 -0800 Received: from plaidworks.com (vg0602e-dhcp175.apple.com [17.216.21.175]) by scv1.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h2II2Tt18169; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:02:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Thoughts so far Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: To: "John Rumpelein" From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <013501c2ed2f$0861fb00$db000002@othala> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:02:28 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> To me, it has to be national legislation to be useful, for that very >> reason: the chance of both you and the spammer being in washington >> jurisdiction is tiny, and even if you get washington small claims to >> issue a judgement, collection is problematic. > > *Identification* is often problematic. How do you identify the > individual > responsible for sending you a piece of spam? This is a non-trivial > problem. Yes, it is. How do you identify the person kiting checks? stealing cars? > What happens when the person is in China? Do we ("we" meaning > Americans) > really want to try to subject the rest of the world to US laws? Maybe nothing, in the first phase. We have to start somewhere. I keep getting the impression people are looking for a silver bullet here. If one existed, it'd be found by now. A common thing I'm seeing is that every time someone suggests something, the reasons why it's not a *complete* solution show up. I sort of feel we're trying to implement a software project here without subroutines.... split it into less complex pieces, start solving one piece of it, and then work on the next. Laws in the US don't solve chinese spam -- but they help us start solving US-based spam, and give us a piece in the puzzle to help convince the Chinese to follow suit in solving their spam problem, and eventually everyone coming together with an international agreement on how do deal with these issues. My model on that is copyright -- each country has it's own laws on copyright. There is no "one" copyright law. But most countries are also signatory to the Berne convention, which sets standards for what those copyright laws ought to do. That's a model I think is useful in a case like this: start getting the legislation model down and approved, get it working in specific jurisdictions, and move it into an international venue over time. > The idea of battling spam by criminalizing it seems a little bit to me > like > leaving all your doors and windows open and trying to prosecute > everyone who > steals things out of your house. Nope. you don't expect criminalization to stop the need for locks on the windows. you expect criminalization to deter some people from choosing to enter your house without your permission, and to give you the ability, if they choose to do so, to make sure they're unable to do it to someone else again later for a while. Again, this sounds like (and I'm sorry if I misinterpret your attitude) we're only allowed ONE approach. I see no problem with having locks AND policemen. In fact, I see no way to solve this problem without locks and policemen and lots of other services and tools, too. But we can only define/build/test/evaluate stuff independently of all of the other stuff. The bigger and more complex the system, the harder it'll be to build, make work, get people to buy into and use, and keep from being circumvented. So I'm all for lots of smaller tools and techniques, each focussing on one part of the larger equation, hopefully with lots of overlap so we don't have as many cracks to slip through. > But you're going to spend > all your time doing that, when surely you have better things to do. nope. Just some time. focussing on better authentication is needed, too, plus I think finding ways to help us define stuff we *don't* need to look at (bonded whitelisting of commercial vendors, for instance, or techniques like Habeas) also helps simplify the problem. Maybe it's old-fashioned of me, but I'm a hacker who sees a big, complex problem, and breaks it down into a bunch of smaller, less complex problems, and then works my way through each one until I come out the other end. I see a situation like this as needing a similar approach, but I keep getting the feeling we're looking for a One True Solution, and anything that doesn't meet that criteria gets lost in the noise a bit. -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 13:11:27 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21413 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:11:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IISQF03823 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:28:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IISQO03820 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:28:26 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21397 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:10:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IIL3O03397; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:21:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IIKsO03347 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:20:54 -0500 Received: from mail-out1.apple.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21029 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:03:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailgate2.apple.com (A17-129-100-225.apple.com [17.129.100.225]) by mail-out1.apple.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2II5cOr022437 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:05:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from scv3.apple.com (scv3.apple.com) by mailgate2.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:05:36 -0800 Received: from plaidworks.com (vg0602e-dhcp175.apple.com [17.216.21.175]) by scv3.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h2II5Yd28195; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:05:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Thoughts so far Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: "John Rumpelein" , To: Matt Sergeant From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <7EB228CE-5930-11D7-9A7B-0003939CB5D8@startechgroup.co.uk> Message-Id: <367D7702-596C-11D7-8892-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:05:33 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tuesday, March 18, 2003, at 02:58 AM, Matt Sergeant wrote: > Criminalising spam would have the effect of stopping the mainsleaze > spammers, while giving you an extra weapon in your battle against the > underground spammers. Also, now that I think about it, depending on HOW you criminalize it, it might give us a stick to hit ISPs that sell bandwidth to them while saying "it's just business". Because depending on how it's criminalized, it might be possible to then look at those ISPs as accessories or in conspiracy to commit, which would toss some criminal liability their way, too. Dealing with spammers as trespassers just won't cut it there. -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 13:13:16 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21560 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:13:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IIUF703931 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:30:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IIUFO03928 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:30:15 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21484 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:12:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IIO1O03603; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:24:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IINBO03564 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:23:11 -0500 Received: from mallard.mail.pas.earthlink.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21127 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:05:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from dialup-67.30.214.53.dial1.atlanta1.level3.net ([67.30.214.53] helo=darwin) by mallard.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18vLVA-0005mw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:07:53 -0800 Message-ID: <00a101c2ed79$51871c30$0100000a@darwin> From: "Paul Tenny" To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Banners, logic gates, system control. Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:05:01 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit If some of you are considering solutions to this problem already, consider this theoretical situation: Take a single message, it's content would be classified as spam by a majority opinion. Send this message through your proposed system and see if it would be flagged, diverted or otherwise stopped completely. If your system manages to correctly handle this message, have the person that received it forward the message back through the system to another recipient. Now ask yourself, would it be stopped again? This problem brings into question not only the content of a message but also the will of the user who sent it. A person might have a very good reason for sending content marked as bad through the system, such as this discussion list. What if this list has a spam filter on it, and I forward a spam to this list as part of the discussion? Best case scenario this list is moderated and a human has to look at it, in which case why do we need filters at all? Worst case a filter consigns it to the bit bucket and it's back to square one. This defines an inherent weakness in all content filtering systems; they simply cannot make the judgements that we require because they aren't us. Sure you can keep tinkering with them until the end of time until they are 99.9% effective, but after 100 million are sent you're still letting 900,000 seep through. On SMTP Banners: I like these, but ultimately they're a tool of the willing only. The only person who is going to respect an "at your discretion" rule will be people who aren't causing problems in the first place. As far as SMTP goes, it's probably good for SMTP. I personally don't believe duct-taping SMTP will ever solve this problem. Ultimately the only way to control an open system (SMTP) is to close it. To stop a message from going someplace that you don't want it to go, you need a gatekeeper. Machines are great logic devices, however determining whether the content is spam is not a logical function, it's entirely opinionated, at which machines are not so good. If you want an automated system to decide what goes in and what goes out, you need to have a logic gate. The gate is a condition (which is up in the air). It can be simple or complex. Based on identity: Does address SNDR have permission to contact address RECIP? Does address SNDR have permission to contact * on network RECIP_NET? Based on content: Does address RECIP allow message type COMMERICIAL? Does network RECIP_NET allow message type COMMERCIAL? Pick one, pick them all, it really depends on the system itself which will watch the gate (and also where the "Gate" is located on the network). The system best suited for this model is a Central Authority which keeps information about what kind of content you want to receive, and optionally who is allowed to send it to you (if that's a positive logic). It also could optionally be a transit for the message itself, or you could employ a public network of transits. The above system would not have the same problem as the banners because the SNDR does not have the option to listen to the rules. The login gate literally makes the decision and either lets the message continue, or stops it. It's not practical to propagate your preferences to every mail server on the Internet; this would be best served either by placing the gatekeeper at the ISP, or run by a central authority that is tasked with operating a very crucial piece of the Internets infrastructure (e.g. the ROOT Name Servers). This would probably require an authentication system (e.g. Domain Registrars require knowing who you are before you can get a domain). It's not impossible, it's simply saying that the mail system as it stands now cannot be controlled by the commons *alone*, much as the snail-mail system probably would collapse without a central governing authority. The upswing would be you'd have a single point of contact no matter what ISP you use or where you are, and anyone using the system would be identifiable if they abuse it because the Central Authority would require you to be identifiable in order to use it. Anyone who wants to be anonymous could always fallback to standard SMTP, assuming a person on the receiving end chooses to still receive via SMTP. The latter part of this message is purely speculation and personal opinion, but I truly believe you can't place a couple million road bumps on the Internet and hope you can slow down most of the speeders. Paul Tenny - pwtenny@earthlink.net HTTP/1.0 404 Objekt nicht gefunden _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 13:13:26 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21586 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:13:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IIUOW03986 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:30:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IIUOO03983 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:30:24 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21522 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:12:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IIQ5O03720; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:26:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IIQ1O03690 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:26:01 -0500 Received: from segfault.monkeys.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21290 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:08:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by segfault.monkeys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BAA041F81 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:10:44 -0800 (PST) To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Thoughts so far In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 18 Mar 2003 08:52:04 -0500. Message-ID: <38924.1048011044@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:10:44 -0800 In message , Kee Hinckley wrote: >The problem with spamming is not that there is no legal recourse. >There is. The courts have held that spamming is equivalent to >trespassing--it's an unauthorized use of your equipment... That is not entirely a completely accurate description of what has been ruled on. Courts have held that spamming is equivalent to trespassing WHEN AND IF you have already sent the spammer in question an explicit request to stop spamming you and/or your server(s) and/or your domain(s) and WHEN AND IF the spammers has then igored that re- quest, and continued to spam you. (Of course, what this degenerates into, in practice, is a kind of ``opt out'' system. The only good news here is that you may, via such formal ``cease and desist'' notices, opt-out entire domains... which is more than any spammer is normally willing to let you do.) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 13:13:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21617 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:13:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IIUaR04012 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:30:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IIUZO04009 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:30:35 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21543 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:13:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IIQ2O03704; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:26:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IIPbO03666 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:25:37 -0500 Received: from mail-out2.apple.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21272 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:08:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailgate2.apple.com (A17-129-100-225.apple.com [17.129.100.225]) by mail-out2.apple.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2IIAKsJ012453 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:10:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from scv3.apple.com (scv3.apple.com) by mailgate2.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:10:19 -0800 Received: from plaidworks.com (vg0602e-dhcp175.apple.com [17.216.21.175]) by scv3.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h2IIAJd00336; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:10:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Thoughts so far Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: Michael Ellis , asrg@ietf.org To: william@elan.net From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:10:18 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tuesday, March 18, 2003, at 07:57 AM, william@elan.net wrote: > So the best way to resolve this is to make it hard/impossible for > spamemrs > to deliver email if they are falsifying headers. True. But a big problem here are open relays.And a big problem there are installations with ancient, buggy, unpatched software -- lots of open relays are boxes still running Sendmail 8.9 or older, for instance. Given you can't get these sites to update that software now, how do we fix this without their cooperation? One way, frankly, would be to make a decision to no longer accept email from sites running these ancient versions of the software, a variation of the current black holes. Might not be a bad thing to consider: it's easier than a relay check, and sites could then sign up and simply say "we won't accept email from broken sites any longer". any other ideas? -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 13:14:04 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21658 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:14:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IIV3W04057 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:31:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IIV2O04054 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:31:02 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21610 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:13:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IIL2O03381; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:21:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IIKaO03328 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:20:36 -0500 Received: from zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21010 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:03:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (zcard307.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h2II4bw14258; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:04:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDFB02S9; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:04:37 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBGDP2; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:04:37 -0500 Message-ID: <3E77607A.6080608@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jon Kyme CC: Paul Judge , ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] Taxonomy of anti-spam systems version 2 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:07:54 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jon Kyme wrote: > I wonder if it might be useful to separately attempt a classification of > message classification systems? Something like this (way incomplete): It would be very helpful to have a parallel taxonomy based on different criteria, like the one you've described. In the _same_ document. No need for a taxonomy document to be limited to only _one_ set of keying criteria. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 13:21:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA22059 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:21:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IIcWx05196 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:38:32 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IIcWO05193 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:38:32 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA22028 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:21:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IIN1O03521; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:23:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IIMAO03476 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:22:10 -0500 Received: from fl-webmail02.durocom.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21079 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:04:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from dlampert ([65.35.47.235]) by fl-webmail02.durocom.com with ESMTP id <20030318180653.CUYG17103.fl-webmail02@dlampert>; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:06:53 -0500 From: "Dave Lampert" To: "matthew richards" Cc: Subject: RE: [Asrg] Gray list: rating of associates Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:06:17 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The priority ratings per sender (i.e. Jane) are privately accessibly only to the recipient (i.e. Ian). Ian can change his rating of Jane, but neither Jane nor anyone else can see or edit those ratings. Ian does this at a private web site of the ISP/ASP. It is true that if someone guesses the GUID, they may be able to hop onboard someone else's high ratings. Yes, GUIDs are somewhat guessable, since they are algorithmic based on net ID and other information, but it's unlikely a spammer would go to that trouble. This method does also support certificate tagging within the email header, but that hasn't been implemented yet (besides, that would require a change to the email client). The most likely way of hacking this is to sniff a non-encrypted email and then spoof it, but again, we try to use networks that are NOT sniffable by just anyone! Did I miss something? How else would a hacker/cracker do this? -----Original Message----- From: matthew richards [mailto:matt@larkinam.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 12:38 PM To: Dave Lampert Subject: Re: [Asrg] Gray list: rating of associates what would prevent a spammer from reverse engineering the prioritization system and then making hack emails that pretend to be high priority from friends? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 13:27:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA22531 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:27:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IIiZs05788 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:44:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IIiYO05785 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:44:34 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA22514 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:27:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IIg7O05590; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:42:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IIdtO05303 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:39:55 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA22155 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:22:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from sputnik (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h2IIOc9Y021133; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:24:38 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sputnik.mobil.danisch.de (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-8) id h2IIOKTh010282; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:24:21 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Chris Lewis Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Giving Public Notice .... Message-ID: <20030318182420.GB10179@danisch.de> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030317114856.03bf2538@mail.lextek.com> <20030318042916.GA4823@danisch.de> <3E774947.9070001@americasm01.nt.com> <20030318174151.GC8713@danisch.de> <3E776029.2070104@americasm01.nt.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E776029.2070104@americasm01.nt.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:24:20 -0800 On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 01:06:33PM -0500, Chris Lewis wrote: > > That's Germany. The law in the US and Canada is different. I know. Are we searching for solutions that work in USA and Canada, or for solutions that work anywhere? > Ie: what if a child of 8 years old was "caught" spamming pornography > ads? Don't suggest that the law has no recourse - the child may well be > taken into custody by "Children's Aid"/"Foster care" (or local > equivalent), or the courts may refuse to accept the child is doing it on > their own, and promptly charge the person who talked the child into > doing it. The porn example is a little bit harsh. Let's take an example a little bit closer to reality. Have a 13 year old boy sending tons of spam complaining about his teachers, ads for some shop or whatever. That child would definitely not taken into any custody, since the german constitution protects the family. This would be a severe violation of the child's constitutional rights. And it would be disproportional, which also violates german constitution. I am aware that such things are handled differently in the US. In european eyes it is absolutely ridiculous how US laws/courts treat children and youngsters. But that's far off-topic. We should be aware that we cannot use anti-spam methods that depend on the US law or the US way of interpreting human rights. Anti-Spam methods must work everywhere on the world. So try to not limit your view on the USA. Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 13:29:13 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA22625 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:29:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IIkCe05899 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:46:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IIkBO05896 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:46:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA22562 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:28:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IIfxO05572; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:41:59 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IIdpO05282 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:39:51 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA22138 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:22:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from sputnik (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h2IIOWiL021116; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:24:32 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sputnik.mobil.danisch.de (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-8) id h2IIGLAA010194; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:16:21 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Doug Phillips Cc: jmr@jmrtech.com, Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Giving Public Notice .... Message-ID: <20030318181620.GA10179@danisch.de> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:16:20 -0800 On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 12:42:04PM -0500, Doug Phillips wrote: > The law will need to evolve, just as Internet architecture needs to > evolve. I agree. But unfortunately, that's far beyond the scope, the power, and the timeline of such a research group. Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 13:32:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA22717 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:32:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IInZT06041 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:49:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IInZO06037 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:49:35 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA22702 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:32:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IIhAO05706; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:43:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IIg9O05599 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:42:09 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA22430 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:24:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from sputnik (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h2IIQppX021161; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:26:51 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sputnik.mobil.danisch.de (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-8) id h2IIQhkv010395; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:26:43 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Thoughts so far Message-ID: <20030318182642.GC10179@danisch.de> References: <38924.1048011044@monkeys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <38924.1048011044@monkeys.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:26:42 -0800 On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 10:10:44AM -0800, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > > Courts have held that spamming is equivalent to trespassing WHEN > AND IF you have already sent the spammer in question an explicit > request to stop spamming you and/or your server(s) and/or your > domain(s) and WHEN AND IF the spammers has then igored that re- > quest, and continued to spam you. > Did the courts say anything about how to perform this request if the spammer doesn't reveal its identity and uses a fake sender address? Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 13:33:23 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA22757 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:33:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IIoMr06098 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:50:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IIoMO06095 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:50:22 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA22732 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:32:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IIl2O05961; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:47:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IIkcO05932 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:46:38 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA22606 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:29:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18vH4c-0004Ea-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 08:24:10 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Thoughts so far In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:00:48 PST." <5.1.0.14.2.20030318094728.04804d40@mail.attbi.com> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 08:24:10 -0500 Steve Schear wrote: > Right on the money. We all get 4th Class adverts in our postal boxes but > few seem to complain even though we are forced to spend a few valuable > seconds of our time each day dealing with it. How is this markedly > different, financially, from email spam? Email spam has cost me, personally, about $2k out of pocket, and another $8k in lost time that I can't bill anyone for. There is little similarity between email spam and postal spam. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 13:43:03 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA23117 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:43:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IJ03t06821 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:00:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IJ03O06814 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:00:03 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA23103 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:42:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IIv3O06643; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:57:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IIsEO06316 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:54:14 -0500 Received: from toad.date.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA22852 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:36:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from date.com (unknown [216.130.219.81]) by toad.date.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFF1E1C36EB; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:38:57 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3E7767C1.EF837AAD@date.com> From: Michael Ellis X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: william@elan.net, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Thoughts so far References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:38:57 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit william@elan.net wrote: > How about criminal charges for spammers (after somebody won civil > suite) with pentaly being that judge orders that spammer may not use > computer or have anything to do with advertising business for set period > of time? > > That wouldn't work. Civil charges and criminal charges have to be kept separate in most legal systems. Winning a civil case is not the same as winning a criminal case. You would have to separate the two and make spamming a criminal offense before a judge could set those conditions. (which wouldnt fly anyway most of the time). -- Michael Ellis Privacy Manager Date.com Phone (416) 306-0022 ext 620 Fax (416) 306-0023 Date.com - "The New Way To Date" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 13:43:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA23173 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:43:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IJ0gt06891 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:00:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IJ0gO06888 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:00:42 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA23134 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:43:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IIueO06547; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:56:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IIrCO06273 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:53:12 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc01.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA22845 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:35:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from art.lextek.com (12-254-130-29.client.attbi.com[12.254.130.29]) by sccrmhc01.attbi.com (sccrmhc01) with SMTP id <20030318183755001003arbge>; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:37:55 +0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030318113750.04009e70@mail.lextek.com> X-Sender: PollardA@mail.lextek.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Art Pollard Subject: Re: [Asrg] Giving Public Notice .... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:37:52 -0700 >Under german law, a message can't be binding if it has not been >sent and received by both a 'person'. Law distinguishes between >'natural' persons (=humans) and 'juristical' persons (=companies, >associations, etc.) which also involves a human. Machines can't >have contracts under german law. Here in the United States, there are places that things must be posted as a "public notice" where they in effect become binding as law. For example, if a piece of land is going to be annexed into another piece of property a "public notice" must be given (generally in the local newspaper) announcing the fact so that if anybody has any disputes that they can bring them forward. If they do not act on the "public notice" that was given within a certain period of time then they are assumed to have agreed and complied with it -- even if they did not see the notice in the paper. There are all sorts of places where public notices come into effect such as No Trespassing signs. Private property must have no-trespassing signs posted every N number of feet in order for people to be able to be prosecuted for trespassing if they come on the property. (They can also be prosecuted if you tell them personally or have delivered a letter to them etc.) But the point being is that it is a notice placed in a public place that everybody assumes that the trespasser (in this case) saw or should have seen. A public notice such as I described would serve a similar function. It would also give legislators something that they can point to. As far as jurisdiction is concerned, yes, it would be hard for me to sue someone in Germany for spam. However, those in Germany can sue those in Germany that spam and I can easily sue those in the U.S. who spam. Because e-mail addresses are not classified generally by nationality (except for domain names that end in a country code) we would benefit for our mutual efforts. People tend to spam the world as a whole rather than by country. Thus if I can't sue someone in Germany for spamming me, I want a structure in place where someone else can sue the person in Germany. As long as somebody does it, it will serve as a deterrent for future spammers. -Art -- Art Pollard http://www.lextek.com/ Suppliers of High Performance Text Retrieval Engines. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 13:46:22 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA23377 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:46:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IJ3Ld07161 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:03:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IJ3LO07158 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:03:21 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA23309 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:45:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IIuZO06526; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:56:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IIqqO06257 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:52:52 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc03.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA22839 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:35:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from art.lextek.com (12-254-130-29.client.attbi.com[12.254.130.29]) by sccrmhc03.attbi.com (sccrmhc03) with SMTP id <2003031818373200300d85c3e>; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:37:32 +0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030318113726.04acc200@mail.lextek.com> X-Sender: PollardA@mail.lextek.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Art Pollard Subject: Re: [Asrg] Thoughts so far Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:37:30 -0700 > >On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, Doug Phillips wrote: > > > I agree with Kee. The prospective recovery from suits against spammers is > > not high enough to make suits worthwhile--not only because the > penalties are > > too low, but also because many individual spammers are judgment proof. In > > my view, this is why it would be helpful to have laws that could be > enforced > > against vendors of software that circumvents anti-spam technology. I disagree. I believe there is a _ton_ of money out there that somebody could make pursuing spammers. How would it work? Simple.... Here in Utah, the end user can collect $10 per spam and the ISP another $10. So that is $20 that goes uncollected at this point. Sure, it isn't as much as Washington State's law allows but I believe it is enough to make a lot of money. How would you make money? The way you make money is to buy the right to collect from the ISP and their customers. So, the ISP receives 1,000 spams from the same spammer. That is potentially $20,000 that is uncollected. Now, that is worth pursuing. Here in Utah, you can go to small claims court for values up to $5,000. So, what I believe would be a good way to pursue this is to simply take the spammer to small claims court for the maximum value allowed under small claims. Thus the $5,000 could be collected with little or no attorney's fees or expenses. Of course, if you wanted to incur attorney's fees then you can go to normal district court and collect more at a time. If they do not have the money, that is ok. As long as you have a judgement, you can put a lein on their house, property and all sorts of nasty things so that you will collect in the end. -Art -- Art Pollard http://www.lextek.com/ Suppliers of High Performance Text Retrieval Engines. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 13:47:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA23506 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:47:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IJ4Wf07244 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:04:32 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IJ4WO07241 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:04:32 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA23468 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:47:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IJ02O06812; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:00:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IIxAO06747 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:59:10 -0500 Received: from hotmail.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA23078 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:41:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:43:53 -0800 Received: from 63.118.24.242 by pv1fd.pav1.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:43:52 GMT X-Originating-IP: [63.118.24.242] From: "Doug Phillips" To: hadmut@danisch.de Cc: jmr@jmrtech.com, Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Giving Public Notice .... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Mar 2003 18:43:53.0243 (UTC) FILETIME=[52E88EB0:01C2ED7E] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:43:52 -0500 I believe the scope statement indicates that ASRG will pursue legal issues related to spam only to the extent they affect, support, or constrain anti-spam technology (and not otherwise). That's as it should be. This is not primarily about law, but if new laws are needed or would be useful to back up a technological solution, they should be identified. A lot of legislators would be happy to be able to introduce a bill or at least cast a vote against spam. In the U.S. Congress, there was overwhelming support for sharp limits on telemarketing, and I'm sure there are similar feelings about spam. ----Original Message Follows---- From: Hadmut Danisch To: Doug Phillips CC: jmr@jmrtech.com, Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Giving Public Notice .... Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:16:20 -0800 On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 12:42:04PM -0500, Doug Phillips wrote: > The law will need to evolve, just as Internet architecture needs to > evolve. I agree. But unfortunately, that's far beyond the scope, the power, and the timeline of such a research group. Hadmut _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 14:10:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24630 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:10:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IJRg109519 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:27:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IJRgO09516 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:27:42 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24575 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:10:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IJN6O09203; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:23:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IJMqO09178 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:22:52 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24422 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:05:21 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2IJ73pT002638; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:07:03 -0500 Message-Id: <200303181907.h2IJ73pT002638@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.2 03/12/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: David Green Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Domain-Authorized SMTP Mail In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:48:17 EST." <1048006097.8984.67.camel@david.couchpotato.net> References: <1048002218.8984.53.camel@david.couchpotato.net> <200303181633.h2IGXNis004737@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <1048006097.8984.67.camel@david.couchpotato.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_-1919158646P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:07:03 -0500 --==_Exmh_-1919158646P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:48:17 EST, David Green said: > If the email is From: foo@bar.baz.biz.buz.co.uk, you would query the MT > for "bar.baz.biz.buz.co.uk". You would never drop any parts of the name. You got it backwards. If the mail is 'From: valdis@vt.edu', you need to suck down all 200 or so MT entries in the vt.edu domain and see if my IP is one of them. And it's even more borked for mailing lists, because the From: and To: don't have much to do with what's going on. The mail server for couchpotato.net would be looking at this message, and complaining because the ietf.org mail server isn't an MT for the vt.edu in the From: field. Oh, and this message is coming to you direct, and a cc: to the list - explain how your scheme handles each of the copies that are arriving. If you get it to work for mailing lists, run it again for the case of a spammer making the spam LOOK like a mailing list posting (hint - they're usually pretty similar already). Looking at the MAIL FROM: in the envelope doesn't provide much more joy. (As an aside to the person who suggested logging the MAIL FROM in the From: field - did you really WANT it to look like: From: bugtraq-return-8764-Valdis.Kletnieks=vt.edu@securityfocus.com on behalf of From: owner-nolist-LSOFT-030205B*Valdis*-Kletnieks**VT*-EDU@MM.EASE.LSOFT.COM on behalf ov Yes - imagine that. Some list management software encodes the destination address in the envelope so it can identify a bounce even if the bounce is misformatted, as long as it goes back to the RFC821 MAIL FROM like it's supposed to.) > Every MX either sends to a server that trusts it (a relay), or to the > recipient's MX. The only restriction here is that the MX that initiates > the final hop to the recipient's MX must be listed as an MT for the > sender's domain. OK. So let's say this happens: joe@non-spam.com sends you mail. Your server is down. So he sends it to mail.mx-are-us.com (your off-site MX service). mx-are-us sticks on a Auth-By: header. Later on, your server comes up. mx-are-us sends you the mail. Now let's say you do the totally legal thing of not preserving the Auth-By, so you strip it off. Now you're looking at mail coming from mx-are-us, with 'From: joe@non-spam.com'. You look up the MT list for non-spam.com, and get back 23 entries - and none of them are mx-are-us.com. Now what do you do? The point is you need to tighten up the language about what to do if accepting relayed mail. The current language: > > SMTP servers SHOULD remove any Authorized-By SMTP headers of > > incoming mail. They MAY be configurable to preserve Authorized-By > > headers on incoming mail from a set of trusted servers. is broken. For it to be workable, you need to make it a 'MUST preserve' for the case of mail coming from your MX'es. --==_Exmh_-1919158646P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+d25XcC3lWbTT17ARAgKCAJ9qziAfYKItP4278MIciMtja9XHzQCfXgLP sLI9py7jH2DntTLH9a9Ycj4= =ZJkU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_-1919158646P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 14:24:02 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25154 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:24:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IJf2c11109 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:41:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IJf2O11106 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:41:02 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25143 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:23:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IJV7O09833; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:31:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IJUMO09734 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:30:22 -0500 Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id OAA24866 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:12:50 -0500 (EST) From: meor@mail.SoftHome.net Received: (qmail 12312 invoked by uid 417); 18 Mar 2003 19:15:04 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 18 Mar 2003 19:15:04 -0000 Received: from Main.mail.SoftHome.net ([24.118.229.120]) (AUTH: LOGIN meor@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:15:03 -0700 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030318131408.00ba2b50@mail.SoftHome.net> X-Sender: meor@mail.SoftHome.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] A method to eliminate spam In-Reply-To: <18417.1047976405@monkeys.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:15:03 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Hint: CNN does not use digital signatures to identify any of its >outgoing mail at the present time. > >Unless you have a plan to change that, your scheme isn't worth the >electrons it is written on. Actually I did plan on changing that. In my first message to this list I posted a URL to an overview I was proposing. Here is that URL again http://meor.xwarzone.com/overview.htm _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 14:33:21 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25777 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:33:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IJoLu12244 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:50:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IJoLO12241 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:50:21 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25713 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:32:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IJjEO11384; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:45:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IJi0O11288 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:44:00 -0500 Received: from toad.date.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25253 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:26:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from date.com (unknown [216.130.219.81]) by toad.date.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4309C1C361E; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:28:42 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3E77736A.9BBF9F93@date.com> From: Michael Ellis X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Art Pollard , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Thoughts so far References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030318113726.04acc200@mail.lextek.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:28:42 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > How would it work? Simple.... > > Here in Utah, the end user can collect $10 per spam and the ISP another > $10. So that is $20 that goes uncollected at this point. Sure, it isn't > as much as Washington State's law allows but I believe it is enough to make > a lot of money. Except that Utah's law was just resounding defeated in its first test in court and the written judgement makes it difficult to ever collect from sleazy spammer and impossible from a 'honest' (or at least open) one -- Michael Ellis Privacy Manager Date.com Phone (416) 306-0022 ext 620 Fax (416) 306-0023 Date.com - "The New Way To Date" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 14:34:27 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25870 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:34:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IJpRP12300 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:51:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IJpRO12297 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:51:27 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25822 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:33:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IJm8O11931; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:48:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IJkaO11565 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:46:36 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25418 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:29:04 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2IHabiX006842 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 09:36:37 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2IHabOt006838 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 09:36:37 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Asrg] (no subject) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 09:36:37 -0800 (PST) > Given you can't get these sites to update that software now, how do we > fix this without their cooperation? That this problem with outdated software will exist no matter what solution is used (unless its designing new protocol). But once some solution or protocol extension is widely accepted, receiving mail server or end user can use the fact that email is received from outdated system as additional filter to determine if its spam or not with outdated email server making it say twice more likely that its spam... But in either case we do need to keep in mind that simpler solutions are easier and faster to implement, the question becomes how effective this is. Also I want to point out that while current RFCs (I believe its RFC822) say that email has to be accepted no matter what headers, what are Mail TO and FROM are and how it came to the system, this is no longer true in practical terms for more then 50% of the email servers. So this particular part of the RFC is de-facto history... and should not be used for any new design or rfc. P.S. It would be usefull to actually list all parts of current mail rfcs that are puroposely not supported either in implimentation or operation of large number or majority of active mail servers. > One way, frankly, would be to make a decision to no longer accept email > from sites running these ancient versions of the software, a variation > of the current black holes. Might not be a bad thing to consider: it's > easier than a relay check, and sites could then sign up and simply say > "we won't accept email from broken sites any longer". > > any other ideas? > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 14:34:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25883 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:34:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IJpTM12316 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:51:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IJpTO12313 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:51:29 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25826 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:33:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IJm4O11899; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:48:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IJk3O11547 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:46:03 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25333 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:28:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h2IJUh724059 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:30:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF4YYAW; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:30:43 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBGD4G; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:30:43 -0500 Message-ID: <3E7774A9.2000209@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Thoughts so far References: <3E7767C1.EF837AAD@date.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:34:01 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Michael Ellis wrote: > > william@elan.net wrote: >>How about criminal charges for spammers (after somebody won civil >>suite) with pentaly being that judge orders that spammer may not use >>computer or have anything to do with advertising business for set period >>of time? > That wouldn't work. Civil charges and criminal charges have to be kept separate in > most legal systems. Winning a civil case is not the same as winning a criminal > case. You would have to separate the two and make spamming a criminal offense > before a judge could set those conditions. (which wouldnt fly anyway most of the > time). On the contrary, if someone loses a civil suit that ends up with an injunction against doing the same thing in future, doing it again is contempt of court, and is a criminal offense subject to jail time. Why Sam Khuri didn't get hit with a contempt citation and jailed for spamming again is a complete mystery to me. Well, no it isn't, the requisite DA didn't think it worth the effort. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 14:36:19 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA26103 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:36:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IJrJH12482 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:53:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IJrJO12479 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:53:19 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA26088 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:35:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IJn2O12065; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:49:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IJm2O11893 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:48:02 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25524 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:30:30 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2IJWEpT003025; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:32:14 -0500 Message-Id: <200303181932.h2IJWEpT003025@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.2 03/12/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: David Green Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Domain-Authorized SMTP Mail In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:18:19 EST." <1048015099.13355.106.camel@david.couchpotato.net> References: <1048002218.8984.53.camel@david.couchpotato.net> <200303181633.h2IGXNis004737@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <1048006097.8984.67.camel@david.couchpotato.net> <200303181907.h2IJ73pT002638@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <1048015099.13355.106.camel@david.couchpotato.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_-1916452866P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:32:14 -0500 --==_Exmh_-1916452866P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:18:19 EST, David Green said: > The vt.edu domain certainly only has a few authorized outgoing smtp > relays. I don't think they handle enough mail to justify a server farm > of 200 servers just for their email. The question is whether AOL.COM has few enough authorized outbound relays that it fits in a single 512-byte UDP DNS query. I know they can't fit all their inbounds into one packet, so I suspect the outbounds don't either. > > And it's even more borked for mailing lists, because the From: and To: > > don't have much to do with what's going on. The mail server for couchpot= > ato.net > > would be looking at this message, and complaining because the ietf.org > > mail server isn't an MT for the vt.edu in the From: field. > > Thats why the asrg@ietf.org address would have to be used for > authorization. Hey, what do you know... asrg@ietf.org isn't in the From: - in fact, if it's bcc:ed it may not appear in the RFC822 headers *AT ALL*. > The copy from you to me would be authorized as coming from you. The copy > from you to the mailing list would be authorized by Majordomo to be > coming from you. Majordomo may not be able to authorize it - see my discussion about MX handling, which also matters in case of firewalls and mail servers in the DMZ. > When the mailing list resends the message, the message > would be checked by each recipient's MX as coming from asrg@ietf.org. As > you see, the From: starts to have real meaning. > If my MX trusted mail.mx-are-us.com, it would not strip the > Authorized-By header. But that's not what your draft said. It said it *MAY* be configured to do so. MAY means its *optional*, not "you have to do it for it to work the way you expect" - that's what MUST is for. > > The point is you need to tighten up the language about what to do if > > accepting relayed mail. The current language: > >=20 > > > > SMTP servers SHOULD remove any Authorized-By SMTP headers of > > > > incoming mail. They MAY be configurable to preserve Authorized-By > > > > headers on incoming mail from a set of trusted servers. > >=20 > > is broken. For it to be workable, you need to make it a 'MUST preserve' > > for the case of mail coming from your MX'es. > > Your MX's would be trusted servers. Then fix your MAY. --==_Exmh_-1916452866P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+d3Q9cC3lWbTT17ARAu5+AKDMWzey4auNfv55rmyMeGWhobzaogCfeEo/ 5RLNgUu9TfkSs5L6vunjAWk= =Rut8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_-1916452866P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 14:37:47 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA26198 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:37:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IJsmk12582 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:54:48 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IJslO12579 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:54:47 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA26147 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:37:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IJlVO11686; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:47:31 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IJfZO11156 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:41:35 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25169 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:24:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (zcard307.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h2IJQF723611 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:26:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDFB0SNG; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:26:15 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBGD4B; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:26:14 -0500 Message-ID: <3E77739C.8010403@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Giving Public Notice .... References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030317114856.03bf2538@mail.lextek.com> <20030318042916.GA4823@danisch.de> <3E774947.9070001@americasm01.nt.com> <20030318174151.GC8713@danisch.de> <3E776029.2070104@americasm01.nt.com> <20030318182420.GB10179@danisch.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:29:32 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hadmut Danisch wrote: > On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 01:06:33PM -0500, Chris Lewis wrote: > >>That's Germany. The law in the US and Canada is different. > I know. Are we searching for solutions that work in USA and > Canada, or for solutions that work anywhere? Legislative solutions, as are contracts, are of necessity national rather than international in scope. However, that doesn't mean that legislative solutions are useless or impossible. Indeed, a US-centric law enacted in the US would be of considerable use because the vast majority of spam is US-originated. They can also form a model for other countries to adapt or adopt. >>Ie: what if a child of 8 years old was "caught" spamming pornography >>ads? Don't suggest that the law has no recourse - the child may well be >>taken into custody by "Children's Aid"/"Foster care" (or local >>equivalent), or the courts may refuse to accept the child is doing it on >>their own, and promptly charge the person who talked the child into >>doing it. > The porn example is a little bit harsh. Let's take an example a > little bit closer to reality. Have a 13 year old boy sending tons > of spam complaining about his teachers, ads for some shop or whatever. > That child would definitely not taken into any custody, since the > german constitution protects the family. This would be a severe > violation of the child's constitutional rights. And it would be > disproportional, which also violates german constitution. I don't think you understand your own laws that well. German law wouldn't just pat the child on the head, and leave them free to repeat committing an offense. The german laws simply make it clear that young offenders aren't treated the same way as adults. Ditto our Young Offenders Act. A child that say, breaks a neighbor's windows may get off the first time with a warning and confiscation of "proceeds" instead of being fined or incarcerated. But repeats _will_ result in different reactions, such as holding the parents liable for restitution, mandatory counselling, and up to taking custody of the child and putting them under foster care. [At this level, perhaps the primary difference between US law and many others is simply that the child will often not get away with the "first time", and the age thresholds are lower.] The German constitution, as does ours, "protects the child". "Protecting the child" doesn't mean that the child gets to do anything they want to as often as they want. It just means that the state uses gentler persuasion than immediate punitive measures. Repeated violations of the law, or fraud, or harrassment or whatever _do_ get handled - through forcing parental responsibility or other things, as it becomes necessary. _That_ is protecting the child - trying to guide them away from the bad, and towards the good. But if that doesn't work, the state still has other remedies. > I am aware that such things are handled differently in the US. > In european eyes it is absolutely ridiculous how US laws/courts > treat children and youngsters. But that's far off-topic. Yes it is. But you're making a big mistake... > We should be aware that we cannot use anti-spam methods that > depend on the US law or the US way of interpreting human rights. > Anti-Spam methods must work everywhere on the world. So try > to not limit your view on the USA. What makes you think my view is US-oriented? Hint: I'm not American and I'm not in the USA. The YOA is not a US law. The YOA is considered one of the most progressive laws on this subject in the world. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 14:39:16 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA26281 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:39:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IJuHd12675 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:56:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IJuHO12672 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:56:17 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA26248 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:38:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IJq1O12371; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:52:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IJpMO12293 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:51:22 -0500 Received: from nycsmtp3out.rdc-nyc.rr.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25819 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:33:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from damien (66-108-13-38.nyc.rr.com [66.108.13.38]) by nycsmtp3out.rdc-nyc.rr.com (8.12.1/Road Runner SMTP Server 1.0) with ESMTP id h2IJaIHx006094; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:36:19 -0500 (EST) From: "Damien Morton" To: "'Steve Schear'" , "'Margie Arbon'" Cc: Subject: RE: [Asrg] Thoughts so far Message-ID: <010001c2ed84$b4b2fc10$6401a8c0@damien> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030318094728.04804d40@mail.attbi.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:29:32 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Right on the money. We all get 4th Class adverts in our > postal boxes but > few seem to complain even though we are forced to spend a few > valuable > seconds of our time each day dealing with it. How is this markedly > different, financially, from email spam? Following along the > apparent line > of reasoning of the above decision no commercial entity would > be able to > contact me w/o prior authorization, and we know this will > never become the > law of the land. Because many spammers may not be repeat > offenders to the > same party, opt-out systems won't work. Opt-in might but > who's laws will > prevail in enforcing them. Actually I tried complainng about 4th class mail. I put a huge notice on my letterbox that said "3rd class and 4th class mail not accepted". The mailman ignored it, of course. I now pile up all the junk mail I get on top of the letterbox, marking it "wrong address" or "not accepted", and the mailman makes a point of circling "The resident" to prove that it has in fact been correctly addressed. > I'm dead center in the sender-pays camp, Proof-of_work initially and > anonymous bearer stamps later. Its the same tried and true > system that > limits the spam in my postal box to a small amount, almost all from > credible parties. It doesn't require major changes to the email > infrastructure, though clients would need to be enhanced > (web-based email > could add this almost immediately, plug-ins may suffice for > some, like > Eudora), nor new legislation. Initial users may find they > become less > "reachable" to casual contacts, but that should only last a > short while if > sender-pays becomes popular. Actually, sender-pays could be implemented at the ISP level. ISPs would automatically pay for stamps on outgoing mail, and bill it back to the sender. Sender-pays also doesn't even have to use stamps. It can be implemented as a financial arrangement between two mail servers (relays or otherwise). Mailservers run by entities that trust each other could even reconcile any handlign fees at the end of the month or even year. I think it would be important for every receiving server to be able to set its own charges. These could even be listed in an extended MX record. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 14:42:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA26394 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:42:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IJxXu12900 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:59:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IJxXO12897 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:59:33 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA26385 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:42:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IJr1O12456; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:53:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IJqgO12431 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:52:42 -0500 Received: from nycsmtp1out.rdc-nyc.rr.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25996 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:35:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from damien (66-108-13-38.nyc.rr.com [66.108.13.38]) by nycsmtp1out.rdc-nyc.rr.com (8.12.1/Road Runner SMTP Server 1.0) with ESMTP id h2IJbOr0018484 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:37:24 -0500 (EST) From: "Damien Morton" To: Message-ID: <010101c2ed84$e74f8710$6401a8c0@damien> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Content based filtering Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:30:58 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have a basic problem with any approaches that mandate being able to read the contents of an email in order to classify it as spam or not. Whilst the current mail infrastructure makes it easy for servers to read the contents of mail, this neednt necessarily always be so. These systems can also be avoided by various transformations, such as slice-and-dice tables, misspellings, etc etc. Further, any content oriented detection systems could easily be repurposed for privacy invasion purposes. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 14:47:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA26525 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:47:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IK4Ux13160 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:04:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IK4UO13157 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:04:30 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA26495 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:46:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IJx3O12872; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:59:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IJwpO12856 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:58:51 -0500 Received: from zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA26364 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:41:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h2IJhWx27441 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:43:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF4YYK7; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:43:32 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBGD49; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:43:32 -0500 Message-ID: <3E7777A9.1000008@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Domain-Authorized SMTP Mail References: <1048002218.8984.53.camel@david.couchpotato.net> <200303181633.h2IGXNis004737@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <1048006097.8984.67.camel@david.couchpotato.net> <200303181907.h2IJ73pT002638@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <1048015099.13355.106.camel@david.couchpotato.net> <200303181932.h2IJWEpT003025@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:46:49 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:18:19 EST, David Green said: >>The vt.edu domain certainly only has a few authorized outgoing smtp >>relays. I don't think they handle enough mail to justify a server farm >>of 200 servers just for their email. > The question is whether AOL.COM has few enough authorized outbound relays > that it fits in a single 512-byte UDP DNS query. I know they can't fit > all their inbounds into one packet, so I suspect the outbounds don't either. My tools show some providers with whole class C's virtually stuffed with "official" mail servers. MSN/Hotmail is a good example - probably considerably more than 250 outbound servers in total (once you include all of the MSN/Hotmail mail servers plus all the webmail things that send directly) in various class Cs. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 14:50:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA26599 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:50:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IK75913438 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:07:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IK75O13427 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:07:05 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA26588 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:49:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IK25O13074; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:02:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IK1YO13041 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:01:34 -0500 Received: from zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA26423 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:44:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (zcard307.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h2IJkEw15620 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:46:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDFB0443; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:46:14 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBGDV2; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:46:13 -0500 Message-ID: <3E77784A.9080507@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Content based filtering References: <010101c2ed84$e74f8710$6401a8c0@damien> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:49:30 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Damien Morton wrote: > I have a basic problem with any approaches that mandate being able to > read the contents of an email in order to classify it as spam or not. > Whilst the current mail infrastructure makes it easy for servers to read > the contents of mail, this neednt necessarily always be so. These > systems can also be avoided by various transformations, such as > slice-and-dice tables, misspellings, etc etc. Further, any content > oriented detection systems could easily be repurposed for privacy > invasion purposes. A mail server can be easily repurposed for privacy invasion ... just a few source code hacks and voila, all of everyone's email. It's not a very good argument. That's for privacy legislation to deal with, and not a reason why content filters (or filters that work with other criteria than "content") cannot be used when appropriate consent is obtained. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 14:50:06 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA26613 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:50:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IK77W13486 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:07:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IK77O13483 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:07:07 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA26592 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:49:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IK26O13091; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:02:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IK1lO13045 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:01:47 -0500 Received: from segfault.monkeys.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA26431 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:44:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by segfault.monkeys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D6CE41F80 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:46:29 -0800 (PST) To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Domain-Authorized SMTP Mail In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:33:22 -0500. <200303181633.h2IGXNis004737@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: <40107.1048016789@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:46:29 -0800 In message <200303181633.h2IGXNis004737@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: >What domain do you do the query on? You can't just blindly go 2 levels, >as that will piss the admins of 'co.uk' off quite thoroughly... If anybody needs it, I have already developed a domain name ``splitter'' that splits any given domain into two parts, i.e.: 1) a prefix, and 2) a suffix consisting of (a) a domain name label belonging to some specific organization followed by (b) a reserved (geographically or otherwise) domain name. Given an FQDN such as x.y.z.international-widgets.co.uk, the splitter will split that as follows: x.y.z international-widgets.co.uk C source code is available here: ftp://ftp.monkeys.com/pub/dname-tools/c/orgd-1.0.tar.gz _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 14:54:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA26772 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:54:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IKBv114372 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:11:57 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IKBvO14369 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:11:57 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA26738 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:54:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IK82O14165; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:08:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IK7bO14127 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:07:37 -0500 Received: from segfault.monkeys.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA26598 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:50:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by segfault.monkeys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F067541F80 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:52:17 -0800 (PST) To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] New To The List In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:07:11 -0400. <001101c2ed70$e6852240$60cefea9@f4n8i1> Message-ID: <40176.1048017137@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:52:17 -0800 In message <001101c2ed70$e6852240$60cefea9@f4n8i1>, "Ian Wilson" wrote: > It seems to me that a lot of SPAMMERS forge return addresses. For = >instance a message might say that it comes from *spammer@yahoo.com* and = >when I contact *abuse@yahoo.com* I usually get a return message that = >indicates the SPAMMERS didn't actually send the message using Yahoo. = >This makes me wonder is it possible, at the mail server level to check = >and see if a return address is forged? Yes, that's very possible, and I wrote some hacks some time ago which implemented that exact functionality in the Postfix[tm] mail server. (The bad news is that I implemented this stuff for an old version of Postfix, and I declined to update it when the primary Postfix developer declined to roll the relevant enhancement code into future Postfix releases.) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 14:54:58 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA26785 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:54:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IKBxr14388 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:11:59 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IKBxO14385 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:11:59 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA26742 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:54:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IK86O14182; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:08:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IK7pO14137 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:07:51 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA26627 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:50:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from video.attbi.com (12-235-20-211.client.attbi.com[12.235.20.211]) by rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (rwcrmhc51) with SMTP id <2003031819523305100iragoe>; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:52:33 +0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030318115028.048dd7d8@mail.attbi.com> X-Sender: schear@mail.attbi.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: "Damien Morton" , "'Margie Arbon'" From: Steve Schear Subject: RE: [Asrg] Thoughts so far Cc: In-Reply-To: <010001c2ed84$b4b2fc10$6401a8c0@damien> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030318094728.04804d40@mail.attbi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:55:22 -0800 At 02:29 PM 3/18/2003 -0500, Damien Morton wrote: > > I'm dead center in the sender-pays camp, Proof-of_work initially and > > anonymous bearer stamps later. Its the same tried and true > > system that > > limits the spam in my postal box to a small amount, almost all from > > credible parties. It doesn't require major changes to the email > > infrastructure, though clients would need to be enhanced > > (web-based email > > could add this almost immediately, plug-ins may suffice for > > some, like > > Eudora), nor new legislation. Initial users may find they > > become less > > "reachable" to casual contacts, but that should only last a > > short while if > > sender-pays becomes popular. > >Actually, sender-pays could be implemented at the ISP level. ISPs would >automatically pay for stamps on outgoing mail, and bill it back to the >sender. > >Sender-pays also doesn't even have to use stamps. It can be implemented >as a financial arrangement between two mail servers (relays or >otherwise). Mailservers run by entities that trust each other could even >reconcile any handlign fees at the end of the month or even year. How does this work when clients use an open access Wi-Fi link or other situations where free and anonymous access is being granted? >I think it would be important for every receiving server to be able to >set its own charges. These could even be listed in an extended MX >record I think it even more important that each recipient set their own rates. Is a Nobel laureate's email reading time worth the same as a house wife's sharing the same ISP? steve >. "War is just a racket ... something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small group knows what its about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses." --- Major General Smedley Butler, 1933 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 15:01:22 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA26963 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:01:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IKIN314750 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:18:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IKINO14747 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:18:23 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA26946 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:00:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IKB4O14343; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:11:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IKAgO14301 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:10:42 -0500 Received: from mailhost.aix.cc (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA26708 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:53:10 -0500 (EST) Received: by mailhost.aix.cc (Postfix, from userid 2) id 695B11DD89F; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:35:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from wildmlt (unknown [4.36.172.251]) by mailhost.aix.cc (Postfix) with SMTP id 74C4A1DC2C7 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:04:41 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <009401c2ed81$33cafba0$1174fea9@aix.cc> From: "M Wild" To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Amend the RFC to require reverse DNS Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:04:23 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Greetings - One of the most effective anti-spam measures I have taken on my mail servers is to require the sending mail server's IP address to reverse resolve to the name it uses in its HELO command. While this is a violation of the RFC it eliminates lying machines and forces accountability on the sending server. Yes, I know it can be forged or spoofed however it still significantly raises the level of effort required on the part of the spammer. I've had to turn this check off due to customer complaints however I am reconsidering this decision. Amending the RFC to *REQUIRE* correct and complete DNS setup for a SMTP client would go a long way towards reducing my undesired traffic. It would also address the customer (and clueless administrator) complaints with a simple "I am following the rules" How can you argue with that? Regards Mike _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 15:04:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27165 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:04:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IKLfe14955 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:21:41 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IKLfO14952 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:21:41 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27110 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:04:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IKD2O14499; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:13:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IKCNO14437 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:12:23 -0500 Received: from segfault.monkeys.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA26767 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:54:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by segfault.monkeys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C089641F73; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:57:04 -0800 (PST) To: Hadmut Danisch Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Thoughts so far In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:26:42 -0800. <20030318182642.GC10179@danisch.de> Message-ID: <40231.1048017424@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:57:04 -0800 In message <20030318182642.GC10179@danisch.de>, you wrote: >On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 10:10:44AM -0800, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: >> >> Courts have held that spamming is equivalent to trespassing WHEN >> AND IF you have already sent the spammer in question an explicit >> request to stop spamming you and/or your server(s) and/or your >> domain(s) and WHEN AND IF the spammers has then igored that re- >> quest, and continued to spam you. >> > >Did the courts say anything about how to perform this request >if the spammer doesn't reveal its identity and uses a fake >sender address? > >Hadmut Not that I am aware of, no. (In Compuserve V. Cyberpromo, it was well known who the spammer was. That was back in the days before they started using all sorts of clever tricks to make it nearly or totally impossible to find them.) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 15:04:48 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27190 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:04:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IKLnu14973 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:21:49 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IKLnO14970 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:21:49 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27125 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:04:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IKF2O14621; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:15:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IKErO14599 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:14:53 -0500 Received: from nycsmtp2out.rdc-nyc.rr.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA26879 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:57:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from damien (66-108-13-38.nyc.rr.com [66.108.13.38]) by nycsmtp2out.rdc-nyc.rr.com (8.12.1/Road Runner SMTP Server 1.0) with ESMTP id h2IJrMgD009078; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:53:22 -0500 (EST) From: "Damien Morton" To: "'Steve Schear'" , "'Margie Arbon'" Cc: Subject: RE: [Asrg] Thoughts so far Message-ID: <010201c2ed87$ff85c580$6401a8c0@damien> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030318115028.048dd7d8@mail.attbi.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:53:07 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Schear [mailto:schear@attbi.com] > > > >Actually, sender-pays could be implemented at the ISP level. > ISPs would > >automatically pay for stamps on outgoing mail, and bill it > back to the > >sender. > > > >Sender-pays also doesn't even have to use stamps. It can be > implemented > >as a financial arrangement between two mail servers (relays or > >otherwise). Mailservers run by entities that trust each other could > >even reconcile any handlign fees at the end of the month or > even year. > > How does this work when clients use an open access Wi-Fi link > or other situations where free and anonymous access is being granted? Obviously open servers become a financial liability to the people running them, but then, that's part of the goal. Nothing stops them from running free and open servers, but any mail they handle and send on to other servers will be charged for by the receiving servers, or is simply not accepted. > >I think it would be important for every receiving server to > be able to > >set its own charges. These could even be listed in an extended MX > >record > > I think it even more important that each recipient set their > own rates. Is > a Nobel laureate's email reading time worth the same as a > house wife's > sharing the same ISP? Well, a recipient that values their time greatly could sign up with a mail system that charges higher handling rates. Per-recipient rates might be desireable, but for stopping the mass proliferation of spam, its not a necessary feature. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 15:09:53 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27703 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:09:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IKQs315159 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:26:54 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IKQsO15156 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:26:54 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27640 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:09:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IKL2O14928; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:21:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IKKoO14905 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:20:50 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27017 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:03:17 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2IK5WpT003625; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:05:32 -0500 Message-Id: <200303182005.h2IK5WpT003625@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.2 03/12/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: M Wild Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Amend the RFC to require reverse DNS In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:04:23 EST." <009401c2ed81$33cafba0$1174fea9@aix.cc> References: <009401c2ed81$33cafba0$1174fea9@aix.cc> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_-1908562984P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:05:32 -0500 --==_Exmh_-1908562984P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:04:23 EST, M Wild said: > I am reconsidering this decision. Amending the RFC to *REQUIRE* correct and > complete DNS setup for a SMTP client would go a long way towards reducing my > undesired traffic. It would also address the customer (and clueless > administrator) complaints with a simple "I am following the rules" How can > you argue with that? 1) Some 30% of IPs don't have proper PTR entries, according to a result posted by Christian Huitema to the IETF list a while ago. 2) RFC1918 mandates that you don't leak 1918 addresses to the public net, but some 30% of all queries that reach the *ROOT* nameservers have 1918 source addresses, indicating massive failures to deploy proper ingres/egress filtering at border routers. 3) Wander over to the NANOG list and see what pain people are going through because of old outdated bogon filters that include 69/8. Remember why you had to turn it off - mandating it in an RFC means you'd go back to that situation again for quite some time.... -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Senior Engineer Virginia Tech --==_Exmh_-1908562984P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+d3wLcC3lWbTT17ARAox2AKDmGUCHVgtZExrIy7uRIDRMQns47ACgzkx9 pSQ8bTV6mAYCnsq+xwcuG8E= =wGQK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_-1908562984P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 15:18:19 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA28632 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:18:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IKZLl15518 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:35:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IKZLO15515 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:35:21 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA28617 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:17:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IKW5O15389; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:32:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IKVpO15369 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:31:51 -0500 Received: from segfault.monkeys.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA28331 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:14:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by segfault.monkeys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB58841F80 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:16:32 -0800 (PST) To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] A method to eliminate spam In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:15:03 -0600. <5.1.0.14.0.20030318131408.00ba2b50@mail.SoftHome.net> Message-ID: <40505.1048018592@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:16:32 -0800 In message <5.1.0.14.0.20030318131408.00ba2b50@mail.SoftHome.net>, meor@mail.SoftHome.net wrote: > >>Hint: CNN does not use digital signatures to identify any of its >>outgoing mail at the present time. >> >>Unless you have a plan to change that, your scheme isn't worth the >>electrons it is written on. > >Actually I did plan on changing that. In my first message to this list I >posted a URL to an overview I was proposing. Here is that URL again >http://meor.xwarzone.com/overview.htm I don't see any incentives there for CNN to change its current practices. Were you planning to just send them money? Or did you figure that they would assign programmers to work on changing their current mailing list practices and software to fit your scheme just because it will seem like fun? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 15:19:13 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA28658 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:19:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IKaF815609 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:36:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IKaFO15606 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:36:15 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA28653 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:18:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IKX2O15428; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:33:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IKWSO15398 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:32:28 -0500 Received: from toad.date.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA28389 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:14:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from date.com (unknown [216.130.219.81]) by toad.date.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 311DA1C36FA; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:17:09 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3E777EC5.CBCCC5A0@date.com> From: Michael Ellis X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Chris Lewis , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Thoughts so far References: <3E7767C1.EF837AAD@date.com> <3E7774A9.2000209@americasm01.nt.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:17:09 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > On the contrary, if someone loses a civil suit that ends up with an > injunction against doing the same thing in future, doing it again is > contempt of court, and is a criminal offense subject to jail time. > > Why Sam Khuri didn't get hit with a contempt citation and jailed for > spamming again is a complete mystery to me. Well, no it isn't, the > requisite DA didn't think it worth the effort. In a way thats true but the contempt of court is still a separate charge which must be pursued and is still largely civil in nature as the plaintiff must start the proceedings. -- Michael Ellis Privacy Manager Date.com Phone (416) 306-0022 ext 620 Fax (416) 306-0023 Date.com - "The New Way To Date" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 15:22:22 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA28720 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:22:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IKdOG16485 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:39:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IKdOO16482 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:39:24 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA28693 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:21:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IKa4O15593; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:36:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IKZZO15546 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:35:35 -0500 Received: from loki (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA28627 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:18:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from bigfoot.jmrtech.com ([216.231.46.95] ident=user) by loki with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18vNZH-0006aJ-00; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:20:16 -0800 Received: from dhcp-219 ([2.0.0.219] helo=othala ident=jmr) by bigfoot.jmrtech.com with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #2) id 18vNZF-0002Yp-02; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:20:13 -0800 From: "John Rumpelein" To: "'Doug Phillips'" , Cc: Subject: RE: [Asrg] Giving Public Notice .... Message-ID: <027201c2ed8b$cec4db80$db000002@othala> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h2IKZZO15549 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:20:24 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Doug, > A lot of > legislators would be happy to be able to introduce a bill or > at least cast a > vote against spam. In the U.S. Congress, there was > overwhelming support for > sharp limits on telemarketing, and I'm sure there are similar > feelings about > spam. I'm sure there are similar feelings about spam too, and I have no doubt we will see more anti-spam legislation. But like I said, I already live in a place where (most) spam is illegal. I see no great difference between being a Washington State resident who cannot stop people from sending me spam because there is a WA law against it, and being an American who cannot stop people in other countries from sending me spam because there is an American law against it. (Most spam I receive right now appears to originate from Asia.) The attitude that American law can be applied to people outside the US causes nothing but friction with other countries. (I think we probably have enough of this already, and I think our friend Hadmut will probably agree, nein?) -J _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 15:22:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA28739 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:22:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IKdbO16508 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:39:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IKdbO16505 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:39:37 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA28708 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:22:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IKa2O15575; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:36:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IKZZO15544 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:35:35 -0500 Received: from loki (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA28625 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:18:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from bigfoot.jmrtech.com ([216.231.46.95] ident=user) by loki with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18vNZH-0006aK-00; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:20:15 -0800 Received: from dhcp-219 ([2.0.0.219] helo=othala ident=jmr) by bigfoot.jmrtech.com with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #2) id 18vNZG-0002Yp-00; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:20:14 -0800 From: "John Rumpelein" To: "'Chuq Von Rospach'" Cc: Subject: RE: [Asrg] Thoughts so far Message-ID: <027301c2ed8b$cedd4580$db000002@othala> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h2IKZZO15547 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:20:24 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Chuq, > > *Identification* is often problematic. How do you identify the > > individual > > responsible for sending you a piece of spam? This is a non-trivial > > problem. > > Yes, it is. How do you identify the person kiting checks? > stealing cars? Not bad, but the metaphor doesn't quite hold. When you catch someone stealing your car, they have identifying characteristics (fingerprints, appearance, ID) -- also, people don't steal your car several times a day. At least, I hope not. Right now, people send me literally hundreds of spam e-mails a day. I don't have the time or inclination to chase every single one of them down and make them stop. Maybe I could do this (I used to try) but I'd have no time to do anything else. > split it into less complex pieces, start solving one piece of it, and > then work on the next. Laws in the US don't solve chinese spam -- but > they help us start solving US-based spam, and give us a piece in the > puzzle to help convince the Chinese to follow suit in solving their > spam problem, and eventually everyone coming together with an > international agreement on how do deal with these issues. First off, I don't think there's any "silver bullet" that is going to fix this. I'm actually part owner in a company that is developing anti-spam software. I have also used (and continue to use) other products myself to try to control spam. But even with all of this in place, I still get spam, and there isn't really anything I can do about it. There is currently no accountability. Any bozo with a computer that can connect to the Internet can run software, connect to my mail server, and send me information on how I can make my penis bigger, lose 30 pounds, or get a college degree in an hour. Right now, the "solution" is to go after ISPs who allow people to do this. But what can the ISP do? They have the power to shut the customer off. (Most will, out of fear of blacklisting.) So they shut this guy off, he calls another ISP, and is back up and running in a few hours. What has been accomplished, besides wasting everyone's time and causing the spammer a minor inconvenience? > My model on that is copyright -- each country has it's own laws on > copyright. There is no "one" copyright law. But most > countries are also > signatory to the Berne convention, which sets standards for > what those > copyright laws ought to do. That's a model I think is useful And I'm sure you've heard how effective copyright law has been in protecting rights in places like China. The trouble here is, there is no immediate effect on software companies when people in China pirate software (aside from lost sales). When people send spam from China though, it is every bit as annoying (if not more so) than when people send you spam from Cleveland. > it to someone else again later for a while. Again, this sounds like > (and I'm sorry if I misinterpret your attitude) we're only > allowed ONE > approach. I see no problem with having locks AND policemen. We're in agreement here. Actually what I am doing is arguing for the need for strong authentication because I think it will reduce the need for all the other stuff people are already doing, which I can tell you from experience has limited effectiveness. -J _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 15:26:49 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25778 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:33:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IJoKI12223 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:50:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IJoKO12220 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:50:20 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25711 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:32:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IJi0O11294; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:44:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IJXcO09938 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:33:38 -0500 Received: from oreo.couchpotato.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id OAA24949 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:16:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 3652 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2003 19:18:19 -0000 Received: from david.couchpotato.net (green@208.147.134.100) by oreo.couchpotato.net with SMTP; 18 Mar 2003 19:18:19 -0000 Subject: Re: [Asrg] Domain-Authorized SMTP Mail From: David Green To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Cc: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <200303181907.h2IJ73pT002638@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> References: <1048002218.8984.53.camel@david.couchpotato.net> <200303181633.h2IGXNis004737@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <1048006097.8984.67.camel@david.couchpotato.net> <200303181907.h2IJ73pT002638@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-2jqSHR/1pWfNtspm/rfR" X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.8 Message-Id: <1048015099.13355.106.camel@david.couchpotato.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 18 Mar 2003 14:18:19 -0500 --=-2jqSHR/1pWfNtspm/rfR Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 2003-03-18 at 14:07, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:48:17 EST, David Green said: > > If the email is From: foo@bar.baz.biz.buz.co.uk, you would query the MT > > for "bar.baz.biz.buz.co.uk". You would never drop any parts of the name= . >=20 > You got it backwards. If the mail is 'From: valdis@vt.edu', you need to > suck down all 200 or so MT entries in the vt.edu domain and see if my IP > is one of them. The vt.edu domain certainly only has a few authorized outgoing smtp relays. I don't think they handle enough mail to justify a server farm of 200 servers just for their email. > And it's even more borked for mailing lists, because the From: and To: > don't have much to do with what's going on. The mail server for couchpot= ato.net > would be looking at this message, and complaining because the ietf.org > mail server isn't an MT for the vt.edu in the From: field. Thats why the asrg@ietf.org address would have to be used for authorization. > Oh, and this message is coming to you direct, and a cc: to the list - exp= lain > how your scheme handles each of the copies that are arriving. The copy from you to me would be authorized as coming from you. The copy from you to the mailing list would be authorized by Majordomo to be coming from you. When the mailing list resends the message, the message would be checked by each recipient's MX as coming from asrg@ietf.org. As you see, the From: starts to have real meaning. > > Every MX either sends to a server that trusts it (a relay), or to the > > recipient's MX. The only restriction here is that the MX that initiates > > the final hop to the recipient's MX must be listed as an MT for the > > sender's domain. >=20 > OK. So let's say this happens: >=20 > joe@non-spam.com sends you mail. Your server is down. So he > sends it to mail.mx-are-us.com (your off-site MX service). mx-are-us > sticks on a Auth-By: header. Later on, your server comes up. mx-are-us > sends you the mail. Now let's say you do the totally legal thing of not > preserving the Auth-By, so you strip it off. If my MX trusted mail.mx-are-us.com, it would not strip the Authorized-By header. > The point is you need to tighten up the language about what to do if > accepting relayed mail. The current language: >=20 > > > SMTP servers SHOULD remove any Authorized-By SMTP headers of > > > incoming mail. They MAY be configurable to preserve Authorized-By > > > headers on incoming mail from a set of trusted servers. >=20 > is broken. For it to be workable, you need to make it a 'MUST preserve' > for the case of mail coming from your MX'es. Your MX's would be trusted servers. David Green --=-2jqSHR/1pWfNtspm/rfR Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQA+d3D7Ci6CzkbyeRQRAkIlAKDDAnZfu48s4TjpTsyLV8JGyUDxcACdEiwK 7lZhi/ELM8OkgT9jp1oa13g= =Jsu/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-2jqSHR/1pWfNtspm/rfR-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 15:47:09 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA29370 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:47:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IL4Cu17521 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:04:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IL4CO17518 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:04:12 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA29356 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:46:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IKnLO16943; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:49:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IKmSO16918 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:48:28 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc01.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA28916 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:30:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from video.attbi.com (12-235-20-211.client.attbi.com[12.235.20.211]) by sccrmhc01.attbi.com (sccrmhc01) with SMTP id <2003031820330900100ghtt5e>; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:33:09 +0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030318121254.04820550@mail.attbi.com> X-Sender: schear@mail.attbi.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: "Damien Morton" , "'Margie Arbon'" From: Steve Schear Subject: RE: [Asrg] Thoughts so far Cc: In-Reply-To: <010201c2ed87$ff85c580$6401a8c0@damien> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030318115028.048dd7d8@mail.attbi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:36:08 -0800 At 02:53 PM 3/18/2003 -0500, Damien Morton wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Steve Schear [mailto:schear@attbi.com] > > > > > >Actually, sender-pays could be implemented at the ISP level. > > ISPs would > > >automatically pay for stamps on outgoing mail, and bill it > > back to the > > >sender. > > > > > >Sender-pays also doesn't even have to use stamps. It can be > > implemented > > >as a financial arrangement between two mail servers (relays or > > >otherwise). Mailservers run by entities that trust each other could > > >even reconcile any handlign fees at the end of the month or > > even year. > > > > How does this work when clients use an open access Wi-Fi link > > or other situations where free and anonymous access is being granted? > >Obviously open servers become a financial liability to the people >running them, but then, that's part of the goal. No, I don't think it is. The goal of sender-pays is to reduce spam by shifting the burden onto the sender and not the intermediaries, whom ever they may be. Your alternative might more accurately be called intermediary-pays. >Nothing stops them from >running free and open servers, but any mail they handle and send on to >other servers will be charged for by the receiving servers, or is simply >not accepted. Too limiting and unnecessary. A criteria for spam reduction, relatively widely supported (esp. within the U.S.) on this list, is not to effectively narrow anonymous communications. steve "War is just a racket ... something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small group knows what its about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses." --- Major General Smedley Butler, 1933 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 15:49:23 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA29454 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:49:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IL6QA17667 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:06:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IL6PO17664 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:06:25 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA29444 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:48:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IKx2O17286; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:59:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IKw5O17257 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:58:05 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA29209 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:40:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (zcard307.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h2IKgh705668 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:42:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDFB06V7; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:42:43 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBGDY4; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:42:43 -0500 Message-ID: <3E778588.8080101@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Thoughts so far References: <3E7767C1.EF837AAD@date.com> <3E7774A9.2000209@americasm01.nt.com> <3E777EC5.CBCCC5A0@date.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:46:00 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Michael Ellis wrote: >> >>On the contrary, if someone loses a civil suit that ends up with an >>injunction against doing the same thing in future, doing it again is >>contempt of court, and is a criminal offense subject to jail time. >>Why Sam Khuri didn't get hit with a contempt citation and jailed for >>spamming again is a complete mystery to me. Well, no it isn't, the >>requisite DA didn't think it worth the effort. > In a way thats true but the contempt of court is still a separate charge which must be > pursued and is still largely civil in nature as the plaintiff must start the > proceedings. Depending on circumstances, the judge is the plaintiff. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 15:56:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA29841 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:56:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2ILDh918881 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:13:43 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ILDgO18878 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:13:42 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA29804 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:56:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IKx6O17302; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:59:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IKw5O17261 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:58:05 -0500 Received: from nycsmtp2out.rdc-nyc.rr.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA29211 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:40:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from damien (66-108-13-38.nyc.rr.com [66.108.13.38]) by nycsmtp2out.rdc-nyc.rr.com (8.12.1/Road Runner SMTP Server 1.0) with ESMTP id h2IKaUgD008660; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:36:30 -0500 (EST) From: "Damien Morton" To: "'Chris Lewis'" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] Content based filtering Message-ID: <013001c2ed8e$05d131d0$6401a8c0@damien> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 In-Reply-To: <3E77784A.9080507@americasm01.nt.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:36:15 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On > > Damien Morton wrote: > > I have a basic problem with any approaches that mandate > being able to > > read the contents of an email in order to classify it as > spam or not. > > Whilst the current mail infrastructure makes it easy for servers to > > read the contents of mail, this neednt necessarily always > be so. These > > systems can also be avoided by various transformations, such as > > slice-and-dice tables, misspellings, etc etc. Further, any content > > oriented detection systems could easily be repurposed for privacy > > invasion purposes. > > A mail server can be easily repurposed for privacy invasion > ... just a > few source code hacks and voila, all of everyone's email. It's not a > very good argument. That's for privacy legislation to deal with, and > not a reason why content filters (or filters that work with other > criteria than "content") cannot be used when appropriate consent is > obtained. Like I said, future mail systems might make reading of the content of an email more difficult than it is now. This would destroy any anti-spam infrastructure that relies on content reading. I don't think its enough to rely on privacy legislation. As we have seen with spam, anything that can be done cheaply and easily is highly resistant to legislation. We should not be building systems that can be cheaply and easily subverted into becoming vast distributed line-eaters. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 15:56:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA29855 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:56:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2ILDm918897 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:13:48 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ILDmO18894 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:13:48 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA29808 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:56:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IL35O17475; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:03:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IL1kO17416 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:01:46 -0500 Received: from mail-out2.apple.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA29317 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:44:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailgate1.apple.com (A17-128-100-225.apple.com [17.128.100.225]) by mail-out2.apple.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2IKkQsJ002628 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:46:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from scv1.apple.com (scv1.apple.com) by mailgate1.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:46:18 -0800 Received: from plaidworks.com (vg0602e-dhcp175.apple.com [17.216.21.175]) by scv1.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h2IKkMt03933; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:46:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Thoughts so far Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: To: "John Rumpelein" From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <027301c2ed8b$cedd4580$db000002@othala> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:46:21 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tuesday, March 18, 2003, at 12:20 PM, John Rumpelein wrote: > Chuq, > > Not bad, but the metaphor doesn't quite hold. When you catch someone > stealing your car, they have identifying characteristics (fingerprints, > appearance, ID) -- also, people don't steal your car several times a > day. Metaphors are quite useful. Where they work, they give us solid real-world examples we can build from without a lot of re-inventing. And where tehy don't work, they at least give us an idea of the places we need to focus on to understand things... So even a failure of a metaphor leads to understanding and future success... > But what can the ISP do? They have the power to shut the customer off. > (Most will, out of fear of blacklisting.) So they shut this guy off, > he > calls another ISP, and is back up and running in a few hours. What > has been > accomplished, besides wasting everyone's time and causing the spammer a > minor inconvenience? which tells me we need to raise the stakes on the spammer and his ISP. Criminalizing the act with more serious implications will help. When it's cheaper to get a parking ticket once every week or so than pay for a parking place, people risk the tickets. the only answer is then make tickets expensive enough to make them think twice. Asking them to follow the law won't work. I'm a firm believer in carrots and sticks. And if they won't take the carrot, the stick has to be big enough to catch their attention. Right now, there are no carrots for NOT doing it, and the stick is a soda straw. Replace that stick with a baseball bat, and hand it to one of the national ISPs like Earthlink, and watch. And no, that's also not a perfect solution, but it's a step in the right direction. > And I'm sure you've heard how effective copyright law has been in > protecting > rights in places like China. As a published author, yes. Only shows how the struggle won't be easy. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try the struggle, because we can still make inroads, even if we can't stop every piece. I'll take a 20% cut in spam over a 0% cut, won't you? And maybe once we get our own house in order, it makes it easier to justify blacklisting a netblock for countries that don't have their act together. Maybe force that netblock to MX route through a specific forwarding agent only. There are options, once you partition the problem and start dealing with it piece by piece. > We're in agreement here. Actually what I am doing is arguing for the > need > for strong authentication because I think it will reduce the need for > all > the other stuff people are already doing, which I can tell you from > experience has limited effectiveness. > yes, we are. Basically, until we can do some kind of return-address authentication, the rest is a hack. And authentication doesn't really prove anything, other than you can then trust it enough to make white-/black-list decisions on that data. The authentication proves nothing, other than any decision you make on it has some chance of being useful. -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 15:57:49 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA29899 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:57:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2ILEqY19010 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:14:52 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ILEpO19007 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:14:51 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA29872 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:57:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ILC4O18723; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:12:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ILBvO18693 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:11:57 -0500 Received: from aismtp1g.bellsouth.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA29657 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:54:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from 01AL10015010060.ad.bls.com ([90.152.5.135] [90.152.5.135]) by aismtp1g.bellsouth.com with ESMTP; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:56:52 -0500 Received: by 01al10015010060.ad.bls.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:56:37 -0500 Message-Id: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D62B@bremocag> From: "Sauer, Damon" To: "'M Wild'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Amend the RFC to require reverse DNS MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:56:34 -0500 >-----Original Message----- >From: M Wild [mailto:asrg@wildm.com] >Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 2:04 PM >To: asrg@ietf.org >Subject: [Asrg] Amend the RFC to require reverse DNS >Greetings - One of the most effective anti-spam measures I have taken on my >mail servers is to require the sending mail server's IP address to reverse >resolve to the name it uses in its HELO command. While this is a violation >of the RFC it eliminates lying machines and forces accountability on the >sending server. Yes, I know it can be forged or spoofed however it still >significantly raises the level of effort required on the part of the >spammer. I've had to turn this check off due to customer complaints however >I am reconsidering this decision. Amending the RFC to *REQUIRE* correct and >complete DNS setup for a SMTP client would go a long way towards reducing my >undesired traffic. It would also address the customer (and clueless >administrator) complaints with a simple "I am following the rules" How can >you argue with that? I can't- I like the idea.. but it has to go further than that. Example: MOMandPOP.com hosts their website and mail systems at their local ISP. They send email as recipes@MOMandPOP.com. Because their ISP has closed port 25, all email from MOMandPOP.com must go to the relay server first. You see at your end- HELO megamail1.isp.com << reverse lookup of megamail1.isp.com shows an IP address of 198.10.10.2 mail from: recipes@MOMandPOP.com << reverse lookup of MOMandPOP.com shows an IP address of 198.10.210.53 In your example, this email would fail. Even though MOMandPOP.com are real and just wanted to send you your requested apple pie recipe. The DNS needs a key or something that would define MOMandPOP.com as part of mega.isp.com. Please see the "Position paper, in zipped HTML" posts by Valdis Kletnieks. Regards, Damon Sauer ***** "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers." _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 16:08:22 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00288 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:08:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2ILPPR19512 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:25:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ILPPO19509 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:25:25 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00270 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:07:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ILK7O19300; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:20:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ILJ7O19239 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:19:07 -0500 Received: from oreo.couchpotato.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id QAA00007 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:01:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 4386 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2003 21:03:47 -0000 Received: from david.couchpotato.net (green@208.147.134.100) by oreo.couchpotato.net with SMTP; 18 Mar 2003 21:03:47 -0000 Subject: Re: [Asrg] Domain-Authorized SMTP Mail From: David Green To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Cc: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <200303181932.h2IJWEpT003025@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> References: <1048002218.8984.53.camel@david.couchpotato.net> <200303181633.h2IGXNis004737@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <1048006097.8984.67.camel@david.couchpotato.net> <200303181907.h2IJ73pT002638@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <1048015099.13355.106.camel@david.couchpotato.net> <200303181932.h2IJWEpT003025@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-MOd6DPhNx5djrL2wqQFl" X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.8 Message-Id: <1048021427.8984.196.camel@david.couchpotato.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 18 Mar 2003 16:03:47 -0500 --=-MOd6DPhNx5djrL2wqQFl Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 2003-03-18 at 14:32, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:18:19 EST, David Green said: > > The vt.edu domain certainly only has a few authorized outgoing smtp > > relays. I don't think they handle enough mail to justify a server farm > > of 200 servers just for their email. > The question is whether AOL.COM has few enough authorized outbound relays > that it fits in a single 512-byte UDP DNS query. I know they can't fit > all their inbounds into one packet, so I suspect the outbounds don't eith= er. If the DNS system is broken, that is a subject for another list. > > Thats why the asrg@ietf.org address would have to be used for > > authorization. > Hey, what do you know... asrg@ietf.org isn't in the From: - in fact, if i= t's > bcc:ed it may not appear in the RFC822 headers *AT ALL*. Majordomo masquerades as other people when it relays emails. This is precisely what we want to prevent. The From: should be changed to the name of the mailing list. > > The copy from you to me would be authorized as coming from you. The cop= y > > from you to the mailing list would be authorized by Majordomo to be > > coming from you. > Majordomo may not be able to authorize it - see my discussion about MX > handling, which also matters in case of firewalls and mail servers in the= DMZ. After leaving the public Internet, all internal mail servers should be set to trust each other if they plan on relaying to each other. > > When the mailing list resends the message, the message > > would be checked by each recipient's MX as coming from asrg@ietf.org. A= s > > you see, the From: starts to have real meaning. > > If my MX trusted mail.mx-are-us.com, it would not strip the > > Authorized-By header. > But that's not what your draft said. It said it *MAY* be configured to > do so. MAY means its *optional*, not "you have to do it for it to work > the way you expect" - that's what MUST is for. I'll work on this. David Green --=-MOd6DPhNx5djrL2wqQFl Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQA+d4mzCi6CzkbyeRQRAtJbAJ0WEMmCfleAPocigtvLoY9Xn2ZmXwCgsajK DcERwZqie+i5UzUMXdZ/2Tg= =KIvF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-MOd6DPhNx5djrL2wqQFl-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 16:13:06 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00339 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:13:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2ILU9j19724 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:30:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ILU9O19721 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:30:09 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00336 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:12:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ILR7O19614; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:27:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ILQLO19554 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:26:21 -0500 Received: from zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00310 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:08:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h2ILB0x20604 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:11:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF4Y56N; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:11:00 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBGDZ4; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:11:00 -0500 Message-ID: <3E778C29.8030107@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Amend the RFC to require reverse DNS References: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D62B@bremocag> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:14:17 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sauer, Damon > I can't- I like the idea.. but it has to go further than that. > Example: MOMandPOP.com hosts their website and mail systems at their local > ISP. > They send email as recipes@MOMandPOP.com. > Because their ISP has closed port 25, all email from MOMandPOP.com must go > to the relay server first. > You see at your end- > HELO megamail1.isp.com << reverse lookup of megamail1.isp.com shows an IP > address of 198.10.10.2 > mail from: recipes@MOMandPOP.com << reverse lookup of MOMandPOP.com shows an > IP address of 198.10.210.53 > > In your example, this email would fail. No it wouldn't. You misunderstood his proposal. He requires the rDNS of the connecting server machines the HELO of the connecting server, neither of which would be MOMandPOP.com. Ie: The reverse lookup of 198.10.10.2 yields megamail1.isp.com - checking whether that matches the HELO is the trick. This has no relationship to the mail from or From:. Right now you can use this heuristic with a few selected servers (eg: MSN, yahoo and excite) because you know two things: 1) They're oft-times forged in HELOs 2) Their servers _do_ have valid rDNS. However, this is a short-lived heuristic. Enshrining it in the RFCs would help, but, only mid-term. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 16:15:10 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00368 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:15:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2ILWDZ19802 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:32:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ILWDO19799 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:32:13 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00360 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:14:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ILR2O19598; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:27:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ILQHO19545 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:26:17 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc01.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00303 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:08:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from video.attbi.com (12-235-20-211.client.attbi.com[12.235.20.211]) by sccrmhc01.attbi.com (sccrmhc01) with SMTP id <2003031821105700100aqv5he>; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 21:10:58 +0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030318130410.048360e8@mail.attbi.com> X-Sender: schear@mail.attbi.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: william@elan.net, Doug Phillips From: Steve Schear Subject: Re: [Asrg] Thoughts so far Cc: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:13:56 -0800 At 07:52 AM 3/18/2003 -0800, william@elan.net wrote: >How about criminal charges for spammers (after somebody won civil >suite) with pentaly being that judge orders that spammer may not use >computer or have anything to do with advertising business for set period >of time? I really think this talk of "punishing" spamers has gotten out of hand. I've sent an unsolicited email or two in my time and don't feel the least bit guilty about it. Its simply business. If you think about the way printing costs and postal rates influence advertising decisions you'll see this is really an economic problem not a moral or social issue. In the U.S. I think it currently costs about $0.25 to send a bulk 1st Class mail, less for other types. Is the person who send you a pitch in your mail box a criminal because they "clog" your box with an unwanted pitch? What if the cost of postal mail and printing were to drop to 1/10 or 1/100 of their current costs? Would those business which expanded their advertising now become criminals because market forces had increased their ability to economically reach more people? What if it became essentially free? Would there be cries for opt-in postal delivery? Probably. If opt-in postal lists were more frequently used it would save advertisers lots of money. So, raising the cost of delivering an email to even $0.01 would cause all but the most profitable pitches to evaporate from our in-boxes.and offering advertisers an opt-in list would be a great benefit to both them and us. steve _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 16:29:12 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00804 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:29:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2ILkGm21332 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:46:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ILkGO21328 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:46:16 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00793 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:28:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ILh6O21087; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:43:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ILgnO21054 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:42:49 -0500 Received: from segfault.monkeys.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00628 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:25:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by segfault.monkeys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8CA641F81 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:27:28 -0800 (PST) To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Amend the RFC to require reverse DNS In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:05:32 -0500. <200303182005.h2IK5WpT003625@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: <41369.1048022848@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:27:28 -0800 In message <200303182005.h2IK5WpT003625@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>, M Wild wrote: >1) Some 30% of IPs don't have proper PTR entries, according to a result posted >by Christian Huitema to the IETF list a while ago. Actually, I would say that something more like 98% of all IPv4 address space has no reverse DNS. That's the bad news. The good news is that the vast majority of THAT un-rDNS'd space contains -ZERO- well maintained mail servers that I personally feel any compelling need to accept mail from, by default. Of course, when/if the owners or users of those machines find that they are blocked while trying to send mail to any address in the monkeys.com domain, they are cordially invited to use the contact form on my web site and request special whitelisting for their specific IP address(es)... which I gladly provide to any non-spammer that requests it. Regards, rfg P.S. Recently, a couple of major ISP... specifically AT&T and RoadRunner... tried, and failed, in implement filtering of IP addresses that have no reverse DNS. The problem in both cases was that this change created far too many complaints, once it was first switched on, from the respective customer bases. The problem is that both companies began the implementation of this in a rather dumb way. They just stopped accepting mail from hosts with no reverse DNS, period. As far as I have been able to determine, they FAILED collect their own mail servers logs for a few months prior to the change-over, and they FAILED to whitelist all of the IPs that may not have had proper reverse DNS, ever, but that nontheless had no black- marks against them (i.e. not listed in the SBL, not listed in ORDB, not listed in the UPL) _and_ that had already been sending mail... perhaps lots of it... to these respective ISPs, and their respective customer bases already, and in some cases for a long long LONG time. As a friend of mine put it recently ``Would you switch your personal mailbox to a pure whitelist-based systems and NOT at the same time pre-initialize you personal whitelist with the entier current contents of your own address book?'' No! Of course not! Pretty much the same logic applies to switching a mail server over to rejecting mail from no-rDNS hosts. If you a sizable ISP, and if you do it without making special exceptions for all of the servers that had previously been sending you legit mail, then that is, in a word, dumb. QUESTION: What generates most complaints (and the most heated complaints) for those ISPs that attempt to do _anything_ in the way of spam filtering? ANSWER: When some given used has been on an existing mailing list already FOR MONTHS and then, suddenly, it just stops arriving one day. Moral of the Story: It's ``ok'' to stop accepting incoming e-mail from hosts that have no reverse DNS... even if you are a major ISP... as long as you do it in an intelligent way that doesn't instantly piss off (at least) half of your customer base. The problem is that an awful lot of people implement what are otherwise good ideas, but they only think about the possible problems and/or ways to address those as an afterthought... AFTER the customer complaints start arriving by the truckload. And by then it's too late. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 16:30:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00912 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:30:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2ILlZr21387 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:47:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ILlYO21384 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:47:35 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00825 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:30:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ILj7O21214; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:45:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ILiMO21151 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:44:22 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00707; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:26:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2164546; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:29:04 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200303181038.55937@grx> References: <1048002218.8984.53.camel@david.couchpotato.net> <200303181038.55937@grx> To: asrg@ietf.org From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Domain-Authorized SMTP Mail Cc: David Green , asrg@ietf.org, David Walker Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:39:30 -0500 At 10:38 AM -0600 3/18/03, David Walker wrote: >I believe there are a number of us interested in this type of solution but for >it to work we would have to distill the ideas together. > >Checking the from header has serious implications with mailing lists and I >proposed that we do not check the from header but check the envelope from and >require that MUAs expose the envelope from in the form of "from 'envelope >from' on behalf of 'from header'" Require in what sense? The RFCs already require that it be put in Return-Path: by the delivery agent. Is having the MUA display it really going to change anything? One of the things I discovered, in my fight to keep people from putting wormalert@somewhere.com in their address book, is that many people don't see the email address at all. I don't know if this is because the UA doesn't show it, or because they just stop "seeing" it. But I got so many "who the hell are you" responses when I replied as "From: Kee Hinckley " that I had to change it to "From: wormalert@somewhere.com Admin " so that they'd realize this was something they'd sent to. (And even that didn't help, since in their address book it was usually there as "AAAA" so they would claim they didn't send me the email. And their UA was hiding the address even when they sent--they only saw the AAAA. The only chance you have of exposing the Return-Path so that people will see it is to have the MUA change the text of the from name to include the return-path if the return-path is different from the from. E.g. From: "Kee Hinckley via asrg@ietf.org " And they won't understand it. I get so many people who don't understand that From: has no bearing on the person that sent the email that I have an auto-response for the problem. But more to the point. I don't think the IETF is in a position to be specifying proper user interface behavior. Suggest perhaps, but I wouldn't depend on the results. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 16:31:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA01017 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:31:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2ILmKA21498 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:48:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ILmKO21495 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:48:20 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00990 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:30:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ILj8O21231; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:45:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ILiPO21157 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:44:25 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00710 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:26:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2164533; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:29:06 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1048006557.8984.73.camel@david.couchpotato.net> References: <1048002218.8984.53.camel@david.couchpotato.net> <200303181038.55937@grx> <1048006557.8984.73.camel@david.couchpotato.net> To: David Green From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Domain-Authorized SMTP Mail Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:46:11 -0500 At 11:55 AM -0500 3/18/03, David Green wrote: >Or the From: could be changed to the mailing list address and an >Originally-From: header could be added. One of the advantages of domain-based authentication is that it doesn't require MUA changes. That change would break the behavior of MUAs with mailing lists. Not a show-stopper perhaps, but worth noting. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 16:31:23 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA01030 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:31:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2ILmQe21517 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:48:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ILmQO21514 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:48:26 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00997 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:30:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ILjAO21255; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:45:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ILigO21173 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:44:42 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00722 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:27:08 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2ILSppT004700; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:28:51 -0500 Message-Id: <200303182128.h2ILSppT004700@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.2 03/12/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: David Green Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Domain-Authorized SMTP Mail In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:03:47 EST." <1048021427.8984.196.camel@david.couchpotato.net> References: <1048002218.8984.53.camel@david.couchpotato.net> <200303181633.h2IGXNis004737@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <1048006097.8984.67.camel@david.couchpotato.net> <200303181907.h2IJ73pT002638@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <1048015099.13355.106.camel@david.couchpotato.net> <200303181932.h2IJWEpT003025@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <1048021427.8984.196.camel@david.couchpotato.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_-1895283102P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:28:51 -0500 --==_Exmh_-1895283102P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:03:47 EST, David Green said: > If the DNS system is broken, that is a subject for another list. Handwaving that way won't change the fact that your scheme would *double* the effort required to accept mail from most of the largest providers - which is where most of your mail will likely be *from*. And there's lots of ugly scaling effects - double the load may require more than double the hardware.. > Majordomo masquerades as other people when it relays emails. This is > precisely what we want to prevent. The From: should be changed to the > name of the mailing list. You really don't understand why lists work the day they do, do you? There are reasons it is done the way it is. In particular, if you change the From: to the name of the list, where do we put the *POSTERS* name? (Hint - if you're strictly RFC-compliant, it doesn't go in Sender:. RFC822 overloads Sender: with 2 values, neither of which is correct semantics for the person posting to the list). This note would have appeared as: From: asrg@ietf.edu To: asrg@ietf.edu (You can't put individual recipient names in there, because then each message body is different. Then you can't piggyback RCPT TO: - there's a *BIG* performance difference between MajorDomo handing the MTA 1 piece of mail with 400 RCPT TO:, and 400 separate pieces of mail with 1 RCPT TO each. This is particularly obvious if you have 20,000 recipients and somebody posts a 500K attachment (quite reasonable for some lists) - the one way you can do it using 500K of disk plus 1 list of addresses, the other way you just blew 10 gigabytes of spool. There's also the performance issues of having 20K messages to track rather than just 1 (do an 'ls' in a directory with 1 file, and in one with 20K files, and let me know what happens..) And any sane citing software would have generated: On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:03:47 EST, asrg@ietf.edu said: Oh, and that renders 'reply to author' impossible. --==_Exmh_-1895283102P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+d4+TcC3lWbTT17ARArJTAJ9mgb9JAdlIHecvdURD5SOPQX5JKwCfcv2c 0L+eMy9pRRkT5hBYqdqtfis= =ixkT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_-1895283102P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 16:31:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA01072 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:31:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2ILmkc21555 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:48:46 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ILmkO21552 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:48:46 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA01014 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:31:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ILj5O21197; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:45:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ILiLO21146 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:44:21 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00705 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:26:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2164549; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:29:02 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200303181633.h2IGXNis004737@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> References: <1048002218.8984.53.camel@david.couchpotato.net> <200303181633.h2IGXNis004737@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Domain-Authorized SMTP Mail Cc: David Green , asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:29:47 -0500 At 11:33 AM -0500 3/18/03, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: >Let's say the mail starts at a Unix workstation, which sends it to a mail >hub. The Auth-By: now lists the workstation. The hub tries to send it to >your server, fails, and sends it to your off-site backup MX service. >The MX nukes the previous AUth-by, and adds one pointing to the originating >mail hub. Your server comes up, the mail starts arriving. While you've got some good points I wouldn't pick on the MX issue particularly. I think in this proposal was assuming (as a lot of anti-spam schemes do) that the MX server has to act like, and be treated like, the main server. That's an issue, since small companies don't always have that level of MX control--but it is a necessary part of almost all proposals, not just that one. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 16:47:15 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA01813 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:47:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IM4JW22996 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:04:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IM4JO22993 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:04:19 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA01808 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:46:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IM0GO22486; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:00:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IM00O22152 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:00:00 -0500 Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id QAA01533 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:42:24 -0500 (EST) From: meor@mail.SoftHome.net Received: (qmail 24668 invoked by uid 417); 18 Mar 2003 21:44:39 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 18 Mar 2003 21:44:39 -0000 Received: from Main.mail.SoftHome.net ([24.118.229.120]) (AUTH: LOGIN meor@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:44:38 -0700 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030318151235.00b746c0@mail.SoftHome.net> X-Sender: meor@mail.SoftHome.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] A method to eliminate spam In-Reply-To: <40505.1048018592@monkeys.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:44:36 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >I don't see any incentives there for CNN to change its current practices. > >Were you planning to just send them money? Or did you figure that >they would assign programmers to work on changing their current >mailing list practices and software to fit your scheme just because >it will seem like fun? Jesus Christ this list is filled with stupid. Do you guys effectively argue anything or do you only skim over messages and point out your own ignorance? I've completely outlined the method I was proposing and only about half of the responses I received were intelligent. The other half of the responses were either completely ignorant or a thread fracture debating how public keys work. Have you guys ever thought about what happens if you truly do find an original idea that would eliminate SPAM? What if it wasn't 100% backwards compatible with sendmail? Do you guys have any sort of plan on how to roll out such a solution across the Internet? My guess as to why this group is so ineffectual is because there are too many voices spouting opinions and not enough organization. You repeatedly get people talking about building a trust infrastructure, better ways to filter, a universal black list, a new law to govern SPAM, a rating systems, or re-implementing Finger? None of these ideas work. You will never build a trust infrastructure. You will never be able to filter 100% effectively. You will never be able to create a universal black list. You will never be able to get a effectual rating system working. Creating laws will never solve the problem because it is too easy to anonymously send E-Mail, or send it from a different country. Re-implementing finger? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. The fact of the matter is: The current SMTP/POP/IMAP protocols were built on the idea of a trusting network. When you allow people who abuse these protocols to access them, you're lost. You will never get SMTP to work in a way that prevents it from being abused. You will never get filters to work 100% effectively because one man's SPAM is another man's free vacation. The only way to get E-Mail to work in an effective an un-abused manner is to implement a new protocol. The faster this is realized, the faster a solution will be found. You need a *new* protocol that does not have a central location to provide proof of identity. You need a way to prove identity peer to peer in a sense. You need a way to either identify SPAMmers 100% of the time and stop them, or identify them most of the time and slow them down. Identifying them 100% of the time is probably not feasible, so you can't try and stop them. Identifying them most of the time with occasional false-positives and slowing these down is probably a better way to do things. A good way to identify SPAMmers most of the time would be through the use of a white list of digital signatures. If someone is on your white list, they are not a spammer. If they are not on your list, they're probably a SPAMmer and need to be slowed down until they are placed on your white list. You need a good way to slow down spammers in a way that does not imply trust and does not bog down the network or server. You need a way to slow down the sending client in a way that's scaleable, voluntary, and uncircumventable. A good way to slow the client down is to make the client perform a task that uses CPU time. This task needs some way of proving that the CPU time was invested by the client before the mail is able to be sent. The only way to circumvent this task would be to apply more CPU power to solving this task which would imply more money invested. If the task is scaleable to easily consume more CPU power, investing more money in CPU power would become less economically feasible and SPAMming would no longer be a viable business practice. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 16:56:20 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA02170 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:56:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IMDOH24215 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:13:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IMDOO24212 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:13:24 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA02127 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:55:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IM73O23192; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:07:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IM6QO23100 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:06:26 -0500 Received: from ragnarok.hks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA01897 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:48:51 -0500 (EST) Received: by ragnarok.hks.com (Postfix, from userid 401) id 92CAC3567A7; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:51:06 -0500 (EST) From: Jim Littlefield To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Domain-Authorized SMTP Mail Message-ID: <20030318215106.GT7749@ragnarok.hks.com> Mail-Followup-To: asrg@ietf.org References: <1048002218.8984.53.camel@david.couchpotato.net> <200303181038.55937@grx> <1048006557.8984.73.camel@david.couchpotato.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:51:06 -0500 On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 03:46:11PM -0500, Kee Hinckley wrote: > At 11:55 AM -0500 3/18/03, David Green wrote: > >Or the From: could be changed to the mailing list address and an > >Originally-From: header could be added. > > One of the advantages of domain-based authentication is that it > doesn't require MUA changes. That change would break the behavior of > MUAs with mailing lists. Not a show-stopper perhaps, but worth > noting. Deployment of *any* spam solution will be much easier at the MTA level. -- Jim Littlefield "All those who believe in psychokinesis raise my hand." - Steven Wright _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 16:56:51 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA02198 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:56:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IMDtL24269 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:13:55 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IMDtO24266 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:13:55 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA02165 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:56:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IM97O23983; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:09:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IM6pO23118 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:06:51 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA01911 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:49:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.57] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2ILpUwL011146; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:51:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:51:29 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'M Wild'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Amend the RFC to require reverse DNS MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:51:28 -0800 I do not believe that the user community is likely to take any notice. Operational injunctions of this sort are the type of thing that the ISPs and the general user community tend to push back on severely. There is no existing protocol that depends on reverse DNS. As a result the reverse DNS is only deployed to a degree that supports advisory and debugging type uses. Any proposal that depends on the roll out of a production reverse DNS is requiring the hard 90% of a major infrastructure deployment. Another problem is knowing what the reverse DNS is telling you. All you can do is to map an IP address to a domain name (or names). That gives zero information about the authenticity of the information concerned. A spammer can insert false information in the reverse DNS without obstacle. Another practical deployment problem is the fact that a single IP can serve, hundreds, thousands or even tens of thousands of mail domains. So how does the reverse DNS tell you anything of interest? Yet another problem is that in many cases control over the reverse DNS does not lie anywhere close to the end user. I have zero control over the reverse dns for the IP address I rent from Comcast. It is actually set to an address that depends on the ethernet mac address of my nic... But strip off the host part of the domain and I have a reverse DNS that looks like I am in the comcast domain. Assigning a reverse DNS name does not today imply any intention on the part of the reverse IP address maintainer to authorize any use for the domain. Phill -----Original Message----- From: M Wild [mailto:asrg@wildm.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 11:04 AM To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] Amend the RFC to require reverse DNS Greetings - One of the most effective anti-spam measures I have taken on my mail servers is to require the sending mail server's IP address to reverse resolve to the name it uses in its HELO command. While this is a violation of the RFC it eliminates lying machines and forces accountability on the sending server. Yes, I know it can be forged or spoofed however it still significantly raises the level of effort required on the part of the spammer. I've had to turn this check off due to customer complaints however I am reconsidering this decision. Amending the RFC to *REQUIRE* correct and complete DNS setup for a SMTP client would go a long way towards reducing my undesired traffic. It would also address the customer (and clueless administrator) complaints with a simple "I am following the rules" How can you argue with that? Regards Mike _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 17:01:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02456 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:01:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IMIkI24595 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:18:46 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IMIkO24592 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:18:46 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02450 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:01:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IMG9O24400; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:16:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IMFmO24363 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:15:48 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA02262 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:58:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc01.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53] (may be forged)) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2ILw4MX008158; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:58:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:00:24 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu'" , David Green Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Domain-Authorized SMTP Mail MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:00:16 -0800 >The question is whether AOL.COM has few enough authorized outbound relays >that it fits in a single 512-byte UDP DNS query. I know they can't fit >all their inbounds into one packet, so I suspect the outbounds don't either. That is a good point, i believe that the larger ISPs would need to use an SSL type approach in any case simply to avoid the operational problems that a mechanism that strongly coupled their outbound mail to the DNS. I don't see how BCC is meant to create a problem. Any authentication approach is authenticating the source of the mail, not the destination. It is however very useful to distinguish BCC mail from mailing list mail. I suspect that over time the range of people from whom BCC mail is accepted will shrink. The range of people I might BCC is pretty small. I would never BCC someone in a first contact. The main utility in BCC is to avoid creating ad-hoc mailing lists from reply-to threads... Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 17:13:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02845 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:13:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IMUkT25143 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:30:46 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IMUkO25140 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:30:46 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02832 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:13:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IMR3O25036; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:27:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IMQPO25018 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:26:25 -0500 Received: from nycsmtp3out.rdc-nyc.rr.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02769 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:08:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from damien (66-108-13-38.nyc.rr.com [66.108.13.38]) by nycsmtp3out.rdc-nyc.rr.com (8.12.1/Road Runner SMTP Server 1.0) with ESMTP id h2IMBLHx026922; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:11:22 -0500 (EST) From: "Damien Morton" To: "'Steve Schear'" , "'Margie Arbon'" Cc: Subject: RE: [Asrg] Thoughts so far Message-ID: <000701c2ed9a$5e84e770$6401a8c0@damien> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030318121254.04820550@mail.attbi.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:04:35 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > From: Steve Schear [mailto:schear@attbi.com] > > > How does this work when clients use an open access Wi-Fi link or > > > other situations where free and anonymous access is being granted? > > > >Obviously open servers become a financial liability to the people > >running them, but then, that's part of the goal. > > No, I don't think it is. The goal of sender-pays is to > reduce spam by > shifting the burden onto the sender and not the > intermediaries, whom ever > they may be. Your alternative might more accurately be called > intermediary-pays. Well intermediary-pays allows the intermediary to set the charging policy. They can implement a sender-pays arrangement, they can offer sending credits to authenticated members, they can work within a trusted group of servers that don't charge each other. It's a very flexible system, on top of which sender-pays can be constructed. The point is - it turns anybody operating a mailserver into a financially accountable entity. It also means that only the relationship between the immediate sender and reciever need be considered at the point of sending (even if one or both are acting as intermediaries). I like to think of the system as modeled on the relationships between national postal services, where each mail server is equivalent to the national postal service of a single nation. Every nation (server) has its own handling charges, and every nation has its own international postage pricing based on their own handling charges and those of the destination. Two nations (servers) with identical handling fees sending each other the same volume of mail would, at the end of the day, have no currency changing hands. In this way cooperating peers would have little financial exposure. Entities that were net producers of mail would tend to have the greatest financial exposure. > >Nothing stops them from > >running free and open servers, but any mail they handle and > send on to > >other servers will be charged for by the receiving servers, or is > >simply not accepted. > > Too limiting and unnecessary. A criteria for spam reduction, > relatively > widely supported (esp. within the U.S.) on this list, is not > to effectively narrow anonymous communications. Users wanting unimpeded anonymous communications to reach them would tend to migrate to servers with no handling charges. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 17:42:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03419 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:42:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IMxed27122 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:59:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IMxeO27119 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:59:40 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03382 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:42:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IMa4O25375; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:36:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IMZnO25358 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:35:49 -0500 Received: from gorgoroth.localnet (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02924 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:18:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from unternet.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gorgoroth.localnet (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2IMKPQT006091; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 23:20:25 +0100 Message-ID: <3E779BA9.5080806@unternet.org> From: Frank de Lange User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4a) Gecko/20030318 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: meor@mail.SoftHome.net CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] A method to eliminate spam References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030318151235.00b746c0@mail.SoftHome.net> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030318151235.00b746c0@mail.SoftHome.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 23:20:25 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit meor@mail.SoftHome.net wrote: > >> I don't see any incentives there for CNN to change its current >> practices. >> >> Were you planning to just send them money? Or did you figure that >> they would assign programmers to work on changing their current >> mailing list practices and software to fit your scheme just because >> it will seem like fun? > > > Jesus Christ this list is filled with stupid. Do you guys effectively > argue anything or do you only skim over messages and point out your > own ignorance? I've completely outlined the method I was proposing > and only about half of the responses I received were intelligent. The > other half of the responses were either completely ignorant or a > thread fracture debating how public keys work. > > Have you guys ever thought about what happens if you truly do find an > original idea that would eliminate SPAM? What if it wasn't 100% > backwards compatible with sendmail? Do you guys have any sort of plan > on how to roll out such a solution across the Internet? My guess as > to why this group is so ineffectual is because there are too many > voices spouting opinions and not enough organization. You repeatedly > get people talking about building a trust infrastructure, better ways > to filter, a universal black list, a new law to govern SPAM, a rating > systems, or re-implementing Finger? None of these ideas work. You > will never build a trust infrastructure. You will never be able to > filter 100% effectively. You will never be able to create a universal > black list. You will never be able to get a effectual rating system > working. Creating laws will never solve the problem because it is too > easy to anonymously send E-Mail, or send it from a different country. > Re-implementing finger? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. > > The fact of the matter is: The current SMTP/POP/IMAP protocols were > built on the idea of a trusting network. When you allow people who > abuse these protocols to access them, you're lost. You will never get > SMTP to work in a way that prevents it from being abused. You will > never get filters to work 100% effectively because one man's SPAM is > another man's free vacation. The only way to get E-Mail to work in an > effective an un-abused manner is to implement a new protocol. The > faster this is realized, the faster a solution will be found. > > You need a *new* protocol that does not have a central location to > provide proof of identity. > You need a way to prove identity peer to peer in a sense. > You need a way to either identify SPAMmers 100% of the time and stop > them, or identify them most of the time and slow them down. > Identifying them 100% of the time is probably not feasible, so you > can't try and stop them. Identifying them most of the time with > occasional false-positives and slowing these down is probably a better > way to do things. > A good way to identify SPAMmers most of the time would be through the > use of a white list of digital signatures. If someone is on your > white list, they are not a spammer. If they are not on your list, > they're probably a SPAMmer and need to be slowed down until they are > placed on your white list. > You need a good way to slow down spammers in a way that does not imply > trust and does not bog down the network or server. You need a way to > slow down the sending client in a way that's scaleable, voluntary, and > uncircumventable. > A good way to slow the client down is to make the client perform a > task that uses CPU time. This task needs some way of proving that the > CPU time was invested by the client before the mail is able to be > sent. The only way to circumvent this task would be to apply more CPU > power to solving this task which would imply more money invested. If > the task is scaleable to easily consume more CPU power, investing more > money in CPU power would become less economically feasible and > SPAMming would no longer be a viable business practice. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg Lighten up dude, comments like 'this list is filled with stupid' don't help to bring your point across. The opposite is true... What we - IMnsHO - are looking for is a way to reduce the impact of spam on email. Reduce, probably not totally eliminate, because that is not really the point. Any service can be abused as long as the barrier of entry to the service is low. Even your proposal will not completely eliminate spam, it would probably just change the way spam would be sent (by distributing the load of the verification process over a wide range of computers, employing either well-known vulnerabilities in Windows or parasitic ratware). And you mention something about patents and the need to license when making for-profit implementations, which is a no-no for something as essential and basic as the email standard. Reduce spam while not throwing away the baby with the bathwater. Evolution works, revolution often leaves a bloody mess. Are you in San Francisco for the IETF? If so, come forward and speak your mind. Frank _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 17:42:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03422 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:42:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IMxf327139 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:59:41 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IMxeO27135 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:59:40 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03384 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:42:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IMj4O26437; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:45:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IMiwO26405 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:44:58 -0500 Received: from mail.netpipeline.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03096 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:27:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from auroraville [208.2.186.21] by mail.netpipeline.net (SMTPD32-7.07) id ADCD21850126; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:29:33 -0800 Message-ID: <02b601c2ed9d$d839a4e0$e54148ce@auroraville> From: "Lee Murach" To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_02B3_01C2ED5A.C98E7030" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Subject: [Asrg] spam-shake: an anti-spam e-mail protocol Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:29:30 -0800 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_02B3_01C2ED5A.C98E7030 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all. This is to describe an anti-spam protocol that might be implemented via = 822 mail headers without requiring changes to mail transfer protocols. A sends a message to B. B sends it back to A, whereupon A resends the = message to B. The result: B receives A's message, and A learns B's spam = code. Spam code? Spam codes are alphanumeric strings included in the = message header that enable the receiving mailer to accept mail from an = unrecognized sender while rejecting unsolicted mass mailings. The = three-way handshake, although it replaces one mail send with three, = needn't be an onerous imposition on senders generally, since it need = occur only on a first-time mailing to propagate the spam code, and = thereafter only when the receiver changes his spam code. But the spammer, assuming he doesn't already know the codes, will be = obliglied to receive and process replies from each recipient in order to = learn them. This is scarcely practical. Neither is it possible to = assemble spam code lists in same way email lists are compiled, because = users can change their spam codes at any time, and the changes are = automatically learned by those senders who do receive and process = replies. The proposed implementation contemplates a new header line, called a = spam line, to be included with the other lines of the standard RFC 822 = mail header. The format & usage follows: Spam: Send spam-code Spam: Reply spam-code In the exchange that follows, A sends a message to B. A doesn't know = B's spam code, and so uses his own code. B notes that A has supplied a = incorrect spam code, and so sends the message back, with the spam line = changed to a Reply and listing B's correct code. A resends the message = with the correct code. 1. Spam: Send A-spam-code 2. Spam: Reply B-spam-code 3. Spam: Send B-spam-code Here's the decision psuedo-code. Note that users can change spam codes = in the course of the handshake, so messages could be repeatedly = returned. Also, messages without spam lines are returned to sender by = adding a spam line, and requesting the originator to resend the message. if Spam { /* Spam line is present */ if Send { if message-code is my-code accept message else Spam: Reply my-code return } if Reply { Spam: Send message-code return } /* invalid spam line */ return } /* didn't have a spam line; must be from non-shake mailer */ Prepend a "please resend this message" to message body and... Spam: Send my-code I don't believe it's necessary to overhaul the Internet architecture = just to deal with spam, when all that is truly required is a procedure = to handle messages from unrecognized senders with unfamiliar subjects. = So my thought is that this strategy could be implemented by your mail = user agent, after filtering for subscribed lists and other mail that you = do want to receive, and would never need to reject. Lee Murach lemur@codemode.com ------=_NextPart_000_02B3_01C2ED5A.C98E7030 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi all.
 
This is to describe an anti-spam = protocol that=20 might be implemented via 822 mail headers without requiring changes to = mail=20 transfer protocols.
 
A sends a message to B.  B sends = it back to A,=20 whereupon A resends the message to B.  The result: B = receives A's=20 message, and A learns B's spam code.  Spam code?  Spam codes = are=20 alphanumeric strings included in the message header that enable the = receiving=20 mailer to accept mail from an unrecognized sender while=20 rejecting unsolicted mass mailings.  The three-way = handshake,=20 although it replaces one mail send with three, needn't be an onerous = imposition=20 on senders generally, since it need occur only on a first-time mailing = to=20 propagate the spam code, and thereafter only when the receiver changes = his spam=20 code.
 
But the spammer, assuming he doesn't = already know=20 the codes, will be obliglied to receive and process replies from each = recipient=20 in order to learn them.  This is scarcely practical.  Neither = is it=20 possible to assemble spam code lists in same way email lists are = compiled,=20 because users can change their spam codes at any time, and the changes = are=20 automatically learned by those senders who do receive and = process=20 replies.
 
The proposed implementation = contemplates a new=20 header line, called a spam line, to be included with the=20 other lines of the standard RFC 822 mail header.  The = format=20 & usage follows:
 
Spam: Send spam-code
Spam: Reply spam-code
 
In the exchange that follows, A = sends a=20 message to B.  A doesn't know B's spam code, and so uses his own=20 code.  B notes that A has supplied a incorrect spam code, and so = sends the=20 message back, with the spam line changed to a Reply and=20 listing B's correct code.  A resends the message with the = correct=20 code.
 
1. Spam: Send A-spam-code
2. Spam: Reply = B-spam-code
3. Spam: Send B-spam-code
 
Here's the decision = psuedo-code. Note=20 that users can change spam codes in the course of the handshake, so = messages=20 could be repeatedly returned.  Also, messages without spam lines = are=20 returned to sender by adding a spam line, and requesting = the originator to=20 resend the message.
 
if Spam  { /* Spam line is present = */
    if Send = {
        if=20 message-code is my-code
       =20     accept message
       =20 else
          &nbs= p; Spam:=20 Reply  my-code
       =20 return
    }
    if Reply = {
        Spam: Send=20 message-code
       =20 return
    }
    /* invalid spam line = */
    return
}
/* didn't have a spam line; must be = from non-shake=20 mailer */
Prepend a "please resend this message" = to message=20 body and...
Spam: Send my-code
 
I don't believe it's necessary to = overhaul the=20 Internet architecture just to deal with spam, when all that is = truly=20 required is a procedure to handle messages from unrecognized = senders with=20 unfamiliar subjects.  So my thought is that this strategy could be=20 implemented by your mail user agent, after filtering for subscribed = lists=20 and other mail that you do want to receive, and would never need to=20 reject.
 
Lee Murach
lemur@codemode.com
------=_NextPart_000_02B3_01C2ED5A.C98E7030-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 17:48:55 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03558 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:48:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IN60n27408 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:06:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IN60O27403 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:06:00 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03542 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:48:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IMw9O27038; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:58:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IMsdO26864 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:54:39 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03277 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:37:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from sputnik (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h2IMdFrV025855; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 23:39:15 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sputnik.mobil.danisch.de (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-8) id h2IMd61V015784; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 23:39:06 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Lee Murach Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] spam-shake: an anti-spam e-mail protocol Message-ID: <20030318223905.GA15756@danisch.de> References: <02b601c2ed9d$d839a4e0$e54148ce@auroraville> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <02b601c2ed9d$d839a4e0$e54148ce@auroraville> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:39:05 -0800 Something similar has already been discussed around 1000 messages ago under the term "Cookie". Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 17:49:20 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03594 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:49:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IN6Q427462 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:06:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IN6QO27459 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:06:26 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03554 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:48:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IMrFO26818; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:53:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IMpDO26672 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:51:13 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03198 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:33:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2164745; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:35:53 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: "Dave Lampert" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Gray list: rating of associates Cc: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:35:41 -0500 At 12:19 PM -0500 3/18/03, Dave Lampert wrote: >Here's a solution that, together with many other solutions, may reduce the >economical value of spam to the spammers. > >PATENT NOTICE (My lawyers made me do it!): This solution is part of a >patent-pending technology ("Prioritized communication") available upon >request by emailing >. We intend >to make this technology widely available through numerous vendors under paid >license as per http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2026.txt sections 10.3.2 and >10.3.3, so I'd like to see this addressed in the ASRG recommendation for >standards. > >In short, this doesn't block spam, but rather relegates it (and other >unsolicited email) to a low or zero priority (you pick it up when YOU want >to). Email from people you know have a higher priority rating. You get to >rate each person and the system issues them a unique contact email address >(usually a base name plus a GUID like the one listed above) just for them. >The system makes it easy to manage these and easy for your friend to update >his/her address book. If the unique address falls into the wrong hands and >spam begins, you can lower the rating on it, and possibly issue a new unique >address to the friend (if he/she is STILL your friend!). 1. Now nobody can remember your email address. They have to have their address book with them on every machine they send email from. Otherwise it ends up in your "deal with later" bin. (And it's real easy to miss that one real message when 90% of the stuff in the bin is spam.) 2. You annoy your friends. Initiating a discussion becomes a pain. You also annoy strangers by sending them a new contact address that they don't want. 3. You still have to read every email message that comes into the main address, because you are never sure whether it's spam or someone legit trying to talk to you (in other words, same as now). 4. If not #3, then you need a challenge response system, which *really* annoys your friends. 5. You need to write a custom MUA that handles this whole priority system. And if you think I'm going to let my MUA prompt me to prioritize every person who sends me email you haven't seen my inbox! 6. You've just made a virus-writers dream. I can't communicate with anyone anymore without an address book--so I have to have *everyone* I send mail to in my address book. 7. You need to write custom MUA or MTA software that handles address mapping. In particular you have the problem of any random discussion between several people. I send to three people, they all do a reply-all and all of the addresses are wrong for them to send to. It will get through of course--but not at the priority you wanted. In addition, some number of recipients are going to add the address in the To to their address book, which isn't what you had in mind at all. And if they send using one of those addresses after I've canceled it (the previous owner of that address is on my bad list) then I won't get the mail at all. > >The technology goes well beyond this, such as computing the product of the >importance of the email (the "importance" tag as set by the sender) and the >rating of the sender by the recipient, and using this to rank priority of You don't need to use custom addresses to do that. And as mentioned above, you'll be getting mail from people to whom you didn't give out the private address. So it isn't a reliable authentication mechanism. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 17:50:11 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03614 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:50:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2IN7Hx27950 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:07:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IN7HO27947 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:07:17 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03608 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:49:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IMrAO26800; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:53:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IMpBO26668 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:51:11 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03195 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:33:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2164746; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:35:51 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: Matt Sergeant From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Testing content filters Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:43:39 -0500 At 12:17 PM +0000 3/18/03, Matt Sergeant wrote: >I think this would be a good thing to support in content filters. It's fine for content-filters. What do you do about spam filters that don't look at the content? -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 17:53:02 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03714 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:53:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2INA5128410 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:10:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2INA5O28407 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:10:05 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03674 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:52:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IN4fO27336; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:04:41 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IN3FO27287 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:03:15 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id RAA03505 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:45:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 693 invoked from network); 17 Mar 2003 22:45:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.2.100.178?) (10.2.100.178) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 17 Mar 2003 22:45:07 -0000 From: Matt Sergeant X-X-Sender: matt@localhost.localdomain To: Kee Hinckley cc: "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Testing content filters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 23:03:55 +0000 (GMT) On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, Kee Hinckley wrote: > At 12:17 PM +0000 3/18/03, Matt Sergeant wrote: > >I think this would be a good thing to support in content filters. > > It's fine for content-filters. What do you do about spam filters > that don't look at the content? You don't test those with this test. Matt. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 18:01:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA03969 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:01:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2INIlU28703 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:18:47 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2INIlO28700 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:18:47 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA03953 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:01:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2INA9O28425; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:10:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2IN9AO28351 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:09:10 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id RAA03644 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:51:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 1053 invoked from network); 17 Mar 2003 22:51:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.2.100.178?) (10.2.100.178) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 17 Mar 2003 22:51:02 -0000 From: Matt Sergeant X-X-Sender: matt@localhost.localdomain To: Kee Hinckley cc: "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Testing content filters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 23:09:50 +0000 (GMT) On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, Kee Hinckley wrote: > At 12:17 PM +0000 3/18/03, Matt Sergeant wrote: > >I think this would be a good thing to support in content filters. > > It's fine for content-filters. What do you do about spam filters > that don't look at the content? Sorry, my last reply was a bit flippant... What I really should have said is that there are probably 4 stages of filters in use right now: 1. IP (connection) filters. 2. Envelope and SMTP command stream based filters. 3. Header filters 4. Body filters (or header+body filters) You can't create a test for 1. without spoofing the IP address, so we won't go there. We could create a test for 2. (e.g. a fixed MAIL FROM address that has to be detected as spam, or a fixed HELO line or something like that). We could create a test for 3. We have a test for 4. So please, feel free to add in suggestions for 2 and 3. I've started the groundwork - it won't be too hard to finish it off now. This is a simple proposal, and doesn't get us anywhere closer to our goal, but it is important for end users to be able to check if something is working, and if they can make the same test on any bit of software that makes it easier for everyone. Matt. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 18:02:03 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA03983 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:02:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2INJ7k28725 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:19:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2INJ7O28722 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:19:07 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA03961 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:01:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2INB1O28466; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:11:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2INAKO28433 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:10:20 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03696 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:52:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from video.attbi.com (12-235-20-211.client.attbi.com[12.235.20.211]) by rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (rwcrmhc53) with SMTP id <20030318225458053001vc88e>; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 22:54:58 +0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030318144722.047f6150@mail.attbi.com> X-Sender: schear@mail.attbi.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: "Damien Morton" , "'Margie Arbon'" From: Steve Schear Subject: RE: [Asrg] Thoughts so far Cc: In-Reply-To: <000701c2ed9a$5e84e770$6401a8c0@damien> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030318121254.04820550@mail.attbi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:57:57 -0800 At 05:04 PM 3/18/2003 -0500, Damien Morton wrote: > > From: Steve Schear [mailto:schear@attbi.com] > > > > > > > How does this work when clients use an open access Wi-Fi link or > > > > other situations where free and anonymous access is being granted? > > > > > >Obviously open servers become a financial liability to the people > > >running them, but then, that's part of the goal. > > > > No, I don't think it is. The goal of sender-pays is to > > reduce spam by > > shifting the burden onto the sender and not the > > intermediaries, whom ever > > they may be. Your alternative might more accurately be called > > intermediary-pays. > >Well intermediary-pays allows the intermediary to set the charging >policy. They can implement a sender-pays arrangement, they can offer >sending credits to authenticated members, they can work within a trusted >group of servers that don't charge each other. It's a very flexible >system, on top of which sender-pays can be constructed. The point is - >it turns anybody operating a mailserver into a financially accountable >entity. It also means that only the relationship between the immediate >sender and reciever need be considered at the point of sending (even if >one or both are acting as intermediaries). It would also probably end anonymous remailers and similar services for societal good. >I like to think of the system as modeled on the relationships between >national postal services, where each mail server is equivalent to the >national postal service of a single nation. Every nation (server) has >its own handling charges, and every nation has its own international >postage pricing based on their own handling charges and those of the >destination. Two nations (servers) with identical handling fees sending >each other the same volume of mail would, at the end of the day, have no >currency changing hands. In this way cooperating peers would have little >financial exposure. I like to think of the Internet as an undifferentiated transport method with little intelligence, high performance, agnostic in relationship and low cost. The more value add services that are required at the gateway, the greater the costs and the lower the communication freedom. > > >Nothing stops them from > > >running free and open servers, but any mail they handle and > > send on to > > >other servers will be charged for by the receiving servers, or is > > >simply not accepted. > > >Users wanting unimpeded anonymous communications to reach them would >tend to migrate to servers with no handling charges. How many such services do you expect to exist if the servers have to pay for email they provide for free. Few if any. That's why I don't want such a system unless and until assured anonymous digital cash systems are in place so such servers can charge clients w/o knowing their identity. As it is today no such infrastructure exists. That's one of the side benefits to using bearer postage: it de facto launches such a service and creates the infrastructure. "War is just a racket ... something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small group knows what its about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses." --- Major General Smedley Butler, 1933 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 18:07:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA04460 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:07:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2INOLe28876 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:24:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2INOLO28873 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:24:21 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA04401 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:06:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2INI3O28683; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:18:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2INHBO28644 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:17:11 -0500 Received: from zardoc.esmtp.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03871 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:59:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from zardoc.esmtp.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zardoc.esmtp.org (8.12.7/8.12.7.Beta1) with ESMTP id h2IN1qFi029960 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:01:52 -0800 (PST) Received: (from ca@localhost) by zardoc.esmtp.org (8.12.7/8.12.0.Beta12) id h2IN1pbg022899 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:01:51 -0800 (PST) From: Claus Assmann To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Domain-Authorized SMTP Mail Message-ID: <20030318150151.A30572@zardoc.esmtp.org> References: <1048002218.8984.53.camel@david.couchpotato.net> <200303181633.h2IGXNis004737@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <1048006097.8984.67.camel@david.couchpotato.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1048006097.8984.67.camel@david.couchpotato.net>; from green@couchpotato.net on Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 11:48:17AM -0500 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:01:51 -0800 On Tue, Mar 18, 2003, David Green wrote: > On Tue, 2003-03-18 at 11:33, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > > This goes against a long-standing design principle that SMTP servers should > > NOT be screwing around with the contents of the headers other than to add > > a Received: tag. > The fact that they add a Received tag means that modifying headers is > not against their design. It's trivial to add a header, it's harder to modify a header since it requires parsing which I do not want to do in my MTA. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 18:35:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA06085 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:35:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2INqXq30626 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:52:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2INqXO30623 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:52:33 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA06073 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:34:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2INmAO30508; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:48:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2INl8O30474 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:47:08 -0500 Received: from segfault.monkeys.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA05976 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:29:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by segfault.monkeys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6987F41F73 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:31:44 -0800 (PST) To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] A method to eliminate spam In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:44:36 -0600. <5.1.0.14.0.20030318151235.00b746c0@mail.SoftHome.net> Message-ID: <42482.1048030304@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:31:44 -0800 In message <5.1.0.14.0.20030318151235.00b746c0@mail.SoftHome.net>, meor@mail.SoftHome.net wrote: >rfg wrote: >>I don't see any incentives there for CNN to change its current practices. >> >>Were you planning to just send them money? Or did you figure that >>they would assign programmers to work on changing their current >>mailing list practices and software to fit your scheme just because >>it will seem like fun? > >Jesus Christ this list is filled with stupid. Do you guys effectively >argue anything or do you only skim over messages and point out your own >ignorance? I've completely outlined the method I was proposing and only >about half of the responses I received were intelligent. The other half of >the responses were either completely ignorant or a thread fracture debating >how public keys work. Thanks for sharing. And please accept my apologies. I didn't realize until this moment that I was in the presence of quite such a profound and infallible intellect. Now that I know, I am suitably in awe. >Have you guys ever thought about what happens if you truly do find an >original idea that would eliminate SPAM? What if it wasn't 100% backwards >compatible with sendmail? Then that's a problem. If you don't understand why it is a problem, then you may perhaps want to look in your dictionary under the word ``inertia''. >Do you guys have any sort of plan on how to roll >out such a solution across the Internet? I can't speak for anybody else, but I do. Unfortunately, if I told you what my idea was, I'd have to kill you. I'll be able to tell everybody later on. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 18:42:59 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA06392 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:42:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2J004c30948 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:00:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J004O30945 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:00:04 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA06300 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:42:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2INv3O30823; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:57:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2INuuO30805 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:56:56 -0500 Received: from gorgoroth.localnet (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA06230 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:39:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from unternet.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gorgoroth.localnet (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2INfSQT007187; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:41:31 +0100 Message-ID: <3E77AEA8.7020100@unternet.org> From: Frank de Lange User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4a) Gecko/20030318 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Damien Morton CC: "'Steve Schear'" , "'Margie Arbon'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Thoughts so far References: <010201c2ed87$ff85c580$6401a8c0@damien> In-Reply-To: <010201c2ed87$ff85c580$6401a8c0@damien> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:41:28 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Damien Morton wrote: >Well, a recipient that values their time greatly could sign up with a >mail system that charges higher handling rates. Per-recipient rates >might be desireable, but for stopping the mass proliferation of spam, >its not a necessary feature. > All this talk about 'handling rates' and charges and stamps and such... how will we make sure that this does not become just another profit center? I get visions of an email-system that more and more starts to resemble the old telephone system, with artificially inflated rates. Of pay-per-mail email boxes for customer service. 'unfortunately we had to raise the price for mailing our service department to cover costs'... just like the service departments of many companies in Europe, which charge by the minute (and make you wait in a queue for many of those paid minutes, but that's not relevant in this context). Email as we have it now is, apart from the problems caused by pollution, a valuable and 'free' resource. Not literally free of course, as the upkeep of mail servers and mail service does cost quite a lot of money, but free as in 'unmetered' and 'unlimited'. This has been tremendously important for email to take the role it currently has as a low-barrier communications medium. It is because you don't have to think about things like 'postage' that email has taken off the way it has. I think we need to be very careful not to destroy these characteristics of email by artificially inflating the price of participation. Careful, also, to keep any monetary barriers from turning into profit centers like eg. happened with x509 certificates. Just my $.02 (not to be taken literally, yet...) Frank in SF _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 19:04:01 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA07289 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:04:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2J0L6P32467 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:21:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J0L6O32464 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:21:06 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA07270 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:03:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J0CDO32174; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:12:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J0BQO32155 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:11:26 -0500 Received: from segfault.monkeys.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA07089 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:53:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by segfault.monkeys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6E6C41F80 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:56:02 -0800 (PST) To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Amend the RFC to require reverse DNS In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:51:28 -0800. Message-ID: <42654.1048031762@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:56:02 -0800 In message , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" wrote: >Assigning a reverse DNS name does not today imply any intention on the >part of the reverse IP address maintainer to authorize any use for the >domain. Yes, quite so. Most specifically, _either_ the presence or, conversely, absense of rDNS doesn't clearly designate a given IP address as being one which either the ``owner'' fully intends to act as an outgoing mail server or conversely as one which the owner DOES NOT intend to act as a mail server. But it is often helpful to be aware of exactly such a distinction. at the present time, large amounts of spam come from either (a) end-luser broadband lines where the end-lusers in question are running unsecured proxy servers (and where they are not even aware that their machines can send e-mail, directly, via SMTP, to arbitrary other places) or else (b) from end-luser dialup lines. I have a simple idea that could be used to classify SMTP client as being either ``intentional outgoing mail servers'' or not. And this idea is largely compatible with existing practice. Quite simply, if a given SMTP client connects to you and then says: HELO d.e.f.g then you look to see if any of the following names have associated MX records: d.e.f.g e.f.g f.g g For all MX records found for any of these names, if any of the FQDNs in any of the MX records resolve to the IP address of the SMTP client in question, then you know that it is an ``intentional mail server''. Otherwise, it probably isn't. My own outgoing mail server... and MANY others... would pass this simple test, because it greets via `HELO mail.monkeys.com', and if you look for MXes associated with these FQDNs: mail.monkeys.com monkeys.com com you will find that the FQDN `monkeys.com' has one, and that it resolves to the IP addres of my outgoing mail server. Case closed! My mail server _is_ a mail server, and it is a mail server NOT accidentally, but by my explicit intent. OK, now somebody will ask ``What about this thing that just greeted my incoming mail server as `imo-97.mx.aol.com'. That is an outbound-only server for a MAJOR domain and all of the given domain's _inbound_ MXs are at totally different IP addresses. No problem. We just have to figure out some inducement to get AOL to create a (pseudo) MX record for the FQDN `imo-97.mx.aol.com'... something like `pseudo-mx.imo-97.mx.aol.com', and then define an A record for that that points, specifically, to the `imo-97.mx.aol.com' server. If they do that, then they will pass the ``Is this an intentional mail server'' test also. One last point: End-lusers on dynamic dialups _could_ theoretically pass this test also, *if* they make clever use of one of these so- called ``dynamic DNS'' services. But there is an esay way to defeat such shenanigans. All you have to do is to force your lookups (first of the MX records and later of the A records associated with those) to require ``authoratative'' answers. Then check the TTLs in those answers. If it is 5 minutes or less, then they guy is on a dynamic dialup line and is using a dynamic DNS service. Otherwise, he isn't, and you can count of that mail server being at that same location for awhile... probably a long while. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 19:24:22 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA07815 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:24:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2J0fSF01647 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:41:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J0fSO01644 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:41:28 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA07809 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:23:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J0ZEO00590; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:35:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J0YtO00529 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:34:55 -0500 Received: from gorgoroth.localnet (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA07585 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:17:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from unternet.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gorgoroth.localnet (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2J0JVQT007233 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:19:31 +0100 Message-ID: <3E77B793.9020505@unternet.org> From: Frank de Lange User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4a) Gecko/20030318 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] pre-meeting meeting? Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:19:31 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Anyone on the list who is in SF feel for a pre-meeting meeting, say in some local establishment or just the hotel lobby? Cheers//Frank _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 19:26:47 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA07911 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:26:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2J0hrM01756 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:43:53 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J0hrO01751 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:43:53 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA07880 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:26:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J0d2O01546; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:39:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J0cUO01515 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:38:30 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA07754 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:20:53 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2IMSWiX013267 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:28:32 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2IMSWH8013263 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:28:32 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] pre-meeting meeting? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:28:31 -0800 (PST) I'd be interested. I think today is better as tomorrow sessions go until late night. On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Frank de Lange wrote: > Anyone on the list who is in SF feel for a pre-meeting meeting, say in > some local establishment or just the hotel lobby? > > Cheers//Frank > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 19:30:20 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA08253 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:30:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2J0lQH02100 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:47:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J0lQO02097 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:47:26 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA08182 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:29:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J0i2O01825; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:44:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J0hiO01725 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:43:44 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA07862 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:26:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from sputnik (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h2J0SIW3028235; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:28:18 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sputnik.mobil.danisch.de (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-8) id h2J0SAQI018757; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:28:10 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Frank de Lange Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] pre-meeting meeting? Message-ID: <20030319002809.GA18739@danisch.de> References: <3E77B793.9020505@unternet.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E77B793.9020505@unternet.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:28:09 -0800 On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 01:19:31AM +0100, Frank de Lange wrote: > Anyone on the list who is in SF feel for a pre-meeting meeting, say in > some local establishment or just the hotel lobby? Yes, I think that's a good idea. Just tell me when and where (best somewhere in the hotel). Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 19:43:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA09097 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:43:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2J113q02987 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:01:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J113O02984 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:01:03 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA09033 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:43:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J0q6O02490; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:52:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J0puO02440 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:51:56 -0500 Received: from smtp.mcn.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA08656 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:34:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from [204.189.3.167] (larkam2-39.mcn.org [204.189.3.167]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.mcn.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2J0aU2Y028105 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:36:30 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: larkam24@mail.mcn.org Message-Id: To: asrg@ietf.org From: matthew richards Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Subject: [Asrg] try this on for size Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:36:28 -0800 i was just reading an article about google buying blogger, and the writer was talking about what makes blogs so interesting; " The attraction of blogs is two fold. Firstly, it is the personal and uncensored nature of a diary. Secondly has an illicit nature to it. It is rather like peeking into someone's private notes." and then it hit me! this idea i've been mulling over for a while now, a new kind of email all together, a system that would operate like a bbs, P2P network, a blog, an IM client and email all rolled into one. a system that would be invulnerable to spam. it would operate in two basic parts: first the account part; a person would sign up for a free account that would basically be some private http webspace, say 20MB on a server. to access this account the subscriber would require a password just like hotmail or tripod. the space would be set up similar to blogger or a bbs, but the data entry form would look more like an email client. to post content the second part would be the public portal. the idea is that a contact would first visit your account page, where they would have one of two options; entering in their own personal contact information to ask permission to be added to your contact list, or a login, wich would allow them to receive messages from you, if they were already on your contact list. this is how they would be linked together: jessica visits http://matt.webspacehost.com views matt's bio and wants to write matt. so jessica fills in her personal contact info requesting a unique login and password id for http://matt.webspacehost.com - this request is then posted to matt's public portal where he can decide if he wants to allow jessica access to his virtual domain. the difference between matt's login/pw and jessica's login/pw is a simple matter of permissions. matt's id has administrator privilages and allows him access to every part of his virtual domain, while jessica's login only allows her access to her own page within matt's virtual domain. when matt confirms jessica's request she get's her own page: jessica's page within matt's virtual domain where she can post messages to matt and where he likewise can post replies- no one outside of jessica and matt would have access to this page as it would not be public. so anyway, that's the main idea. im sure there are lots of concerns that people would have by this point, so please ask some questions and i will answer them and think up solutions. here are some additional notes: with a little java a built in http based realtime IM engine could be built in, message post pages could alternately function as chat logs. the public portal could work as a blog/bbs for advanced users, or as just email for those who don't want to get that complicated. for p2p files could be uploaded and exchanged on users secure post pages, like streamloader, or other similar online file lockers. etc. etc. etc. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 19:44:00 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA09110 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:44:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2J116i03003 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:01:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J116O03000 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:01:06 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA09037 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:43:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J0w2O02746; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:58:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J0vtO02718 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:57:55 -0500 Received: from nycsmtp3out.rdc-nyc.rr.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA08878 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:40:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from damien (66-108-13-38.nyc.rr.com [66.108.13.38]) by nycsmtp3out.rdc-nyc.rr.com (8.12.1/Road Runner SMTP Server 1.0) with ESMTP id h2J0gqHx004271; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:42:52 -0500 (EST) From: "Damien Morton" To: "'Frank de Lange'" Cc: Subject: RE: [Asrg] Thoughts so far Message-ID: <001a01c2edaf$87a06250$6401a8c0@damien> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 In-Reply-To: <3E77AEA8.7020100@unternet.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:36:05 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > From: Frank de Lange > > All this talk about 'handling rates' and charges and stamps > and such... > how will we make sure that this does not become just another profit > center? I get visions of an email-system that more and more starts to > resemble the old telephone system, with artificially inflated > rates. Of > pay-per-mail email boxes for customer service. 'unfortunately > we had to > raise the price for mailing our service department to cover costs'... > just like the service departments of many companies in Europe, which > charge by the minute (and make you wait in a queue for many of those > paid minutes, but that's not relevant in this context). A very valid concern. > Email as we have it now is, apart from the problems caused by > pollution, > a valuable and 'free' resource. Not literally free of course, as the > upkeep of mail servers and mail service does cost quite a lot > of money, > but free as in 'unmetered' and 'unlimited'. This has been > tremendously > important for email to take the role it currently has as a > low-barrier > communications medium. It is because you don't have to think about > things like 'postage' that email has taken off the way it has. Email certainly wouldn't have take off the way it has if it was charged for in the same way SMS is. > I think we need to be very careful not to destroy these > characteristics > of email by artificially inflating the price of > participation. Careful, > also, to keep any monetary barriers from turning into profit centers > like eg. happened with x509 certificates. > > Just my $.02 (not to be taken literally, yet...) > > Frank in SF I guess I was picturing a system in which money was used to redress imbalances between net senders of email and net receivers of email. That's why I was talking in terms of payment (of some kind) between servers rather than between end-users. I was imagining a system in which communicating peers, exchanging equal quantities of mail, would need no monetary reconciliation. Im assuming that an ISP's or companies' mail server, barring spam, produces and consumes roughly the same amount of mail. Your points are well taken, however. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 19:44:51 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA09182 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:44:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2J11vW03079 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:01:57 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J11vO03076 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:01:57 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA09152 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:44:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J0u3O02642; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:56:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J0teO02614 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:55:40 -0500 Received: from gorgoroth.localnet (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA08783 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:38:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from unternet.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gorgoroth.localnet (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2J0eFQT007465 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:40:16 +0100 Message-ID: <3E77BC6F.4090503@unternet.org> From: Frank de Lange User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4a) Gecko/20030318 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] pre-meeting meeting? References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:40:15 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit william@elan.net wrote: >I'd be interested. I think today is better as tomorrow sessions go until late >night. > > Agree. How about meeting up in the lobby around 18:30? Anyone interested just show up. Just look for the person with the laptop computer, that should make it easy to recognize us... Uhhh, wait a moment... Right. Anyway, lobby, 18:30 (or any other similar proposal), I'm wearing a black HIP '97 T-shirt... Frank _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 19:44:54 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA09197 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:44:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2J121j03105 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:02:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J121O03102 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:02:01 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA09158 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:44:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J0x2O02825; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:59:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J0wfO02786 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:58:41 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc02.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA08899 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:41:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from art.lextek.com (12-254-130-29.client.attbi.com[12.254.130.29]) by sccrmhc02.attbi.com (sccrmhc02) with SMTP id <2003031900431700200rqe96e>; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:43:17 +0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030318174311.04f6a190@mail.lextek.com> X-Sender: PollardA@mail.lextek.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Art Pollard Subject: Re: [Asrg] Thoughts so far Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:43:14 -0700 > >Except that Utah's law was just resounding defeated in its first test in >court and >the written judgement makes it difficult to ever collect from sleazy >spammer and impossible from a 'honest' (or at least open) one Yes. But I am sure that they will be updating the spam laws here in Utah. (In fact, I know they are.) Anyway, this case was defeated partly because the person had "opted-in" to a list that was then sold to Sprint. The judge simply said that since he had opted-in that Sprint had the right to send him e-mail. So, while this person was defeated, it wasn't a real test of the law. I am working with the legislators here and attempting to try to get some guidelines put into the legislation. For example, all opt-in lists must contain information about when/how the person opted in and it must be contained in the e-mail and if someone opts out from the originating list then the person with the list must contact all those that they sold it to and notify them that you opted out. -Art -- Art Pollard http://www.lextek.com/ Suppliers of High Performance Text Retrieval Engines. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 19:45:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA09222 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:45:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2J12dl03153 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:02:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J12dO03150 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:02:39 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA09212 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:45:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J10UO02936; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:00:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J0xwO02860 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:59:58 -0500 Received: from ciphertrust.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA08973 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:42:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.com with ESMTP ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:43:15 -0500 (EST) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:33:46 -0500 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'Hadmut Danisch'" , "'Frank de Lange'" Cc: "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] pre-meeting meeting? MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:33:45 -0500 Ok. When do you guys want to get together? Early like 5:30pm or later like 9pm? > -----Original Message----- > From: Hadmut Danisch [mailto:hadmut@danisch.de] > Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 7:28 PM > To: Frank de Lange > Cc: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] pre-meeting meeting? > > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 01:19:31AM +0100, Frank de Lange wrote: > > Anyone on the list who is in SF feel for a pre-meeting > meeting, say in > > some local establishment or just the hotel lobby? > > Yes, I think that's a good idea. Just tell me when and where > (best somewhere in the hotel). > > Hadmut > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 19:49:08 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA09291 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:49:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2J16F803322 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:06:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J16FO03319 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:06:15 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA09283 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:48:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J135O03203; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:03:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J12WO03144 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:02:32 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA09196 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:44:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from sputnik (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h2J0l6ni028617; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:47:06 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sputnik.mobil.danisch.de (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-8) id h2J0kx4F019417; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:46:59 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Paul Judge Cc: "'Frank de Lange'" , "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] pre-meeting meeting? Message-ID: <20030319004658.GA19401@danisch.de> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:46:58 -0800 I'd prefer early, but late is fine too. But I need to know soon, since I still have to do some shopping today. Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 19:49:52 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA09327 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:49:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2J16xm03361 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:06:59 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J16xO03358 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:06:59 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA09305 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:49:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J0x1O02809; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:59:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J0wZO02771 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:58:35 -0500 Received: from smtp6.andrew.cmu.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA08892 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:40:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from UNIX6.andrew.cmu.edu (UNIX6.andrew.cmu.edu [128.2.13.136]) (user=rjs3 mech=KERBEROS_V4 (0 bits)) by smtp6.andrew.cmu.edu (8.12.8/8.12.3.Beta2) with ESMTP id h2J0h86t023958; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:43:08 -0500 From: Rob Siemborski To: Hadmut Danisch cc: Frank de Lange , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] pre-meeting meeting? In-Reply-To: <20030319002809.GA18739@danisch.de> Message-ID: References: <3E77B793.9020505@unternet.org> <20030319002809.GA18739@danisch.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:43:09 -0500 (EST) On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, Hadmut Danisch wrote: > On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 01:19:31AM +0100, Frank de Lange wrote: > > Anyone on the list who is in SF feel for a pre-meeting meeting, say in > > some local establishment or just the hotel lobby? > > Yes, I think that's a good idea. Just tell me when and where > (best somewhere in the hotel). I would be interested in attending a meeting tonight. I have a dinner meeting so something somewhat later would be better. -Rob -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Rob Siemborski | Andrew Systems Group * Research Systems Programmer PGP:0x5CE32FCC | Cyert Hall 207 * rjs3@andrew.cmu.edu * 412.268.7456 -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK---- Version: 3.12 GCS/IT/CM/PA d- s+: a-- C++++$ ULS++++$ P+++$ L+++(++++) E W+ N o? K- w O- M-- V-- PS+ PE++ Y+ PGP+ t+@ 5+++ R@ tv-@ b+ DI+++ G e h r- y? ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK----- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 19:52:53 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA09444 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:52:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2J19xp04207 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:09:59 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J19xO04204 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:09:59 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA09394 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:52:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J139O03220; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:03:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J12iO03168 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:02:44 -0500 Received: from fl-webmail01.durocom.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA09216 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:45:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from dlampert ([65.35.47.235]) by fl-webmail01.durocom.com with ESMTP id <20030319004720.BLDF17104.fl-webmail01@dlampert>; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:47:20 -0500 From: "Dave Lampert" To: "Kee Hinckley" Cc: Subject: RE: [Asrg] Gray list: rating of associates Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:46:43 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Original thread message: https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg01552.html Kee, All good points... there's no perfect solution, but let me address your constructive criticism point-by-point: 1. Yes, these long addresses containing GUIDs are hard to remember. Therefore, you do need an address book. I generally email from a single machine, so I don't feel that same pain of needing to send mail from multiple machines. Maybe there are some stats on how many people use multiple machines for routine emailing. 2. If you and your friends find it easy to use this approach, then do so. Each of you has to only click the "grant" and "accept" button once in the ASP software, and you've exchanged private email addresses for each other. After that, emailing is just as simple as sending is now, assuming you use an address book (or have super-human memory and fast fingers!) If you don't want to annoy anyone (the kind of person who likes to please everyone), then check your regular email address once every week or so, but the friends who cared enough to click a few buttons as a one-time setup would get faster response than once a week. 3. Yes, you're right that you still have the spam mail to read if you want, but at least you can segregate it from authenticated email. Many users will probably want to use a "vacation" type auto-reply that says "your message landed in my anyone-and-everyone folder... I'll read it sometime before the 22nd century, or you can call me and we'll exchange high-priority email addresses with each other...". You could also run spam content filters on your unsolicited mail folder, risking false positives. 4. (humor) This is an unforeseen benefit of this solution: annoy all your friends so they never write to you again, and then you can safely conclude all the remaining emails are spam! :) (seriously) Some will set this up, but in an open-standards world, everyone can do as they wish. 5. There are several approaches we've started: a custom MUA, a custom MTA, or both. The most likely to occur quickly is a custom MTA alone. Many MUA's already handle sorting messages by importance tag, so the custom MTA would modify the importance tag when it auto-forwards email to the final account for POP3/IMAP pickup. For example, if I get a "high importance" message from you at dlampert_@homeai.com, it'll forward perhaps as a "low importance" (no insult intended) message to dlampert_the_real_shady@homeai.com (no, that's not the real account, and everyone has their own real account). No need to change your MUA; however, other benefits come from a custom MUA plug-in. 6. Good point. Obviously, if you store everyone in your address book, and a virus gets your address book, that's not good. (humor) Just like robot.txt, let's have a virus.txt with content "desire-to-be-infected=0". That should stop all viruses! :) 7. Example: if Ian rated Jane a 90%, and Jane gives to Kim this email address "ian_@...", then, yes, Kim has the same access to Ian that Jane would (90%). The system, however, supports referral and introduction actions done through the same web site console as striking up conversations. Overall, this proposed system is just slighly more difficult than just sending someone an email. It requires at least a few clicks ONE TIME to strike up a friendship, etc. But the advantage is that we don't need to overhaul the whole SMTP system. Yes, eventually an overhaul may be the way to go, but by that time, I'll have my HMD and data gloves on while participating in an IETF panel remotely from Fiji. Keep the constructive criticism coming... -Dave "VR Fiji" Lampert -----Original Message----- From: Kee Hinckley [mailto:nazgul@somewhere.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 5:36 PM To: Dave Lampert Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Gray list: rating of associates 1. Now nobody can remember your email address. They have to have their address book with them on every machine they send email from. Otherwise it ends up in your "deal with later" bin. (And it's real easy to miss that one real message when 90% of the stuff in the bin is spam.) 2. You annoy your friends. Initiating a discussion becomes a pain. You also annoy strangers by sending them a new contact address that they don't want. 3. You still have to read every email message that comes into the main address, because you are never sure whether it's spam or someone legit trying to talk to you (in other words, same as now). 4. If not #3, then you need a challenge response system, which *really* annoys your friends. 5. You need to write a custom MUA that handles this whole priority system. And if you think I'm going to let my MUA prompt me to prioritize every person who sends me email you haven't seen my inbox! 6. You've just made a virus-writers dream. I can't communicate with anyone anymore without an address book--so I have to have *everyone* I send mail to in my address book. 7. You need to write custom MUA or MTA software that handles address mapping. In particular you have the problem of any random discussion between several people. I send to three people, they all do a reply-all and all of the addresses are wrong for them to send to. It will get through of course--but not at the priority you wanted. In addition, some number of recipients are going to add the address in the To to their address book, which isn't what you had in mind at all. And if they send using one of those addresses after I've canceled it (the previous owner of that address is on my bad list) then I won't get the mail at all. You don't need to use custom addresses to do that. And as mentioned above, you'll be getting mail from people to whom you didn't give out the private address. So it isn't a reliable authentication mechanism. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 19:53:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA09493 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:53:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2J1All04251 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:10:47 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J1AlO04248 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:10:47 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA09466 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:53:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J163O03308; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:06:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J15nO03288 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:05:49 -0500 Received: from gorgoroth.localnet (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA09279 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:48:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from unternet.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gorgoroth.localnet (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2J0oPQT007538 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:50:25 +0100 Message-ID: <3E77BED1.20002@unternet.org> From: Frank de Lange User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4a) Gecko/20030318 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] pre-meeting meeting? References: <3E77B793.9020505@unternet.org> <20030319002809.GA18739@danisch.de> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:50:25 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Rob Siemborski wrote: > >I would be interested in attending a meeting tonight. I have a dinner >meeting so something somewhat later would be better. > 20:30 or 21:00, Hotel Lobby? Frank _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 20:02:24 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA10048 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:02:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2J1JVg04788 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:19:31 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J1JVO04785 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:19:31 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA10024 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:01:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J1GLO04579; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:16:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J1D6O04351 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:13:06 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA09572 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:55:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from sputnik (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h2J0vglF028880; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:57:42 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sputnik.mobil.danisch.de (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-8) id h2J0vX8D019715; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:57:33 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Frank de Lange Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] pre-meeting meeting? Message-ID: <20030319005733.GA19482@danisch.de> References: <3E77BC6F.4090503@unternet.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E77BC6F.4090503@unternet.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:57:33 -0800 On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 01:40:15AM +0100, Frank de Lange wrote: > just show up. Just look for the person with the laptop computer, that > should make it easy to recognize us... > > Uhhh, wait a moment... Right. Hey, I am easy to recognize: I'm the one who's laptop has a wavelan card. :-) > Anyway, lobby, 18:30 (or any other similar proposal), I'm wearing a > black HIP '97 T-shirt... I'm wearing a grey polo shirt, but maybe we should define the position in the lobby more precisely (even if GPS might be turned off or heavily distorted). I'll propose to meet somewhere near to the concierge's counter. Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 20:03:49 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA10103 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:03:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2J1Kuw04864 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:20:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J1KuO04861 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:20:56 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA10079 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:03:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J1I2O04734; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:18:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J1HAO04677 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:17:10 -0500 Received: from gorgoroth.localnet (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA09913 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:59:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from unternet.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gorgoroth.localnet (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2J11jQT007587; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 02:01:45 +0100 Message-ID: <3E77C179.4070502@unternet.org> From: Frank de Lange User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4a) Gecko/20030318 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Frank de Lange CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] pre-meeting meeting? References: <3E77B793.9020505@unternet.org> In-Reply-To: <3E77B793.9020505@unternet.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 02:01:45 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Frank de Lange wrote: > Anyone on the list who is in SF feel for a pre-meeting meeting, say in > some local establishment or just the hotel lobby? > > Cheers//Frank > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg OK, early meeting 17:30-18:00, could go for food as well, late meeting 21:00. I'll be in the lobby at 17:30, if nobody shows up before 18:00 I'll find myself something to eat, back at 21:00. Black HIP '97 T-shirt. Cheers//Frank _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 20:06:54 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA10301 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:06:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2J1O1Q05063 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:24:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J1O1O05060 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:24:01 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA10252 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:06:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J1GMO04599; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:16:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J1DUO04362 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:13:30 -0500 Received: from ciphertrust.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA09582 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:55:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.com with ESMTP ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:56:53 -0500 (EST) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:47:24 -0500 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'Hadmut Danisch'" , Paul Judge Cc: "'Frank de Lange'" , "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] pre-meeting meeting? MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:47:23 -0500 Ok. 5:30pm at the bar by the lobby. > -----Original Message----- > From: Hadmut Danisch [mailto:hadmut@danisch.de] > Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 7:47 PM > To: Paul Judge > Cc: 'Frank de Lange'; 'asrg@ietf.org' > Subject: Re: [Asrg] pre-meeting meeting? > > > I'd prefer early, but late is fine too. But I need to know soon, > since I still have to do some shopping today. > > Hadmut > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 20:08:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA10390 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:08:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2J1PCh05115 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:25:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J1PCO05112 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:25:12 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA10367 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:07:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J1FuO04506; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:15:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J1B3O04281 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:11:03 -0500 Received: from smtp6.andrew.cmu.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA09476 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:53:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from GOBO.andrew.cmu.edu (GOBO.andrew.cmu.edu [128.2.120.172]) (user=rjs3 mech=KERBEROS_V4 (0 bits)) by smtp6.andrew.cmu.edu (8.12.8/8.12.3.Beta2) with ESMTP id h2J0td6t024758; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:55:39 -0500 From: Rob Siemborski To: Frank de Lange cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] pre-meeting meeting? In-Reply-To: <3E77BED1.20002@unternet.org> Message-ID: References: <3E77B793.9020505@unternet.org> <20030319002809.GA18739@danisch.de> <3E77BED1.20002@unternet.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:55:40 -0500 (EST) On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Frank de Lange wrote: > Rob Siemborski wrote: > > > > >I would be interested in attending a meeting tonight. I have a dinner > >meeting so something somewhat later would be better. > > > > 20:30 or 21:00, Hotel Lobby? 2100 in the lobby sounds good. Thanks, -Rob -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Rob Siemborski | Andrew Systems Group * Research Systems Programmer PGP:0x5CE32FCC | Cyert Hall 207 * rjs3@andrew.cmu.edu * 412.268.7456 -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK---- Version: 3.12 GCS/IT/CM/PA d- s+: a-- C++++$ ULS++++$ P+++$ L+++(++++) E W+ N o? K- w O- M-- V-- PS+ PE++ Y+ PGP+ t+@ 5+++ R@ tv-@ b+ DI+++ G e h r- y? ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK----- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 20:11:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA10484 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:11:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2J1Sdp05264 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:28:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J1SdO05261 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:28:39 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA10474 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:11:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J1M4O04986; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:22:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J1LGO04917 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:21:16 -0500 Received: from gorgoroth.localnet (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA10098 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:03:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from unternet.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gorgoroth.localnet (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2J15pQT007680 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 02:05:51 +0100 Message-ID: <3E77C26F.5000205@unternet.org> From: Frank de Lange User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4a) Gecko/20030318 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] pre-meeting meeting? References: <3E77BC6F.4090503@unternet.org> <20030319005733.GA19482@danisch.de> In-Reply-To: <20030319005733.GA19482@danisch.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 02:05:51 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hadmut Danisch wrote: >On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 01:40:15AM +0100, Frank de Lange wrote: > > > >>just show up. Just look for the person with the laptop computer, that >>should make it easy to recognize us... >> >>Uhhh, wait a moment... Right. >> >> > >Hey, I am easy to recognize: I'm the one who's laptop has a wavelan >card. :-) > > > > > >>Anyway, lobby, 18:30 (or any other similar proposal), I'm wearing a >>black HIP '97 T-shirt... >> >> > >I'm wearing a grey polo shirt, but maybe we should define the >position in the lobby more precisely (even if GPS might be >turned off or heavily distorted). > >I'll propose to meet somewhere near to the concierge's counter. > Ack, first session 17:30, bar, lobby, then 21:00, may I suggest bar@lobby again? Frank _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 20:14:02 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA10616 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:14:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2J1V9B05407 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:31:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J1V9O05404 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:31:09 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA10600 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:13:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J1Q5O05170; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:26:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J1P2O05108 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:25:02 -0500 Received: from smtp7.andrew.cmu.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA10357 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:07:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from GOBO.andrew.cmu.edu (GOBO.andrew.cmu.edu [128.2.120.172]) (user=rjs3 mech=KERBEROS_V4 (0 bits)) by smtp7.andrew.cmu.edu (8.12.8/8.12.3.Beta2) with ESMTP id h2J19bpf030648; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:09:37 -0500 From: Rob Siemborski To: Frank de Lange cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] pre-meeting meeting? In-Reply-To: <3E77C26F.5000205@unternet.org> Message-ID: References: <3E77BC6F.4090503@unternet.org> <20030319005733.GA19482@danisch.de> <3E77C26F.5000205@unternet.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:09:38 -0500 (EST) On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Frank de Lange wrote: > >I'll propose to meet somewhere near to the concierge's counter. > > > Ack, first session 17:30, bar, lobby, then 21:00, may I suggest > bar@lobby again? Sounds fine to me. Hopefully I'll be able to find you guys at 2100. I'm wearing a grey flanel and a green shirt. -Rob -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Rob Siemborski | Andrew Systems Group * Research Systems Programmer PGP:0x5CE32FCC | Cyert Hall 207 * rjs3@andrew.cmu.edu * 412.268.7456 -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK---- Version: 3.12 GCS/IT/CM/PA d- s+: a-- C++++$ ULS++++$ P+++$ L+++(++++) E W+ N o? K- w O- M-- V-- PS+ PE++ Y+ PGP+ t+@ 5+++ R@ tv-@ b+ DI+++ G e h r- y? ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK----- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 20:18:55 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA10672 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:18:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2J1a2s05559 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:36:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J1a2O05556 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:36:02 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA10660 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:18:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J1U4O05362; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:30:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J1TOO05303 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:29:24 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc02.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA10501 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:11:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from video.attbi.com (12-235-20-211.client.attbi.com[12.235.20.211]) by sccrmhc02.attbi.com (sccrmhc02) with SMTP id <2003031901135900200ru58me>; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:14:00 +0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030318170731.04874828@mail.attbi.com> X-Sender: schear@mail.attbi.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: Frank de Lange , Damien Morton From: Steve Schear Subject: Re: [Asrg] Thoughts so far Cc: "'Margie Arbon'" , asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <3E77AEA8.7020100@unternet.org> References: <010201c2ed87$ff85c580$6401a8c0@damien> <010201c2ed87$ff85c580$6401a8c0@damien> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:16:40 -0800 At 12:41 AM 3/19/2003 +0100, Frank de Lange wrote: >Damien Morton wrote: > >>Well, a recipient that values their time greatly could sign up with a >>mail system that charges higher handling rates. Per-recipient rates >>might be desireable, but for stopping the mass proliferation of spam, >>its not a necessary feature. >All this talk about 'handling rates' and charges and stamps and such... >how will we make sure that this does not become just another profit >center? I get visions of an email-system that more and more starts to >resemble the old telephone system, with artificially inflated rates. Of >pay-per-mail email boxes for customer service. 'unfortunately we had to >raise the price for mailing our service department to cover costs'... just >like the service departments of many companies in Europe, which charge by >the minute (and make you wait in a queue for many of those paid minutes, >but that's not relevant in this context). > >Email as we have it now is, apart from the problems caused by pollution, a >valuable and 'free' resource. Not literally free of course, as the upkeep >of mail servers and mail service does cost quite a lot of money, but free >as in 'unmetered' and 'unlimited'. This has been tremendously important >for email to take the role it currently has as a low-barrier >communications medium. It is because you don't have to think about things >like 'postage' that email has taken off the way it has. > >I think we need to be very careful not to destroy these characteristics of >email by artificially inflating the price of participation. Careful, also, >to keep any monetary barriers from turning into profit centers like eg. >happened with x509 certificates. > >Just my $.02 (not to be taken literally, yet...) One of my friends, who is also a supporter of sender-pays, raised similar concerns that ISPs and other intermediaries might move to do just that. That's another reason that the intermediaries should not have any hand, unless a user agrees to have their ISP proxy for them, in handling the sender-pays settlement process. The more we ask commercial entities to become involved if there is money on the table, the more likely that free email of any kind could vanish. That's why I support initial implementation of sender-pays using Proof-of-Work postage. Since no monetary value is conferred between the end-points there is no financial interest to whet the appetite of the intermediaries. Once this infrastructure is in place end-to-end some parties can then elect to charge real money to meter their mailbox, but by that time the technology will be familiar and mostly invisible to the end-user. steve _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 20:20:01 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA10712 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:20:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2J1b8B05809 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:37:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J1b8O05806 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:37:08 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA10690 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:19:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J1Y3O05500; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:34:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J1XXO05478 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:33:33 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA10648 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:15:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc02.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2J1I3wL013019; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:18:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:18:03 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: william@elan.net, asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] pre-meeting meeting? MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:18:00 -0800 I think this is going to be essential. Lets do it today in the lobby after the 5pm sessions end. The 'research group' session has been moved to a room with 400 seats and likely to fill many of them. So forget any chance of discussing the merits of a resource record bit map. This is an opportunity to sell a number of core decision influencers in the Internet community of the need to take spam seriously, that there are approaches that have a good chance of success and that they should be engaged in case they find the protocols go in a direction they do not like. Phill -----Original Message----- From: william@elan.net [mailto:william@elan.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 2:29 PM To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] pre-meeting meeting? I'd be interested. I think today is better as tomorrow sessions go until late night. On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Frank de Lange wrote: > Anyone on the list who is in SF feel for a pre-meeting meeting, say in > some local establishment or just the hotel lobby? > > Cheers//Frank > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 20:27:13 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA10887 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:27:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2J1iLd06656 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:44:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J1iLO06653 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:44:21 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA10857 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:26:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J1d7O06458; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:39:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J1c8O06427 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:38:08 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA10730 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:20:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2J1Mhki005456 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:22:43 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20030318224501.26415.89986.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> Message-ID: References: <20030318224501.26415.89986.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Asrg] Re: Anti-spam idea Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:22:43 -0500 (EST) > From: "Lee Murach" > A sends a message to B. B sends it back to A, whereupon A resends the = > message to B. The result: B receives A's message, and A learns B's spam = > code. Think for a second what happens if this is widely implemented. Evil spammer sends spam to B, claiming it's from A. B sends it to A, and because A is nice and well behaved, it learns B's spam code and replies. B gets the spam anyway. Of course, you can finesse the protocol by having A not respond to messages it knows it didn't send, but the book-keeping gets onerous for large organizations. And if the challenge/response is implemented in the MUA, A has to deal with "reflected" spam. > But the spammer, assuming he doesn't already know the codes, will be = > obliglied to receive and process replies from each recipient in order to = > learn them. This is scarcely practical. Why not? Domains cost $10/year. It's no sweat to set up a domain and a Linux box for a day just to do the handshaking. You disappear the next day. This is another kind of challenge-response system, but the response is too easily automated, and the extra traffic is not justifiable. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 20:41:22 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA11275 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:41:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2J1wUE07244 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:58:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J1wUO07241 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:58:30 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA11264 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:40:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J1u1O07165; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:56:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J1tSO07144 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:55:28 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA11234 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:37:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.57] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2J1e2wL015787; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:40:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:40:02 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'william@elan.net'" , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] pre-meeting meeting? MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:40:01 -0800 We are currently sitting in the BAR, next to the pilar that is closest to the entrance and the fence. There is BEER here, there are no beverages where you are. Your call. Phill -----Original Message----- From: william@elan.net [mailto:william@elan.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 3:42 PM To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] pre-meeting meeting? I doubt anybody would come at 5pm (isn't it already 5:30?), most look at later time. Anyway I'm now in lobby sitting near the far left column (if looking from the entrance there are 6 of them) and I'm trying to work on asrg presentation on my toshiba laptop... I would like to finish our small meeting by 9pm, I still have to take BART to Fremont and from there on drive 30+ minutes home and tomorrow up at 6:30 to get here. On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > I think this is going to be essential. Lets do it today in the lobby after > the 5pm sessions end. > > The 'research group' session has been moved to a room with 400 seats and > likely to fill many of them. So forget any chance of discussing the merits > of a resource record bit map. > > This is an opportunity to sell a number of core decision influencers in the > Internet community of the need to take spam seriously, that there are > approaches that have a good chance of success and that they should be > engaged in case they find the protocols go in a direction they do not like. > > Phill > > -----Original Message----- > From: william@elan.net [mailto:william@elan.net] > Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 2:29 PM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] pre-meeting meeting? > > > > I'd be interested. I think today is better as tomorrow sessions go until > late > night. > > On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Frank de Lange wrote: > > > Anyone on the list who is in SF feel for a pre-meeting meeting, say in > > some local establishment or just the hotel lobby? > > > > Cheers//Frank > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Asrg mailing list > > Asrg@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 20:42:10 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA11298 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:42:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2J1xIA07277 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:59:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J1xIO07274 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:59:18 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA11291 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:41:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J1r9O07055; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:53:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J1q6O07025 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:52:06 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA11157 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:34:27 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2INg7iX014301; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:42:07 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2INg7tF014297; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:42:07 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] pre-meeting meeting? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:42:07 -0800 (PST) I doubt anybody would come at 5pm (isn't it already 5:30?), most look at later time. Anyway I'm now in lobby sitting near the far left column (if looking from the entrance there are 6 of them) and I'm trying to work on asrg presentation on my toshiba laptop... I would like to finish our small meeting by 9pm, I still have to take BART to Fremont and from there on drive 30+ minutes home and tomorrow up at 6:30 to get here. On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > I think this is going to be essential. Lets do it today in the lobby after > the 5pm sessions end. > > The 'research group' session has been moved to a room with 400 seats and > likely to fill many of them. So forget any chance of discussing the merits > of a resource record bit map. > > This is an opportunity to sell a number of core decision influencers in the > Internet community of the need to take spam seriously, that there are > approaches that have a good chance of success and that they should be > engaged in case they find the protocols go in a direction they do not like. > > Phill > > -----Original Message----- > From: william@elan.net [mailto:william@elan.net] > Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 2:29 PM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] pre-meeting meeting? > > > > I'd be interested. I think today is better as tomorrow sessions go until > late > night. > > On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Frank de Lange wrote: > > > Anyone on the list who is in SF feel for a pre-meeting meeting, say in > > some local establishment or just the hotel lobby? > > > > Cheers//Frank > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Asrg mailing list > > Asrg@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 21:28:10 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA12424 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 21:28:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2J2jJ010527 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 21:45:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J2jJO10524 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 21:45:19 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA12414 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 21:27:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J2cGO10314; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 21:38:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J2biO10282 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 21:37:44 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA12235 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 21:20:04 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2J0RkiX014857; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:27:46 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2J0RjYR014853; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:27:46 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] pre-meeting meeting? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:27:45 -0800 (PST) But I want to work right now. By 8pm, I'll get tired so I guess lets meet near the BAR then. I think most will come at around 8pm. On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > We are currently sitting in the BAR, next to the pilar that is closest to > the entrance and the fence. > > There is BEER here, there are no beverages where you are. > > Your call. > > Phill > > -----Original Message----- > From: william@elan.net [mailto:william@elan.net] > Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 3:42 PM > To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip > Cc: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Asrg] pre-meeting meeting? > > > I doubt anybody would come at 5pm (isn't it already 5:30?), most look at > later time. Anyway I'm now in lobby sitting near the far left column > (if looking from the entrance there are 6 of them) and I'm trying to work > on asrg presentation on my toshiba laptop... > > I would like to finish our small meeting by 9pm, I still have to take > BART to Fremont and from there on drive 30+ minutes home and tomorrow up > at 6:30 to get here. > > On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > > > I think this is going to be essential. Lets do it today in the lobby after > > the 5pm sessions end. > > > > The 'research group' session has been moved to a room with 400 seats and > > likely to fill many of them. So forget any chance of discussing the merits > > of a resource record bit map. > > > > This is an opportunity to sell a number of core decision influencers in > the > > Internet community of the need to take spam seriously, that there are > > approaches that have a good chance of success and that they should be > > engaged in case they find the protocols go in a direction they do not > like. > > > > Phill > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: william@elan.net [mailto:william@elan.net] > > Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 2:29 PM > > To: asrg@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [Asrg] pre-meeting meeting? > > > > > > > > I'd be interested. I think today is better as tomorrow sessions go until > > late > > night. > > > > On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Frank de Lange wrote: > > > > > Anyone on the list who is in SF feel for a pre-meeting meeting, say in > > > some local establishment or just the hotel lobby? > > > > > > Cheers//Frank > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Asrg mailing list > > > Asrg@ietf.org > > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Asrg mailing list > > Asrg@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > _______________________________________________ > > Asrg mailing list > > Asrg@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 21:35:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA12633 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 21:35:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2J2qrt10838 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 21:52:53 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J2qqO10835 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 21:52:53 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA12621 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 21:35:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J2kDO10595; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 21:46:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J2hfO10475 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 21:43:41 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA12382 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 21:26:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18vOW5-0004UR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:21:01 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] pre-meeting meeting? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:27:45 PST." Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:21:01 -0500 There is a group of ~6 people currently in the hotel bar area, in the section away from the lobby, under two TV's which have been turned off. We should be here for a while. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 18 22:39:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA14249 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 22:39:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2J3umd14959 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 22:56:48 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J3umO14956 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 22:56:48 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA14223 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 22:39:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J3rLO14847; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 22:53:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J3qhO14804 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 22:52:43 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA14174 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 22:34:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2J3b47F024907 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:37:04 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303190337.h2J3b47F024907@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Testing content filters References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:37:04 -0700 (MST) > From: Matt Sergeant > One thing the anti-virus people got right is the ability to test > anti-virus engines by passing through a non-viral file that is by > de-facto detected as a virus by the vendors engines. This file is > called EICAR, and is a simple .COM executable that does nothing but > trigger AV engines. > > In order to provide something similar for spam content filters, I > created something similar for spam. We put support for this into the > SpamAssassin project and notified some other creators of spam content > filters. Unfortunately they all ignored us. > > I think this would be a good thing to support in content filters. > > We called this thing "GTUBE" (Generic Test for UBE), and you can find > the email that should be stopped at > http://spamassassin.planetmirror.com/dist/t/data/spam/gtube.eml (note > the headers are abitrary - it is the long string in the body of the > message that should be detected). > > The email is designed in such a way that it should not be munged by any > gateways. > > I urge other vendors of anti-spam content filters to support this. It's > trivial, but it gives users the power to test that their filter is > working. > > I also think this would be something worth standardising through the > IETF. That sounds like a good thing to have, but nothing that should involve the IETF (not to mention the IRTF). The IETF cannot standardize anything in less than 6 months and often neeeds a year or two. By the time such a test case were standardized, the spammers would have stopped some behaviors and started others, making the RFC of only theoretic or historic interest. More fundamentally, you don't want to standardize the test case, but to publish or exchange the current version of the test data. IETF standards are about ensuring interoperability, and are cast in stone. It takes almost as much work to issue a replacement RFC as to create the original, but you'd want at least quarterly updates for your test. That the business models of anti-virus and anti-spam services differ might be a more serious and fundamental problem. Anti-virus protection needs to be perfect,and so AV vendors can cooperate. Anti-spam protection is allowed and expected to be imperfect, so anti-spam vendors are able to keep some of their patterns or whatever secret to compete in customer tests. This is not to say that you can't publish a non-working-group Informational RFC, but that you should not be disappointed when it joins the 95% of RFCs that are write-only/read-never. As an asside, note that contrary one reading of the suggestion, effective ilters need to deal with the modifications inflicted on mail by gateways. For example, somethings seem to encoded and decode quoted-printable...never mind why or whether they should. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 00:32:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA16833 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:32:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2J5nTc21777 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:49:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J5nTO21774 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:49:29 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA16826 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:31:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J5cQO21313; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:38:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J5bSO21243 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:37:28 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA16405 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:19:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from rmf19 (h00055df0474a.ne.client2.attbi.com[65.96.217.174]) by rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (rwcrmhc53) with SMTP id <2003031905215705300l95h4e>; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 05:21:58 +0000 From: To: Keywords: asrg;filename=20030318-002104-984.mht;x-sender=asrg-admin@ietf.org;List-ID=Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF asrg.ietf.org Message-ID: <044801c2edd7$7661fd00$66e237c0@rmf19> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] An amazing amount of spam Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:21:57 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This list is, in my definition, spam. Not because it is unsolicited. Not because the message aren't useful or interesting (or infuriating) It is effectively spam because the email system and tools makes it too difficult to manage and work with the messages. Our current email systems are a very bad metaphor. Sure, I've written enough of my own email programs and systems over the last forty years and don't apologize for it. Even sold some. The problem is that people seem to think that the current approach really scales when it's really just the best we could implement in an afternoon. On issue, as I mentioned in a previous message (http://www.frankston.com/?name=spamfixation) is the think of the email address as a capability and not ones "real" name. And, along with it, stop using meaningful names in the DSN because they don't work confuse the innocent and unravel since they are recycled. There is a concept of a message (either stand alone or in a context). Email exchanges messages and news services manage pools of them (NNTP/IMAP4). Lotus Notes did a good job of melding them but the UI is very clunky by today's standards and it has wandered into IBM corporate requirements. The first step, as I note, is to give me the ability to manage my attention. Knowing why I get the message is a start. The ability to view and access and share messages is the next issue. That's mostly an app issue though the IETF can help by standardizing markers for messages as additional header fields. (or, if appropriate, envelope fields - SMTP has a design error in that it doesn't preserve the envelope). These are separable efforts. Since the message is a unit it can be transported via the existing store and forward SMTP system. MIME is a good example of that. Of course, the message must be encrypted for an end-to-end solution. This moots content filtering though it also becomes moot since you won't be barraged with so many messages to your one true identity. Of course, you will then have to take responsibility for the safety of active messages but you can install various anti-virus and other tools to assist but nothing will protect you against the urgent warning to type "deltree /y c:\". The question then is what the purpose of this list is. Is it just a quick hack to create a temporary invasive solution to problems caused by a bad metaphor? Or is to think about architecture issues that provide a long term approach which gives us mechanisms to create our own solutions? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 00:45:50 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA17154 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:45:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2J633d22497 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:03:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J633O22494 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:03:03 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA17141 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:45:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J5pZO21959; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:51:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J5ncO21798 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:49:38 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA16830 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:31:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from rmf19 (h00055df0474a.ne.client2.attbi.com[65.96.217.174]) by rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (rwcrmhc53) with SMTP id <2003031905340805300papn1e>; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 05:34:09 +0000 From: To: Keywords: asrg;filename=20030318-002104-984.mht;x-sender=asrg-admin@ietf.org;List-ID=Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF asrg.ietf.org Message-ID: <044901c2edd9$2a025fc0$66e237c0@rmf19> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] An amazing amount of spam Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:34:08 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This list is, in my definition, spam. Not because it is unsolicited. Not because the message aren't useful or interesting (or infuriating) It is effectively spam because the email system and tools makes it too difficult to manage and work with the messages. Our current email systems are a very bad metaphor. Sure, I've written enough of my own email programs and systems over the last forty years and don't apologize for it. Even sold some. The problem is that people seem to think that the current approach really scales when it's really just the best we could implement in an afternoon. On issue, as I mentioned in a previous message (http://www.frankston.com/?name=spamfixation) is the think of the email address as a capability and not ones "real" name. And, along with it, stop using meaningful names in the DSN because they don't work confuse the innocent and unravel since they are recycled. There is a concept of a message (either stand alone or in a context). Email exchanges messages and news services manage pools of them (NNTP/IMAP4). Lotus Notes did a good job of melding them but the UI is very clunky by today's standards and it has wandered into IBM corporate requirements. The first step, as I note, is to give me the ability to manage my attention. Knowing why I get the message is a start. The ability to view and access and share messages is the next issue. That's mostly an app issue though the IETF can help by standardizing markers for messages as additional header fields. (or, if appropriate, envelope fields - SMTP has a design error in that it doesn't preserve the envelope). These are separable efforts. Since the message is a unit it can be transported via the existing store and forward SMTP system. MIME is a good example of that. Of course, the message must be encrypted for an end-to-end solution. This moots content filtering though it also becomes moot since you won't be barraged with so many messages to your one true identity. Of course, you will then have to take responsibility for the safety of active messages but you can install various anti-virus and other tools to assist but nothing will protect you against the urgent warning to type "deltree /y c:\". The question then is what the purpose of this list is. Is it just a quick hack to create a temporary invasive solution to problems caused by a bad metaphor? Or is to think about architecture issues that provide a long term approach which gives us mechanisms to create our own solutions? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 00:49:06 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA17186 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:49:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2J66Iv22595 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:06:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J66IO22592 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:06:18 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA17181 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:48:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J5s5O22121; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:54:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J5roO22099 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:53:50 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA16984 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:36:06 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2J5c88n001985; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:38:08 -0500 Message-Id: <200303190538.h2J5c88n001985@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.2 03/18/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: Vernon Schryver Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Testing content filters In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:37:04 MST." <200303190337.h2J3b47F024907@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <200303190337.h2J3b47F024907@calcite.rhyolite.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_-1939135232P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:38:08 -0500 --==_Exmh_-1939135232P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:37:04 MST, Vernon Schryver said: > More fundamentally, you don't want to standardize the test case, but > to publish or exchange the current version of the test data. IETF > standards are about ensuring interoperability, and are cast in stone. > It takes almost as much work to issue a replacement RFC as to create > the original, but you'd want at least quarterly updates for your test. The EICAR test "virus" is useful specifically *because* its standardized and is *not* updated quarterly to track the latest virus trends. It exists for exactly ONE reason - to validate the following assertion: *IF* something trips the scanner, an action is taken. I've mailed myself copies of EICAR plenty of times, specifically to test that things do what I want - I'd rather have an unquarantined copy of EICAR than mail myself a copy of Klez and find out it didn't get quarantined.. ;) An EICAR-SPAM test file would be equally useful for content-based antispam, as you could mail yourself a copy to test that you bounced spam, rather than have to wait to get on a spammer list to find out. --==_Exmh_-1939135232P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+eAJAcC3lWbTT17ARAnsGAKCKeYY9pkHdswaL1tAYRmxSnWVCrQCaAuPo lEXTjglYIQOJMpkEg+y55+0= =kwY2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_-1939135232P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 00:53:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA17319 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:53:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2J6ATc23674 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:10:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J6ATO23671 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:10:29 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA17302 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:52:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J688O23481; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:08:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J67PO23138 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:07:25 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA17228 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:49:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2165602; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:51:57 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1048001539.8984.44.camel@david.couchpotato.net> References: <013501c2ed2f$0861fb00$db000002@othala> <1048001539.8984.44.camel@david.couchpotato.net> To: David Green From: Kee Hinckley Subject: RE: [Asrg] Thoughts so far Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:38:24 -0500 At 10:32 AM -0500 3/18/03, David Green wrote: >On Tue, 2003-03-18 at 04:16, John Rumpelein wrote: >> *Identification* is often problematic. How do you identify the individual >> responsible for sending you a piece of spam? This is a non-trivial problem. > >If you're not talking about digital signatures, you need only identify >the ISP IMO. The ISP can further sub-identify it's users if it so >chooses, since only it knows who really sent the email. There are plenty of people reporting abuse to ISPs right now. There are entire services dedicated to it, and most ISPs have lots of people on their staff handling those complaints. However it doesn't have a significant impact on spam. Losing the sending account is simply part of the cost of business for a spammer. And of course there are certain countries whose ISPs never respond to abuse requests. Unfortunately that doesn't mean that we can afford to stop receiving email from them. However, anything that makes identifying the ISP more reliable is certainly a boon. The number of false reports is way too high. And a reliable mechanism would make it easier for MUAs to auto-report spam. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 00:53:18 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA17332 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:53:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2J6AU123690 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:10:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J6AUO23687 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:10:30 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA17305 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:52:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J683O23432; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:08:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J67JO23013 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:07:19 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA17220 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:49:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2165601; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:51:51 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <001101c2ed70$e6852240$60cefea9@f4n8i1> References: <001101c2ed70$e6852240$60cefea9@f4n8i1> To: "Ian Wilson" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] New To The List Cc: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 23:32:31 -0500 At 1:07 PM -0400 3/18/03, Ian Wilson wrote: >brings me to my question, It seems rather easy for me to use >filters in Outlook Express to filter a great deal of this trash, >which makes me wonder if it isn't just as easy to do at the Mail >Server. Could my ISP filter as much of this junk as I now do, and >if so isn't putting pressure on our ISP's a good place to start. When you make a mistake with your filter, you find the good message in the spam folder and move it out. When your ISP makes a mistake, you never get the message. When you get a message with Viagra in the subject, you filter it to the spam folder. When someone at Pfizer does, it's an important message. So, ISPs can filter. But it's not that easy. In fact, most major ISPs *are* filtering. But they can't block everything without blocking too much real email. >indicates the SPAMMERS didn't actually send the message using Yahoo. >This makes me wonder is it possible, at the mail server level to >check and see if a return address is forged? Currently, no. That is one the primary discussion areas on this list. It's complicated by the fact that "forging" the return address is something that people do all the time. You send personal mail from work and set the return to your hotmail address. You send work mail from home and set the return to your work address. Both reasonable things to want to do. >they are offering. It seemed to indicate that it would use the >resources of everyone who subscribes to gather a database of >SPAMMERS. When one arrives at my mail box I bounce it in the normal >way, and that bounced message is No comments on specific solutions. The general problems with systems like that are 1. False positives. One group of people thinks that the mail they get from Classmates.com is spam, another thinks it's not. If too many people report it as spam, the second group loses. 2. Coming up with algorithms that detect bulk spam. The spammers send out thousands or even tens of thousands of different variations of the same message. Many of those variations aren't visible to your eye (hidden codes in the message)--but software that tries to detect similarities needs to detect the "eye space"--what you see, not what is actually there. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 00:53:18 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA17334 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:53:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2J6AVP23706 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:10:31 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J6AUO23703 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:10:30 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA17307 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:52:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J68BO23513; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:08:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J67SO23218 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:07:28 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA17234 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:49:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2165597; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:52:00 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: Matt Sergeant From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Testing content filters Cc: "asrg@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:45:51 -0500 At 11:09 PM +0000 3/18/03, Matt Sergeant wrote: >So please, feel free to add in suggestions for 2 and 3. I've started the >groundwork - it won't be too hard to finish it off now. Just to clarify. The goal of this is to have a tag that indicates that your software is indeed installed and functioning? If that's the case, couldn't we just establish an X-something header and use the same tag? -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 00:54:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA17372 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:54:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2J6BIK23753 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:11:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J6BHO23750 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:11:17 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA17359 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:53:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J686O23449; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:08:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J67KO23033 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:07:20 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA17222 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:49:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2165576; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:51:52 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <02b601c2ed9d$d839a4e0$e54148ce@auroraville> References: <02b601c2ed9d$d839a4e0$e54148ce@auroraville> To: "Lee Murach" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] spam-shake: an anti-spam e-mail protocol Cc: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 23:49:33 -0500 At 2:29 PM -0800 3/18/03, Lee Murach wrote: >But the spammer, assuming he doesn't already know the codes, will be >obliglied to receive and process replies from each recipient in >order to learn them. This is scarcely practical. Neither is it Is this implemented in the MTA or the MUA? If the MTA, then what happens when the spammer sends using a real return address (say a temporary hotmail account, or that of an innocent bystander)? Temp account case: A sends to B with own spam code B returns to A asking for a resend with the new code A resends with new code. Forged account case: A sends to B with fake spam code B returns to A asking for a resend with the new code A gets the message and does one of two things 1. tosses the message because it's a resend request with the wrong code--unfortunately that would mean that you couldn't change your code without first making sure that all outstanding email had cleared 2. sends mail to B asking for a resend with the real code - then the protocol continues until the message gets through. And of course it really is a change to the protocol at that level, since it drastically changes the behavior of the MTA. If it's implemented in the MUA then this essentially becomes a challenge response system (without the need to prove that the remote sender is a human being). In either MUA or MTA case, you clearly can't do the auto-reply until you see mail with the Spam: header. Anything else won't properly respond. So you have to let it through without challenging. Now we apply the patented "where's the incentive" test. 1% Adoption - the spammers clearly don't use the header. None of your friends use the header. So you still get as much spam as ever. 10% Adoption - the spammers don't use the header. Most other people don't use the header, so you still have to accept email from spammers. However you do now have some friends using the header, and initial conversations with them are slower. So. Not a huge amount of pain to use. But no apparent benefit until 90% of your correspondents are using the system and you can safely shut out the rest. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 00:54:10 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA17385 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:54:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2J6BMb23770 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:11:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J6BMO23767 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:11:22 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA17363 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:53:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J689O23497; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:08:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J67QO23174 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:07:26 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA17231 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:49:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2165603; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:51:59 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030318094728.04804d40@mail.attbi.com> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030317162233.048c73e8@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030317162233.048c73e8@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030318094728.04804d40@mail.attbi.com> To: Steve Schear From: Kee Hinckley Subject: RE: [Asrg] Thoughts so far Cc: Margie Arbon , asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:44:17 -0500 At 10:00 AM -0800 3/18/03, Steve Schear wrote: >parties. It doesn't require major changes to the email >infrastructure, though clients would need to be enhanced (web-based >email could add this almost immediately, plug-ins may suffice for >some, like Eudora), nor new legislation. Initial users may find >they become less "reachable" to casual contacts, but that should >only last a short while if sender-pays becomes popular. Why would such a system become popular? Adopting it either burns your business or doesn't stop spam (depending on which policy you take for unstamped mail). And on top of it, it costs you time and money to send email, while all your friends and competitors get to send for free. In addition, a sender-pays system would be actively fought by every major online publication, every major software company, and every free web mail service. And if you priced it cheaply enough that they wouldn't complain, it would be so cheap as to have no impact on spam. Also, as recently discussed on this list. CPU-based stamps suffer from similar problems. The claim was that an algorithm easy enough to be useable by an end-user on a slow computer would be so easy as to allow a fast computer to saturate a T3. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 00:58:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA17498 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:58:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2J6Fv523983 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:15:57 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J6FvO23980 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:15:57 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA17487 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:58:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J687O23465; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:08:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J67NO23094 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:07:23 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA17225 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:49:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2165591; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:51:55 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030317193148.00b5f0e8@mail.SoftHome.net> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030317130658.00b3bd48@mail.SoftHome.net> <3E756DFD.1090502@americasm01.nt.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20030315210111.00b91c48@mail.SoftHome.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20030316024319.01ceb158@mail.generalprotectionf ault.de> <5.1.0.14.0.20030315171040.00b463f0@mail.SoftHome.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20030316221304.00b4eee8@mail.SoftHome.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20030316235730.00b89ea0@mail.SoftHome.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20030317193148.00b5f0e8@mail.SoftHome.net> To: meor@mail.SoftHome.net From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] A method to eliminate spam Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:09:18 -0500 At 7:42 PM -0600 3/17/03, meor@mail.SoftHome.net wrote: >Dial-up user composes the E-Mail. >Dial-up user connects to the mail host. >Mail hosts requests the Dial-up user to find the encryption key to the cipher. >Dial-up user can disconnect while this computation is being performed. >Dial-up user connects to the mail host. >Dial-up user sends the cipher key and sends the E-Mail message. I have no idea why your respondents have been so vitriolic--patience seems to be going on this list. But for what it's worth, here are my comments. So. If I install this system on my computer, I presumably still need to interact with the existing mail system until we all convert, correct? 1. What do you do with incoming mail from the gateway? 2. Do you change the email addressing system so that the MUA can tell the difference between outbound mail for a user of the new system or an old user? If not, bear in mind that you are seriously disincenting early adopters, because they'll be spending lots of time generating keys that nobody will need. But at the same time they'll see no benefit because they can't yet block email from people who don't use the system. The fundamental problem with new protocols for email has nothing to do with how good the protocol is. It has to do with how the transition is made from the old system to the new. So far, every new protocol proposal I've seen has one of two adoption plans. 1. Everyone will just agree it's the best and all adopt it at once. 2. A small group of people will gamble that this solution is going to be the one that wins in the marketplace, and they'll put up with a lot of pain and no benefit until everyone else adopts it as well. Of those two, I'd actually give #1 a better chance of succeeding. But it would take a unanimous decision from at least a dozen of the biggest ISPs, along with a real threat to turn off all access to the old system within a certain amount of time. And when it was all said and done, you'd still have to run two systems if you needed to correspond with anyone in the third world--the two just wouldn't interoperate. I don't give #2 a chance in hell unless you come up with a protocol change that actually gives the early adopters an immediate benefit. (In other words, it cuts their spam and it doesn't annoy their non-converted customers.) Otherwise you're asking them to make a big gamble in time and money with no immediate benefit. They'd just be doing it for the long term good of the community. The same forces that have led to spam (tragedy of the commons) make it certain that people won't do that. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 01:10:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA17784 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:10:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2J6RUH24493 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:27:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J6RTO24490 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:27:29 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA17780 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:09:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J6K6O24146; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:20:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J6JtO24094 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:19:55 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA17578 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:02:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from rmf19 (h00055df0474a.ne.client2.attbi.com[65.96.217.174]) by rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (rwcrmhc51) with SMTP id <2003031906042505100iqut2e>; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 06:04:25 +0000 From: To: "'Kee Hinckley'" Cc: Subject: RE: [Asrg] Spam cannot be solved at the source Keywords: asgr;filename=20030319-005202-218.mht;x-sender=products@somewhere.com Message-ID: <046b01c2eddd$649d9740$66e237c0@rmf19> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:04:24 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 2^256 is a big number {Apologies to Kee because I mistyped the from address so was rejected by the list meister} -----Original Message----- From: Kee Hinckley [mailto:products@somewhere.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 23:25 To: asgr@bobf.frankston.com Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Spam cannot be solved at the source At 1:34 AM -0500 3/18/03, wrote: >Not if the addresses only work once or in the appropriate context. > >These are not names, they are capabilities. But what is going to keep the spammers from testing everyone they find in the hopes that some of them will get through? Remember, these are people who bounce millions of messages a day, and who even sell lists of email addresses that are computer generated. They are perfectly happy to play long odds. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 01:41:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA18359 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:41:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2J6wmU26186 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:58:48 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J6wlO26183 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:58:47 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA18354 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:41:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J6uJO26102; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:56:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J6ttO26084 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:55:55 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA18327 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:38:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from video.attbi.com (12-235-20-211.client.attbi.com[12.235.20.211]) by rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (rwcrmhc51) with SMTP id <2003031906402405100mm9lie>; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 06:40:24 +0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030318222537.04823958@mail.attbi.com> X-Sender: schear@mail.attbi.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: Kee Hinckley From: Steve Schear Subject: RE: [Asrg] Thoughts so far Cc: Margie Arbon , asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030318094728.04804d40@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030317162233.048c73e8@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030317162233.048c73e8@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030318094728.04804d40@mail.attbi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 22:43:24 -0800 At 12:44 AM 3/19/2003 -0500, Kee Hinckley wrote: >At 10:00 AM -0800 3/18/03, Steve Schear wrote: >>parties. It doesn't require major changes to the email infrastructure, >>though clients would need to be enhanced (web-based email could add this >>almost immediately, plug-ins may suffice for some, like Eudora), nor new >>legislation. Initial users may find they become less "reachable" to >>casual contacts, but that should only last a short while if sender-pays >>becomes popular. > >Why would such a system become popular? Adopting it either burns your >business or doesn't stop spam (depending on which policy you take for >unstamped mail). And on top of it, it costs you time and money to send >email, while all your friends and competitors get to send for free. > >In addition, a sender-pays system would be actively fought by every major >online publication, every major software company, and every free web mail >service. And if you priced it cheaply enough that they wouldn't complain, >it would be so cheap as to have no impact on spam. Well, until the elements for a sender-pays system are available none of us will know the impact. As to being fought by commercial interests, I'm not sure that will matter to me and many others. Because our vision of sender-pays can be entirely end-user controlled it is our decision if we cut ourselves off from the herd in order to ensure our peace of mind. If you take a look at http://www.camram.org you'll see that it includes features for a "jail" to hold possible spam. The client can inspect the email and decide to let it in even if the postage isn't attached and add it to their white list (e.g., vendor email in response to a subscription). Additionally, initiating contact with a party can implicitly add them to the white list, easing interaction with existing systems. >Also, as recently discussed on this list. CPU-based stamps suffer from >similar problems. The claim was that an algorithm easy enough to be >useable by an end-user on a slow computer would be so easy as to allow a >fast computer to saturate a T3. This aspect of PoW stamps was keenly discussed on the Camram list. Yes, its true that the balance might require that PDA, cellphone and older CPUs would need to spend a fair amount of time per stamp generation in order to maintain an effective barrier to spammers, but these less fortunate folk could also opt to use stamp generator proxies at either their ISP or 3rd parties (maybe P2P meshes). And over time the computation burden for stamp minting would need to be slowly increased to stay ahead of increasing general and specail purpose HW spammers might employ. Free email services accommodating PoW could require that the client's CPU perform the stamp generation using a Java applet. steve _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 01:55:53 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA18547 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:55:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2J7D7I04443 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 02:13:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J7D6O04440 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 02:13:06 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA18455 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:55:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J796O31353; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 02:09:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J78EO31161 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 02:08:14 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA18431 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:50:28 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2J6qe8n003774; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:52:40 -0500 Message-Id: <200303190652.h2J6qe8n003774@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.2 03/18/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: Damien Morton Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Thoughts so far In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:36:05 EST." <001a01c2edaf$87a06250$6401a8c0@damien> References: <001a01c2edaf$87a06250$6401a8c0@damien> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_-1503083589P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:52:40 -0500 --==_Exmh_-1503083589P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:36:05 EST, Damien Morton said: > I guess I was picturing a system in which money was used to redress > imbalances between net senders of email and net receivers of email. > That's why I was talking in terms of payment (of some kind) between > servers rather than between end-users. I was imagining a system in which > communicating peers, exchanging equal quantities of mail, would need no > monetary reconciliation. Im assuming that an ISP's or companies' mail > server, barring spam, produces and consumes roughly the same amount of > mail. Wander over to the NANOG archives, and read up on the *numerous* threads regarding "peering" versus "transit". There's a lot of very surreal parts to the saga - companies that won't reveal what their requirements are for peering except under NDA, companies that had peering requirements so strict that they wouldn't qualify to peer with themselves, companies that didn't approach peering/transit purely economically (using peering as some sort of "mine is bigger than yours" symbol, etc)...... --==_Exmh_-1503083589P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+eBO3cC3lWbTT17ARAs/TAJwJ2Az5+aGT2oZ0tiBxLrPqlbky5QCfYm2j SJ7z1MNAw+AuqofI/fzxwuM= =2ApK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_-1503083589P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 03:27:25 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA16011 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 03:27:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2J8ig310863 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 03:44:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J8ibO10856 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 03:44:37 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA15999 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 03:26:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J8dNO10736; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 03:39:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J8cWO10712 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 03:38:32 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id DAA15941 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 03:20:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 3239 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2003 08:20:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.2.100.178?) (10.2.100.178) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 18 Mar 2003 08:20:10 -0000 From: Matt Sergeant X-X-Sender: matt@localhost.localdomain To: Kee Hinckley cc: "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Testing content filters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 08:39:06 +0000 (GMT) On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Kee Hinckley wrote: > At 11:09 PM +0000 3/18/03, Matt Sergeant wrote: > >So please, feel free to add in suggestions for 2 and 3. I've started the > >groundwork - it won't be too hard to finish it off now. > > Just to clarify. The goal of this is to have a tag that indicates > that your software is indeed installed and functioning? If that's > the case, couldn't we just establish an X-something header and use > the same tag? No, the goal of this is to have a standard way to trip a spam filter that is supported across the industry in a non-changing fashion. I don't care *how* the filter gets tripped (whether it bounces or quarantines or adds a header or munges the subject...), just that it does get tripped. The idea is that when I install a new spam filter I want to be able to check its working, and I want to be able to do that without having to use a different email for each content filter, or without having to have intimate knowledge of how this particular filter works. Often a sysadmin would install a new spam filter on a test machine, so waiting for spam to come through wouldn't be an option. Matt. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 03:39:23 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA16127 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 03:39:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2J8udT11170 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 03:56:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J8ucO11167 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 03:56:38 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA16115 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 03:38:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J8nFO10996; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 03:49:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2J8kHO10913 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 03:46:17 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id DAA16029 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 03:28:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 3711 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2003 08:27:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.2.100.178?) (10.2.100.178) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 18 Mar 2003 08:27:55 -0000 From: Matt Sergeant X-X-Sender: matt@localhost.localdomain To: Steve Schear cc: Kee Hinckley , Margie Arbon , "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Thoughts so far In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030318222537.04823958@mail.attbi.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 08:46:51 +0000 (GMT) On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, Steve Schear wrote: > This aspect of PoW stamps was keenly discussed on the Camram list. Yes, its > true that the balance might require that PDA, cellphone and older CPUs > would need to spend a fair amount of time per stamp generation in order to > maintain an effective barrier to spammers, but these less fortunate folk > could also opt to use stamp generator proxies at either their ISP or 3rd > parties (maybe P2P meshes). And over time the computation burden for stamp > minting would need to be slowly increased to stay ahead of increasing > general and specail purpose HW spammers might employ. What would be the immediate benefit for an ISP (or a P2P mesh) letting me use their CPU to generate stamps? I known an ISP wouldn't want to allow that, so maybe a P2P mesh - and what's to stop a spammer from using the P2P mesh? Certs? Matt. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 05:14:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA17837 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 05:14:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JAVx517314 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 05:31:59 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JAVxO17311 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 05:31:59 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA17826 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 05:14:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JASoO17155; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 05:28:50 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JARXO17065 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 05:27:33 -0500 Received: from slarti.muc.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id FAA17729 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 05:09:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 7954 invoked by uid 66); 19 Mar 2003 10:11:54 -0000 Received: from faerber.muc.de by slarti.muc.de with BSMTP (rsmtp-qm-ot 0.4) for asrg@ietf.org; 19 Mar 2003 10:11:54 -0000 Received: by faerber.muc.de (OpenXP/32 v3.9.4 (Win32) alpha @ 2003-03-19-0936d); 19 Mar 2003 11:11:36 +0000 From: list-ietf-antispam@faerber.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Claus_F=E4rber?=) To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <8iA+Q67ZcDD@3247.org> In-Reply-To: <42654.1048031762@monkeys.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Amend the RFC to require reverse DNS User-Agent: OpenXP/32 v3.9.4 (Win32) alpha @ 2003-03-19-0936d MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 19 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0000 Ronald F. Guilmette schrieb/wrote: > Quite simply, if a given SMTP client connects to you and then says: > HELO d.e.f.g > then you look to see if any of the following names have associated MX > records: > d.e.f.g > e.f.g > f.g > g > For all MX records found for any of these names, if any of the FQDNs > in any of the MX records resolve to the IP address of the SMTP client > in question, then you know that it is an ``intentional mail server''. > Otherwise, it probably isn't. In larger email setups, the sending mail host often is not identical to the hosts that are listed as MX records, for example: . usersmtp.example.net is the MTA for customers of the ISP example.net (with different domains) but ownsmtp.example.net handles mail for own mail of the ISP. . mailin.example.com handles incoming mail (and is the MX) but mailout.example.com handles outgoing mail. . a multihomed host receives mail on one IP address (listed as MX) but does use different IP addresses for sending. Claus -- http://www.faerber.muc.de/ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 05:16:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA17903 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 05:16:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JAYGk17436 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 05:34:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JAYFO17433 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 05:34:15 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA17894 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 05:16:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JASVO17119; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 05:28:31 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JARWO17056 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 05:27:32 -0500 Received: from slarti.muc.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id FAA17731 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 05:09:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 7948 invoked by uid 66); 19 Mar 2003 10:11:53 -0000 Received: from faerber.muc.de by slarti.muc.de with BSMTP (rsmtp-qm-ot 0.4) for asrg@ietf.org; 19 Mar 2003 10:11:53 -0000 Received: by faerber.muc.de (OpenXP/32 v3.9.4 (Win32) alpha @ 2003-03-19-0936d); 19 Mar 2003 11:11:36 +0000 From: list-ietf-antispam@faerber.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Claus_F=E4rber?=) To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <8iA+PRmJcDD@3247.org> In-Reply-To: <3E7747AE.7090109@americasm01.nt.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] SMTP & NNTP ? User-Agent: OpenXP/32 v3.9.4 (Win32) alpha @ 2003-03-19-0936d MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 19 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0000 Chris Lewis schrieb/wrote: > From a practical standpoint, News/NNTP spamming is less of a problem > than it was in the mid-late 90's. The IETF is far less interested in > fiddling around with a protocol that is mature and declining in > relative importance. Netnews might be part of the solution to email spam. Netnews is quite efficient at one-to-many communication and does not suffer from spam as much as email does. If mailing lists (and newsletters) can be moved to Netnews (or a similar scheme), we can make sending a large amount of messages more expensive without harming legitimate mailing lists. Claus -- http://www.faerber.muc.de/ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 05:16:57 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA17916 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 05:16:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JAYGk17452 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 05:34:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JAYGO17449 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 05:34:16 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA17897 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 05:16:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JASiO17136; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 05:28:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JARWO17057 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 05:27:32 -0500 Received: from slarti.muc.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id FAA17728 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 05:09:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 7942 invoked by uid 66); 19 Mar 2003 10:11:53 -0000 Received: from faerber.muc.de by slarti.muc.de with BSMTP (rsmtp-qm-ot 0.4) for asrg@ietf.org; 19 Mar 2003 10:11:53 -0000 Received: by faerber.muc.de (OpenXP/32 v3.9.4 (Win32) alpha @ 2003-03-19-0936d); 19 Mar 2003 11:11:36 +0000 From: list-ietf-antispam@faerber.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Claus_F=E4rber?=) To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <8iA+OxF3cDD@3247.org> In-Reply-To: <7EB228CE-5930-11D7-9A7B-0003939CB5D8@startechgroup.co.uk> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Thoughts so far User-Agent: OpenXP/32 v3.9.4 (Win32) alpha @ 2003-03-19-0936d MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 19 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0000 Matt Sergeant schrieb/wrote: > Criminalising spam would have the effect of stopping the mainsleaze > spammers, while giving you an extra weapon in your battle against the > underground spammers. The main advantage of crimilalisation is that a public prosecutor, who has more investigative powers, would have to fight spam. If you want to fight spam privately, you often have no means to find out whom the spam is from, you can only deal with the single message the spammer sent to you (unless you do a class action, which is not available in every legislation), and you have the risk that your legal expenses are not covered (even in legislations where procedural law does regulate that the party who lost the suit has to pay the legal expenses of the other party). Claus -- http://www.faerber.muc.de/ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 05:34:22 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA18320 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 05:34:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JApgL18876 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 05:51:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JApgO18873 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 05:51:42 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA18300 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 05:33:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JAk9O18675; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 05:46:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JAjEO18576 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 05:45:14 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id FAA18150 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 05:27:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 10945 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2003 10:26:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.2.100.178?) (10.2.100.178) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 18 Mar 2003 10:26:49 -0000 From: Matt Sergeant X-X-Sender: matt@localhost.localdomain To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Claus_F=E4rber?= cc: "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Thoughts so far In-Reply-To: <8iA+OxF3cDD@3247.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 10:45:47 +0000 (GMT) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT On 19 Mar 2003, Claus Färber wrote: > Matt Sergeant schrieb/wrote: > > Criminalising spam would have the effect of stopping the mainsleaze > > spammers, while giving you an extra weapon in your battle against the > > underground spammers. > > The main advantage of crimilalisation is that a public prosecutor, who > has more investigative powers, would have to fight spam. Right. I've heard that the FTC would love to help in the battle against spam, but their hands are tied due to lack of effective legislation at the federal level. Matt. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 07:41:21 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA19701 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 07:41:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JCwgo25867 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 07:58:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JCwgO25864 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 07:58:42 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA19694 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 07:40:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JCuOO25785; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 07:56:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JCtDO25723 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 07:55:13 -0500 Received: from nber13.nber.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA19650 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 07:37:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from nber13.nber.org (localhost.nber.org [127.0.0.1]) by nber13.nber.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h2JCdZ4d021734 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 07:39:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by nber13.nber.org (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id h2JCdZ8s021733 for asrg@ietf.org.KAV; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 07:39:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from nber5.nber.org (nber5.nber.org [207.113.108.99]) by nber13.nber.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h2JCdW4e021725; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 07:39:35 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Feenberg To: Kee Hinckley cc: meor@mail.SoftHome.net, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] A method to eliminate spam In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 07:21:13 -0500 (EST) On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Kee Hinckley wrote: > > So far, every new protocol proposal I've seen has one of two adoption plans. > > 1. Everyone will just agree it's the best and all adopt it at once. > 2. A small group of people will gamble that this solution is going to > be the one that wins in the marketplace, and they'll put up with a > lot of pain and no benefit until everyone else adopts it as well. > There is a third possibility. A method that helps those who invoke it, and works better the more sites invoke it. For example, the real-time black hole list reduces spam for the first user, and every subsequent user. Furthermore, as more sites use it, open relays are closed, restricting spammers to fewer relay hosts, each of which suffers even more. With fewer open relays, sites are more willing to reject mail from them, as there are fewer legitimate messages refused. As the remaining relay hosts get more overloaded, even the most recalcitrant owners eventually close them. In the end (the "Nash equilibrium") many sites subscribe to a black hole list, nearly all open relays are closed, and there is no need for universal agreement to get to that end. It may take a while though. If MUAs and MTAs made it easier to use SMTP-AUTH, or relay after pop, then this process would happen faster, but no change in the RFCs is required. Content based anti-spam measures don't have a similar felicitous Nash equilibrium. As more sites filter, the spammers get cageier, and content filtering becomes harder, not easier. Spam point scores (such as Spamassasin) can affect the ability to achieve a desirable equilibrium. A site might not be willing to reject mail from MTAs with the string "dial-up" in their host name, but might find it helpfull to add a point to the spam score. Likewise they might subtract a point for seeing "smtp" or "mail" in the host name. Both those strings indicate whether the DNS owner wishes to authorize mail from that host (and no RMX record is necessary). The final equilibrium could easily be that these naming conventions became more and more usefull untill they were more widely adopted than most RFCs. It is important to have a plausible adoption path for any scheme. To be plausible, the scheme must benefit the first few users, and benefit them more the more users there are. Daniel Feenberg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 08:42:54 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA20745 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 08:42:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JE0GH29862 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 09:00:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JE0GO29859 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 09:00:16 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA20741 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 08:42:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JDu6O29664; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 08:56:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JDtAO29621 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 08:55:10 -0500 Received: from pfortin.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA20702 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 08:37:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from gypsy.pfortin.com (user-2ivfbgj.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.174.19]) by pfortin.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 957DC13B8B for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 08:37:05 -0500 (EST) From: Pierre Fortin To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Thoughts so far Message-Id: <20030319083203.63c521cd.pf@pfortin.com> In-Reply-To: <010001c2ed84$b4b2fc10$6401a8c0@damien> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030318094728.04804d40@mail.attbi.com> <010001c2ed84$b4b2fc10$6401a8c0@damien> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.11claws19 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 08:32:03 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:29:32 -0500 "Damien Morton" wrote: > Actually I tried complainng about 4th class mail. I put a huge notice on > my letterbox that said "3rd class and 4th class mail not accepted". The > mailman ignored it, of course. I now pile up all the junk mail I get on > top of the letterbox, marking it "wrong address" or "not accepted", and > the mailman makes a point of circling "The resident" to prove that it > has in fact been correctly addressed. Have some fun with this at the USPS and sender's expense then... much of this mail has a postage paid return envelope... I just write "NO!" across the offer, put it in their envelope and post it back... The USPS gets to do more work delivering the contents again, collecting for its delivery, and the sender gets to pay for getting their ad back, unusable. At least, it's increasing their bulk mail costs... :) To keep increasing their costs, remove your personal information from the returned matter, so you get to do it over and over... _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 09:12:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA21183 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 09:12:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JEU7w31836 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 09:30:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JEU7O31833 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 09:30:07 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA21174 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 09:12:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JEQIO31699; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 09:26:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JEPxO31668 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 09:25:59 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA21142 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 09:08:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2JEAE5c001828 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 07:10:14 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303191410.h2JEAE5c001828@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Testing content filters References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 07:10:14 -0700 (MST) > From: Matt Sergeant > ... > No, the goal of this is to have a standard way to trip a spam filter that > is supported across the industry in a non-changing fashion. I don't care > *how* the filter gets tripped (whether it bounces or quarantines or adds a > header or munges the subject...), just that it does get tripped. > > The idea is that when I install a new spam filter I want to be able to > check its working, and I want to be able to do that without having to use > a different email for each content filter, or without having to have > intimate knowledge of how this particular filter works. > > Often a sysadmin would install a new spam filter on a test machine, so > waiting for spam to come through wouldn't be an option. Ok, I stand corrected about whether it might make sense to standardize such a thing. However, this does not sound useful enough for me to put it into the DCC this year. Spam and viruses differ. It's far more difficult and/or dangerous to give a Windows box a test infection of a virus than to send test spam to a mail system. To test a spam filter that can be tested with a standardized test, you can instead grab something from NANAS or whatever spam you hate and send it from somewhere, such as a free provider or one of your own systems. A bigger problem is that anti-spam systems define spam in differing ways. For example, how would a standardized spam filter test check that an SBL installation is working? (The testing auto-responders permanently listed i the RBL, DUL, and RSS should be but are not be emulated by all DNS blacklists.) Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 09:20:16 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA21267 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 09:20:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JEbdf00437 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 09:37:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JEbdO00434 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 09:37:39 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA21263 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 09:19:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JEZ4O32042; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 09:35:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JEYuO32017 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 09:34:56 -0500 Received: from backbone.midwestcs.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA21230 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 09:17:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from footbone.midwestcs.com ([206.222.212.237] helo=midwestcs.com) by backbone.midwestcs.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18vePP-0001lF-00 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 08:19:11 -0600 To: asrg@ietf.org (IRTF Anti-Spam Research Group) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Testing content filters References: <200303190337.h2J3b47F024907@calcite.rhyolite.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: wayne In-Reply-To: <200303190337.h2J3b47F024907@calcite.rhyolite.com> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code) MIME-Version: 1.0 Lines: 30 X-Scanner: exiscan *18vePP-0001lF-00*5UKu7aJX/6.* () Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 19 Mar 2003 08:19:10 -0600 In <200303190337.h2J3b47F024907@calcite.rhyolite.com> Vernon Schryver writes: > > From: Matt Sergeant > > > One thing the anti-virus people got right is the ability to test > > anti-virus engines by passing through a non-viral file that is by > > de-facto detected as a virus by the vendors engines. > > By the time such > a test case were standardized, the spammers would have stopped some > behaviors and started others, making the RFC of only theoretic or historic > interest. The idea isn't that this would be some sort of regression test to see if a spam filter would detect certain kinds of spam. Instead it is just a simply file that all spam filters detect as spam, even though it really isn't that spammy. The idea is that if you want to test to make sure the spam filter that you just installed/upgraded is working, you would email yourself this tiny file and it should be treated as spam. You could also test your ISPs spam filters by sending this file, even though you don't know what kind of filters they are using. This would be the universally accepted "this is spam" e-mail This special email would be kind of like using ping to check if a machine is working. -wayne _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 10:46:54 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA24047 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 10:46:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JG4JT05617 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:04:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JG4JO05614 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:04:19 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA23998 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 10:46:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JFtbO05152; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 10:55:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JFsHO05095 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 10:54:17 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA23694 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 10:36:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h2JFcV623382 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 10:38:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF4ZGZY; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 10:38:32 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBG1G0; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 10:38:31 -0500 Message-ID: <3E788FBD.3050508@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] An amazing amount of spam References: <044801c2edd7$7661fd00$66e237c0@rmf19> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 10:41:49 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit asrg@bobf.frankston.com wrote: > This list is, in my definition, spam. > It is effectively spam because the email system and tools makes it too > difficult to manage and work with the messages. You have somewhat of a point here. Most mail readers are abysmally bad at handling high volumes. It's instructive, for example, to look at how some of the better/more powerful Usenet newsreaders (eg: trn/gnus, _not_ netscape or IE. I'm sufficiently unfamiliar with other Windows-based Usenet newsreaders to venture an opinion. Maybe "Agent" fits the bill) allow one to handle considerably higher volumes than this list is. Indeed, many people gateway mailing lists to local news servers simply because the reader tools are better for high volume. I do that with many of the mailing lists I receive. It works well. However, this only makes the flow of gunk marginally less obnoxious. Finding the signal in the noise is less difficult, but still difficult. Usenet spam was a problem before Email spam was (and some blame me for the existance of email by forcing Jef Slaton off Usenet... :-(. And secondly, this doesn't address the "overwhelming flood" doomsday scenarios represented by Striker or our spamtraps. So, as such, changing mail reader metaphors would indeed be a short-term fix (and not a fix at all for some scenarios), not a long-term one. We have to recognize that spam volumes are indeed threatening the Internet infrastructure, and a long-term that doesn't include reducing volume means total failure. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 10:52:58 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA24215 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 10:52:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JGAOU06643 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:10:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JGAOO06640 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:10:24 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA24211 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 10:52:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JG1DO05435; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:01:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JG0rO05386 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:00:53 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA23824 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 10:42:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (zcard307.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h2JFj9624342 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 10:45:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDFCB5KZ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 10:45:10 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBG1HH; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 10:45:10 -0500 Message-ID: <3E78914B.7070708@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] SMTP & NNTP ? References: <8iA+PRmJcDD@3247.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 10:48:27 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Claus Färber wrote: > Chris Lewis schrieb/wrote: > >>From a practical standpoint, News/NNTP spamming is less of a problem >>than it was in the mid-late 90's. The IETF is far less interested in >>fiddling around with a protocol that is mature and declining in >>relative importance. > Netnews might be part of the solution to email spam. Netnews is quite > efficient at one-to-many communication and does not suffer from spam as > much as email does. > If mailing lists (and newsletters) can be moved to Netnews (or a similar > scheme), we can make sending a large amount of messages more expensive > without harming legitimate mailing lists. True. Usenet is probably the best way to distribute high volume mailing lists. Because, that is in effect what a newsgroup _is_. But you find out that the Usenet broadcast medium mechanism only works when the traffic is of interest to a "significant" fraction of the population so that the bandwidth is amortised over more users. A mailing list with only 5 members is grossly inefficient use of Usenet. Given that full Usenet feeds are already up in the 100Gb+/day range (as of a year or two ago!), it could not handle a paradigm shift of this nature. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 11:11:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24775 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:11:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JGT2k07281 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:29:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JGT2O07278 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:29:02 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24733 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:11:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JGL7O07018; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:21:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JGKcO06997 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:20:38 -0500 Received: from chiark.greenend.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24540 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:02:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from fanf by chiark.greenend.org.uk with local (Exim 3.12 #1) id 18vg3e-00018L-00 (Debian); Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:04:50 +0000 To: frank@unternet.org From: Tony Finch CC: Damien Morton , Steve Schear , Margie Arbon , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Thoughts so far In-Reply-To: <3E77AEA8.7020100@unternet.org> References: <010201c2ed87$ff85c580$6401a8c0@damien> <010201c2ed87$ff85c580$6401a8c0@damien> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:04:50 +0000 Frank de Lange wrote: > >All this talk about 'handling rates' and charges and stamps and such... >how will we make sure that this does not become just another profit >center? I like the Microsoft Penny Black idea of refundable stamps, which is unfortunately not described on their web page. The idea being that legitimate email is effectively free, but unwanted email costs money. Having spend some time working on algorithms for proof-of-work systems that take a comparable amount of time on all sorts of computers, they also make the point that schemes like this are doomed by Moore's Law. Hence work on a mechanism that can provide a proper financial incentive to use email responsibly or at least professionally. http://research.microsoft.com/research/sv/PennyBlack/ Tony. -- f.a.n.finch http://dotat.at/ BERWICK ON TWEED TO WHITBY: VARIABLE 3 OR LESS. FAIR, HAZY, RISK OF MIST OR FOG PATCHES. MODERATE BUT POOR IN ANY MIST OR FOG. SLIGHT. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 11:13:25 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24826 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:13:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JGUq007366 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:30:52 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JGUpO07362 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:30:51 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24820 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:12:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JGO2O07127; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:24:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JGNRO07106 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:23:27 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc03.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24592 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:05:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from video.attbi.com (12-235-20-211.client.attbi.com[12.235.20.211]) by sccrmhc03.attbi.com (sccrmhc03) with SMTP id <2003031916074400300d9i4ke>; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:07:45 +0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030319080917.047f3d80@mail.attbi.com> X-Sender: schear@mail.attbi.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: Matt Sergeant From: Steve Schear Subject: RE: [Asrg] Thoughts so far Cc: Kee Hinckley , Margie Arbon , "asrg@ietf.org" In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030318222537.04823958@mail.attbi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 08:10:44 -0800 At 08:46 AM 3/19/2003 +0000, Matt Sergeant wrote: >On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, Steve Schear wrote: > > > This aspect of PoW stamps was keenly discussed on the Camram list. Yes, > its > > true that the balance might require that PDA, cellphone and older CPUs > > would need to spend a fair amount of time per stamp generation in order to > > maintain an effective barrier to spammers, but these less fortunate folk > > could also opt to use stamp generator proxies at either their ISP or 3rd > > parties (maybe P2P meshes). And over time the computation burden for > stamp > > minting would need to be slowly increased to stay ahead of increasing > > general and specail purpose HW spammers might employ. > >What would be the immediate benefit for an ISP (or a P2P mesh) letting me >use their CPU to generate stamps? A value add service perhaps. >I known an ISP wouldn't want to allow >that, so maybe a P2P mesh - and what's to stop a spammer from using the >P2P mesh? Certs? Nothing except these would probably be commercial meshes with some price for computation being assessed. steve _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 11:16:23 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24888 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:16:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JGXn707512 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:33:49 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JGXnO07509 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:33:49 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24879 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:15:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JGO4O07144; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:24:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JGNfO07111 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:23:41 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24606 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:05:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from rmf19 (h00055df0474a.ne.client2.attbi.com[65.96.217.174]) by rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (rwcrmhc53) with SMTP id <2003031916075705300elocve>; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:07:57 +0000 From: To: "'Chris Lewis'" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] An amazing amount of spam Keywords: asrg;filename=20030319-104243-343.mht;x-sender=asrg-admin@ietf.org;List-ID=Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF asrg.ietf.org Message-ID: <053301c2ee31$b50a6240$66e237c0@rmf19> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 In-Reply-To: <3E788FBD.3050508@americasm01.nt.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:07:57 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I value my time far more than I value the Internet infrastructure. The infrastructure can take care of itself and isn't really being burdened since we expect to be able to have our own personal HDTV video streams as casual traffic. Spam is zero percent of that. But my time, now that's important. And I also want to solve the problem of phone spam, and fax spam and other intrusions. And paper spam. Any solution that just focuses on legacy email isn't very interesting or vital. For now I can do my own content-filtering (I am trying popfile at the moment and have built my own tools also). That should give me some respite so I can focus on the longer term issues. -----Original Message----- From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Chris Lewis Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 10:42 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] An amazing amount of spam asrg@bobf.frankston.com wrote: > This list is, in my definition, spam. > It is effectively spam because the email system and tools makes it too > difficult to manage and work with the messages. You have somewhat of a point here. Most mail readers are abysmally bad at handling high volumes. It's instructive, for example, to look at how some of the better/more powerful Usenet newsreaders (eg: trn/gnus, _not_ netscape or IE. I'm sufficiently unfamiliar with other Windows-based Usenet newsreaders to venture an opinion. Maybe "Agent" fits the bill) allow one to handle considerably higher volumes than this list is. Indeed, many people gateway mailing lists to local news servers simply because the reader tools are better for high volume. I do that with many of the mailing lists I receive. It works well. However, this only makes the flow of gunk marginally less obnoxious. Finding the signal in the noise is less difficult, but still difficult. Usenet spam was a problem before Email spam was (and some blame me for the existance of email by forcing Jef Slaton off Usenet... :-(. And secondly, this doesn't address the "overwhelming flood" doomsday scenarios represented by Striker or our spamtraps. So, as such, changing mail reader metaphors would indeed be a short-term fix (and not a fix at all for some scenarios), not a long-term one. We have to recognize that spam volumes are indeed threatening the Internet infrastructure, and a long-term that doesn't include reducing volume means total failure. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 11:21:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24970 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:21:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JGd0L08584 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:39:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JGd0O08581 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:39:00 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24963 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:21:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JGZ6O07586; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:35:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JGY9O07545 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:34:09 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc01.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24884 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:16:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from video.attbi.com (12-235-20-211.client.attbi.com[12.235.20.211]) by sccrmhc01.attbi.com (sccrmhc01) with SMTP id <2003031916182600100gdl1ae>; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:18:26 +0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030319081951.047fdd20@mail.attbi.com> X-Sender: schear@mail.attbi.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: Pierre Fortin , asrg@ietf.org From: Steve Schear Subject: Re: [Asrg] Thoughts so far In-Reply-To: <20030319083203.63c521cd.pf@pfortin.com> References: <010001c2ed84$b4b2fc10$6401a8c0@damien> <5.1.0.14.2.20030318094728.04804d40@mail.attbi.com> <010001c2ed84$b4b2fc10$6401a8c0@damien> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 08:21:26 -0800 At 08:32 AM 3/19/2003 -0500, Pierre Fortin wrote: >On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:29:32 -0500 "Damien Morton" > wrote: > > > Actually I tried complainng about 4th class mail. I put a huge notice on > > my letterbox that said "3rd class and 4th class mail not accepted". The > > mailman ignored it, of course. I now pile up all the junk mail I get on > > top of the letterbox, marking it "wrong address" or "not accepted", and > > the mailman makes a point of circling "The resident" to prove that it > > has in fact been correctly addressed. > >Have some fun with this at the USPS and sender's expense then... much of >this mail has a postage paid return envelope... I just write "NO!" across >the offer, put it in their envelope and post it back... The USPS gets to >do more work delivering the contents again, collecting for its delivery, >and the sender gets to pay for getting their ad back, unusable. At least, >it's increasing their bulk mail costs... :) > >To keep increasing their costs, remove your personal information from the >returned matter, so you get to do it over and over... Don't forget to insert something heavy tape the reply envelope to something heavy (I like construction ceramics) to greatly increase their postage due when blind claiming their mail. steve _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 11:30:49 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25168 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:30:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JGmGL09214 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:48:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JGmGO09211 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:48:16 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25163 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:30:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JGiBO08895; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:44:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JGhjO08878 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:43:45 -0500 Received: from backbone.midwestcs.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25089 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:25:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from footbone.midwestcs.com ([206.222.212.237] helo=midwestcs.com) by backbone.midwestcs.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18vgQ0-0002OK-00 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 10:27:56 -0600 To: asrg@ietf.org (IRTF Anti-Spam Research Group) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Thoughts so far References: <8iA+OxF3cDD@3247.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 From: wayne In-Reply-To: <8iA+OxF3cDD@3247.org> Message-ID: Lines: 35 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanner: exiscan *18vgQ0-0002OK-00*9olCaEDp2rY* () Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h2JGhjO08879 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 19 Mar 2003 10:27:56 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In <8iA+OxF3cDD@3247.org> list-ietf-antispam@faerber.muc.de (Claus Färber) writes: > Matt Sergeant schrieb/wrote: > > Criminalising spam would have the effect of stopping the mainsleaze > > spammers, while giving you an extra weapon in your battle against the > > underground spammers. > > The main advantage of crimilalisation is that a public prosecutor, who > has more investigative powers, would have to fight spam. Public prosecutors would be *able* to fight spam, they wouldn't *have* to. There are tons of laws on the books that are never enforced. (I personally think that any law that isn't regularly enforce should be dropped from the books, but that's another subject.) However, I think that spam laws would be enforced every once and a while, especially if a spammer is stupid enough to joe-job the district attorney or something. In one of the presentations at the MIT spam conference, there was a slide that showed that there are many different types of spammers, from the very casual "I'm just trying to advertise my small business", to the hard core organized crime spammers. The more hard core the spammer, the less likely that technical solutions will be effective against them, but the more likely that they can be locked up by various laws. From what I know, far more spammers have been hit with violating other laws than spam laws. People who use pump-and-dump stock scams, pirated music/software, 419 scams, etc. have all been charged with crimes other than spamming. However, spam laws could give procecutors an easy target to get search warrents and such to allow them to sock crooks with other charges. -wayne _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 11:34:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25225 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:34:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JGpio09423 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:51:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JGpiO09420 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:51:44 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25211 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:33:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JGj2O08959; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:45:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JGiGO08908 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:44:16 -0500 Received: from zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25101 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:26:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (zcard307.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h2JGSU028204 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:28:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDFCCADS; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:28:30 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBG120; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:28:30 -0500 Message-ID: <3E789B73.90100@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] An amazing amount of spam References: <053301c2ee31$b50a6240$66e237c0@rmf19> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:31:47 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit asrg@bobf.frankston.com wrote: > I value my time far more than I value the Internet infrastructure. The > infrastructure can take care of itself and isn't really being burdened > since we expect to be able to have our own personal HDTV video streams > as casual traffic. Spam is zero percent of that. Obviously, you completely missed what the "striker scenario" is. I suggest you go and read http://striker.ottawa.on.ca Similarly, our original corporate domain names are equally unuseable despite the fact that we have (multiple) DS3 connectivity. No amount of dicking around with mail reader metaphors will make those domains useable again. When spam outnumbers real email by 1000:1, all your "valued" time will be spent trying to differentiate the 1 from the 999. Any "solution" we come up with either has to deal directly with the striker scenario, _or_, hit the tradeoffs of spamming to get the volumes down indirectly. Because, make no mistake, striker is where we're all headed. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 11:43:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25383 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:43:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JH11d09863 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:01:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JH0xO09847 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:01:00 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25373 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:43:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JGp8O09394; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:51:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JGodO09360 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:50:39 -0500 Received: from plaidworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25201 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:32:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.8/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h2JGYgZQ002430; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 08:34:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] SMTP & NNTP ? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: asrg@ietf.org To: "Chris Lewis" From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <3E78914B.7070708@americasm01.nt.com> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 08:34:40 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wednesday, March 19, 2003, at 07:48 AM, Chris Lewis wrote: > True. Usenet is probably the best way to distribute high volume > mailing lists. Because, that is in effect what a newsgroup _is_. I don't agree. > But you find out that the Usenet broadcast medium mechanism only works > when the traffic is of interest to a "significant" fraction of the > population so that the bandwidth is amortised over more users. A > mailing list with only 5 members is grossly inefficient use of Usenet. the "send every byte everywhere in case anyone anywhere wants that byte" isn't a good paradigm except in cashes where the value of "anyone" is large. I think it's more tied to the size of the audience than the busyness of the list. USENET is also best for discussion, not distribution of read-only material (i.e. announce, e-marketing, etc). And authentication, spam and trolls are still issues (while spam on usenet may be more or less under control, spam aimed at email found on usenet isn't, making discussion lists on usenet problematic because you're gutting the ability to move discussions private) then you add the problem that people use mail lists because they want e-mail, not usenet. I've done some experimentation with encouraging mail list users to other formats, and they've generally failed miserably. They're comfortable with it, they don't want to change. And some stuff will (and should) stay behind, so you start getting confusion about what's where, and what ought to go where. I think the real future direction here is to supplement mail lists with alternative distribution mechanisms, not replace them. Making sure archives are on the web allows users to read lists without having them e-mailed to them; RSS feeds gives them the info they need to know what needs to be read without time wasted browsing. you turn a push/email list into a pull/RSS list without screwing it up for people who want it in the mailbox, but cut the e-mail traffic and the interruptions of mail dropping into the mailbox. The piece that is still somewhat missing on that, though, is posting back from an RSS feed, but you can work around that, and RSS is of most interest to the 'lurkers' in many cases, anyway... I think forums and other web systems will start taking this content, too, as they continue to mature; especially the ones with multiple distribution methods that understand that content isn't tied to a distribution method, but to a user preference on receiving it. In my view, announce-based content will likely stay e-mail as it's primarily a push paradigm anyway, although it ought to have an RSS function as well, while discussion content will move to the web, where users have a suite of delivery options, including email, web, or RSS and maybe NNTP -- e-mail isn't the thing, but one delivery tool for the thing. FWIW, IMHO. -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 11:46:47 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25458 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:46:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JH4Eg10089 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:04:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JH4EO10082 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:04:14 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25437 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:46:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JGr6O09508; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:53:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JGqcO09479 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:52:38 -0500 Received: from plaidworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25244 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:34:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.8/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h2JGahZQ002474; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 08:36:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Thoughts so far Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: Pierre Fortin , asrg@ietf.org To: Steve Schear From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030319081951.047fdd20@mail.attbi.com> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 08:36:41 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wednesday, March 19, 2003, at 08:21 AM, Steve Schear wrote: >> To keep increasing their costs, remove your personal information from >> the >> returned matter, so you get to do it over and over... > > Don't forget to insert something heavy tape the reply envelope to > something heavy (I like construction ceramics) to greatly increase > their postage due when blind claiming their mail. > you do realize that stuff gets thrown out at the P.O., don't you? No, I guess you don't. If you think stunts like this actually make a difference, the system worked around you years ago. -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 11:59:53 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25920 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:59:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JHHLo11928 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:17:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JHHLO11925 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:17:21 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25884 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:59:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JHDbO11732; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:13:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JH3NO09977 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:03:23 -0500 Received: from backbone.midwestcs.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25425 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:45:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from footbone.midwestcs.com ([206.222.212.237] helo=midwestcs.com) by backbone.midwestcs.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18vgiy-0002Un-00 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 10:47:32 -0600 To: asrg@ietf.org (IRTF Anti-Spam Research Group) Subject: Re: [Asrg] SMTP & NNTP ? References: <8iA+PRmJcDD@3247.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 From: wayne In-Reply-To: <8iA+PRmJcDD@3247.org> Message-ID: Lines: 24 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanner: exiscan *18vgiy-0002Un-00*P9l1pYcrqGM* () Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h2JH3NO09978 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 19 Mar 2003 10:47:32 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In <8iA+PRmJcDD@3247.org> list-ietf-antispam@faerber.muc.de (Claus Färber) writes: > Chris Lewis schrieb/wrote: > Netnews might be part of the solution to email spam. Netnews is quite > efficient at one-to-many communication and does not suffer from spam as > much as email does. *sigh* I started reading Usenet (netnews) about a week after the "great renaming". (It didn't seem to make sense to start a month earlier.) I have long since stopped reading Usenet because of the spam problem there. I hear that the spam problem has decreased a lot in recent years, but I suspect that is as much because email spam is more effective at reaching large numbers of people than any other technical reason. Mailing lists give a lot more control over abusing users, whether they spam or otherwise, and I doubt that you will ever see a mass migration back to Usenet. -wayne _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 12:08:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA26112 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:08:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JHPX412566 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:25:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JHPWO12561 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:25:33 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA26102 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:07:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JHLCO12280; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:21:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JHHhO11995 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:17:43 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25908 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:59:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from video.attbi.com (12-235-20-211.client.attbi.com[12.235.20.211]) by rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (rwcrmhc51) with SMTP id <2003031917015805100is0dpe>; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:01:58 +0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030319084946.04836940@mail.attbi.com> X-Sender: schear@mail.attbi.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: Tony Finch , frank@unternet.org From: Steve Schear Subject: Re: [Asrg] Thoughts so far Cc: Damien Morton , Margie Arbon , asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: References: <3E77AEA8.7020100@unternet.org> <010201c2ed87$ff85c580$6401a8c0@damien> <010201c2ed87$ff85c580$6401a8c0@damien> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 09:04:57 -0800 At 04:04 PM 3/19/2003 +0000, Tony Finch wrote: >Frank de Lange wrote: > > > >All this talk about 'handling rates' and charges and stamps and such... > >how will we make sure that this does not become just another profit > >center? > >I like the Microsoft Penny Black idea of refundable stamps, which is >unfortunately not described on their web page. The idea being that >legitimate email is effectively free, but unwanted email costs money. > >Having spend some time working on algorithms for proof-of-work systems >that take a comparable amount of time on all sorts of computers, they >also make the point that schemes like this are doomed by Moore's Law. I think most all people agree that PoW is, at best, an initial stage to test the postage mechanisms without requiring some sort of 3rd party clearing methods. This is especially so if one assumes, and I do, that anonymous email is a social good that aught to be preserved. All widely accepted payment systems seem useless, AFAIK, for direct anonymous postage. It seems that some of the best candidates use some sort of blinded digital bearer certificates, though none are commercially available. Here's a link to one which could be in the not too distant future http://lucrative.thirdhost.com/index.php >Hence work on a mechanism that can provide a proper financial incentive >to use email responsibly or at least professionally. > >http://research.microsoft.com/research/sv/PennyBlack/ Thanks for the link. I think Cynthia Dwork was a co-author on a PoW scheme in the early 90s (Iwhile she was at IBM?). This idea was also, independently, "discovered" by the Camram group http://www.camram.org one member of which now works for MS (though I'm not sure if he's on the PennyBlack project). steve _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 12:13:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA26322 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:13:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JHV9012908 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:31:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JHV9O12905 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:31:09 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA26301 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:13:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JHO4O12503; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:24:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JHNIO12468 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:23:18 -0500 Received: from gorgoroth.localnet (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA26083 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:05:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from unternet.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gorgoroth.localnet (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2JH7ZJm031972 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 18:07:35 +0100 Message-ID: <3E78A3D6.7070904@unternet.org> From: Frank de Lange User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4a) Gecko/20030310 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Thoughts so far References: <001a01c2edaf$87a06250$6401a8c0@damien> <200303190652.h2J6qe8n003774@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> In-Reply-To: <200303190652.h2J6qe8n003774@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 18:07:34 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: >On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:36:05 EST, Damien Morton said: > > > >>I guess I was picturing a system in which money was used to redress >>imbalances between net senders of email and net receivers of email. >>That's why I was talking in terms of payment (of some kind) between >>servers rather than between end-users. I was imagining a system in which >>communicating peers, exchanging equal quantities of mail, would need no >>monetary reconciliation. Im assuming that an ISP's or companies' mail >>server, barring spam, produces and consumes roughly the same amount of >>mail. >> >> > >Wander over to the NANOG archives, and read up on the *numerous* threads >regarding "peering" versus "transit". There's a lot of very surreal parts >to the saga - companies that won't reveal what their requirements are for >peering except under NDA, companies that had peering requirements so strict >that they wouldn't qualify to peer with themselves, companies that didn't >approach peering/transit purely economically (using peering as some sort of >"mine is bigger than yours" symbol, etc)...... > > Just what I'm afraid of. Adding 'peering agreements' to the mail infrastructure would outcast most smaller ISP's, let alone those who want to run their own mail server. Peering would be a privilege reserved for the big and powerful, the rest would have to bow to their will. I think we want to avoid this. Frank _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 12:18:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA26478 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:18:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JHa2d13183 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:36:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JHa2O13180 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:36:02 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA26466 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:18:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JHT4O12790; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:29:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JHSBO12747 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:28:11 -0500 Received: from earth.tc.umn.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA26200 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:10:12 -0500 (EST) Received: by earth.tc.umn.edu; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:12:24 -0600 From: Steven F Siirila To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Amend the RFC to require reverse DNS Message-ID: <20030319171224.GA24981@earth.tc.umn.edu> References: <200303182005.h2IK5WpT003625@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <41369.1048022848@monkeys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <41369.1048022848@monkeys.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.25i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:12:24 -0600 On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 01:27:28PM -0800, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > > P.S. Recently, a couple of major ISP... specifically AT&T and RoadRunner... > tried, and failed, in implement filtering of IP addresses that have no > reverse DNS. The problem in both cases was that this change created far > too many complaints, once it was first switched on, from the respective > customer bases. At the University of Minnesota, we have been blocking email from an ever-increasing number of sites which have no valid rDNS. Our approach was to do this selectively, based on IP networks, adding new ones over time. Presently we require rDNS for 172 class A networks (granted, many of these are reserved IP space) and countless class B and C networks. Last week we blocked 6% of our incoming mail in this way with very few complaints. It probably helps that outside users have a means of requesting block exceptions from our users (via URL), which they can grant or deny. -- Steven F. Siirila Office: Lind Hall, Room 130B Internet Services E-mail: sfs@umn.edu Office of Information Technology Voice: (612) 626-0244 University of Minnesota _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 12:19:12 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA26506 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:19:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JHaem13257 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:36:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JHaeO13254 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:36:40 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA26498 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:18:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JHU2O12842; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:30:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JHU0O12817 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:30:00 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc02.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA26274 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:12:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from video.attbi.com (12-235-20-211.client.attbi.com[12.235.20.211]) by sccrmhc02.attbi.com (sccrmhc02) with SMTP id <2003031917141600200rq1bfe>; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:14:16 +0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030319091551.048b0010@mail.attbi.com> X-Sender: schear@mail.attbi.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: Chuq Von Rospach From: Steve Schear Subject: Re: [Asrg] Thoughts so far Cc: Pierre Fortin , asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030319081951.047fdd20@mail.attbi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 09:17:15 -0800 At 08:36 AM 3/19/2003 -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: >On Wednesday, March 19, 2003, at 08:21 AM, Steve Schear wrote: > >>>To keep increasing their costs, remove your personal information from the >>>returned matter, so you get to do it over and over... >> >>Don't forget to insert something heavy tape the reply envelope to >>something heavy (I like construction ceramics) to greatly increase their >>postage due when blind claiming their mail. > >you do realize that stuff gets thrown out at the P.O., don't you? No, I >guess you don't. If you think stunts like this actually make a difference, >the system worked around you years ago. Well, I haven't used this in years nor checked on it continued efficacy. I'm not sure such information on P.O. countermeasures is widely published. Thanks for the update. steve _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 12:24:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA26658 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:24:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JHgAj14317 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:42:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JHgAO14314 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:42:10 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA26644 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:24:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JHZ6O13117; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:35:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JHYaO13081 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:34:36 -0500 Received: from new.agentzero.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA26441 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:16:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.123.193] (h0050e4251179.ne.client2.attbi.com [66.30.24.79]) by new.agentzero.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2JHIElD008687; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:18:15 -0500 Message-Id: <200303191718.h2JHIElD008687@new.agentzero.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3E78A3D6.7070904@unternet.org> References: <001a01c2edaf$87a06250$6401a8c0@damien> <200303190652.h2J6qe8n003774@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <3E78A3D6.7070904@unternet.org> To: Frank de Lange , asrg@ietf.org From: Jim Youll Subject: Re: [Asrg] Thoughts so far Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:18:35 -0500 At 18:07 +0100 3/19/03, Frank de Lange wrote: >> >Just what I'm afraid of. Adding 'peering agreements' to the mail >infrastructure would outcast most smaller ISP's, let alone those who >want to run their own mail server. Peering would be a privilege >reserved for the big and powerful, the rest would have to bow to >their will. I think we want to avoid this. Not that I'm in favor of any sort of peering agreements, but this has been tried and failed and I don't think it's a grave concern... remember when AOL mail could not go to CompuServe, etc? If the kids can't get Granny's mail, the lot of them will switch to whatever ISP is convenient... with NxN connections, neither consumers nor ISPs can place themselves in a sweet spot in the current world. By example, AOL is uniquely in a spot to close its borders, but can't afford to because the rest of the world isn't going to join up and the utility of its offering depends on access to outsiders. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 12:26:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA26762 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:26:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JHiOp14428 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:44:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JHiOO14425 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:44:24 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA26744 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:26:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JHeFO14239; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:40:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JHbNO13808 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:37:23 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA26521 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:19:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h2JHLa614751 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:21:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF4ZJY5; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:21:37 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBG1LS; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:21:36 -0500 Message-ID: <3E78A7E5.6040209@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IRTF Anti-Spam Research Group Subject: Re: [Asrg] SMTP & NNTP ? References: <8iA+PRmJcDD@3247.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:24:53 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit wayne wrote: > In <8iA+PRmJcDD@3247.org> list-ietf-antispam@faerber.muc.de (Claus Färber) writes: >>Chris Lewis schrieb/wrote: >>Netnews might be part of the solution to email spam. Netnews is quite >>efficient at one-to-many communication and does not suffer from spam as >>much as email does. Careful about that. I didn't write the above. > I have long since stopped reading Usenet because of the spam problem > there. I hear that the spam problem has decreased a lot in recent > years, It has. Most newsgroups outside of the various sewers in alt.* are quite good these days. > but I suspect that is as much because email spam is more > effective at reaching large numbers of people than any other technical > reason. Usenet spam is quite effective in terms of people reached/message. The reason for that is partially as you say. But perhaps much more so because anti-spam on Usenet is vastly easier to do with Usenet than it is with email. > Mailing lists give a lot more control over abusing users, whether they > spam or otherwise, and I doubt that you will ever see a mass migration > back to Usenet. You're quite right there. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 12:45:59 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA27439 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:45:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JI3St15528 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:03:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JI3SO15525 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:03:28 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA27406 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:45:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JHo8O14685; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:50:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JHnrO14646 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:49:53 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA26890 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:31:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from sputnik (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h2JHY71O010798 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 18:34:07 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sputnik.mobil.danisch.de (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-8) id h2JHXTr4003198 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 18:33:29 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <20030319173329.GA3058@danisch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Subject: [Asrg] This research group will fail Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 09:33:29 -0800 Hi, I meanwhile came to the conclusion that this working/research group's will certainly fail. I see strong interests to spoil any success of this group to find a technical solution. This group is under a certain kind of attack: The commercial attack. Spam is a business with growing revenue. The small business is sending spam. The big business is selling anti-spam-solutions. Obviously those, who's business is either one of these, try to prevent a simple and effective solution. The situation is similar to the virus/worm threat: Some parties make huge revenues with selling anti-virus-solutions. It would be their sudden death if application software and operating systems became virus proof. Some of the anti-virus-software manufacturers are suspected to viruses themselves in order to keep their business alive. I am under the impression that there is the very same situation with Spam: It's business, it's revenue, it's profits, and thus it must not be spoiled. Anti-spam efforts are welcome as long as they strengthen the public awareness of spam and make people purchase anti-spam-solutions. But a solution which effectively prevents spam at zero costs is deprecated. Zero costs means zero revenue. Similar to the situation of viruses/worms, some of the spam messages might be faked spam, not made to sell penis enlargement devices, but to sell anti-spam-software. Why are so many people strictly against anything what could prevent spam at the sender side? Because the sender wouldn't pay for a solution. Why do so many people insist on the freedom of the sender to send whatever the sender wishes to send with a sender address the sender can randomly choose? Simple answer: That's the only way to make the recipient buy anti-spam-software or anti-spam-services. Spam doesn't sell significant numbers of penis enlargement devices. Spam sells Anti-Spam-software. That's the business. I wouldn't be surprised at all if most of the spammers turned out to be the same people selling anti-spam-software and services, and trying to put through recipient-only solutions. And maybe that's why the mailing list is flooded with so much rubbish and babble. That's some kind of denial of service attack. Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 12:52:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA27808 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:52:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JIA1m17056 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:10:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JIA0O17053 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:10:00 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA27784 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:52:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JI5NO15783; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:05:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JI45O15577 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:04:05 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA27457 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:46:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2166786; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:48:21 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <053301c2ee31$b50a6240$66e237c0@rmf19> References: <053301c2ee31$b50a6240$66e237c0@rmf19> To: From: Kee Hinckley Subject: RE: [Asrg] An amazing amount of spam Cc: "'Chris Lewis'" , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:09:36 -0500 At 11:07 AM -0500 3/19/03, wrote: >I value my time far more than I value the Internet infrastructure. The >infrastructure can take care of itself and isn't really being burdened >since we expect to be able to have our own personal HDTV video streams >as casual traffic. Spam is zero percent of that. You've been living on high-speed connections for far too long. Email is a world-wide system, and HDTV internet bandwidth is a fantasy for most people, even in the U.S.. And has already been discussed on this list, bandwidth is becoming a significant problem. I have no desire to spend an extra $100/month just to handle the spam I'm bouncing from my server, but that's where spam is forcing me to go. I'm not saying that your priorities are off with regards to bandwidth vs. time. But that doesn't mean that you can just ignore the bandwidth problem. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 12:52:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA27831 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:52:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JIA6217091 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:10:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JIA6O17088 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:10:06 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA27792 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:52:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JI5MO15767; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:05:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JI43O15573 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:04:03 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA27455 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:46:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2166788; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:48:19 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200303191410.h2JEAE5c001828@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <200303191410.h2JEAE5c001828@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Vernon Schryver From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Testing content filters Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:00:25 -0500 At 7:10 AM -0700 3/19/03, Vernon Schryver wrote: >of a virus than to send test spam to a mail system. To test a spam >filter that can be tested with a standardized test, you can instead >grab something from NANAS or whatever spam you hate and send it from >somewhere, such as a free provider or one of your own systems. A This is only true for content filters. And even then it depends on the settings on your content filter. I agree with Matt--there should be a standard string that is always flagged as spam. You can forward all the spam you want at our spam filter--it won't get flagged as spam because we could care less what's in the message. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 12:56:23 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA27991 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:56:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JIDoh17290 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:13:50 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JIDoO17287 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:13:50 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA27970 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:55:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JI5PO15816; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:05:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JI48O15586 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:04:08 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA27465 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:46:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2166794; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:48:24 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030318222537.04823958@mail.attbi.com> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030318094728.04804d40@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030317162233.048c73e8@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030317162233.048c73e8@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030318094728.04804d40@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030318222537.04823958@mail.attbi.com> To: Steve Schear From: Kee Hinckley Subject: RE: [Asrg] Thoughts so far Cc: Margie Arbon , asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:45:20 -0500 At 10:43 PM -0800 3/18/03, Steve Schear wrote: >>In addition, a sender-pays system would be actively fought by every >>major online publication, every major software company, and every >>free web mail service. And if you priced it cheaply enough that >>they wouldn't complain, it would be so cheap as to have no impact >>on spam. > >Well, until the elements for a sender-pays system are available none >of us will know the impact. As to being fought by commercial >interests, I'm not What rational company would spend lots of time and money deploying a critical new piece of infrastructure that effects how the communicate with the entire world without having some idea of the impact? >sure that will matter to me and many others. Because our vision of >sender-pays can be entirely end-user controlled it is our decision >if we cut ourselves off from the herd in order to ensure our peace >of mind. It's the "herd" that needs a solution. A solution which involves restricting non-spam communications to a small group of the technical elite is technically interesting, but not terribly relevant. >If you take a look at http://www.camram.org you'll see that it >includes features for a "jail" to hold possible spam. The client >can inspect the email and decide to let it in even if the postage >isn't attached and add it to their white list (e.g., vendor email in >response to a subscription). Additionally, Now put a value on a spam jail which contains 90% of your email. And consider what happens if it becomes common enough that the spammers take notice and start forging addresses from commonly whitelisted senders. If you are an individual user, communicating primarily with a small group of known senders, such a system will probably settle down and be useful. If you are someone who is technically active online, or running a business that requires timely contact with random people in the outside world, such a system will be more painful than the spam. Spam solutions which violate basic economic principals (e.g. "Most people will not spend money in order to hurt themselves") are not going to be successful. At the early adopter stage, sender-pays is indistinguishable from simple whitelisting. Except that it costs the sender more money. If you think I'm missing something here, then please let me know. But please keep in mind that I'm not arguing that the system isn't technically feasible, or even desirable. I'm simply arguing that a system that hurts early adopters more than it helps them is not likely to be adopted. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 12:56:23 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA28000 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:56:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JIDoe17304 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:13:50 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JIDnO17285 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:13:49 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA27968 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:55:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JI5EO15731; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:05:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JI42O15569 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:04:02 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA27453 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:46:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2166792; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:48:18 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: Daniel Feenberg From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] A method to eliminate spam Cc: meor@mail.SoftHome.net, asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:56:41 -0500 At 7:21 AM -0500 3/19/03, Daniel Feenberg wrote: >On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Kee Hinckley wrote: > >> >> So far, every new protocol proposal I've seen has one of two adoption plans. >> >> 1. Everyone will just agree it's the best and all adopt it at once. >> 2. A small group of people will gamble that this solution is going to >> be the one that wins in the marketplace, and they'll put up with a >> lot of pain and no benefit until everyone else adopts it as well. >> > >There is a third possibility. A method that helps those who invoke it, and >works better the more sites invoke it. For example, the real-time black >hole list reduces spam for the first user, and every subsequent user. That's a possibility. But none of the protocol changes I've seen do that. As you point out, the blackhole solutin doesn't require a protocol change. >overloaded, even the most recalcitrant owners eventually close them. In >the end (the "Nash equilibrium") many sites subscribe to a black hole >list, nearly all open relays are closed, and there is no need for >universal agreement to get to that end. It may take a while though. Why do you think it hasn't happened already. Those lists have been around for years. Have open-relays significantly decreased? My guess is that too many people are reluncant to use them. As has been discussed here, black hole lists have a reputation for lack of accountability. If automated they have a serious problem with false positives. If manual they cost money. While individuals may have some degree of tolerance for false positives, most companies and ISPs are not so tolerant--all it takes is one bad instance and you're all over the press (college admissions notifications blocked, Mac.com blocking domain renewal emails...). >If MUAs and MTAs made it easier to use SMTP-AUTH, or relay after pop, then >this process would happen faster, but no change in the RFCs is required. At this point in the game I'm not aware of any major MUA that doesn't support SMTP-AUTH, although until recently Microsoft's programs only supported particularly lame versions. (Their renaming of AUTH-NTLM to AUTH-MSN hasn't helped either.) POP-before-SMTP is supported in most commercial email products. Unfortunately POP and SMTP tend to be managed by different programs from different sources in the open-source space, so integrating that has been more difficult. >It is important to have a plausible adoption path for any scheme. To be >plausible, the scheme must benefit the first few users, and benefit them >more the more users there are. We are in violent agreement on that point. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 13:14:48 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA28746 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:14:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JIWFf18604 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:32:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JIWFO18601 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:32:15 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA28691 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:14:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JIPRO18031; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:25:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JIMpO17911 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:22:51 -0500 Received: from pfortin.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA28338 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:04:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from gypsy.pfortin.com (user-2ivfbgj.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.174.19]) by pfortin.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 77FC213BE3 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:04:38 -0500 (EST) From: Pierre Fortin To: asrg@ietf.org Message-Id: <20030319130621.2aa90869.pf@pfortin.com> In-Reply-To: <20030319164500.8944.96080.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> References: <20030319164500.8944.96080.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.11claws19 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] unsubscribe 419234 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:06:21 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 13:20:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA29024 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:20:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JIc0Y19794 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:38:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JIc0O19791 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:38:00 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA29017 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:20:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JIVUO18421; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:31:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JISvO18176 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:28:57 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA28513 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:10:59 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2JIDBur006368; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:13:11 -0500 Message-Id: <200303191813.h2JIDBur006368@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.2 03/18/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: Hadmut Danisch Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] This research group will fail In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 19 Mar 2003 09:33:29 PST." <20030319173329.GA3058@danisch.de> References: <20030319173329.GA3058@danisch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_1855807864P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:13:11 -0500 --==_Exmh_1855807864P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 09:33:29 PST, Hadmut Danisch said: > I see strong interests to spoil any success of this group > to find a technical solution. This group is under a > certain kind of attack: The commercial attack. Hmm.. I can't speak for the commercial people, I'm about as non-commercial as it gets, being both civil service *AND* academia. A big chunk of the "spoil the success" is really just those of us who have tried the same things before pointing out the problems that were encountered the last time. (For instance, I don't think I've come out and said "this can't possibly work" too often - though I'll admit I've tossed my share of "but first you have to fix this...") > Why are so many people strictly against anything what could prevent > spam at the sender side? Because the sender wouldn't pay for a > solution. Why do so many people insist on the freedom of the sender > to send whatever the sender wishes to send with a sender address the > sender can randomly choose? Simple answer: That's the only way to make > the recipient buy anti-spam-software or anti-spam-services. Actually, the problem is that there are *3* places we can stop the problem: the several hundred spammers, 100K ISPs, or 400M end users. Anybody who's tried to deploy software to end users (especially software that involves retraining) knows 400M is the wrong place to attack. And even a well-hidden Proof-Of-Work doesn't help here - your phone WILL ring when people ask why it's taking 3 minutes to send mail. I've never said I'm *STRICTLY* against a sender-side solution. My generic criteria for a sender-side solution is: It has to be something that my mother the Hotmail user can deploy without me or my brother having to make a trip home to install for her. Windows 98 on a several-year-old PC. And this is a very real constraint, and imposes significant barriers to entire classes of solutions. > I wouldn't be surprised at all if most of the spammers turned out > to be the same people selling anti-spam-software and services, and > trying to put through recipient-only solutions. The interesting thing is that this list seems to contain neither spammers nor people who make a living selling anti-spam solutions. It is however full of people who have an interest in protecting their systems from spam. > And maybe that's why the mailing list is flooded with so much > rubbish and babble. That's some kind of denial of service attack. Actually, I was attributing that to the well-known fact that the effective IQ of a committee is given by "minimum IQ on the committee, divided by the number of heads". ;) --==_Exmh_1855807864P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+eLM2cC3lWbTT17ARAuFhAJ9k/F6S/ABZAk0+GER0maIgboBM3QCfZbBc 6j9GoP57ekJcmcOBoW4quOk= =xbOb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_1855807864P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 13:31:10 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA29427 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:31:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JImc820589 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:48:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JImcO20586 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:48:38 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA29394 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:30:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JIbiO19774; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:37:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JIZlO18935 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:35:47 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA28935 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:17:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18vdNC-0004iJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 08:12:50 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] SMTP & NNTP ? In-Reply-To: Your message of "19 Mar 2003 00:00:00 GMT." <8iA+PRmJcDD@3247.org> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 08:12:50 -0500 list-ietf-antispam@faerber.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Claus_F=E4rber?=) wrote: > Netnews is quite efficient at one-to-many communication and does not > suffer from spam as much as email does. ... because of the design of the protocol. You've got to request netnews. Spam gets forced down your throat. As I've said before, the structure of SMTP itself is a large part of the reason for the spam problem. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 13:32:23 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA29489 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:32:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JInpW20648 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:49:51 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JInpO20645 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:49:51 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA29469 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:31:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JIfAO20052; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:41:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JIcbO19836 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:38:37 -0500 Received: from dogma.slashnull.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA29038 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:20:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.jmason.org (ga183055.reshsg.uci.edu [128.195.183.55]) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JIJfx02035; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 18:19:43 GMT Received: by localhost.jmason.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 670AB8C78F; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:21:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from jmason.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D8B98C78E; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 10:21:47 -0800 (PST) To: Steven F Siirila Cc: "Ronald F. Guilmette" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Amend the RFC to require reverse DNS In-Reply-To: Message from Steven F Siirila of "Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:12:24 CST." <20030319171224.GA24981@earth.tc.umn.edu> From: jm@jmason.org (Justin Mason) X-GPG-Key-Fingerprint: 0A48 2D8B 0B52 A87D 0E8A 6ADD 4137 1B50 6E58 EF0A X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to . Message-Id: <20030319182147.670AB8C78F@localhost.jmason.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 10:21:41 -0800 Blocking based on rDNS, IMO, is bad -- it punishes an ISP's *users* rather than the ISP themselves. For example, until last week, I was using an ISP that did not have rDNS for their outgoing SMTP servers. Now *I* know the importance of rDNS for SMTP servers etc., but I was just a user. My 3 support requests didn't count for much, and as far as I know the servers still have no rDNS. The stock response to this is "well, change ISP" -- but that's a naive view of most of the world, where the choice is not available. In my case (in Ireland), accessing the net through this ISP was 2/3 the price of its nearest competitor. No way was I going to pay extra for the privilege of not getting the occasional bounce from an over-aggressive mail filter. I mean, considering I'm adminning a couple of spamfilter discussion groups, I get a bounce message (generally on the level of "your mail contained the word 'viagra'") every 3 minutes anyway ;) Also, requiring rDNS is not even that effective a test; our rule for this condition in SpamAssassin gets this rate: 35.5901 3.0576 0.921 0.78 1.33 NO_DNS_FOR_FROM in other words 35.59% of spam has no rDNS, but 3.05% of ALL nonspam mail does too. The latter is bad news, it's a *very* high false positive rate. --j. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 13:38:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA29746 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:38:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JItXH21090 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:55:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JItXO21087 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:55:33 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA29719 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:37:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JIfDO20085; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:41:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JIdoO19910 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:39:50 -0500 Received: from ciphertrust.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA29059 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:21:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.com with ESMTP ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:22:41 -0500 (EST) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:13:27 -0500 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)'" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Subject: [Asrg] Agenda for ASRG meeting Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:13:21 -0500 Anti-Spam Research Group (ASRG) Thursday, March 20 at 0900 - 1130 ================================== CHAIR: Paul Judge AGENDA: Agenda bashing, Paul Judge, 5 mins Review charter, Paul Judge, 10 mins -Consent-based communications -goals -----Background and Views of the Problem----- Size of Problem, Laura Atkins, SpamCon, 10 mins The Email Service Providers View: difficulties of communicating consent, Hans Peter Brondomo, NAI Email Service Provider Coalition, 10 mins Best Practices for End-Users, John Morris, Center for Democracy and Technology, 10 mins How Lawsuits Against Spammers Can Aid Spam-Filtering Technology, Jon Praed, Internet Law Group, 15 mins -----RG Work Items----- Review progress and milestones, Paul Judge, 15 mins -progress on list so far -desirable char. of source tracking -desirable char. of anti-spam systems -inventory of problems -taxonomy -others... Taxonomy of anti-spam technologies, Paul Judge, 20 mins -----Overviews of Different Approaches----- Summary of Proposed Authentication Systems, Philip Hallam-Baker, Verisign, 15 mins A Consent-Based Architecture, David Brussin, ePrivacy Group, 15 mins A Cost-Based Model: "Economic disincentives", Balachander Krishnamurthy, AT&T Research, 15 mins -----Wrap Up----- Next Steps, 10 mins _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 13:41:19 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA29978 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:41:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JIwlb21360 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:58:47 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JIwlO21357 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:58:47 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA29958 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:40:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JIqAO20841; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:52:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JIkTO20478 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:46:29 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA29288 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:28:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 7701 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2003 18:27:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO startechgroup.co.uk) (10.2.100.157) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 18 Mar 2003 18:27:53 -0000 Subject: Re: [Asrg] Testing content filters Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: asrg@ietf.org To: Vernon Schryver From: Matt Sergeant In-Reply-To: <200303191410.h2JEAE5c001828@calcite.rhyolite.com> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 18:30:47 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wednesday, Mar 19, 2003, at 14:10 Europe/London, Vernon Schryver wrote: > However, this does not sound useful enough for me to > put it into the DCC this year. Spam and viruses differ. It's far > more difficult and/or dangerous to give a Windows box a test infection > of a virus than to send test spam to a mail system. To test a spam > filter that can be tested with a standardized test, you can instead > grab something from NANAS or whatever spam you hate and send it from > somewhere, such as a free provider or one of your own systems. That would be fine if your content filter is 100% effective, but last time I looked the DCC wasn't. So you have no guarantee that a particular spam is going to trigger it. You're effectively asking your users to do the legwork, and that doesn't scale. Matt. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 13:41:53 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA27810 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:52:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JIA1B17072 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:10:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JIA1O17069 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:10:01 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA27786 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:52:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JI5OO15799; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:05:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JI46O15582 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:04:06 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA27460 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:46:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2166791; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:48:22 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <8iA+OxF3cDD@3247.org> References: <8iA+OxF3cDD@3247.org> To: list-ietf-antispam@faerber.muc.de (Claus =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4rber?= ) From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Thoughts so far Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h2JI46O15583 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:15:15 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit At 12:00 AM +0000 3/19/03, Claus Färber wrote: >Matt Sergeant schrieb/wrote: >> Criminalising spam would have the effect of stopping the mainsleaze >> spammers, while giving you an extra weapon in your battle against the >> underground spammers. > >The main advantage of crimilalisation is that a public prosecutor, who >has more investigative powers, would have to fight spam. The main disadvantage is that they to be interested in doing so. The fact that criminal activity is taking place does not automatically mean that the government will chase after it. In the long list of things to prosecute I suspect spam would be *way* down on the list. Unless of course you can make it a guaranteed profit center for the prosecution--like speeding tickets. But somehow I can't see spam being that simple to prosecute. (And as Barry Shein is fond of saying--why should we expect the government to chase after spammers when we won't let them tax the internet to support such things? (Rhetorical question--I do *not* want an answer.)) -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 13:42:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00090 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:42:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JJ0Ch21541 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:00:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JJ0CO21538 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:00:12 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00066 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:42:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JIqHO20895; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:52:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JImwO20611 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:48:58 -0500 Received: from earth.tc.umn.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA29408 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:30:59 -0500 (EST) Received: by earth.tc.umn.edu; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:33:13 -0600 From: Steven F Siirila To: Justin Mason Cc: Steven F Siirila , "Ronald F. Guilmette" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Amend the RFC to require reverse DNS Message-ID: <20030319183313.GB2769@earth.tc.umn.edu> References: <20030319171224.GA24981@earth.tc.umn.edu> <20030319182147.670AB8C78F@localhost.jmason.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030319182147.670AB8C78F@localhost.jmason.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.25i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:33:13 -0600 On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 10:21:41AM -0800, Justin Mason wrote: > > Also, requiring rDNS is not even that effective a test; our rule for this > condition in SpamAssassin gets this rate: > > 35.5901 3.0576 0.921 0.78 1.33 NO_DNS_FOR_FROM > > in other words 35.59% of spam has no rDNS, but 3.05% of ALL nonspam mail > does too. The latter is bad news, it's a *very* high false positive rate. I should note that our rDNS is based on the calling MTA, NOT the envelope FROM domain. Again, if you have a means for users to "poke a hole through the block" in a fashion that requires no intervention on the part of the mail admin (which is the case with us) it allows the site to be more aggressive with rules such as this. -- Steven F. Siirila Office: Lind Hall, Room 130B Internet Services E-mail: sfs@umn.edu Office of Information Technology Voice: (612) 626-0244 University of Minnesota _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 13:45:25 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00308 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:45:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JJ2s421784 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:02:54 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JJ2rO21781 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:02:53 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00261 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:44:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JIqGO20879; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:52:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JImdO20602 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:48:39 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA29400 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:30:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from rmf19 (h00055df0474a.ne.client2.attbi.com[65.96.217.174]) by rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (rwcrmhc52) with SMTP id <2003031918325305200l27toe>; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 18:32:53 +0000 From: To: , "'Hadmut Danisch'" Cc: Subject: RE: [Asrg] This research group will fail Keywords: asrg;filename=20030319-131814-125.mht;x-sender=asrg-admin@ietf.org;List-ID=Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF asrg.ietf.org Message-ID: <055801c2ee45$f4393860$66e237c0@rmf19> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 In-Reply-To: <200303191813.h2JIDBur006368@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:32:52 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit One paragraph gives a hint of the answer: "The interesting thing is that this list seems to contain neither spammers nor people who make a living selling anti-spam solutions. It is however full of people who have an interest in protecting their systems from spam. We are those 400M and are the real target because we care. Solutions that work at the edges get embraced. It's called the marketplace. MIME is a great example -- some people at the edges built tools and then some vendors adopted it so it made it easier for the rest of us (not them, us) to take advantage of it. OK, not all of you on the list but some of us like typography and can avail ourselves of it. An ISP wouldn't give us that kind of choice and I can decide if I want to bother writing messages in a down-level format (though MIME tries to make dual messaging the default). Of course a Unicode Mime message with binhex/uuencode (or whatever) gets huge. Why, I remember when a message of a 100 lines got a flag "LARGE MESSAGE", now a few megabytes flits by unnoticed. I do vary my email address and do quench messages reaped send to that address and my web site generates unique addresses for each visit. It's a weak version of what I want but it has helped me prescreen a lot of messages on my site. I still get a 100:1 ratio of spam to real messages and hope that going further to using crypto-capabilities will give me much more control. The key is that focus on people who care and those are the people at the end points. Oh, there are others who care a lot -- those are the IT gatekeepers and they tend to care about their gateways and often frustrate those of us being protected. I remember trying to argue for mere than 5MB of email storage space in the mid 90's and was turned down. Even as my PC's were getting gigabytes of storage. There are also the ISPs who want to pander to the user's misperceptions and sell them protection -- such as MSN's promise that your child will never learn that there is no Santa Claus. They should have the opportunity to sell what the users are asking for but that's a product and not fundamental and not a solution. It's like the post office doing you a favor and protecting you from junk mail such as that silly geek magazine that is too heavy. -----Original Message----- From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 13:13 To: Hadmut Danisch Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] This research group will fail On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 09:33:29 PST, Hadmut Danisch said: > I see strong interests to spoil any success of this group > to find a technical solution. This group is under a > certain kind of attack: The commercial attack. Hmm.. I can't speak for the commercial people, I'm about as non-commercial as it gets, being both civil service *AND* academia. A big chunk of the "spoil the success" is really just those of us who have tried the same things before pointing out the problems that were encountered the last time. (For instance, I don't think I've come out and said "this can't possibly work" too often - though I'll admit I've tossed my share of "but first you have to fix this...") > Why are so many people strictly against anything what could prevent > spam at the sender side? Because the sender wouldn't pay for a > solution. Why do so many people insist on the freedom of the sender > to send whatever the sender wishes to send with a sender address the > sender can randomly choose? Simple answer: That's the only way to make > the recipient buy anti-spam-software or anti-spam-services. Actually, the problem is that there are *3* places we can stop the problem: the several hundred spammers, 100K ISPs, or 400M end users. Anybody who's tried to deploy software to end users (especially software that involves retraining) knows 400M is the wrong place to attack. And even a well-hidden Proof-Of-Work doesn't help here - your phone WILL ring when people ask why it's taking 3 minutes to send mail. I've never said I'm *STRICTLY* against a sender-side solution. My generic criteria for a sender-side solution is: It has to be something that my mother the Hotmail user can deploy without me or my brother having to make a trip home to install for her. Windows 98 on a several-year-old PC. And this is a very real constraint, and imposes significant barriers to entire classes of solutions. > I wouldn't be surprised at all if most of the spammers turned out > to be the same people selling anti-spam-software and services, and > trying to put through recipient-only solutions. The interesting thing is that this list seems to contain neither spammers nor people who make a living selling anti-spam solutions. It is however full of people who have an interest in protecting their systems from spam. > And maybe that's why the mailing list is flooded with so much > rubbish and babble. That's some kind of denial of service attack. Actually, I was attributing that to the well-known fact that the effective IQ of a committee is given by "minimum IQ on the committee, divided by the number of heads". ;) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 13:49:46 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00425 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:49:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JJ7EC22365 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:07:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JJ7EO22361 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:07:14 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00421 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:49:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JJ06O21529; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:00:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JIxHO21413 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:59:17 -0500 Received: from mail.sirinet.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA29976 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:41:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (jjohn@localhost) by mail.sirinet.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2JIhUcY029599; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:43:30 -0600 From: John Johnson To: Justin Mason cc: Steven F Siirila , "Ronald F. Guilmette" , Subject: Re: [Asrg] Amend the RFC to require reverse DNS In-Reply-To: <20030319182147.670AB8C78F@localhost.jmason.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:43:30 -0600 (CST) On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Justin Mason wrote: > For example, until last week, I was using an ISP that did not have rDNS > for their outgoing SMTP servers. Now *I* know the importance of rDNS for > SMTP servers etc., but I was just a user. My 3 support requests didn't > count for much, and as far as I know the servers still have no rDNS. That is the purpose of a group such as this - to establish standards expected for effective inter-operation. If your ISP does not adhere to *current* established standards, why would any additional changes be any more effective. > The stock response to this is "well, change ISP" -- but that's a naive > view of most of the world, where the choice is not available. In my case > (in Ireland), accessing the net through this ISP was 2/3 the price of its > nearest competitor. Complaining is not working? Do they even answer your requests? I'm sure that you are aware that paying them rewards them for not following standard practices. > Also, requiring rDNS is not even that effective a test; our rule for this > condition in SpamAssassin gets this rate: > > 35.5901 3.0576 0.921 0.78 1.33 NO_DNS_FOR_FROM > > in other words 35.59% of spam has no rDNS, but 3.05% of ALL nonspam mail > does too. The latter is bad news, it's a *very* high false positive rate. Spam outfits have a habit of targeting secondary mail servers (higher MX value). By just introducing rDNS checks on our secondary mail server, we cut down on a huge amount of wasted connections. --- John Johnson - System Administrator; Sirius Systems Group jjohn@sirinet.net KJ5AA (580) 355-6436 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 13:51:16 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00483 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:51:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JJ8i322881 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:08:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JJ8iO22878 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:08:44 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00473 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:50:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JIxHO21419; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:59:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JItmO21113 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:55:48 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA29739 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:37:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from sputnik (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h2JIe10X012432 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 19:40:01 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sputnik.mobil.danisch.de (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-8) id h2JIdONH005266 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 19:39:24 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <20030319183924.GA5241@danisch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Subject: [Asrg] Requirements to solutions Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 10:39:24 -0800 Hi, I'd like to share some of my private notes about requirements a solution must/should fulfill: - must work everywhere on the world, in every legislation - must work with every spammer, regardless of age, etc. - must work with every recipient, regardless of age,... - must work even if spammers know all details - must fulfill Shannon's Maxim (Attacker knows cryptographical methods) - must fulfill Kerckhoff's Law - must be robust - must not require to be updated often - must work with any language - must work with encrypted messages - must be easy to maintain - must work for the dummy user Any comments or objections? Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 13:53:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00552 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:53:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JJB3D23024 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:11:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JJB2O23021 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:11:02 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00545 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:53:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JJ28O21727; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:02:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JJ1SO21646 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:01:28 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00149 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:43:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from rmf19 (h00055df0474a.ne.client2.attbi.com[65.96.217.174]) by rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (rwcrmhc51) with SMTP id <2003031918454105100is0hhe>; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 18:45:42 +0000 From: To: "'Kee Hinckley'" , Cc: "'Chris Lewis'" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] An amazing amount of spam Keywords: asrg;filename=20030319-125229-375.mht;x-sender=asrg-admin@ietf.org;List-ID=Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF asrg.ietf.org Message-ID: <056501c2ee47$be2c53e0$66e237c0@rmf19> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:45:38 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit You can host your own filter on the far end of your slow line. It's the same kind of problem that RIM users face. The point is that it's a service the end user can request and not internal to the Internet. I'm just trying to point out that the clogging of the arteries argument is not rationale given the terabit pipes lying fallow. It's a temporary condition at some slow edge points. My current connection is very slow -- 1.5MB down and a pathetic 385KB up. It's better than the .000010MB I used to have. There are other reasons for doing upstream processing. As I've mentioned I do my local filtering and am experimenting with popfile -- I can just as easily host them remotely as at my end point. An ISP might even offer to do it for me. It's my choice and a service. -----Original Message----- From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kee Hinckley Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 12:10 To: asrg@bobf.frankston.com Cc: 'Chris Lewis'; asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] An amazing amount of spam At 11:07 AM -0500 3/19/03, wrote: >I value my time far more than I value the Internet infrastructure. The >infrastructure can take care of itself and isn't really being burdened >since we expect to be able to have our own personal HDTV video streams >as casual traffic. Spam is zero percent of that. You've been living on high-speed connections for far too long. Email is a world-wide system, and HDTV internet bandwidth is a fantasy for most people, even in the U.S.. And has already been discussed on this list, bandwidth is becoming a significant problem. I have no desire to spend an extra $100/month just to handle the spam I'm bouncing from my server, but that's where spam is forcing me to go. I'm not saying that your priorities are off with regards to bandwidth vs. time. But that doesn't mean that you can just ignore the bandwidth problem. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 14:00:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA00935 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:00:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JJICp23633 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:18:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JJICO23630 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:18:12 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA00904 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:00:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JJ32O21816; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:03:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JJ2GO21743 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:02:16 -0500 Received: from mail.netpipeline.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00183 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:44:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from auroraville [208.3.185.6] by mail.netpipeline.net (SMTPD32-7.07) id AB045CEA00D6; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 10:46:28 -0800 Message-ID: <039601c2ee47$d89e31d0$e54148ce@auroraville> From: "Lee Murach" To: References: <20030318224501.26415.89986.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Anti-spam idea MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 10:46:25 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi David, You're right of course. And thank you for pointing that out. I didn't post to this list because I thought I had anticipated every possible objection to my proposal, or because I supposed that no one else was thinking along the same lines. Rather, I had hoped that people here would be on their toes, and would be able to raise objections that had not occurred to me, as you have done. I've received some well-considered email to my post. Thanks for the enlightenment, all ye respondents! In my original conception, I had the spam line contain both a from-spam-code and to-spam-code. But when I considered an exchange between two peers, it appeared that two codes were superfluous, and that one would suffice. Oops. Actually, A does need to check B's reply to see that it contains A's spam code where it ought to be. Otherwise, the spam-shake can be spoofed. So make this correction. As for the fly-by-night spammer, it seems you're right that it's not as impractical as I was assuming. It's possible that an e-mail protocol could make the spammer identifiable, in this case because you wouldn't expect a legitimate bulk-mailer to be receiving a flood of spam-replies. And perhaps the ISP could stop a spam in progress by holding onto these replies. But that's not what I was trying to achieve. -- Lee ----- Original Message ----- From: "David F. Skoll" To: Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 5:22 PM Subject: [Asrg] Re: Anti-spam idea > > From: "Lee Murach" > > > A sends a message to B. B sends it back to A, whereupon A resends the = > > message to B. The result: B receives A's message, and A learns B's spam = > > code. > > Think for a second what happens if this is widely implemented. > > Evil spammer sends spam to B, claiming it's from A. B sends it to A, > and because A is nice and well behaved, it learns B's spam code and > replies. B gets the spam anyway. > > Of course, you can finesse the protocol by having A not respond to > messages it knows it didn't send, but the book-keeping gets onerous > for large organizations. And if the challenge/response is implemented > in the MUA, A has to deal with "reflected" spam. > > > But the spammer, assuming he doesn't already know the codes, will be = > > obliglied to receive and process replies from each recipient in order to = > > learn them. This is scarcely practical. > > Why not? Domains cost $10/year. It's no sweat to set up a domain and > a Linux box for a day just to do the handshaking. You disappear the > next day. > > This is another kind of challenge-response system, but the response is > too easily automated, and the extra traffic is not justifiable. > > -- > David. > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 14:06:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA01247 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:06:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JJNkA24110 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:23:46 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JJNkO24107 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:23:46 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA01217 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:05:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JJEdO23311; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:14:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JJAhO23010 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:10:43 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00538 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:52:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from rmf19 (h00055df0474a.ne.client2.attbi.com[65.96.217.174]) by rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (rwcrmhc53) with SMTP id <2003031918545605300kb38pe>; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 18:54:57 +0000 From: To: "'Kee Hinckley'" Cc: , Subject: RE: [Asrg] Spam cannot be solved at the source Keywords: Bobf-xix;asgr;filename=20030319-124830-578.mht;x-sender=products@somewhere.com Message-ID: <056701c2ee49$0938b5d0$66e237c0@rmf19> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:54:56 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Well, now we're into design. If you leave your credit cards lying around with your passwords written on them you're exposed. This is a bit better in that you don't have to reuse the capabilities. If one escapes you can determine the source and quench it. Ideally you wouldn't reuse them anyway -- they would be used to establish the relationships and then you can use another one for the specific messages and threads. You will in fact get some used for "spam", it's called marketing and CRM but you can determine if you want to read that particular catalog this week or put it in the pile of boring stuff. A good marketer will even mark the message as being a generic catalog or specific to a query or a sales confirmation. It's in their interest in helping you find what you want. A bad marketer -- they'll just get quenched when their mail is ignored. Will people still try to harvest addresses and sell a billion for a buck? Perhaps and legacy addresses won't disappear but it will tax the high speed connection of the spammers when the success rate decreases to essentially zero. Conversely it will be safer to put your addresses in organization and other listings since you can determine the source. You can even choose to add rating information if you want or other schemes as discussed including, as I've mentioned, volunteering to read mail if the sender has paid a third party to vouch for the address even if it is just vouching that it was valuable enough to pay for. For kids you can have a policy that requires messages first be approved by you -- until their old enough to circumvent it. Perhaps that will be the definition of maturity rather than age. -----Original Message----- From: Kee Hinckley [mailto:products@somewhere.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 11:18 To: Bob Frankston Cc: asgr@bobf.frankston.com; asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Spam cannot be solved at the source At 12:58 AM -0500 3/19/03, Bob Frankston wrote: >2^256 is a big number Sorry, I should have been more specific. What is going to keep them from testing every address they find? The one you used to buy something on line. The one you used to post to this list. The one you used to send to a friend who then forwarded it to a friend who posted it to a list... and so on. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 14:08:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA01380 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:08:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JJPYj24248 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:25:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JJPYO24245 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:25:34 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA01341 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:07:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JJG2O23402; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:16:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JJFpO23362 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:15:51 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00785 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:57:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18vdzx-0004kp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 08:52:53 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] An amazing amount of spam In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:45:38 EST." <056501c2ee47$be2c53e0$66e237c0@rmf19> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 08:52:53 -0500 asrg@bobf.frankston.com wrote: > You can host your own filter on the far end of your slow line. Great! What's your IP? I'd like to point my MX at you. If your filters work, it should be easy for you to filter out the spam, and forward the real email to me. On the other hand, the spam may overwhelm your slow link, and effectively remove you from the net. But that's not a problem, because you can run filters at the end of the link! Can we please stop discussing content filters on this list? They're nice, but they're a work-around to the spam problem for *individuals*. They're not a solution for individuals, and they're definitely not a solution for solving the problem on the network. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 14:08:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA01402 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:08:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JJPkx24273 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:25:46 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JJPkO24270 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:25:46 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA01353 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:07:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JJC3O23163; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:12:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JJABO22985 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:10:11 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00528 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:52:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18vduR-0004kY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 08:47:11 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Requirements to solutions In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 19 Mar 2003 10:39:24 PST." <20030319183924.GA5241@danisch.de> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 08:47:11 -0500 Hadmut Danisch wrote: > I'd like to share some of my private notes about > requirements a solution must/should fulfill: ... > Any comments or objections? - must be easy to implement - must be less work than current work dealing with spam - must be low cost - must be effective Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 14:19:19 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA01784 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:19:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JJamN24830 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:36:48 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JJamO24827 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:36:48 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA01764 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:18:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JJQXO24387; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:26:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JJPfO24266 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:25:41 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA01350 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:07:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.57] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2JJ9nwL007930; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:09:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:09:49 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: Hadmut Danisch , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] This research group will fail MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:09:48 -0800 > Spam is a business with growing revenue. The small business > is sending spam. The big business is selling anti-spam-solutions. > Obviously those, who's business is either one of these, try to prevent > a simple and effective solution. So every fireman is an arsonist and every policeman a theif. A ubiquitous and pervasive authentication mechanism has value even if there is no more spam. Spam provides a means to get to critical mass, once a critical mass is established it will have value in its own right. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 14:23:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA01968 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:23:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JJexU26001 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:40:59 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JJexO25998 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:40:59 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA01947 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:22:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JJK2O23803; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:20:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JJJHO23730 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:19:17 -0500 Received: from mail-out2.apple.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA01009 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:01:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailgate2.apple.com (A17-129-100-225.apple.com [17.129.100.225]) by mail-out2.apple.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2JJ3VsJ028581 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:03:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from scv2.apple.com (scv2.apple.com) by mailgate2.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:03:31 -0800 Received: from plaidworks.com (vg0602e-dhcp175.apple.com [17.216.21.175]) by scv2.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h2JJ3UH26371; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:03:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Requirements to solutions Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: asrg@ietf.org To: Hadmut Danisch From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <20030319183924.GA5241@danisch.de> Message-Id: <7946F6A2-5A3D-11D7-8C15-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:03:30 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wednesday, March 19, 2003, at 10:39 AM, Hadmut Danisch wrote: > I'd like to share some of my private notes about > requirements a solution must/should fulfill: > > - must work everywhere on the world, in every legislation > - must work with every spammer, regardless of age, etc. > - must work with every recipient, regardless of age,... > - must work even if spammers know all details > - must fulfill Shannon's Maxim (Attacker knows cryptographical > methods) > - must fulfill Kerckhoff's Law > > - must be robust > - must not require to be updated often > - must work with any language > - must work with encrypted messages > - must be easy to maintain > - must work for the dummy user > > > Any comments or objections? > we can all go home now, I guess. but seriously, A solution doing ALL that is impossible. A suite of solutions that to a greater or lesser degree do some of that in an overlapping way? we'll still not make 100% of the goal. If anything less than 100% success is failure, we might as well go home. (email != a manned space flight to mars, though, so maybe we don't need massive over-engineering and triple redundancy?) -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 14:28:55 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA02279 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:28:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JJkP326533 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:46:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JJkPO26527 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:46:25 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA02254 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:28:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JJb7O24985; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:37:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JJT8O24481 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:29:08 -0500 Received: from ciphertrust.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA01519 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:11:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.com with ESMTP ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:11:52 -0500 (EST) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:02:40 -0500 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'Hadmut Danisch'" , "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Requirements to solutions MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:02:33 -0500 A thread already existed on requirements. I also pointed it out in my message titled "ASRG Work Items". It would have been ideal to add your comments to that list of requirements that was being built. I have compiled the contributions from that earlier thread and was planning to discuss tomorrow. I will add your input and redistribute. > -----Original Message----- > From: Hadmut Danisch [mailto:hadmut@danisch.de] > Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 1:39 PM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: [Asrg] Requirements to solutions > > > Hi, > > I'd like to share some of my private notes about > requirements a solution must/should fulfill: > > > - must work everywhere on the world, in every legislation > - must work with every spammer, regardless of age, etc. > - must work with every recipient, regardless of age,... > - must work even if spammers know all details > - must fulfill Shannon's Maxim (Attacker knows > cryptographical methods) > - must fulfill Kerckhoff's Law > > - must be robust > - must not require to be updated often > - must work with any language > - must work with encrypted messages > - must be easy to maintain > - must work for the dummy user > > > Any comments or objections? > > Hadmut > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 14:34:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA02549 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:34:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JJpYt27119 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:51:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JJpYO27116 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:51:34 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA02537 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:33:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JJh5O26232; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:43:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JJe3O25931 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:40:03 -0500 Received: from ciphertrust.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA01899 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:22:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.com with ESMTP ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:22:32 -0500 (EST) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:13:20 -0500 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)'" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Subject: [Asrg] Requirements for anti-spam systems-Draft 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:13:15 -0500 This is a draft of high-level requirements for anti-spam systems. This list was started by Keith Moore. This draft incorporates feedback from Balachander Krishnamurthy, Gary Feldman, Troy Rollo, Damon Sauer, Paul Judge, and Hadmut Danisch. 1. must minimize unwanted messages to some acceptable level 2. must not affect delivery(latency, integrity, cost, reliability) of wanted messages to a point that would effect the normal use of email 3. must be easy to use 4. must be easy to deploy, incrementally a. must provide incentives to deploy for those doing the deployment 5. must not depend on universal deployment to be effective 6. must not reduce privacy 7. must have minimal administration and implementation overhead 8. must have minimal computational and bandwidth overhead 9. must consider the threat and be robust in the face of such threats -(potential new work item: a spam threat model) some properties of the threat: - adversary knows details of anti-spam systems - adversary is intelligent and well-funded 10. should consider how legal issues affect, support, or constrain the technical solution _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 14:35:25 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA02655 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:35:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JJqsZ27245 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:52:54 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JJqsO27242 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:52:54 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA02623 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:34:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JJc7O25781; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:38:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JJXZO24708 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:33:35 -0500 Received: from gorgoroth.localnet (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA01678 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:15:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from unternet.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gorgoroth.localnet (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2JJHnJm023909 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:17:49 +0100 Message-ID: <3E78C25D.1090601@unternet.org> From: Frank de Lange User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4a) Gecko/20030310 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] This research group will fail References: <20030319173329.GA3058@danisch.de> In-Reply-To: <20030319173329.GA3058@danisch.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:17:49 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hadmut Danisch wrote: >Hi, > >I meanwhile came to the conclusion that this >working/research group's will certainly fail. > >I see strong interests to spoil any success of this group >to find a technical solution. This group is under a >certain kind of attack: The commercial attack > Ah, but we are here now (on the list, in SF, whatever), and there is a real problem to solve. Like usual in the internet as we know it, there are people/businesses who will try to commercialize the problem, provide boxed and shrink-wrapped 'solutions', etc. This is nothing new, it has been happening for years. Fortunately, these people and businesses do not run the IETF (and related organizations). If we want to reach a concensus on how to solve the spam-problem, the IETF is the place to do that. We will just have to make sure that we do not get lured into someone's business plan, just like all research/working groups. RFC2026 is one tool to keep proprietary "solutions" out of the standards process. People who are vigilant against attempts to decommodotize protocols and infrastructure are another guard against this. It was to be expected that those who stand to gain by spam (either by spamming themselves or by sellling anti/spam-related services) would try to secure their interests. This should not keep us from attempting to solve the problem in the 'traditional' way (rough consencus, running code, at least two interoperable implementations). It is premature to spell the demise of this initiative IMHO. To paraphrase Churchill, 'we shall go on to the end... we shall fight them... we shall never surrender...' Frank _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 14:37:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA02750 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:37:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JJtF027370 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:55:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JJtFO27367 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:55:15 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA02721 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:37:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JJmFO26844; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:48:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JJjlO26467 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:45:47 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc02.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA02213 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:27:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from video.attbi.com (12-235-20-211.client.attbi.com[12.235.20.211]) by sccrmhc02.attbi.com (sccrmhc02) with SMTP id <2003031919295900200rs6k9e>; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 19:29:59 +0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030319100246.04899280@mail.attbi.com> X-Sender: schear@mail.attbi.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: Kee Hinckley From: Steve Schear Subject: RE: [Asrg] Thoughts so far Cc: Margie Arbon , asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030318222537.04823958@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030318094728.04804d40@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030317162233.048c73e8@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030317162233.048c73e8@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030318094728.04804d40@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030318222537.04823958@mail.attbi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:31:31 -0800 At 12:45 PM 3/19/2003 -0500, Kee Hinckley wrote: >At 10:43 PM -0800 3/18/03, Steve Schear wrote: >>>In addition, a sender-pays system would be actively fought by every >>>major online publication, every major software company, and every free >>>web mail service. And if you priced it cheaply enough that they >>>wouldn't complain, it would be so cheap as to have no impact on spam. >> >>Well, until the elements for a sender-pays system are available none of >>us will know the impact. As to being fought by commercial interests, I'm not > >What rational company would spend lots of time and money deploying a >critical new piece of infrastructure that effects how the communicate with >the entire world without having some idea of the impact? Probably very few, that's why the Intenet and most of the basic services never came from a rational company. >>sure that will matter to me and many others. Because our vision of >>sender-pays can be entirely end-user controlled it is our decision if we >>cut ourselves off from the herd in order to ensure our peace of mind. > >It's the "herd" that needs a solution. A solution which involves >restricting non-spam communications to a small group of the technical >elite is technically interesting, but not terribly relevant. The spam issue is like gun control. Many people back strict laws and law enforcement as THE solution even though they know that by the time their telephone call to emergency services brings help it could very well be too late for them. Others (especially in the U.S.) take a proactive approach: they keep and bear arms (some concealed while out in public). Sender-pays is like being armed. I'm betting that clients implementing a stamps approach will fare well enough at controlling spam to eventually gain serious industry consideration. But even if it doesn't it may still help those so armed. >>If you take a look at http://www.camram.org you'll see that it includes >>features for a "jail" to hold possible spam. The client can inspect the >>email and decide to let it in even if the postage isn't attached and add >>it to their white list (e.g., vendor email in response to a >>subscription). Additionally, > >Now put a value on a spam jail which contains 90% of your email. And >consider what happens if it becomes common enough that the spammers take >notice and start forging addresses from commonly whitelisted senders. I think this is where signed content could help. >If you are an individual user, communicating primarily with a small group >of known senders, such a system will probably settle down and be useful. > >If you are someone who is technically active online, or running a business >that requires timely contact with random people in the outside world, such >a system will be more painful than the spam. Agreed, no one solution is likely to fit all. >Spam solutions which violate basic economic principals (e.g. "Most people >will not spend money in order to hurt themselves") are not going to be >successful. > >At the early adopter stage, sender-pays is indistinguishable from simple >whitelisting. Except that it costs the sender more money. Forcing unknown senders to spend even a bit more time or a bit of money in order for their emails to be seen is all that may be necessary to sort them out from others who's economics depend on enormous volumes of free or nearly free emails. >If you think I'm missing something here, then please let me know. But >please keep in mind that I'm not arguing that the system isn't technically >feasible, or even desirable. I'm simply arguing that a system that hurts >early adopters more than it helps them is not likely to be adopted. Many people are already forced by spam to abandon email addresses they've used for years. This transition hurts them (they must spend time and effort to inform their previous/frequent contact), yet its done all the time because they believe it may provide a respite from the flood. Would adopting a sender-pays be more harmful or difficult? I don't know and none of us will until various combinations of sender-pays are fielded and trialed. steve "Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people... Be not intimidated, therefore, by any terrors, from publishing with the utmost freedom...nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberty by any pretenses of politeness, delicacy, or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery, and cowardice." -- John Adams _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 14:42:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA02937 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:42:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JK01928591 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:00:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JK01O28588 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:00:01 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA02932 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:42:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JJo3O27064; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:50:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JJnhO26991 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:49:43 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA02500 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:31:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from rmf19 (h00055df0474a.ne.client2.attbi.com[65.96.217.174]) by rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (rwcrmhc51) with SMTP id <20030319193355051007sdqie>; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 19:33:56 +0000 From: To: "'Alan DeKok'" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] An amazing amount of spam Keywords: asrg;filename=20030319-140539-234.mht;x-sender=asrg-admin@ietf.org;List-ID=Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF asrg.ietf.org Message-ID: <056c01c2ee4e$7b3277c0$66e237c0@rmf19> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:33:55 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit My filter ain't that great -- just adequate. Sure, you can attack with me a DOS or a DDOS but that's not spam, that's simply a tantrum or worse. I think we are in agreement that content filtering is, at best, a work-around, not an answer. I'm trying to find an answer. -----Original Message----- From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alan DeKok Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 08:53 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] An amazing amount of spam asrg@bobf.frankston.com wrote: > You can host your own filter on the far end of your slow line. Great! What's your IP? I'd like to point my MX at you. If your filters work, it should be easy for you to filter out the spam, and forward the real email to me. On the other hand, the spam may overwhelm your slow link, and effectively remove you from the net. But that's not a problem, because you can run filters at the end of the link! Can we please stop discussing content filters on this list? They're nice, but they're a work-around to the spam problem for *individuals*. They're not a solution for individuals, and they're definitely not a solution for solving the problem on the network. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 14:50:55 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03326 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:50:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JK8Pv30080 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:08:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JK8PO30077 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:08:25 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03302 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:50:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JJw1O27642; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:58:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JJvIO27577 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:57:18 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA02822 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:39:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18vee4-0004mg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 09:34:20 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Requirements for anti-spam systems-Draft 1 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:13:15 EST." Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 09:34:20 -0500 Paul Judge wrote: > This is a draft of high-level requirements for anti-spam systems. ... I would add: 7a Must allow individual administrators to control the anti-spam system in their network. While this may sound trivially obvious, many people I've talked to believe that all solutions should be based solely on the recipients consent. By this, they appear to be saying: 1) everyone else in the network should implement the consent of the recipient. 2) the administrator of the network used by the originator of the email cannot implement consent OTHER than that of the recipient. Issue #1 doesn't scale to a network with millions of recipients and millions of sendewrs. Issue #2 means that the administrator of a sending network cannot decide (say) to filter outgoing port 25 for dial-up users. While I agree that such filtering is non-optimal, it *is* a valid configuration of the administrators network, and should not be prevented. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 14:51:08 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03346 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:51:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JK8cY30105 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:08:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JK8cO30102 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:08:38 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03307 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:50:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JJv8O27562; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:57:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JJuuO27506 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:56:56 -0500 Received: from gorgoroth.localnet (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA02801 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:38:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from unternet.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gorgoroth.localnet (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2JJfAJm024204 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:41:10 +0100 Message-ID: <3E78C7D6.6050703@unternet.org> From: Frank de Lange User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4a) Gecko/20030310 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Requirements to solutions References: <20030319183924.GA5241@danisch.de> In-Reply-To: <20030319183924.GA5241@danisch.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:41:10 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hadmut Danisch wrote: >Hi, > >I'd like to share some of my private notes about >requirements a solution must/should fulfill: > > >- must work everywhere on the world, in every legislation >- must work with every spammer, regardless of age, etc. >- must work with every recipient, regardless of age,... >- must work even if spammers know all details > - must fulfill Shannon's Maxim (Attacker knows cryptographical methods) > - must fulfill Kerckhoff's Law > >- must be robust >- must not require to be updated often >- must work with any language >- must work with encrypted messages >- must be easy to maintain >- must work for the dummy user > > >Any comments or objections? > - must be as simple as possible in implementation (KISS) - must be free of restricted IP (as in intellectual 'property') - must limit the load increase on the network to a minimum (think low-speed links, pay-per-packet links, etc) - must not increase the cost of email for users (so no pay-per-mail) Frank _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 14:54:22 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03641 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:54:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JKBqd30437 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:11:52 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JKBqO30434 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:11:52 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03516 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:53:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JK59O29005; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:05:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JK49O28854 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:04:09 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03078 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:46:08 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2JJmMur007667; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:48:22 -0500 Message-Id: <200303191948.h2JJmMur007667@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.2 03/18/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: Steve Schear Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Thoughts so far In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:31:31 PST." <5.1.0.14.2.20030319100246.04899280@mail.attbi.com> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030318222537.04823958@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030318094728.04804d40@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030317162233.048c73e8@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030317162233.048c73e8@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030318094728.04804d40@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030318222537.04823958@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030319100246.04899280@mail.attbi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_1875319192P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:48:22 -0500 --==_Exmh_1875319192P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:31:31 PST, Steve Schear said: > At 12:45 PM 3/19/2003 -0500, Kee Hinckley wrote: > >Now put a value on a spam jail which contains 90% of your email. And > >consider what happens if it becomes common enough that the spammers take > >notice and start forging addresses from commonly whitelisted senders. > > I think this is where signed content could help. Interesting how there's very little signed content on this list. I've even had complaints from people whos MUAs dont even understand signed content. The phrase "eating your own dog food" comes to mind..... --==_Exmh_1875319192P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+eMmGcC3lWbTT17ARAucSAKDLEXzRBOwcHKHCGycuoWzORgm8owCgiwRO QOUCh9JaogcyOzVcu0EcW2s= =4M2z -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_1875319192P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 14:58:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03859 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:58:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JKGDF30887 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:16:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JKGDO30884 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:16:13 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03834 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:58:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JK53O28936; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:05:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JK0qO28628 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:00:52 -0500 Received: from zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA02956 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:42:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h2JJj3V19650 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:45:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF4ZNZV; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:45:03 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBG1PT; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:45:03 -0500 Message-ID: <3E78C984.1020505@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] A method to eliminate spam References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:48:20 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kee Hinckley wrote: > At 7:21 AM -0500 3/19/03, Daniel Feenberg wrote: >> overloaded, even the most recalcitrant owners eventually close them. In >> the end (the "Nash equilibrium") many sites subscribe to a black hole >> list, nearly all open relays are closed, and there is no need for >> universal agreement to get to that end. It may take a while though. > Why do you think it hasn't happened already. Those lists have been > around for years. Have open-relays significantly decreased? As a percentage of spam? Absolutely. Total? Well, given that spam itself is exponentially increasing, I'm not sure whether we can measure that, especially since open proxy/socks has become the technique de-jour. But the numbers I'm going to show below are suggestive that open relay is nowhere near the problem it once was. Your message prompted me into doing something I should have done for a while - wire in individual blacklist effectiveness into our metrics. And here are the numbers for the past week - these are based on recipient counts, not message counts. The first table talks exclusively about the results of our spamtrap, and shows relative effectiveness of the blacklists on a "pure spam" feed. The second table talks exclusively about the results of the mail addressed to our real users. The individual lists are annotated when they first appear. Numbers are counts for the corresponding entry, and percentage of total email received. Blacklist effectiveness spamtrap only: BOPM 3666774 50.73 (open proxy/socks) Flonetwork 233 0.00 (Flowgo/dartmail/doubleclick static list) IP, NOT BL 101140 1.40 (local "hard" manual blacklist, being phased out) MONKEYPROXY 4579195 63.36 (open proxy/socks) NTblack 905852 12.53 (local automated proxy/socks/relay [+]) NTmanual 326783 4.52 (manual blacklist, new version) OBproxies 1459108 20.19 (proxies/socks) OBrelays 462877 6.40 (relays) OK 42 0.00 (whitelist) OSinputs 836741 11.58 (Osirus relays) OSproxy 136594 1.89 (Osirus proxies) OSsocks 1798424 24.88 (Osirus socks) SBL 562940 7.79 (SpamHaus spamsource BL) TOTAL 7227413 100.00 TOTAL BLOCK 6063477 83.59 (total would-be blocked by blacklists) Blacklist effectiveness on real email: BOPM 100635 5.34 CONTENT 54802 2.91 (non-IP based filters, not used on spamtrap) Flonetwork 6096 0.32 IP, NOT BL 34946 1.85 MONKEYPROXY 135285 7.17 NTblack 38608 2.05 NTmanual 30370 1.61 OBproxies 46420 2.46 OBrelays 17419 0.92 OK 5330 0.28 OSinputs 31922 1.69 OSproxy 2121 0.11 OSsocks 54144 2.87 SBL 51825 2.75 TOTAL 1885655 100.00 TOTAL BLOCK 316567 16.79 (total blocked) As you can see, relays are quite low. Notice how monkeyproxy and BOPM both trap more than 50% of all inbound spam (to the spamtrap, which is by definition 100% spam - bounces and viruses are already stripped out). Notice how the blacklists catch 84% of _all_ spam. Pretty darn good actually. But not perfect. That's why we do content-based too. > My guess is that too many people are reluncant to use them. As has been > discussed here, black hole lists have a reputation for lack of > accountability. They have a reputation for that, but that's largely false. BOPM, OB* (these two are private lists, but you'd know who it was and how to contact them if you ever hit a OB* blacklist block), MONKEYS[*], OSIRUS and SBL have _excellent_ reputations, and good accountability/contactability. > If automated they have a serious problem with false > positives. This is what the reputation is, but it's pure nonsense. While it is true that "open relay" blacklists have a higher percentage of false positives than the others, the numbers are still _extremely_ low. Secondly, the automated testers are the most accessible ones for fixing of false positives. ORDB is probably the very best of the group - instant delist with subsequent retest and relist if necessary. [We can't use ORDB, because we have to do zone transfers, and ORDB doesn't permit that.] And I can show that from the above tables. First a comment on the "OK" entry. Our procedure for a false positive on a blacklist of any kind causes us to immediately enter a whitelist entry, and queue up a retest to each of the blacklists (where appropriate) for retests. Automated-almost-to-a-single-keystroke process. [We immediately whitelist, because our DNSBL implementation is by zone-transfer and DNS zone file build. The average latency for a 3rd party delist via these mechanisms can be well in excess of 24 hours.] Furthermore, many of these whitelist entries are for whole ranges we do in our local blacklist (like 200.148/16 and 200.158/16), and we've just opened up a hole for the _only_ legit mailer in the whole block. [%] What we don't have right at the moment, is a mechanism for stripping out whitelist entries once the original blacklist entry disappears. I'm working on it, I'm working on it ;-) So, the "OK" entries are _every_ mail server we've ever whitelisted, despite the fact that the original blacklisting entry has probably long disappeared - so, the "OK" entries are considerably _higher_ than our blacklists would actually block. Further, many of them are not from third party blacklists, but rather from our local listings. Only 42 for the spamtrap. .28% for the production mail. If I were presently able to remove the whitelist entries for the machines no longer open, the numbers would be probably be under .01% for our production systems too. We get less than 5 false positive reports on average per day. Spot checks show that at least 95% of all whitelist/retests we've issued have taken effect on the corresponding 3rd party blacklist. Except monkeys[*] But again, it's true that open relay blacklists have higher false positive rates. Despite being responsible for perhaps 3-4% of all of our IP-based blocks, somewhat more than half of our IP-based false positives are with open relay blacklists. And most of those are with OBrelays. Why is that? Simple: 1) machines that were open relays are more likely to have been intended to send email than a simple open proxy or socks server, so, "legit" users are more likely to hit a blacklist entry. Most open proxy or socks hits are _not_ mail servers and were never intended to be. So nobody notices. Nobody cares either (except the spammer, but they don't notice). 2) Lesser used blacklists have higher FP rates, because fewer legit senders hit them. OBrelays is only used by two sites: us, and its maintainer. Despite being _large_ (OB is > 30 million mail addresses), it's still small compared to the coverage of the other lists, hence the relatively higher FP percentage. 3) Most of the open relay FPs are servers that are no longer open but didn't have enough BL coverage to notice. Most of the open proxy/socks hits are servers that are still open. What does this all mean? Well, what Joe said - perhaps our "filtering BCP" should _explicitly_ state that all mail filtering systems should be using well known and reputable open relay and open proxy/socks blacklist. In this way we encourage much greater coverage, so that (a) site owners find out much quicker they have a problem and (b) stale entries are cleaned up much faster. In other words, list accuracy is vastly improved, and broken servers are fixed much faster. Open proxy/socks blacklist usage is already "best practise" with IRC servers. See the BOPM web site. > If manual they cost money. While individuals may have some > degree of tolerance for false positives, most companies and ISPs are not > so tolerant--all it takes is one bad instance and you're all over the > press (college admissions notifications blocked, Mac.com blocking domain > renewal emails...). Look at the above numbers, and remember who we are. Obviously, we're VERY intolerant of false positives. We're doing fine. [*] I have an issue with MONKEYSPROXY because the criteria for removal isn't "just fix the open socks or proxy and ask for retest" - because asking for the retest has other extraneous requirements. In effect, a MONKEYSPROXY entry either means you have an open proxy/socks, OR, you may simply not have been able to formulate a retest request that MONKEYS would accept We can't do third-party retest requests with MONKEYS, for example. This does not seem to cause _us_ much trouble in practise (since we whitelist), but if you're high volume like us and not actively whitelisting like us, it may make you think twice about using it, despite how good it is. I'd rather it followed the BOPM or ORDB model here. Still and all, I think we've gotten 5 false positive reports for Monkeys in 3 months. [+] automated testing is triggered by at least 3 spam-in-hands in a day hitting our spamtrap, one week minimum testing interval. 3 week no repeat expiration. Ignored/not tested/listed if IP already blacklisted elsewhere. Allows us to automatically detect "new" open relays/proxies/socks hitting the spamtrap and publishing blacklist entries to production servers. Experimental. May be decommissioned. [%] 1000+ IPs spewing email from us from a /16, and 98%+ of them are already listed as open relays/socks/proxies. The rest of them are behaving as if they are. Sigh. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 14:59:13 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03902 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:59:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JKGhQ30927 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:16:43 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JKGhO30924 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:16:43 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03856 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:58:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JKA2O30265; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:10:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JK9xO30213 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:09:59 -0500 Received: from zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03410 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:51:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (zcard307.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h2JJsB001005 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:54:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDFCCXSJ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:54:11 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBG1P9; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:54:11 -0500 Message-ID: <3E78CBA8.30904@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] An amazing amount of spam References: <056c01c2ee4e$7b3277c0$66e237c0@rmf19> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:57:28 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit asrg@bobf.frankston.com wrote: > My filter ain't that great -- just adequate. Sure, you can attack with > me a DOS or a DDOS but that's not spam, that's simply a tantrum or > worse. Alan's MX isn't a DOS. Alan's MX is _real_ spam. No kidding. I've looked. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 15:01:15 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA03991 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:01:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JKIjY31181 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:18:45 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JKIjO31178 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:18:45 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA03969 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:00:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JKB2O30361; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:11:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JKAdO30298 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:10:39 -0500 Received: from gorgoroth.localnet (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03458 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:52:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from unternet.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gorgoroth.localnet (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2JJsrJm024233 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:54:53 +0100 Message-ID: <3E78CB0C.7050800@unternet.org> From: Frank de Lange User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4a) Gecko/20030310 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Requirements for anti-spam systems-Draft 1 References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:54:52 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Paul Judge wrote: >This is a draft of high-level requirements for anti-spam systems. This list >was started by Keith Moore. This draft incorporates feedback from >Balachander Krishnamurthy, Gary Feldman, Troy Rollo, Damon Sauer, Paul >Judge, and Hadmut Danisch. > > >1. must minimize unwanted messages to some acceptable level >2. must not affect delivery(latency, integrity, cost, reliability) of >wanted messages to a point that would effect the normal use of email >3. must be easy to use >4. must be easy to deploy, incrementally > a. must provide incentives to deploy for those doing the >deployment >5. must not depend on universal deployment to be effective >6. must not reduce privacy >7. must have minimal administration and implementation overhead >8. must have minimal computational and bandwidth overhead >9. must consider the threat and be robust in the face of such threats > -(potential new work item: a spam threat model) > some properties of the threat: > - adversary knows details of anti-spam systems > - adversary is intelligent and well-funded >10. should consider how legal issues affect, support, or constrain the >technical solution > > (sent previously as reply to Hadmut's mail. most points in that reply are mostly covered but...) 11. must not violate RFC2026 (no proprietary solutions, no IP restrictions) Partly covered by point 10, but important so... Frank _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 15:04:26 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA04303 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:04:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JKLu131474 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:21:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JKLuO31471 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:21:56 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA04222 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:03:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JK85O30043; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:08:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JK7sO30014 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:07:54 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03264 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:49:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h2JJq6607995 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:52:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF4Z3AV; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:52:06 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBG1P5; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:52:06 -0500 Message-ID: <3E78CB2B.9010807@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] An amazing amount of spam References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:55:23 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alan DeKok wrote: > asrg@bobf.frankston.com wrote: > >>You can host your own filter on the far end of your slow line. > Great! What's your IP? I'd like to point my MX at you. If your > filters work, it should be easy for you to filter out the spam, and > forward the real email to me. Alan's MX is a weapon of mass destruction. It proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that tweaks to mail reader metaphors and user-end filtering (or even most ISP filtering) will not be able to keep up. Even AOL wouldn't survive the spam:good ratio that Alan see. There simply ain't enough pipes on the whole planet to do that. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 15:04:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA04326 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:04:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JKM2d31505 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:22:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JKM2O31502 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:22:02 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA04247 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:04:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JKD3O30706; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:13:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JKCOO30610 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:12:24 -0500 Received: from zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03639 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:54:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h2JJuZV21048 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:56:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF4Z3F1; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:56:35 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBG1Q1; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:56:34 -0500 Message-ID: <3E78CC37.8020704@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Requirements for anti-spam systems-Draft 1 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:59:51 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alan DeKok wrote: > Issue #2 means that the administrator of a sending network cannot > decide (say) to filter outgoing port 25 for dial-up users. Issue #2 also means that the administrator of a receiving network cannot enforce policy. Think corporations and employment agreements. Also, in general, consider distributed spam filtering techniques, like DCC et. al. Centralized/administrator update/control are critical to their operation. Sure, in some circumstances, a user should be able to turn them off or whitelist, but... _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 15:07:11 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA04675 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:07:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JKOg831674 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:24:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JKOgO31671 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:24:42 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA04608 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:06:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JKI3O31112; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:18:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JKH7O31034 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:17:07 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03892 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:59:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2JK1Kki010859 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:01:21 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20030319200500.28920.87123.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> Message-ID: References: <20030319200500.28920.87123.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Asrg] Re: This research group will fail Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:01:20 -0500 (EST) From: Hadmut Danisch > I wouldn't be surprised at all if most of the spammers turned out > to be the same people selling anti-spam-software and services, and > trying to put through recipient-only solutions. Full-disclosure: I make a living selling anti-spam software. Nevertheless, I am not a spammer. I also give away the core of my product for free under the GPL. And I offer for free anti-spam ideas that anyone (including my competitors) can use or not as they see fit--- I don't go for dumb patents or stupid trade secret protection. The bottom line is that I also think this research group will fail, if by "fail" you mean "find an effective standard solution that stops almost all spam, and is implementable within the next decade." I think my business model is realistic: I don't expect a real solution to spam without massive reworking of Internet protocols, and I don't expect that reworking to take place in under a decade. In the meantime, I see an opportunity. If you do not like my business model, don't buy my products, or else just use the GPL'd subset. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 15:07:24 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA04706 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:07:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JKOso31740 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:24:54 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JKOsO31737 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:24:54 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA04629 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:06:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JKI8O31144; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:18:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JKHBO31047 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:17:11 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id OAA03899 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:59:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 13195 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2003 19:58:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.2.100.178?) (10.2.100.178) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 18 Mar 2003 19:58:34 -0000 From: Matt Sergeant X-X-Sender: matt@localhost.localdomain To: Hadmut Danisch cc: "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] This research group will fail In-Reply-To: <20030319173329.GA3058@danisch.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:17:39 +0000 (GMT) On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Hadmut Danisch wrote: > Spam is a business with growing revenue. The small business > is sending spam. The big business is selling anti-spam-solutions. > Obviously those, who's business is either one of these, try to prevent > a simple and effective solution. > > The situation is similar to the virus/worm threat: Some parties make > huge revenues with selling anti-virus-solutions. It would be their > sudden death if application software and operating systems became > virus proof. Some of the anti-virus-software manufacturers are > suspected to viruses themselves in order to keep their business > alive. > > I am under the impression that there is the very same situation with > Spam: It's business, it's revenue, it's profits, and thus it must not be > spoiled. Anti-spam efforts are welcome as long as they strengthen the > public awareness of spam and make people purchase > anti-spam-solutions. I take real offense to this tone. As someone who works at a successful anti-virus company (we named Klez) I can tell you quite clearly - there is no attempt or motivation here to put out viruses or even keep virus writers working. To suggest otherwise is insulting to those who work in this business. Yesterday I told a customer I was trying to get involved in the IETF's efforts to "fix" the spam problem, however that may turn out. He was surprised we would work to put ourselves out of business. But at the end of the day this is going to happen whether we're involved or not, so better to be involved than not. And any solution is going to involve a long transition period for our customers, and we can hopefully be there to ease that transition. I want to see an end to spam as much as the next guy. I'm shit scared of striker, and I'm an email user too. But the solution has to be practical, and it has to have tangible benefits or my boss and my boss's boss are not going to buy into it. And if they don't buy into it they won't sell it to our customers, and you get a large section of the internet not interested in using your scheme. The last thing *I* want to do is prevent an answer to the spam problem happening. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 15:11:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA05420 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:11:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JKTGc31969 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:29:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JKTGO31966 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:29:16 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA05347 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:11:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JKL2O31381; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:21:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JKKQO31334 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:20:26 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA04049 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:02:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18vf0Q-0004oF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 09:57:26 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Requirements for anti-spam systems-Draft 1 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:59:51 EST." <3E78CC37.8020704@americasm01.nt.com> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 09:57:26 -0500 "Chris Lewis" wrote: > Issue #2 also means that the administrator of a receiving network cannot > enforce policy. Think corporations and employment agreements. I would then say to NOT add my comment as 7a), but instead a new entry: n+1) Every network element must be permitted to administer their own anti-spam policy, irrespective of anyone elses policy or consent. Some people will object strenuously to this statement, for various reasons. But the reality is that this is already happening today. It's called dropping packets when the link gets full. The network is not reliable. The network does NOT enforce your wishes to communicate with others. It's best-effort, and your data may not make it through. We already accept this behaviour, and I believe that we should make such acceptance explicit for anti-spam solutions. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 15:11:53 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA05445 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:11:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JKTNS31989 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:29:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JKTNO31986 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:29:23 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA05362 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:11:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JKK3O31295; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:20:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JKJnO31238 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:19:49 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id PAA04018 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:01:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 13365 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2003 20:01:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.2.100.178?) (10.2.100.178) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 18 Mar 2003 20:01:11 -0000 From: Matt Sergeant X-X-Sender: matt@localhost.localdomain To: Kee Hinckley cc: Daniel Feenberg , "meor@mail.SoftHome.net" , "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] A method to eliminate spam In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:20:17 +0000 (GMT) On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Kee Hinckley wrote: > >overloaded, even the most recalcitrant owners eventually close them. In > >the end (the "Nash equilibrium") many sites subscribe to a black hole > >list, nearly all open relays are closed, and there is no need for > >universal agreement to get to that end. It may take a while though. > > Why do you think it hasn't happened already. Those lists have been > around for years. Have open-relays significantly decreased? According to our stats, yes. Matt. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 15:13:51 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA05671 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:13:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JKVM332123 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:31:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JKVLO32120 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:31:21 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA05620 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:13:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JKP1O31776; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:25:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JKO1O31605 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:24:01 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA04518 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:05:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from video.attbi.com (12-235-20-211.client.attbi.com[12.235.20.211]) by rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (rwcrmhc53) with SMTP id <2003031920081305300ome19e>; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:08:13 +0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030319120937.0489c768@mail.attbi.com> X-Sender: schear@mail.attbi.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu From: Steve Schear Subject: Re: [Asrg] Thoughts so far Cc: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <200303191948.h2JJmMur007667@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030318222537.04823958@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030318094728.04804d40@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030317162233.048c73e8@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030317162233.048c73e8@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030318094728.04804d40@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030318222537.04823958@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030319100246.04899280@mail.attbi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:11:09 -0800 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 02:48 PM 3/19/2003 -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: >On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:31:31 PST, Steve Schear said: > > At 12:45 PM 3/19/2003 -0500, Kee Hinckley wrote: > > > >Now put a value on a spam jail which contains 90% of your email. And > > >consider what happens if it becomes common enough that the spammers take > > >notice and start forging addresses from commonly whitelisted senders. > > > > I think this is where signed content could help. > >Interesting how there's very little signed content on this list. > >I've even had complaints from people whos MUAs dont even understand signed >content. > >The phrase "eating your own dog food" comes to mind..... Point well taken "War is just a racket ... something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small group knows what its about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses." --- Major General Smedley Butler, 1933 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 7.0.4 iQA/AwUBPnjO3aenadS+YleJEQII9QCePsH6KYfV3uvmYYOa5Q/enyJR72AAn3aJ ZI6MbRFctmrTL/Ofk3dgk97M =j2nW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 15:14:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA05750 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:14:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JKVxe32163 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:31:59 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JKVxO32159 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:31:59 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA05692 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:13:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JKO3O31634; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:24:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JKMaO31538 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:22:36 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA04346 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:04:34 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2JK6mur007831; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:06:48 -0500 Message-Id: <200303192006.h2JK6mur007831@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.2 03/18/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: Alan DeKok Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Requirements for anti-spam systems-Draft 1 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 19 Mar 2003 09:34:20 EST." References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_1883731936P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:06:48 -0500 --==_Exmh_1883731936P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 09:34:20 EST, Alan DeKok said: > 2) the administrator of the network used by the originator of the > email cannot implement consent OTHER than that of the recipient. > Issue #2 means that the administrator of a sending network cannot > decide (say) to filter outgoing port 25 for dial-up users. This can also be important in corporate environments, although there it's usually an easier job to deploy port filters (and since the users are employees, it's easier to smack them upside the head - you usually can't do that to an idiot customer.. ;) --==_Exmh_1883731936P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+eM3YcC3lWbTT17ARAvAXAJ9yAkMpjj5hdbB0hBG+dmQ/sVZCMQCfTgnq D9Gj2XrMN5i0TDhLs4m5Cp4= =S/PO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_1883731936P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 15:35:12 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA06627 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:35:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JKqhV01781 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:52:43 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JKqhO01778 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:52:43 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA06603 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:34:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JKhYO01208; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:43:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JKgeO01136 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:42:40 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA06265 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:24:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from video.attbi.com (12-235-20-211.client.attbi.com[12.235.20.211]) by rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (rwcrmhc52) with SMTP id <2003031920265205200ptbbke>; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:26:52 +0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030319122804.048b79f0@mail.attbi.com> X-Sender: schear@mail.attbi.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu From: Steve Schear Subject: Re: [Asrg] This research group will fail Cc: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <200303191813.h2JIDBur006368@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> References: <20030319173329.GA3058@danisch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:29:53 -0800 At 01:13 PM 3/19/2003 -0500, you wrote: >Anybody who's tried to deploy software to end users (especially software >that involves retraining) knows 400M is the wrong place to attack. And >even a well-hidden Proof-Of-Work doesn't help here - your phone WILL ring >when people ask why it's taking 3 minutes to send mail. Not if they don't have my phone number. Which they probably don't if they haven't contacted me before. >I've never said I'm *STRICTLY* against a sender-side solution. My generic >criteria for a sender-side solution is: It has to be something that my >mother the Hotmail user can deploy without me or my brother having to >make a trip home to install for her. Windows 98 on a several-year-old PC. This is not necessary for initial deployment. After all the web didn't seem like it was ready for my grandmother 10 years ago. steve _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 15:35:26 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA06654 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:35:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JKqvl01798 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:52:57 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JKqvO01795 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:52:57 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA06607 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:34:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JKhIO01187; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:43:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JKgUO01124 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:42:30 -0500 Received: from gorgoroth.localnet (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA06257 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:24:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from unternet.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gorgoroth.localnet (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2JKQhJm024696 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:26:43 +0100 Message-ID: <3E78D282.8090805@unternet.org> From: Frank de Lange User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4a) Gecko/20030310 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Requirements for anti-spam systems-Draft 1 References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:26:42 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alan DeKok wrote: >"Chris Lewis" wrote: > > >>Issue #2 also means that the administrator of a receiving network cannot >>enforce policy. Think corporations and employment agreements. >> >> > > I would then say to NOT add my comment as 7a), but instead a new >entry: > >n+1) Every network element must be permitted to administer their own > anti-spam policy, irrespective of anyone elses policy or consent. > > Some people will object strenuously to this statement, for various >reasons. But the reality is that this is already happening today. >It's called dropping packets when the link gets full. > > The network is not reliable. The network does NOT enforce your >wishes to communicate with others. It's best-effort, and your data >may not make it through. We already accept this behaviour, and I >believe that we should make such acceptance explicit for anti-spam >solutions. > Is it really necessary to add this? IETF does not dictate how people control their resources after all. There are already all kinds of restrictions on who can access what in what manner and from where. I believe this will sort itself out, if some ISP (or mail service provider, or ...) were to impose too onerous terms and conditions users would just move to another ISP. //Frank _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 15:45:16 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA06932 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:45:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JL2lu02517 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:02:47 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JL2lO02514 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:02:47 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA06906 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:44:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JKm2O01466; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:48:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JKl2O01419 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:47:02 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA06419 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:29:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (zcard307.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h2JKVC616841 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:31:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDFCC7N3; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:31:13 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBG1RW; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:31:12 -0500 Message-ID: <3E78D454.9090307@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] SMTP & NNTP ? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:34:28 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alan DeKok wrote: > list-ietf-antispam@faerber.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Claus_F=E4rber?=) wrote: >>Netnews is quite efficient at one-to-many communication and does not >>suffer from spam as much as email does. > ... because of the design of the protocol. You've got to request > netnews. Spam gets forced down your throat. You have to request email too. NNTP and SMTP->POP is effectively the same w.r.t. push/pull. They don't differ in this regard. It's just as easy to not request email as to not request netnews. Problem being is that email is used for 1-to-1, and "not requesting" email is considerably more unpleasant than not requesting netnews. The only difference in this area is that NNTP already supports a certain amount of browser-requested-yet-server-side-implemented filtering. Not well, and not well supported by existing browsers. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 15:51:15 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07346 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:51:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JL8le03607 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:08:47 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JL8kO03604 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:08:47 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07322 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:50:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JKuBO02104; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:56:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JKtbO02053 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:55:37 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA06757 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:37:35 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2JKdour008240 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:39:50 -0500 Message-Id: <200303192039.h2JKdour008240@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.2 03/18/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: asrg@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_1888500024P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Just when you thought it was safe.... Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:39:50 -0500 --==_Exmh_1888500024P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii http://www.cdt.org/speech/spam/030319spamreport.pdf (may be slashdotted) The message I got from this was "The spammers haven't even started on exhausting all the methods already available for getting addresses...." --==_Exmh_1888500024P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+eNWWcC3lWbTT17ARAp/vAJ9uH+nFWYMQ88ihz6EVY5NgeE83mACfTZUd OzV4aaC2nZr7gcGZtWqJg7o= =+R0U -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_1888500024P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 15:58:54 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07635 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:58:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JLGQG04270 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:16:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JLGQO04267 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:16:26 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07603 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:58:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JL54O02624; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:05:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JL4LO02562 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:04:21 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA06962 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:46:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from rmf19 (h00055df0474a.ne.client2.attbi.com[65.96.217.174]) by rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (rwcrmhc53) with SMTP id <20030319204832053009kfmce>; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:48:33 +0000 From: To: "'Chris Lewis'" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] An amazing amount of spam Keywords: asrg;filename=20030319-145524-562.mht;x-sender=asrg-admin@ietf.org;List-ID=Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF asrg.ietf.org Message-ID: <059001c2ee58$e7d16df0$66e237c0@rmf19> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 In-Reply-To: <3E78CB2B.9010807@americasm01.nt.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:48:32 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Didn't Bob Metcalfe already say that? I'm trying not to be flippant and dismissive but I have a high hurdle for effective solutions. Spam is indeed a DOS if it is overwhelming and the solutions needn't care about intent. There is a distinction in that if spam is due a social process that rewards spammers then there is little incentive to stop it. But reducing the reward might not, in itself, be enough. But as long as we have a fundamental flaw in having one true name and expecting to look at the content to guess all of the meaning and intention and context then there is little hope because there aren't enough omniscient demons to do all that work. By using capabilities we shift much of this burden to the sender in their choice of the token used to reach us and thereby allow policies based on mutual information -- what capabilities I make available and how and how those capabilities re used by the sender to indicate intent (honest or not). At least that gives us a mechanism. In the meantime you can choose a filter service if you want, as AOL has done. You're filter can operate on the decrypted message as it is working on your behalf. I'm simply trying to separate out the issues and flag solutions that have fundamental flaws as infrastructure. -----Original Message----- From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Chris Lewis Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 14:55 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] An amazing amount of spam Alan DeKok wrote: > asrg@bobf.frankston.com wrote: > >>You can host your own filter on the far end of your slow line. > Great! What's your IP? I'd like to point my MX at you. If your > filters work, it should be easy for you to filter out the spam, and > forward the real email to me. Alan's MX is a weapon of mass destruction. It proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that tweaks to mail reader metaphors and user-end filtering (or even most ISP filtering) will not be able to keep up. Even AOL wouldn't survive the spam:good ratio that Alan see. There simply ain't enough pipes on the whole planet to do that. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 16:02:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA07899 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:02:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JLKGw04597 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:20:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JLKGO04594 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:20:16 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA07878 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:02:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JLA5O03805; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:10:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JL9AO03656 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:09:10 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07332 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:51:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from rmf19 (h00055df0474a.ne.client2.attbi.com[65.96.217.174]) by rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (rwcrmhc52) with SMTP id <2003031920532105200pt8e5e>; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:53:22 +0000 From: To: "'Alan DeKok'" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] Requirements for anti-spam systems-Draft 1 Keywords: asrg;filename=20030319-154300-390.mht;x-sender=asrg-admin@ietf.org;List-ID=Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF asrg.ietf.org Message-ID: <059301c2ee59$94324e20$66e237c0@rmf19> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:53:21 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'm a little confused so I'll ask whether you agree with the following. Best effort include attempting to deliver but failing due to congestion. Worst efforts include deciding a given message must not be delivered and thwarting your wishes to communicating. Note that the current open loop email doesn't really scale in the case of congestion. The problem is in using NAK not ACK but ACK has privacy implications which makes the problem complicated> -----Original Message----- From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alan DeKok Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 09:57 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Requirements for anti-spam systems-Draft 1 "Chris Lewis" wrote: > Issue #2 also means that the administrator of a receiving network cannot > enforce policy. Think corporations and employment agreements. I would then say to NOT add my comment as 7a), but instead a new entry: n+1) Every network element must be permitted to administer their own anti-spam policy, irrespective of anyone elses policy or consent. Some people will object strenuously to this statement, for various reasons. But the reality is that this is already happening today. It's called dropping packets when the link gets full. The network is not reliable. The network does NOT enforce your wishes to communicate with others. It's best-effort, and your data may not make it through. We already accept this behaviour, and I believe that we should make such acceptance explicit for anti-spam solutions. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 16:03:02 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA07914 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:03:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JLKYA04619 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:20:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JLKYO04616 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:20:34 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA07887 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:02:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JLD1O04021; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:13:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JLC7O03951 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:12:07 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id PAA07449 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:54:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 16546 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2003 20:53:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.2.100.178?) (10.2.100.178) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 18 Mar 2003 20:53:28 -0000 From: Matt Sergeant X-X-Sender: matt@localhost.localdomain To: Hadmut Danisch cc: "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Requirements to solutions In-Reply-To: <20030319183924.GA5241@danisch.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:12:35 +0000 (GMT) On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Hadmut Danisch wrote: > Hi, > > I'd like to share some of my private notes about > requirements a solution must/should fulfill: > > > - must work everywhere on the world, in every legislation > - must work with every spammer, regardless of age, etc. > - must work with every recipient, regardless of age,... > - must work even if spammers know all details > - must fulfill Shannon's Maxim (Attacker knows cryptographical methods) > - must fulfill Kerckhoff's Law > > - must be robust > - must not require to be updated often > - must work with any language > - must work with encrypted messages > - must be easy to maintain > - must work for the dummy user Must not put a significant financial burden on legitimate email users. Matt. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 16:12:24 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA08436 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:12:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JLTuY05380 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:29:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JLTuO05377 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:29:56 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA08406 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:11:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JLL8O04690; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:21:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JLGVO04285 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:16:31 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07607 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:58:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2167285; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:00:41 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030319100246.04899280@mail.attbi.com> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030318222537.04823958@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030318094728.04804d40@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030317162233.048c73e8@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030317162233.048c73e8@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030318094728.04804d40@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030318222537.04823958@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030319100246.04899280@mail.attbi.com> To: Steve Schear From: Kee Hinckley Subject: RE: [Asrg] Thoughts so far Cc: Margie Arbon , asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:44:27 -0500 At 11:31 AM -0800 3/19/03, Steve Schear wrote: >Sender-pays is like being armed. I'm betting that clients >implementing a stamps approach will fare well enough at controlling >spam to eventually gain serious industry consideration. But even if >it doesn't it may still help those so armed. You keep missing the issue. This is nothing like being armed. A gun works whether or not anyone else has one. Sender pays works *only* if a significant proportion of the users have one. >>Now put a value on a spam jail which contains 90% of your email. >>And consider what happens if it becomes common enough that the >>spammers take notice and start forging addresses from commonly >>whitelisted senders. > >I think this is where signed content could help. Yes, it certainly could. And the combination of a system which required either stamps or a signed message, and blocked messages that didn't have those; in combination with a good protocol for signing up for lists and obtaining the signature, would go a very long way towards providing an email system that isn't overloaded at either the network or individual level by spam. A good proposal on that would require integration of web browser plugins, email plugins and MTA changes. I'm sure an elegant architecture could be created, if it hasn't already. But... At 2:13 PM -0500 3/19/03, Paul Judge wrote: >2. must not affect delivery(latency, integrity, cost, reliability) of >wanted messages to a point that would effect the normal use of email >3. must be easy to use >4. must be easy to deploy, incrementally > a. must provide incentives to deploy for those doing the >deployment >5. must not depend on universal deployment to be effective >7. must have minimal administration and implementation overhead >8. must have minimal computational and bandwidth overhead ...it has serious problems with those requirements. >>If you are someone who is technically active online, or running a >>business that requires timely contact with random people in the >>outside world, such a system will be more painful than the spam. > >Agreed, no one solution is likely to fit all. If we are proposing incremental solutions to limit spam, then that statement is perfectly fine. However I don't see how you can propose an architecture that works only if it is universally accepted, and then admit that it won't fit all needs. As an aside. Another way to look at the current situation is that we have a system that meets everyone's needs pretty well--it's just that there is one particular class of user whose needs we would rather it *didn't* meet. We're trying excise that one feature without impacting any other. Personally I think that at the very least, "able to send mail as anyone from anywhere" is going to have to go with it. Or rather--it may be able to remain, but it will require special software and protocols. On the other hand. If we can come up with a change that prevents email forgery of any kind, and requires custom software only for people who need to do it for legit purposes, I'd say we had a winner. Obviously it's not quite that simple though. >>Spam solutions which violate basic economic principals (e.g. "Most >>people will not spend money in order to hurt themselves") are not >>going to be successful. >> >>At the early adopter stage, sender-pays is indistinguishable from >>simple whitelisting. Except that it costs the sender more money. > >Forcing unknown senders to spend even a bit more time or a bit of >money in order for their emails to be seen is all that may be >necessary to sort them out from others who's economics depend on >enormous volumes of free or nearly free emails. Stop thinking about your system as though it were fully deployed and consider how it works in the early stages. If you continue focusing on the future, without looking at how you get there, you're never going to get there. At the early adopter stage you aren't forcing unknown senders to spend more time and money--you're forcing the users of the system to spend time and money. The unknown senders aren't using the system. And you can't block them because they constitute the majority of your correspondents. >>If you think I'm missing something here, then please let me know. >>But please keep in mind that I'm not arguing that the system isn't >>technically feasible, or even desirable. I'm simply arguing that a >>system that hurts early adopters more than it helps them is not >>likely to be adopted. > >Many people are already forced by spam to abandon email addresses >they've used for years. This transition hurts them (they must spend >time and effort to inform their previous/frequent contact), yet its >done all the time because they believe it may provide a respite from >the flood. Would adopting a sender-pays be more harmful or >difficult? I don't know and none of us will until various >combinations of sender-pays are fielded and trialed. Again, you've skipped to the "everyone has it" stage. Take that person currently facing the pain of having to change their address. You say to them, "Here, instead of changing your address. Install this system. It will take longer to send your email (or cost you money to send), and it won't stop any spam right now. But it will eventually." Stop telling me how it's going to stop spam when everyone is using it. I believe you! Tell me how you're going to convince people to use it in the first place. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 16:14:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA08512 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:14:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JLW5X05532 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:32:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JLW5O05529 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:32:05 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA08487 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:14:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JLLGO04739; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:21:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JLI2O04360 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:18:02 -0500 Received: from dogma.slashnull.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07662 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:59:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.jmason.org (ga183055.reshsg.uci.edu [128.195.183.55]) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JKwxx09606; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:59:05 GMT Received: by localhost.jmason.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 64EF38C78F; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:01:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from jmason.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F9B78C78E; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:01:09 -0800 (PST) To: John Johnson Cc: Justin Mason , Steven F Siirila , "Ronald F. Guilmette" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Amend the RFC to require reverse DNS In-Reply-To: Message from John Johnson of "Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:43:30 CST." From: jm@jmason.org (Justin Mason) X-GPG-Key-Fingerprint: 0A48 2D8B 0B52 A87D 0E8A 6ADD 4137 1B50 6E58 EF0A X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to . Message-Id: <20030319210110.64EF38C78F@localhost.jmason.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:01:03 -0800 John Johnson said: > > The stock response to this is "well, change ISP" -- but that's a naive > > view of most of the world, where the choice is not available. In my case > > (in Ireland), accessing the net through this ISP was 2/3 the price of its > > nearest competitor. > > Complaining is not working? Do they even answer your requests? > I'm sure that you are aware that paying them rewards them for > not following standard practices. True -- but see above. When a much stronger impetus (much cheaper net access) applies, the details of their SMTP infrastructure is not as important. (Cheap net access in Ireland, BTW, means "under $100 a month", cf http://www.irelandoffline.org/ ;). (BTW in terms of other systems issues (uptime, reliability etc.) they are pretty excellent; it's just this one issue I've been able to pick them up on.) > > in other words 35.59% of spam has no rDNS, but 3.05% of ALL nonspam mail > > does too. The latter is bad news, it's a *very* high false positive rate. > > Spam outfits have a habit of targeting secondary mail servers > (higher MX value). By just introducing rDNS checks on our > secondary mail server, we cut down on a huge amount of wasted > connections. That's a good technique, actually. I can see that working without FPs (until your primary MX suffers an outage that is ;) --j. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 16:15:15 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA08539 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:15:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JLWln05563 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:32:47 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JLWlO05560 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:32:47 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA08530 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:14:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JLLDO04707; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:21:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JLGYO04295 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:16:34 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07609 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:58:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2167293; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:00:42 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <056c01c2ee4e$7b3277c0$66e237c0@rmf19> References: <056c01c2ee4e$7b3277c0$66e237c0@rmf19> To: From: Kee Hinckley Subject: RE: [Asrg] An amazing amount of spam Cc: "'Alan DeKok'" , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:54:44 -0500 At 2:33 PM -0500 3/19/03, wrote: >My filter ain't that great -- just adequate. Sure, you can attack with >me a DOS or a DDOS but that's not spam, that's simply a tantrum or >worse. I think you missed the part where the ISPs (and some domain users) have come to realize that there *is* no detectable difference between a flood of spam and a DoS. In fact, that's literally true of my mail server. I had to turn of the DoS protections in my new router because it kept disabling port 25 every time my mail server overloaded. Not to say that we shouldn't be discussing user-only features (even content filters). But we shouldn't blow off the network problem. And we *definitely* should not deploy end-user solutions that aggravate the network problem. Auto-generated email addresses fall into that category. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 16:17:58 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA08680 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:17:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JLZUW05828 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:35:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JLZUO05825 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:35:30 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA08626 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:17:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JLLEO04723; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:21:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JLGcO04299 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:16:38 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07611 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:58:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2167294; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:00:44 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: Paul Judge From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Requirements for anti-spam systems-Draft 1 Cc: "'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)'" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:53:42 -0500 At 2:13 PM -0500 3/19/03, Paul Judge wrote: >8. must have minimal computational and bandwidth overhead directly or indirectly. In other words, a system of throw-away addresses may meet a user's needs, but aggravate the ISP bounce problem. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 16:19:08 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA08765 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:19:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JLaeO05940 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:36:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JLaeO05937 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:36:40 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA08749 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:18:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JLSZO05279; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:28:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JLPwO05132 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:25:58 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA08250 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:07:55 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2JLA9ur008837; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:10:09 -0500 Message-Id: <200303192110.h2JLA9ur008837@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.2 03/18/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: Steve Schear Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] This research group will fail In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:29:53 PST." <5.1.0.14.2.20030319122804.048b79f0@mail.attbi.com> References: <20030319173329.GA3058@danisch.de> <5.1.0.14.2.20030319122804.048b79f0@mail.attbi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_1898693220P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:10:09 -0500 --==_Exmh_1898693220P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:29:53 PST, Steve Schear said: > At 01:13 PM 3/19/2003 -0500, you wrote: > >Anybody who's tried to deploy software to end users (especially software > >that involves retraining) knows 400M is the wrong place to attack. And > >even a well-hidden Proof-Of-Work doesn't help here - your phone WILL ring > >when people ask why it's taking 3 minutes to send mail. > > Not if they don't have my phone number. Which they probably don't if they > haven't contacted me before. Hmm.. your user community doesn't have the help desk phone number? Umm, www.bofh.org is over *THAT* way====>> ;) (my point was that if network operations at FooISP.com deploys something, and it changes ANYTHING, they better be ready for their help desk phone to ring) > This is not necessary for initial deployment. After all the web didn't > seem like it was ready for my grandmother 10 years ago. The major difference was that the web had demonstrable perceived benefits to early adopters - the first thousand users got something. And I've seen many a case made that the average site designed today for IE 6 and Flash doesn't actually convey information any more effectively than the first sites tailored for Mosaic 0.9.... Even if you have an really great anti-spam scheme that all the propellerheads install because it's cutting edge and cool, that will only get about 2% of the users at most. At that point, you better have reached critical mass (enough people use it that it matters) *AND* have it easy enough to use that the other 98% (the unwashed masses) can deal with it. --==_Exmh_1898693220P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+eNyxcC3lWbTT17ARAlrhAKCiGr9iGoJQEkFjFUrRFcMLGVOQKgCeMnKX W0JwYgVUBgeAUdMT60c73+w= =+pOQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_1898693220P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 16:35:02 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10066 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:35:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JLqZt08784 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:52:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JLqZO08781 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:52:35 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10036 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:34:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JLf6O07024; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:41:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JLVtO05520 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:31:55 -0500 Received: from korimako.ssc.govt.nz (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id QAA08484 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:13:51 -0500 (EST) From: mike.pearson@ssc.govt.nz Received: from [192.168.120.100] (helo=stardust.ssc.govt.nz) by korimako.ssc.govt.nz with esmtp (Exim 6.66 #1) id 18vZmu-0003Wp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:23:08 +1200 Received: from odyssey.ssc.govt.nz (not verified[172.20.5.42]) by stardust.ssc.govt.nz with MailMarshal (4,0,4,0) id ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 09:15:13 +1200 Received: from centurion.ssc.govt.nz (centurion.ssc.govt.nz) by odyssey.ssc.govt.nz (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.5) with ESMTP id for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 09:15:22 +1200 Received: by centurion.ssc.govt.nz with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 09:16:01 +1200 Message-ID: <7B170C5E4008D311ABB70008C7D3825B03BC3592@saison.ssc.govt.nz> To: asrg@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [Asrg] Tragedy of the Commons Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 09:13:47 +1200 Thanks to those contributors who mentioned this issue. I found the following 1-page summary useful in understanding the background of the concept: http://members.aol.com/trajcom/private/commons.htm An important concept though, is that the scarce resource is not [bandwidth], but [our attention] i.e. technology can give extra Mbs, but not extra minutes. This concept is discussed in depth by Harry Rheingold in his 1994 article: http://www.well.com/user/hlr/tomorrow/tomorrowcommons.html "Attention is the currency of cyberspace. If spammers learn that the Net will turn off its attention in an organized manner, maybe they'll go away before they damage the cybernetic commons. If too many opportunists ignore the social agreements that make the net useful as an online thinktank, the marvelous knowledge-sharing culture that had scaled up so well from the one thousand person ARPAnet in 1970 to the twenty million person Internet of 1994 will be extinct by the time hundreds of millions come online by 1999." It seems to suggest that the only power we have, is to collectively ignore the people who abuse our time, or those service providers who allow abusers to flourish. Regards, Mike Pearson Personal: The views expressed are not necessarily those of my employer. ph +64 (4) 495-6769 mobile +64 (21) 631-731 fax +64 (4) 495-6669 mailto:mike.pearson@ssc.govt.nz _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 16:35:06 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10083 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:35:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JLqdR08802 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:52:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JLqdO08799 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:52:39 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10040 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:34:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JLhXO07378; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:43:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JLgbO07182 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:42:37 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA08957 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:24:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from rmf19 (h00055df0474a.ne.client2.attbi.com[65.96.217.174]) by rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (rwcrmhc53) with SMTP id <2003031921264605300i4ddde>; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:26:47 +0000 From: To: "'Kee Hinckley'" , Cc: "'Alan DeKok'" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] An amazing amount of spam Keywords: asrg;filename=20030319-160044-968.mht;x-sender=nazgul@somewhere.com Message-ID: <05b901c2ee5e$4003c2c0$66e237c0@rmf19> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:26:45 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit As I noted in another letter (there are far too many and I better get to doing other stuff) Spam can indeed be a DoS. If you're getting too much traffic for your pipe size you will have to deal with that and it may be that you drop random messages. You can also limit messages from a source IP address. But these are patches not solutions. The network problem is real and should be dealt with as such. I just worry about trying to finding technical solutions at the app level. App level solutions controlled by the end points might change behavior and solve the problem but we mustn't tie them closely together. Having seen how much the net has grown and expecting that we will indeed have everyone originating multiple VHDTV streams, I think the spam volume isn't going to be the driving issue. Remember that telecom is still in stasis in the first mile and in capabilities relative to the PC and the Internet backbone. Routing multigigabit streams is the more long-term issue than a few hundred megabytes of spam per minute. I realize I sound too causal about this but have seen too much effort placed in focusing on subproblems at the cost of failing to solve the larger problems. NATs being a classic example of that kind of tragedy. -----Original Message----- From: Kee Hinckley [mailto:nazgul@somewhere.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 15:55 To: asrg@bobf.frankston.com Cc: 'Alan DeKok'; asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] An amazing amount of spam At 2:33 PM -0500 3/19/03, wrote: >My filter ain't that great -- just adequate. Sure, you can attack with >me a DOS or a DDOS but that's not spam, that's simply a tantrum or >worse. I think you missed the part where the ISPs (and some domain users) have come to realize that there *is* no detectable difference between a flood of spam and a DoS. In fact, that's literally true of my mail server. I had to turn of the DoS protections in my new router because it kept disabling port 25 every time my mail server overloaded. Not to say that we shouldn't be discussing user-only features (even content filters). But we shouldn't blow off the network problem. And we *definitely* should not deploy end-user solutions that aggravate the network problem. Auto-generated email addresses fall into that category. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 16:42:57 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10585 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:42:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JM0Ub09757 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:00:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JM0UO09754 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:00:30 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10548 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:42:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JLhkO07446; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:43:46 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JLaxO05961 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:36:59 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA08761 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:18:56 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2JLLBur008977; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:21:11 -0500 Message-Id: <200303192121.h2JLLBur008977@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.2 03/18/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: Frank de Lange Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Requirements for anti-spam systems-Draft 1 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:26:42 +0100." <3E78D282.8090805@unternet.org> References: <3E78D282.8090805@unternet.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_1900284508P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:21:11 -0500 --==_Exmh_1900284508P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:26:42 +0100, Frank de Lange said: > believe this will sort itself out, if some ISP (or mail service provider, or ...) were to impose too onerous terms and conditions users > would just move to another ISP. And the *other* broadband provider in your area is? This is a serious question - if there's only one provider in your area who provides service better than dialup-56K, and they insist on shanghai'ing port 25 and filtering the bejeebers out of it, what do you do? --==_Exmh_1900284508P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+eN9HcC3lWbTT17ARAlWyAKDy23jZaOxczYDzLwgKy0gbBuPCqwCg1SdK 7FehK4u+rN+pKV+bwt31BmY= =NZoQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_1900284508P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 16:47:10 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10775 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:47:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JM4hx10346 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:04:43 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JM4hO10343 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:04:43 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10725 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:46:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JLoBO08538; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:50:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JLmVO08091 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:48:31 -0500 Received: from gorgoroth.localnet (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA09455 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:30:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from unternet.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gorgoroth.localnet (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2JLWgJm001008 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 22:32:42 +0100 Message-ID: <3E78E1FA.2010008@unternet.org> From: Frank de Lange User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4a) Gecko/20030310 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Requirements for anti-spam systems-Draft 1 References: <3E78D282.8090805@unternet.org> <200303192121.h2JLLBur008977@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> In-Reply-To: <200303192121.h2JLLBur008977@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 22:32:42 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: >On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:26:42 +0100, Frank de Lange said: > > >>believe this will sort itself out, if some ISP (or mail service >> >> >provider, or ...) were to impose too onerous terms and conditions users > > >>would just move to another ISP. >> >> > >And the *other* broadband provider in your area is? > >This is a serious question - if there's only one provider in your area who >provides service better than dialup-56K, and they insist on shanghai'ing port >25 and filtering the bejeebers out of it, what do you do? > > > Actually, there is NO broadband provider in my area... That's one of the reasons for building a free wireless network... It is also one of the reasons do decouple my mail from the ISP I use. I've moved ISP's several times because of the reason stated above (as well as for others), and have received mail in one of several ways. Not ideal, but the only way to keep control. And that is quite important to me, *I* want to be in control of my mail. Not my ISP, not the operator of some blacklist (one of my reasons for not using those), not the government. Not even the IETF :-) Frank _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 16:48:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10921 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:48:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JM65210544 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:06:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JM65O10541 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:06:05 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10848 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:48:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JLo3O08312; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:50:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JLlMO07965 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:47:22 -0500 Received: from segfault.monkeys.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA09304 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:29:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by segfault.monkeys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 128C141F73 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:31:32 -0800 (PST) To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] A method to eliminate spam In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:48:20 -0500. <3E78C984.1020505@americasm01.nt.com> Message-ID: <80386.1048109492@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:31:32 -0800 In message <3E78C984.1020505@americasm01.nt.com>, "Chris Lewis" wrote: >Blacklist effectiveness on real email: >BOPM 100635 5.34 >CONTENT 54802 2.91 (non-IP based filters, not used > on spamtrap) >Flonetwork 6096 0.32 >IP, NOT BL 34946 1.85 >MONKEYPROXY 135285 7.17 >NTblack 38608 2.05 >NTmanual 30370 1.61 >OBproxies 46420 2.46 >OBrelays 17419 0.92 >OK 5330 0.28 >OSinputs 31922 1.69 >OSproxy 2121 0.11 >OSsocks 54144 2.87 >SBL 51825 2.75 >TOTAL 1885655 100.00 >TOTAL BLOCK 316567 16.79 (total blocked) And the winner is.... <... :-) >As you can see, relays are quite low. Notice how monkeyproxy and BOPM >both trap more than 50% of all inbound spam (to the spamtrap, which is >by definition 100% spam - bounces and viruses are already stripped out). For those of you who don't already know, what Chris calls `monkeyproxy' is more formally known as the Monkeys.Com Unsecured Proxies List (UPL). You can read all about it here: http://www.monkeys.com/upl/ >We get less than 5 false positive reports on average per day. I'll remember that you said that. (See below.) >Spot checks show that at least 95% of all whitelist/retests we've issued >have taken effect on the corresponding 3rd party blacklist. Except >monkeys[*] I'll address that below. >1) machines that were open relays are more likely to have been intended >to send email than a simple open proxy or socks server, so, "legit" >users are more likely to hit a blacklist entry. Most open proxy or >socks hits are _not_ mail servers and were never intended to be. So >nobody notices. Nobody cares either (except the spammer, but they don't >notice). Yes! What Chris said. My tests indicate that over 75% of all IPs listed in the UPL are _not_ even mail servers. >[*] I have an issue with MONKEYSPROXY because the criteria for removal >isn't "just fix the open socks or proxy and ask for retest" - because >asking for the retest has other extraneous requirements. The UPL re-testing/de-listing requirements are detailed here: http://www.monkeys.com/upl/delisting-policy.html They are reasonably trivial to satisfy... unless you are a complete dumbshit and/or unless your ISP is totally worthless and totally unresponsive, even to YOUR requests for assistance. If either case applies, then I personally don't give a damn if you _have_ fixed your proxy... I still don't want mail from you. (I think the normative description for these cases is ``Too stupid to live.'') In a nutshell, to be re-tested and/or de-listed from the UPL... after it has already been proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you were running a wide open proxy (and that thus, you qualified as being ``somewhere beyond utterly clueless'') you must (a) have functioning reverse DNS attached to your IP address and (b) either the Postmaster@ or the abuse@ person for the ``master controlling domain'' of your reverse DNS must approve your request to be re-tested/de-listed. (Note: http://www.monkeys.com/upl/master-domain.html describes what I mean by ``master controlling domain''.) I don't think that either of these things are too much to ask. Note also that requirement (a)... must have reverse DNS... derives from requirement (b) i.e. getting Postmaster/abuse of your reverse DNS domain to ``approve'' your re-test/de-listing request. Most blithering idiots can (and many blithering idiots already have) satisfied both requirments, and have gotten their IPs re-tested and de-listed. A few thousand in fact. So obviously it is possible to satisfy these simple requirements, and as far as I can tell, only a few Forrest Gump types have been unable to do so. I have many reasons for these requirements, and I think they are good ones. They are mostly documented here: http://www.monkeys.com/upl/delisting-rationale.html But just to give you the simple version, although the primary goal of the UPL is to stop spam, an important secondary goal is get open proxies closed. The current UPL re-testing/de-listing requirements assist in achieving that goal by making various _ISPs_ more aware of the fact that their own networks are often RIDDLED with very dangerous unsecured proxies. Getting them into the loop is worth the minor additional hassle of the UPL's special re-testing/de-listing requirements. (Most ISPs still don't have the vaguest idea that they even have an open proxies problem on their networks. Ignorance == spam.) >In effect, a >MONKEYSPROXY entry either means you have an open proxy/socks, OR, you >may simply not have been able to formulate a retest request that MONKEYS >would accept NOT TRUE! If a.b.c.d is listed on the UPL, then ANY IDIOT can ``formulate a re-test request'' for that IP address via the appropriate web form on the Monkeys.Com web site. But the request must be _approved_ by Postmaster@ or abuse@ of the relevant domain. What's wrong with that?? Nothing... unless BOTH (a) your domain is administered by morons who don't read the RFCs (e.g. 2821) AND (b) your domain admins are so totally clue-impervious that they are not able to catch a clue, even when YOU, one of their own local users, tries to give them one. > We can't do third-party retest requests with MONKEYS, for example. Again, that's just NOT TRUE. You _can_ put in the re-test request, and then Postmaster@/abuse@ of the domain that actually owns the IP of the (formerly?) open proxy must simply approve the request. (They are given a magically coded URL via e-mail, with a detailed message telling them what this is all about and what they have to do, and then all they gotta do is visit that magic URL to ``approve'' the re-test request.) Simple, no? >This does not seem to cause _us_ much trouble in practise (since we >whitelist), but if you're high volume like us and not actively >whitelisting like us, it may make you think twice about using it, >despite how good it is. I'd rather it followed the BOPM or ORDB model >here. Still and all, I think we've gotten 5 false positive reports for >Monkeys in 3 months. OK. Above you said that you get a total of about 5 whitelisting requests at your site PER DAY. Now you say that you have only gotten about 5 due to your use of the Monkeys.Com UPL list OVER A PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS. Hummmm.... <>... So only about 1/90th of your whitelist requests arise due to your use of the UPL, but the UPL is stopping half, or more than half of your incoming spam. Seems pretty admirable to me, even WITH the somewhat unusual de-listing requirements. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 16:49:02 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10941 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:49:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JM6Zv10580 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:06:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JM6ZO10577 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:06:35 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10913 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:48:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JLo9O08472; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:50:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JLm4O08004 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:48:04 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA09379 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:30:00 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2JLWGur009184; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:32:16 -0500 Message-Id: <200303192132.h2JLWGur009184@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.2 03/18/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: Kee Hinckley Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Thoughts so far In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:44:27 EST." References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030318222537.04823958@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030318094728.04804d40@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030317162233.048c73e8@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030317162233.048c73e8@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030318094728.04804d40@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030318222537.04823958@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030319100246.04899280@mail.attbi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_1901880128P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:32:16 -0500 --==_Exmh_1901880128P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:44:27 EST, Kee Hinckley said: > You keep missing the issue. This is nothing like being armed. A gun > works whether or not anyone else has one. Sender pays works *only* > if a significant proportion of the users have one. A gun is even more different - it works *best* if you're an early adopter. Once everybody has one, you start seeing bulletproof vests and other symptoms of an arms race.... --==_Exmh_1901880128P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+eOHgcC3lWbTT17ARAlscAKCETpsmMk0h2uGItWrFlwm0Rfsl0wCg8t+B hbCntN/zmUOdQIz5KC9opbo= =N/eh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_1901880128P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 16:58:09 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA11401 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:58:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JMFgV11966 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:15:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JMFgO11963 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:15:42 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA11386 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:57:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JM28O10132; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:02:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JM1qO10111 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:01:52 -0500 Received: from s123.dhcp212-198-250.noos.fr (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id QAA10633 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:43:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 25694 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2003 21:46:02 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO s123.dhcp212-198-250.noos.fr) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 19 Mar 2003 21:46:02 -0000 Message-ID: <3E78E515.1010105@paralline.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] This research group will fail References: <20030319173329.GA3058@danisch.de> In-Reply-To: <20030319173329.GA3058@danisch.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Pierre BRUA Organization: Paralline Sarl protected by TMDA Reply-To: Pierre BRUA Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 22:45:57 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi, Hadmut Danisch a écrit: > I meanwhile came to the conclusion that this > working/research group's will certainly fail. If we get focalized on the technical aspects of the spam problem, the trafic will lower and the signal/noise ratio will get higher. Moderation ? > Anti-spam efforts are welcome as long as they strengthen the > public awareness of spam and make people purchase > anti-spam-solutions. I don't agree : Outside the mail-abuse.org blacklists, most are free blacklists. How do you explain it ? The Spamassassin content filter is free. TMDA(tmda.net) is free. And so on. > But a solution which effectively prevents spam > at zero costs is deprecated. Zero costs means zero revenue. It means we will all stop loosing our time handling spam and do something more constructive with the time it helped us free. > Why are so many people strictly against anything what could prevent > spam at the sender side? Because the sender wouldn't pay for a > solution. There is a customer-provider relation that makes it difficult for ISP to unilateraly redefine the rules. They fear too much loosing their customers in case their AUP gets too restrictive or the sending process got too much complicated compared to other ISPs. > Why do so many people insist on the freedom of the sender > to send whatever the sender wishes to send with a sender address the > sender can randomly choose? With the RMX proposal you made, the sender will be limited to his domain (easy to stop him from spamming then) or to the others customers of their ISP domains (easy to complain to them too). Which means a domain owner can/will complain to his ISP in case his domain gets abused by spammers also customers of the same ISP. This will put the financial pressure back on the ISP side (customer complaining about another customer), and I am quite enthusiastic with such a scheme. > Spam doesn't sell significant numbers of penis enlargement devices. > Spam sells Anti-Spam-software. That's the business. Don't give spammers such ideas ;-) > I wouldn't be surprised at all if most of the spammers turned out > to be the same people selling anti-spam-software and services, and > trying to put through recipient-only solutions. Maybe. Who knows. The solution is to use free software anti-spam solutions only (maybe talking for my church here), so you will avoid to feed the spammers anyway. > And maybe that's why the mailing list is flooded with so much > rubbish and babble. That's some kind of denial of service attack. That's what I though at first when I subscribed. But I think the problem is different. I think people are too much sensitive about spam, and they need to talk about it, like when you talk with the psychiatric people because you want to punch your neighbour making too much noise and you cannot get him to lower the volume politely. I must admit I am a little bit like that, too, after having suffered from the spam cancer for years like most people. Most subscribers seem to seek the holy grail, a global mean to stop spam. They have already though a lot about what could be done, eventually tried to develop some personnal-crafted solutions that didn't work or not efficiently enough. I suggest that this group gets moderated for a few weeks/monthes, so we can get on track to the real work efficiently. For my part, I will vote for the moderation if someone propose it. This working/research group lacks at least a FAQ containing what concern it and what does not. Until we get that, and subscribed people to respect it, we will go nowhere : the topic is too hot and too broad, and even good willing people will have difficulties to help things advance without any guidance. I propose to consider inadequate the following topics to begin with : * country laws related to spam topics We are designing a technical system, and due to the differences of the spam laws among countries, it is useless to discuss that here. If we get a reasonably efficient system to stop spam, it would be up the the users/administrators to check if they can apply it safely in their country and keep legal or if they need to change the country laws first. * content filtering systems topics (aka spamassassin and the like) The basis of those systems is to evolve and mutate to accomodate the mutation of the spams. This contradicts completely a RFC-like standardization process like the asrg list intends to do. Not to say that standard content filters are not interesting, but it should be handled on a separate list. * hacking topics The fact that protocol implementations like the DNS ones or others are currenctly hackable are not our problem. If hardening of protocols are needed, it has to be handled at the protocol layer by the related protocol working group. * "we will completely broke the smtp protocol to begin with" topics The Internet is a big beast and cannot move like that. Proposals must be able to cope with a running internet during several years at least, and people thinking about redesigning it to the ground should create a separate list to discuss about their own ideas on this topic, and come back when they get something at least a bit realistic. Frank de Lange said : > To paraphrase Churchill, 'we shall go on to the end... we shall > fight them... we shall never surrender...' Pierre -- PARALLINE /// Parallelism & GNU/Linux /// 71,av des Vosges Phone:+33 388 141 740 F-67000 STRASBOURG Fax:+33 388 141 741 http://www.paralline.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 16:58:49 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA11441 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:58:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JMGMr12051 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:16:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JMGMO12048 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:16:22 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA11431 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:58:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JM63O10533; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:06:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JM5xO10476 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:05:59 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10835 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:47:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from rmf19 (h00055df0474a.ne.client2.attbi.com[65.96.217.174]) by rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (rwcrmhc51) with SMTP id <2003031921500905100ir2l6e>; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:50:09 +0000 From: To: "'Kee Hinckley'" , "'Paul Judge'" Cc: "'Asrg'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Requirements for anti-spam systems-Draft 1 Keywords: asrg;filename=20030319-163952-281.mht;x-sender=asrg-admin@ietf.org;List-ID=Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF asrg.ietf.org Message-ID: <05d601c2ee61$834c9db0$66e237c0@rmf19> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:50:08 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NAKs are a classic way of amplifying bounce problems. I've stopped sending bounce messages from my mail system for that reason. As I've mentioned there should be an ACK but there isn't. -----Original Message----- From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kee Hinckley Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 15:54 To: Paul Judge Cc: 'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)' Subject: Re: [Asrg] Requirements for anti-spam systems-Draft 1 At 2:13 PM -0500 3/19/03, Paul Judge wrote: >8. must have minimal computational and bandwidth overhead directly or indirectly. In other words, a system of throw-away addresses may meet a user's needs, but aggravate the ISP bounce problem. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 17:03:08 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA11577 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:03:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JMKge12342 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:20:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JMKgO12339 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:20:42 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA11569 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:02:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JMA4O11649; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:10:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JM9RO11582 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:09:27 -0500 Received: from gorgoroth.localnet (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA11118 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:51:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from unternet.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gorgoroth.localnet (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2JLrbJm001035 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 22:53:38 +0100 Message-ID: <3E78E6E1.4080709@unternet.org> From: Frank de Lange User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4a) Gecko/20030310 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Tragedy of the Commons References: <7B170C5E4008D311ABB70008C7D3825B03BC3592@saison.ssc.govt.nz> In-Reply-To: <7B170C5E4008D311ABB70008C7D3825B03BC3592@saison.ssc.govt.nz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 22:53:37 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit mike.pearson@ssc.govt.nz wrote: >Thanks to those contributors who mentioned this issue. I found the following >1-page summary useful in understanding the background of the concept: >http://members.aol.com/trajcom/private/commons.htm > > Hm, just deleted a concept-mail in which I put forward the tragic of the commons, and the question if economic models can help model the spam problem. I deleted it because I think many operators will frown upon their mail servers being dubbed part of the commons. Yes, eyetime is a scarce resource, but the spam problems are larger. Bandwidth, storage and CPU-cycles are also scarce resources, and have to be dealt with. Just ignoring the spammers is not enough when the sheer volume is enough to overwhelm many links and servers. Frank _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 17:05:46 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA11643 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:05:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JMNKR12449 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:23:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JMNKO12446 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:23:20 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA11626 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:05:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JMG5O12020; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:16:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JMFUO11948 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:15:30 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc03.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA11381 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:57:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from video.attbi.com (12-235-20-211.client.attbi.com[12.235.20.211]) by sccrmhc03.attbi.com (sccrmhc03) with SMTP id <2003031921594100300d9gtqe>; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:59:41 +0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030319135608.0489c768@mail.attbi.com> X-Sender: schear@mail.attbi.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu From: Steve Schear Subject: Re: [Asrg] This research group will fail Cc: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <200303192110.h2JLA9ur008837@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> References: <20030319173329.GA3058@danisch.de> <5.1.0.14.2.20030319122804.048b79f0@mail.attbi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:02:23 -0800 At 04:10 PM 3/19/2003 -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: >On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:29:53 PST, Steve Schear said: > > At 01:13 PM 3/19/2003 -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > > This is not necessary for initial deployment. After all the web didn't > > seem like it was ready for my grandmother 10 years ago. > >Even if you have an really great anti-spam scheme that all the propellerheads >install because it's cutting edge and cool, that will only get about 2% of >the users at most. At that point, you better have reached critical mass >(enough people use it that it matters) *AND* have it easy enough to use that >the other 98% (the unwashed masses) can deal with it. A PoW system could be deployed almost immediately at a web-based email system. The only 'special' tool is that the user would be required to accept a small PoW calculation applet or install it to manufacture the stamp using client CPU cycles. For people wishing to contact me for the first time that don't use such a service my bounce mail reply would provide them with a link to an applet downloader web page. They would only have to create the stamp and appended it or include it in-line in their email. Past that I really don't care if they can or cannot contact me. I can live with that. steve _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 17:07:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA11741 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:07:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JMP4512589 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:25:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JMP3O12586 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:25:03 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA11685 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:06:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JMH1O12098; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:17:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JMGDO12044 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:16:13 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id QAA11404 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:58:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 20425 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2003 21:57:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.2.100.178?) (10.2.100.178) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 18 Mar 2003 21:57:33 -0000 From: Matt Sergeant X-X-Sender: matt@localhost.localdomain To: Chris Lewis cc: "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] A method to eliminate spam In-Reply-To: <3E78C984.1020505@americasm01.nt.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 22:16:40 +0000 (GMT) On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Chris Lewis wrote: > Blacklist effectiveness on real email: > BOPM 100635 5.34 > CONTENT 54802 2.91 (non-IP based filters, not used > on spamtrap) > Flonetwork 6096 0.32 > IP, NOT BL 34946 1.85 > MONKEYPROXY 135285 7.17 > NTblack 38608 2.05 > NTmanual 30370 1.61 > OBproxies 46420 2.46 > OBrelays 17419 0.92 > OK 5330 0.28 > OSinputs 31922 1.69 > OSproxy 2121 0.11 > OSsocks 54144 2.87 > SBL 51825 2.75 > TOTAL 1885655 100.00 > TOTAL BLOCK 316567 16.79 (total blocked) How come you're such a large entity yet this figure is so much lower than everyone else is seeing? Is it because the companies (like ours) that work in spam filtering are sought out by those with a spam problem, whereas your user base covers everyone? > 2) Lesser used blacklists have higher FP rates, because fewer legit > senders hit them. OBrelays is only used by two sites: us, and its > maintainer. Despite being _large_ (OB is > 30 million mail addresses), > it's still small compared to the coverage of the other lists, hence the > relatively higher FP percentage. Why don't they make it publicly available then? Matt. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 17:16:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12122 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:16:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JMY3013106 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:34:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JMY3O13103 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:34:03 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12108 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:15:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JMQ2O12654; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:26:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JMPJO12603 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:25:19 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA11691 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:07:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2167541; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:09:31 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: Matt Sergeant From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] This research group will fail Cc: Hadmut Danisch , "asrg@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:38:55 -0500 At 8:17 PM +0000 3/19/03, Matt Sergeant wrote: >The last thing *I* want to do is prevent an answer to the spam problem >happening. Ditto. I got into this business because I had a serious problem that I needed to solve. Everyone else was looking at the tip of the iceberg, and somewhere.com was somewhere down in the middle (I used to think we were at the bottom, but striker clearly gets that award). In my experience, companies do best when they are building things for people like themselves. So getting into this business made sense. But I would absolutely love to live in a world where the business didn't need to exist. I will agree that most of my comments on this list (over 100 so far) have been negative. Breaking things is what I'm good at. I specialize in using things in ways their creators never intended. And despite twenty+plus years of hacking, I still use that anthropology degree every day--everything we do needs take into account how organizations and people work--software doesn't operate in a vacuum. I actually think this forum has been very productive so far. We have a good grasp of the proposed scope of different solutions. We have a start on classifying them. We have an idea of what a requirements list might look like (and every requirements list starts with an impossible set--life is full of tradeoffs). I don't think we'll see a new protocol come out of this--although those people who are gungho about solutions like that are certainly welcome to try them out in the marketplace. I would hope, however, that we come out with a good list of the different classes of solutions and what their benefits and drawbacks are. A document of that sort can be a great aid to people who are looking to deploy solutions. I think we may also be able to come up with a set of best practices that, when implemented together, have the effect of limiting the amount of spam people receive. That is a stop gap measure, but in a addition I hope we can come up with a list of potential additions to existing protocols (that will have value even if not implemented 100%) that will help driver spammers into certain behaviors that can more easily be blocked. It's going to be an incremental process. We have too much invested in the existing infrastructure to just toss it. And nobody wants to throw the baby out with the bath-water. The time to fix the problem wholesale is long gone. So like many systems out there, this one's going to end up with a lot of string and baling wire on it. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 17:20:48 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12291 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:20:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JMcLJ14046 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:38:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JMcLO14043 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:38:21 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12259 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:20:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JMQ8O12673; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:26:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JMPMO12607 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:25:22 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA11694 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:07:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2167543; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:09:32 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030319122804.048b79f0@mail.attbi.com> References: <20030319173329.GA3058@danisch.de> <5.1.0.14.2.20030319122804.048b79f0@mail.attbi.com> To: Steve Schear From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] This research group will fail Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:55:06 -0500 At 12:29 PM -0800 3/19/03, Steve Schear wrote: >At 01:13 PM 3/19/2003 -0500, you wrote: >>Anybody who's tried to deploy software to end users (especially software >>that involves retraining) knows 400M is the wrong place to attack. And >>even a well-hidden Proof-Of-Work doesn't help here - your phone WILL ring >>when people ask why it's taking 3 minutes to send mail. > >Not if they don't have my phone number. Which they probably don't >if they haven't contacted me before. Is that supposed to be a joke, or do you truly not care whether your system is useable, so long as it has a nice architecture? >>I've never said I'm *STRICTLY* against a sender-side solution. My generic >>criteria for a sender-side solution is: It has to be something that my >>mother the Hotmail user can deploy without me or my brother having to >>make a trip home to install for her. Windows 98 on a several-year-old PC. > >This is not necessary for initial deployment. After all the web >didn't seem like it was ready for my grandmother 10 years ago. Ten years ago the web was something entirely new--it wasn't replacing anything, and it didn't have to interoperate with anything. The business plan for creating something brand new is *way* different than the plan for replacing something in use by hundreds of millions of people. People are much more willing to try something new than they are to get rid of something old--no matter how broken. To replace something you have to show them very significant benefits. Your benefits depend on everyone choosing your system over any other. When the number of people using a system numbers in the thousands, that's not a big deal. When the number of people using it numbers in the hundreds of millions, that's really bad odds. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 17:23:10 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12369 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:23:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JMeid14198 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:40:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JMeiO14195 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:40:44 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12354 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:22:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JMT1O12836; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:29:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JMS5O12794 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:28:05 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc03.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA11884 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:10:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from video.attbi.com (12-235-20-211.client.attbi.com[12.235.20.211]) by sccrmhc03.attbi.com (sccrmhc03) with SMTP id <2003031922121500300d88ace>; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 22:12:15 +0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030319140305.04811d40@mail.attbi.com> X-Sender: schear@mail.attbi.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: Kee Hinckley From: Steve Schear Subject: RE: [Asrg] Thoughts so far Cc: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030319100246.04899280@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030318222537.04823958@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030318094728.04804d40@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030317162233.048c73e8@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030317162233.048c73e8@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030318094728.04804d40@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030318222537.04823958@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030319100246.04899280@mail.attbi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:14:58 -0800 At 03:44 PM 3/19/2003 -0500, you wrote: >At 11:31 AM -0800 3/19/03, Steve Schear wrote: >>Sender-pays is like being armed. I'm betting that clients implementing a >>stamps approach will fare well enough at controlling spam to eventually >>gain serious industry consideration. But even if it doesn't it may still >>help those so armed. > >You keep missing the issue. This is nothing like being armed. A gun >works whether or not anyone else has one. Sender pays works *only* if a >significant proportion of the users have one. A PoW system could be deployed almost immediately at a web-based email system. The only 'special' tool is that the user would be required to accept a small PoW calculation applet or install it to manufacture the stamp using client CPU cycles. For people wishing to contact me for the first time that don't use such a service my bounce mail reply would provide them with a link to an applet downloader web page. They would only have to create the stamp and appended it or include it in-line in their email. Past that I really don't care if they can or cannot contact me. I can live with that. A bit of balkenization might be desirable, even necessary, to coerce a change. But... >At 2:13 PM -0500 3/19/03, Paul Judge wrote: >>2. must not affect delivery(latency, integrity, cost, reliability) of >>wanted messages to a point that would effect the normal use of email >>3. must be easy to use >>4. must be easy to deploy, incrementally >> a. must provide incentives to deploy for those doing the >>deployment >>5. must not depend on universal deployment to be effective >>7. must have minimal administration and implementation overhead >>8. must have minimal computational and bandwidth overhead >...it has serious problems with those requirements. I don't accept number 8 as being necessary. >>>If you are someone who is technically active online, or running a >>>business that requires timely contact with random people in the outside >>>world, such a system will be more painful than the spam. >> >>Agreed, no one solution is likely to fit all. > >If we are proposing incremental solutions to limit spam, then that >statement is perfectly fine. However I don't see how you can propose an >architecture that works only if it is universally accepted, and then admit >that it won't fit all needs. I don't think postage requires a universal acceptance off the bat. If it works for me, that's all I care. Progress occurs when a small, but influential group, adopt some new technology or behavior which is beneficial to them. As other's notice the advantages they too will see if it can work for them. I like Freenet and other P2P systems. I don't care if they are not universal. >As an aside. Another way to look at the current situation is that we have >a system that meets everyone's needs pretty well--it's just that there is >one particular class of user whose needs we would rather it *didn't* >meet. We're trying excise that one feature without impacting any >other. Personally I think that at the very least, "able to send mail as >anyone from anywhere" is going to have to go with it. Or rather--it may >be able to remain, but it will require special software and protocols. On >the other hand. If we can come up with a change that prevents email >forgery of any kind, and requires custom software only for people who need >to do it for legit purposes, I'd say we had a winner. Obviously it's not >quite that simple though. No its not, eh? >>>Spam solutions which violate basic economic principals (e.g. "Most >>>people will not spend money in order to hurt themselves") are not going >>>to be successful. >>> >>>At the early adopter stage, sender-pays is indistinguishable from simple >>>whitelisting. Except that it costs the sender more money. >> >>Forcing unknown senders to spend even a bit more time or a bit of money >>in order for their emails to be seen is all that may be necessary to sort >>them out from others who's economics depend on enormous volumes of free >>or nearly free emails. > >Stop thinking about your system as though it were fully deployed and >consider how it works in the early stages. If you continue focusing on >the future, without looking at how you get there, you're never going to >get there. > >At the early adopter stage you aren't forcing unknown senders to spend >more time and money--you're forcing the users of the system to spend time >and money. The unknown senders aren't using the system. And you can't >block them because they constitute the majority of your correspondents. No they do not. I'll white list all my current correspond ants all others are, ifso facto, unknown senders. My .sigs will inform respondents on lists how to contact me in the same way people sometimes use intentional ill-formed email addresses to thwart harvesting. >>>If you think I'm missing something here, then please let me know. But >>>please keep in mind that I'm not arguing that the system isn't >>>technically feasible, or even desirable. I'm simply arguing that a >>>system that hurts early adopters more than it helps them is not likely >>>to be adopted. >> >>Many people are already forced by spam to abandon email addresses they've >>used for years. This transition hurts them (they must spend time and >>effort to inform their previous/frequent contact), yet its done all the >>time because they believe it may provide a respite from the flood. Would >>adopting a sender-pays be more harmful or difficult? I don't know and >>none of us will until various combinations of sender-pays are fielded and >>trialed. > >Again, you've skipped to the "everyone has it" stage. Take that person >currently facing the pain of having to change their address. You say to >them, "Here, instead of changing your address. Install this system. It >will take longer to send your email (or cost you money to send), and it >won't stop any spam right now. It will stop spam and all unknown senders immediately. >But it will eventually." > >Stop telling me how it's going to stop spam when everyone is using it. I >believe you! Tell me how you're going to convince people to use it in the >first place. For those who cannot or will not accept this aspect its not for them until it approaches more universal acceptance. steve _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 17:30:26 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12574 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:30:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JMm1h14553 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:48:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JMm0O14548 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:48:00 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12571 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:29:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JMb4O13299; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:37:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JMaOO13192 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:36:24 -0500 Received: from qadgop.stewart.org (pool-141-154-57-117.bos.east.verizon.net [141.154.57.117]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12187 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:18:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from qadgop.stewart.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by qadgop.stewart.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2JMdQOl023233 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:39:26 -0500 Received: from qadgop.stewart.org (stewart@localhost) by qadgop.stewart.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) with ESMTP id h2JMdPl0023228 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:39:26 -0500 Message-Id: <200303192239.h2JMdPl0023228@qadgop.stewart.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.4 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.4 To: asrg@ietf.org from: lstewart@acm.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: [Asrg] changing from addresses Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:39:25 -0500 It has been pointed out that one reason it is difficult to validate return addresses is that there are legitimate reasons to forge them: sending mail from work with a home from address and so forth. Might it be possible to handle this part of the problem by routing such traffic via the proper "from" place? Obviously the first hop has to be an authenticated connection so that it isn't an open relay. So if I want to send mail as, say, lstewart@acm.org, I must send that message via an authenticated connection (as lstewart) to acm.org and then when it gets to its true destination, the from address will not appear to be forged. In short, if we clean up the way legitimate uses of forged addresses are handled, then perhaps it will be easier to deny access to the illegitimate uses. I think the following is due to Heinlein, but I am not sure: "If you don't know how to solve all of a problem, solve the part of it that you do know how to solve." _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 17:36:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12743 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:36:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JMsE514846 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:54:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JMsEO14843 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:54:14 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12717 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:36:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JMiCO14357; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:44:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JMhbO14318 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:43:37 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12393 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:25:32 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2JMRlur010490; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:27:47 -0500 Message-Id: <200303192227.h2JMRlur010490@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.2 03/18/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: lstewart@acm.org Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] changing from addresses In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:39:25 EST." <200303192239.h2JMdPl0023228@qadgop.stewart.org> References: <200303192239.h2JMdPl0023228@qadgop.stewart.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_1915642892P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:27:47 -0500 --==_Exmh_1915642892P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:39:25 EST, lstewart@acm.org said: > Might it be possible to handle this part of the problem by routing > such traffic via the proper "from" place? Obviously the first hop has to > be an authenticated connection so that it isn't an open relay. > > So if I want to send mail as, say, lstewart@acm.org, I must send that message > via an authenticated connection (as lstewart) to acm.org and then when it > gets to its true destination, the from address will not appear to be forged. That's what port 587 is *for*. And yes, if the vast majority of ISPs would accept mail on 587 with AUTH from anywhere, and filtered outbound 25 except for their outward-facing SMTP boxes, life would be a lot easier for road warriors and anti-spam efforts both. Anybody got a good idea how to get ISPs to actually do that? --==_Exmh_1915642892P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+eO7jcC3lWbTT17ARAvN8AJ9JwoJiIgx7Di31o8PUv2c28Kqp0gCg6v+k v+S+NqqaDULcWh2158FiFMY= =v9Ux -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_1915642892P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 17:40:10 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12825 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:40:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JMvi215070 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:57:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JMviO15066 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:57:44 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12805 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:39:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JMn6O14611; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:49:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JMmqO14590 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:48:52 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12602 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:30:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from video.attbi.com (12-235-20-211.client.attbi.com[12.235.20.211]) by rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (rwcrmhc52) with SMTP id <2003031922330105200hpg52e>; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 22:33:01 +0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030319142526.048b96f0@mail.attbi.com> X-Sender: schear@mail.attbi.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: Kee Hinckley From: Steve Schear Subject: Re: [Asrg] This research group will fail Cc: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030319122804.048b79f0@mail.attbi.com> <20030319173329.GA3058@danisch.de> <5.1.0.14.2.20030319122804.048b79f0@mail.attbi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:35:47 -0800 At 04:55 PM 3/19/2003 -0500, you wrote: >At 12:29 PM -0800 3/19/03, Steve Schear wrote: >>At 01:13 PM 3/19/2003 -0500, you wrote: >>>Anybody who's tried to deploy software to end users (especially software >>>that involves retraining) knows 400M is the wrong place to attack. And >>>even a well-hidden Proof-Of-Work doesn't help here - your phone WILL ring >>>when people ask why it's taking 3 minutes to send mail. >> >>Not if they don't have my phone number. Which they probably don't if >>they haven't contacted me before. > >Is that supposed to be a joke, or do you truly not care whether your >system is useable, so long as it has a nice architecture? If my bounce mail reply (sent when an unknown sender contacts me) is sufficiently simple for many/most users, who wish to take even a minimal amount of extra time to contact me, works then that's good enough for me. For others, who cannot or will not take the extra time/effort, I think I can live without their communication. >>>I've never said I'm *STRICTLY* against a sender-side solution. My generic >>>criteria for a sender-side solution is: It has to be something that my >>>mother the Hotmail user can deploy without me or my brother having to >>>make a trip home to install for her. Windows 98 on a several-year-old PC. >> >>This is not necessary for initial deployment. After all the web didn't >>seem like it was ready for my grandmother 10 years ago. > >Ten years ago the web was something entirely new--it wasn't replacing >anything, and it didn't have to interoperate with anything. The business >plan for creating something brand new is *way* different than the plan for >replacing something in use by hundreds of millions of people. People are >much more willing to try something new than they are to get rid of >something old--no matter how broken. To replace something you have to >show them very significant benefits. Your benefits depend on everyone >choosing your system over any other. When the number of people using a >system numbers in the thousands, that's not a big deal. When the number >of people using it numbers in the hundreds of millions, that's really bad odds. Look at Kazaa. It takes extra effort to install and learn but 10s of millions have done so because they see a perceived benefit. When Napster first arrived most people who heard of it ignored it because they didn't know or see see the value proposition. As time went by more people learned why they wanted to spend the extra effort to download, install and learn to use it. These P2P systems didn't need millions to work but only 1000s or 10,000s. I'm OK, from my perspective with a little, initial, Balkenization of email if it helps me. I don't care what it does or does not do for others. It seems to me you're trying to come up with a solution that can be plugged in without disadvantaging some users with minimal tech skills (like our mothers). I'm saying I'm willing to do that if it helps ME. steve _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 17:52:01 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA13232 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:52:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JN9ax16516 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 18:09:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JN9aO16513 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 18:09:36 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA13220 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:51:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JMu3O14981; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:56:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JMtrO14949 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:55:53 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12773 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:37:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from video.attbi.com (12-235-20-211.client.attbi.com[12.235.20.211]) by rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (rwcrmhc51) with SMTP id <2003031922400205100ir6iee>; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 22:40:02 +0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030319143655.048b0010@mail.attbi.com> X-Sender: schear@mail.attbi.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: Kee Hinckley From: Steve Schear Subject: Re: [Asrg] This research group will fail Cc: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030319135608.0489c768@mail.attbi.com> <20030319173329.GA3058@danisch.de> <5.1.0.14.2.20030319122804.048b79f0@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030319135608.0489c768@mail.attbi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:42:46 -0800 At 05:27 PM 3/19/2003 -0500, you wrote: >At 2:02 PM -0800 3/19/03, Steve Schear wrote: >>Past that I really don't care if they can or cannot contact me. I can >>live with that. > >Which pretty much sums out why this works for you, but won't ever meet the >needs of this discussion group. Perhaps not, and perhaps the group's objectives are too grand to meet in one or even a few steps. The net and much of its infrastructure were built by 'selfish' people trying to solve their problems and made available to others to use as they saw fit. I'm just following this time-honored and proven method. Instead of trying from the outset to solve the spam problem w/o disadvantaging any existing users I'm trying to experiment to see if I can solve my spam problem and make it available to others to use if it helps them. The first filter systems were just that. No one has deployed a sender-pays so no ones knows what will or will not work. All I'm saying is let's deploy and see what happens. steve _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 18:16:01 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA15124 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 18:16:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JNXac17547 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 18:33:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JNXaO17544 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 18:33:36 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA15074 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 18:15:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JNK7O16995; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 18:20:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JNJpO16945 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 18:19:51 -0500 Received: from simmts7-srv.bellnexxia.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA13534 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 18:01:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from f4n8i1 ([156.34.225.161]) by simmts7-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.19 201-253-122-122-119-20020516) with SMTP id <20030319230358.JNQK8929.simmts7-srv.bellnexxia.net@f4n8i1>; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 18:03:58 -0500 Message-ID: <000701c2ee6b$aa74fc20$60cefea9@f4n8i1> From: "Ian Wilson" To: "Kee Hinckley" , "Steve Schear" Cc: References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030319135608.0489c768@mail.attbi.com> <20030319173329.GA3058@danisch.de> <5.1.0.14.2.20030319122804.048b79f0@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030319135608.0489c768@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030319143655.048b0010@mail.attbi.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] This research group will fail MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 19:02:50 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Instead of trying from the outset to solve the spam problem > w/o disadvantaging any existing users I'm trying to experiment to see if I > can solve my spam problem and make it available to others to use if it > helps them. The first filter systems were just that. Once again I am new to this, and clearly out of my league, but what level are you talking about filtering on? Is it at my *Inbox*, or at the Server. My biggest problem with Electronic Junk Mail is that in the end I pay for it, and I gain nothing positive for it. At least with Junk Snail Mail there is a bonus. The people sending the stuff pay for it, and I suppose that keeps the price I pay to send a piece of mail at a reasonable level. With SPAM, as I see it, it just costs me. When I first got on the Internet I surfed the net a great deal, I don't now. I've met many interesting people, but I now use email almost exclusievly. I am virtually forced to opt for the *Unlimited Useage* plan from my ISP, but if I was only down loading email I wanted, My Internet access wouldn't cost me more than $7-8 dollars a month. My ISP now charges me $29.95 for unlimited useage. So while filtering this stuff to my Delete Bin might give me some measure of satisfaction, I still down load it. > No one has deployed a sender-pays so no ones knows what will or will not > work. All I'm saying is let's deploy and see what happens. I'm not a subscriber to conspiracy theories, and I don't think there was a second shooter on a grassy knoll, but isn't there a symbiotic relationship between SPAMMERS and ISP's. While NBTel isn't paid when a SPAMMER sends me a message, those messages are a big reason why I have an Unlimited Usage Plan. I think there are a lot of folks in my position who use email almost exclusively. If it wasn't for SPAM we could log on, down load email, log off, deal with the email, and log on send and replies I might have. It would take me seconds, accept for the fact that 90% of the mail I get is SPAM. Also is the fact that my email address is straightforward *wilson@nbntel.nb.ca* make me an easy target. It seems to me that in some SPAM that I have looked at it appears that the sender just took the name *wilson* and used a database of ISP's to send it. ie: there might be 40 addresses in the message, wilson@nbnet.nb.ca, wilson@hotmail.com, wilson@yahoo.com, wilson@hks.com, etc., etc. Also I might have used the wrong term when I talked about *forged* while I understand where there is reason to change the return address. I guess a better word would have been a *bogus* return address. An address that doesn't exist. ie somebody sends me a SPAM message and the address provided would just bounce. Can that be detected at the Server. I think a good place to start for SPAMMERS in a legal sense would be that each message must contain a valid return address, and a way the person receiving the message can reply and be removed without being directed to a spot on the Internet that asks you to enter your email address, which I am sure just subscribes you to several more lists. The approach I am taking is to have my ISP provide me with a form letter that in essence states if the sender fails to remove my name in a timely manner that my ISP has agreed to ban that sender from it's Mail Server. ian wilson _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 18:25:04 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA15435 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 18:25:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JNgdb18679 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 18:42:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JNgdO18676 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 18:42:39 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA15420 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 18:24:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JNY2O17580; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 18:34:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JNX6O17530 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 18:33:06 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA15026 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 18:15:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from rmf19 (h00055df0474a.ne.client2.attbi.com[65.96.217.174]) by rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (rwcrmhc52) with SMTP id <2003031923171505200n12rie>; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 23:17:15 +0000 From: To: "'Frank de Lange'" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] Tragedy of the Commons Keywords: asrg;filename=20030319-165641-984.mht;x-sender=asrg-admin@ietf.org;List-ID=Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF asrg.ietf.org Message-ID: <062301c2ee6d$ae087130$66e237c0@rmf19> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 In-Reply-To: <3E78E6E1.4080709@unternet.org> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 18:17:15 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Be careful about confusing physical models of limited resources with situations wherein there may be synergy of the commons. -----Original Message----- From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Frank de Lange Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 16:54 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Tragedy of the Commons mike.pearson@ssc.govt.nz wrote: >Thanks to those contributors who mentioned this issue. I found the following >1-page summary useful in understanding the background of the concept: >http://members.aol.com/trajcom/private/commons.htm > > Hm, just deleted a concept-mail in which I put forward the tragic of the commons, and the question if economic models can help model the spam problem. I deleted it because I think many operators will frown upon their mail servers being dubbed part of the commons. Yes, eyetime is a scarce resource, but the spam problems are larger. Bandwidth, storage and CPU-cycles are also scarce resources, and have to be dealt with. Just ignoring the spammers is not enough when the sheer volume is enough to overwhelm many links and servers. Frank _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 18:41:27 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA16186 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 18:41:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2JNx3X19901 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 18:59:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JNx3O19898 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 18:59:03 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA16166 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 18:40:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JNoFO19531; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 18:50:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JNnVO19471 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 18:49:31 -0500 Received: from slarti.muc.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id SAA15859 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 18:31:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 14139 invoked by uid 66); 19 Mar 2003 23:33:38 -0000 Received: from faerber.muc.de by slarti.muc.de with BSMTP (rsmtp-qm-ot 0.4) for asrg@ietf.org; 19 Mar 2003 23:33:38 -0000 Received: by faerber.muc.de (OpenXP/32 v3.9.4 (Win32) alpha @ 2003-03-19-0936d); 20 Mar 2003 00:33:26 +0000 From: list-ietf-antispam@faerber.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Claus_F=E4rber?=) To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <8iB4HwxocDD@3247.org> In-Reply-To: <3E78914B.7070708@americasm01.nt.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] SMTP & NNTP ? User-Agent: OpenXP/32 v3.9.4 (Win32) alpha @ 2003-03-19-0936d MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 19 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0000 Chris Lewis schrieb/wrote: > But you find out that the Usenet broadcast medium mechanism only works > when the traffic is of interest to a "significant" fraction of the > population so that the bandwidth is amortised over more users. That's the method used for Usenet. But Netnews also includes private news servers and NNTP caches. Claus -- http://www.faerber.muc.de/ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 18:56:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA16593 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 18:56:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2K0EAB21441 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 19:14:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K0EAO21438 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 19:14:10 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA16588 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 18:56:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K067O20275; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 19:06:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K05PO20243 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 19:05:25 -0500 Received: from dogma.slashnull.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA16370 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 18:47:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.jmason.org (ga183055.reshsg.uci.edu [128.195.183.55]) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2JNkMx17995; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 23:46:23 GMT Received: by localhost.jmason.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 7BB538C78F; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 18:48:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from jmason.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 794F28C78E; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:48:37 -0800 (PST) To: Paul Judge Cc: "'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Requirements for anti-spam systems-Draft 1 In-Reply-To: Message from Paul Judge of "Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:13:15 EST." From: jm@jmason.org (Justin Mason) X-GPG-Key-Fingerprint: 0A48 2D8B 0B52 A87D 0E8A 6ADD 4137 1B50 6E58 EF0A X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to . Message-Id: <20030319234837.7BB538C78F@localhost.jmason.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:48:32 -0800 Paul -- quick note: > 2. must not affect delivery(latency, integrity, cost, reliability) of > wanted messages to a point that would effect the normal use of email I would suggest that a broken-out list of what "normal" uses of email are, would be helpful here. For example, difficult cases include a. a small-scale, non-commercial mailing list, operating with confirmed opt-in subscriptions. (not too hard, but pay-to-send solutions could be problematic in such a use-case) b. a user BCC'ing someone they've never met before (can look a lot like spam to a naive content-based spam filter) c. a user sending a mail via one ISP's SMTP server, with the rfc-822 "From" address set to another account on another ISP (quite pathological, but it happens) A few of the solutions already proposed may cause trouble for, or have difficulty with, some of the potential use cases, so it'd be worthwhile having a reference list of what the ASRG considers "normal". For example, personally I would be happy with a solution that deals with spam but breaks the c. case, since IMO it's a hack, and the old adage about omelettes and eggs springs to mind. ;) --j. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 19:00:49 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA16721 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 19:00:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2K0IPf21599 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 19:18:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K0IPO21596 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 19:18:25 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA16702 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 19:00:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K0B3O21297; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 19:11:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K0AVO21260 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 19:10:31 -0500 Received: from mail.cdt.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA16493 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 18:52:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from tosh (cdt [206.112.85.61]) by mail.cdt.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFD1A4900DF for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 18:44:23 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20030319155424.01977a90@localhost> X-Sender: john@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 To: asrg@ietf.org From: John Morris Subject: Re: [Asrg] Just when you thought it was safe.... In-Reply-To: <200303192039.h2JKdour008240@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:55:03 -0800 Valdis, You beat me to it. I was preparing a post to the list on this report (which came out today), and I'm on the agenda tomorrow to give a very brief overview of the report. To put the report in context, it is aimed at end users, not techies, and its focus is on "how did the spammer get my address in the first place." FYI the report is also available in HTML: http://www.cdt.org/speech/spam/030319spamreport.shtml Be warned - the report was slashdotted this morning and we've had 30,000+ downloads so far -- and our site is very slow because of it.... John At 03:39 PM 3/19/03 -0500, you wrote: http://www.cdt.org/speech/spam/030319spamreport.pdf (may be slashdotted) The message I got from this was "The spammers haven't even started on exhausting all the methods already available for getting addresses...." _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 19:03:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA16806 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 19:03:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2K0LGE21739 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 19:21:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K0LGO21736 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 19:21:16 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA16784 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 19:03:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K0C2O21369; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 19:12:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K0BnO21333 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 19:11:49 -0500 Received: from gorgoroth.localnet (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA16526 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 18:53:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from unternet.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gorgoroth.localnet (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2JNtwJm002333 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 00:55:58 +0100 Message-ID: <3E79038E.4070802@unternet.org> From: Frank de Lange User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4a) Gecko/20030310 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Tragedy of the Commons References: <062301c2ee6d$ae087130$66e237c0@rmf19> In-Reply-To: <062301c2ee6d$ae087130$66e237c0@rmf19> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 00:55:58 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit asrg@bobf.frankston.com wrote: >Be careful about confusing physical models of limited resources with >situations wherein there may be synergy of the commons. > Nice terminology. What does it translate to? What synergy are you referring to? Some examples? The resources are limited, however way you put it. Your time is limited. Your bandwidth is limited. Your storage space is limited. Even the screen space is limited. You have limited resources to expand your limits (money). And, also very important, your patience is limited. Several people have already given up on email because of spam. Frank _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 19:36:57 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA17869 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 19:36:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2K0sWX24440 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 19:54:32 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K0sTO24437 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 19:54:29 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA17861 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 19:36:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K0cDO23566; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 19:38:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K0bYO23411 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 19:37:34 -0500 Received: from platypuspartners.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA17434 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 19:19:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from pindari.platypuspartners.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by platypuspartners.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2K0KNs4015086 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:20:23 +1100 Received: (from dave@localhost) by pindari.platypuspartners.com (8.12.8/8.12.2/Submit) id h2K0KMCc015070; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:20:22 +1100 Message-Id: <200303200020.h2K0KMCc015070@pindari.platypuspartners.com> From: David Finnie To: paul.judge@ciphertrust.com CC: asrg@ietf.org In-reply-to: (message from Paul Judge on Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:13:15 -0500) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Requirements for anti-spam systems-Draft 1 References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:20:22 +1100 Paul, I'm very new to the list and have been astounded (a little daunted) by the volume of traffic. Thank you for re-publishing this requirements list. I think it's imperative that we all focus on nailing that down as a means of formalising a positive step towards a solution (or group of solutions). While the mail archive is a useful tool, it is also BIG. Using it to determine exactly what the currently-agreed-upon requirements list is is a difficult task. Can I suggest that we take formalisation a step further by having, on a web site (http://www.irtf.org/charters/asrg.html for instance) a definitive list of requirements currently agreed upon. We can then debate modifications to the list, and when agreed upon, update the list. The same approach could be used for possible solutions. With a name of the solution, short description, status (e.g. In Debate, Rejected, Accepted), and a list of pros and cons. I think that to do this we would need some formalised approach to how we agree on things. We obviously have a bunch of enthusiastic & intelligent contributors to this list. I'd hate for any energy (or reading time) being wasted on repeating and rehashing old subjects, and for talking about off-topic items. Would people find this approach useful ? Comments, suggestions welcome. David Finnie > From: Paul Judge > Content-Type: text/plain > Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org > X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org > X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 > Precedence: bulk > List-Unsubscribe: , > > List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF > List-Post: > List-Help: > List-Subscribe: , > > List-Archive: > Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:13:15 -0500 > > > This is a draft of high-level requirements for anti-spam systems. This list > was started by Keith Moore. This draft incorporates feedback from > Balachander Krishnamurthy, Gary Feldman, Troy Rollo, Damon Sauer, Paul > Judge, and Hadmut Danisch. > > > 1. must minimize unwanted messages to some acceptable level > 2. must not affect delivery(latency, integrity, cost, reliability) of > wanted messages to a point that would effect the normal use of email > 3. must be easy to use > 4. must be easy to deploy, incrementally > a. must provide incentives to deploy for those doing the > deployment > 5. must not depend on universal deployment to be effective > 6. must not reduce privacy > 7. must have minimal administration and implementation overhead > 8. must have minimal computational and bandwidth overhead > 9. must consider the threat and be robust in the face of such threats > -(potential new work item: a spam threat model) > some properties of the threat: > - adversary knows details of anti-spam systems > - adversary is intelligent and well-funded > 10. should consider how legal issues affect, support, or constrain the > technical solution > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 19:37:55 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA17914 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 19:37:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2K0tVW24511 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 19:55:31 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K0tVO24508 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 19:55:31 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA17886 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 19:37:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K0m2O24092; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 19:48:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K0l6O24041 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 19:47:06 -0500 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA17654 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 19:28:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 18vnxg-00028u-00; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 00:31:12 +0000 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Asrg] Requirements for anti-spam systems-Draft 1 To: "Alan DeKok" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.4.12] Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 00:31:12 +0000 > > While this may sound trivially obvious, many people I've talked to > believe that all solutions should be based solely on the recipients > consent. I hope there aren't many people saying stuff as silly as that. > By this, they appear to be saying: > > 1) everyone else in the network should implement the consent of the > recipient. > Really? "should" perhaps, more likely "may", but "must" is out > 2) the administrator of the network used by the originator of the > email cannot implement consent OTHER than that of the recipient. The way recipient "consent" might interact with organisational / operational policy hasn't been formally discussed in this group (?). It should be. > > Issue #1 doesn't scale to a network with millions of indeed. I can't see how it could be *required*. > Issue #2 means that the administrator of a sending network cannot > decide (say) to filter outgoing port 25 for dial-up users. indeed. So recipient consent isn't the only consideration. Who said it was? let's fight them :-) -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 19:58:09 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA18694 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 19:58:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2K1FjV26350 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:15:45 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K1FjO26347 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:15:45 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA18685 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 19:57:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K17JO25543; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:07:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K16eO25088 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:06:40 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA18362 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 19:48:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18vjTL-0004uf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:43:35 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Requirements for anti-spam systems-Draft 1 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:26:42 +0100." <3E78D282.8090805@unternet.org> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:43:34 -0500 Frank de Lange wrote: > > The network is not reliable. The network does NOT enforce your > >wishes to communicate with others. It's best-effort, and your data > >may not make it through. We already accept this behaviour, and I > >believe that we should make such acceptance explicit for anti-spam > >solutions. > > > Is it really necessary to add this? I believe so. A significant number of people I talk to about my domain come up with such extreme positions, like they're some kind of religious mantra. > IETF does not dictate how people control their resources after > all. There are already all kinds of restrictions on who can access > what in what manner and from where. I believe this will sort itself > out, if some ISP (or mail service provider, or ...) were to impose > too onerous terms and conditions users would just move to another > ISP. While I agree with what you're saying, I also believe that some kind of push-back on extreme views is necessary. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 20:14:16 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA19221 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:14:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2K1Vqo27105 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:31:52 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K1VqO27102 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:31:52 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA19190 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:13:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K1MuO26743; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:22:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K1L6O26691 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:21:06 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA18851 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:02:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from rmf19 (h00055df0474a.ne.client2.attbi.com[65.96.217.174]) by rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (rwcrmhc51) with SMTP id <2003032001051205100ir944e>; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 01:05:12 +0000 From: To: "'Frank de Lange'" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] Tragedy of the Commons Keywords: asrg;filename=20030319-193436-390.mht;x-sender=asrg-admin@ietf.org;List-ID=Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF asrg.ietf.org Message-ID: <063601c2ee7c$c2ac1c90$66e237c0@rmf19> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 In-Reply-To: <3E79038E.4070802@unternet.org> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:05:12 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'll have to excuse myself and leave it cryptic for now because my time is finite. I'll simply point out that it's not at all clear what the limits are and we overly focus on doling out scarcity. Even my time, which I see as very limited, can be effectively increased with tools and better metaphors for the information. -----Original Message----- From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Frank de Lange Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 18:56 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Tragedy of the Commons asrg@bobf.frankston.com wrote: >Be careful about confusing physical models of limited resources with >situations wherein there may be synergy of the commons. > Nice terminology. What does it translate to? What synergy are you referring to? Some examples? The resources are limited, however way you put it. Your time is limited. Your bandwidth is limited. Your storage space is limited. Even the screen space is limited. You have limited resources to expand your limits (money). And, also very important, your patience is limited. Several people have already given up on email because of spam. Frank _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 20:17:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA19315 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:17:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2K1ZJF27265 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:35:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K1ZJO27262 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:35:19 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA19290 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:17:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K1R1O26927; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:27:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K1QmO26908 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:26:48 -0500 Received: from backbone.midwestcs.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA19061 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:08:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from footbone.midwestcs.com ([206.222.212.237] helo=midwestcs.com) by backbone.midwestcs.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18voa1-00058Z-00 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 19:10:49 -0600 To: asrg@ietf.org (IRTF Anti-Spam Research Group) Subject: Re: [Asrg] An amazing amount of spam References: <3E78CB2B.9010807@americasm01.nt.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: wayne In-Reply-To: <3E78CB2B.9010807@americasm01.nt.com> Message-ID: Lines: 56 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanner: exiscan *18voa1-00058Z-00*gZ3WWBWeN32* () Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 19 Mar 2003 19:10:45 -0600 In <3E78CB2B.9010807@americasm01.nt.com> "Chris Lewis" writes: > Alan's MX is a weapon of mass destruction. > > It proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that tweaks to mail reader > metaphors and user-end filtering (or even most ISP filtering) will not > be able to keep up. Even AOL wouldn't survive the spam:good ratio that > Alan see. There simply ain't enough pipes on the whole planet to do > that. I suspect that Chris' post was mostly intended to be funny, but I think there is a critical point hidden in there. The spam problem *can't* get as bad as Alan's spam problem. There aren't enough pipes on the whole planet to create enough spam to make it that bad. Spam may be growning at an exponential rate right now, but we all know that exponential growth can't go on forever. Spam may be very cheap to generate, but even when spammers use stolen credit cards, it isn't free. Spammers can generate an unlimited amount of spam, if for no other reason than there is a finite amount of bandwidth available. Charles F. Childs, one of the worlds biggest spammers, claims that he can make money on only a 1 in 10,000 response rate. (See: http://www.activedayton.com/ddn/localnews/daily/0318cybspammer.html ) End user filters may not be able to cut the bandwidth used, but they can cut the response rate to spam because the end users never see it. Spammers can try to increase the number of messages sent, but the bandwidth has to come from somewhere. While "follow the money" is usually a good tactic, in the case of spam, "follow the bandwidth" may well be more useful. Spammers can't get bandwidth from just anywhere. The number of open relays seems to have stabilized (see http://ordb.org./statistics/relaycount/ ), and I suspect that the number of open proxies will also stabilize in the next few years. Spam friendly ISPs can be blacklisted. As someone on the spamcop blacklist joked "If everyone used SPEWS, no one would need to use SPEWS". Sure, there are a lot of false positives with SPEWS, but long before the spam problem reaches Alan's level, people will have accepted that the cost of false negatives will outweight the cost of false positives. AOL's (and other "free" email providers) real concern shouldn't be that they will have to filter out Alan's level of spam, but that they will be the source of the spammer's bandwidth and that they will start showing up in widely accepted blacklists. There are some business models that are just hard to succeed at. Selling pet food on the Internet was one. Letting anyone easily generate email may be another. -wayne _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 20:21:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA19372 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:21:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2K1dCt28188 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:39:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K1dCO28185 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:39:12 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA19368 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:21:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K1NLO26762; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:23:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K1LQO26700 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:21:26 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA18854 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:03:19 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2JNBQvw004765 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:11:26 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2JNBQI4004761 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:11:26 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Asrg] Mail path verification presentation Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:11:26 -0800 (PST) Hi, I'v been preparing presentation for the session tomorrow and unfortunetly it appears this will not be part of the agenda. This is rather unfortunate since this dealt with very commonly discussed issues of being able to deal with stopping header forgery and first part also provided good diagram and example of what solution should able to handle as far as not screwing up existing email use. This goes into larger issue that it appears that presentations were chosen based on compnies that backed them up rather then based on individual work as is supposed to be the case for IETF & IRTF. Anyway the presentation draft is available at: http://www.elan.net/~william/args-presentation-verification.ppt Feel free to email to the list what you like or do not like about it or email paul if you think it should have been included in the agenda (I think its probably still not too late). In my side no matter how it goes, I'll prepare draft on using message tracking protocol to do verification of sender. Though this protocol is not deployed yet, I think this would be the best way of doing it (rather then using dns or adding additional extensions to SMTP) and will help in deployment of message tracking as well. The draft should be ready in 1-2 months. -- William Leibzon Elan Communications Inc. william@elan.net _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 20:22:14 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA19406 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:22:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2K1doA28215 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:39:50 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K1doO28212 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:39:50 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA19386 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:21:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K1a5O27332; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:36:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K1ZGO27258 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:35:16 -0500 Received: from gorgoroth.localnet (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA19287 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:17:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from unternet.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gorgoroth.localnet (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2K1JLJm020167 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 02:19:21 +0100 Message-ID: <3E791719.1080809@unternet.org> From: Frank de Lange User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4a) Gecko/20030310 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Requirements for anti-spam systems-Draft 1 References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 02:19:21 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alan DeKok wrote: >Frank de Lange wrote: > > >>> The network is not reliable. The network does NOT enforce your >>>wishes to communicate with others. It's best-effort, and your data >>>may not make it through. We already accept this behaviour, and I >>>believe that we should make such acceptance explicit for anti-spam >>>solutions. >>> >>> >>> >>Is it really necessary to add this? >> >> > > I believe so. A significant number of people I talk to about my >domain come up with such extreme positions, like they're some kind of >religious mantra. > > > >>IETF does not dictate how people control their resources after >>all. There are already all kinds of restrictions on who can access >>what in what manner and from where. I believe this will sort itself >>out, if some ISP (or mail service provider, or ...) were to impose >>too onerous terms and conditions users would just move to another >>ISP. >> >> > > While I agree with what you're saying, I also believe that some kind >of push-back on extreme views is necessary. > Then I think a 'best practice' document on how to manage mail service is the place to put these recommendations. This is user and systems policy, not part of mail protocol. Having a cbt on mail service referring to spam reduction methods would be a good thing in any case... Frank _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 20:44:57 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA20222 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:44:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2K22YX29160 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:02:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K22YO29157 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:02:34 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA20215 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:44:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K1uCO28905; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:56:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K1t3O28870 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:55:03 -0500 Received: from gorgoroth.localnet (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA20040 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:36:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from unternet.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gorgoroth.localnet (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2K1d0Jm023552 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 02:39:02 +0100 Message-ID: <3E791BB4.6070407@unternet.org> From: Frank de Lange User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4a) Gecko/20030310 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Tragedy of the Commons References: <063401c2ee7c$97d4db60$66e237c0@rmf19> In-Reply-To: <063401c2ee7c$97d4db60$66e237c0@rmf19> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 02:39:00 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bob Frankston wrote: > I'll have to excuse myself and leave it cryptic for now because my time > is finite. You don't say... -- WWWWW ________________________ ## o o\ / Frank de Lange \ }# \| / +46-734352015 \ \ `--| _/ \ `---' \ +31-640037120 / \ frank@unternet.org / `------------------------' [ "Omnis enim res, quae dando non deficit, dum habetur et non datur, nondum habetur, quomodo habenda est." ] _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 20:46:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA20252 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:46:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2K24Cg29228 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:04:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K24BO29225 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:04:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA20242 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:46:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K1w1O28984; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:58:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K1vCO28950 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:57:12 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA20116 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:39:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18vkGE-0004wq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:34:06 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] An amazing amount of spam In-Reply-To: Your message of "19 Mar 2003 19:10:45 CST." Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:34:06 -0500 wayne wrote: > The spam problem *can't* get as bad as Alan's spam problem. There > aren't enough pipes on the whole planet to create enough spam to make > it that bad. Spam may be growning at an exponential rate right now, > but we all know that exponential growth can't go on forever. It can stop when the outbound pipes from the spammers are full. The problem is that there are a lot of pipes. I see no reason why spam can't increase by 2-3 orders of magnitude over where it is now. While spam may be 50% of the SMTP traffic on the backbone, there is a LOT of unused bandwidth out there. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 20:58:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA20696 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:58:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2K2GFj30601 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:16:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K2GFO30598 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:16:15 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA20691 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:58:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K2DIO30444; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:13:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K2CqO30419 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:12:52 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA20620 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:54:43 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2K02qvw005517 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:02:52 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2K02q69005513 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:02:52 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Asrg] Re: Mail path verification presentation Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:02:52 -0800 (PST) As I'v been asked to provide a format of presentation in html or pdf. Powerpoint unfortunetly refused to publish to html and I had to boot into linux and convert to openoffice and then still publishing to web gave unpleasant results. So best I can do is to get openoffice impress to publish to pdf: http://www.elan.net/~william/asrg-emailpathverification-presentation.pdf On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 william@elan.net wrote: > Hi, > > I'v been preparing presentation for the session tomorrow and unfortunetly > it appears this will not be part of the agenda. This is rather unfortunate > since this dealt with very commonly discussed issues of being able to deal > with stopping header forgery and first part also provided good diagram and > example of what solution should able to handle as far as not screwing > up existing email use. This goes into larger issue that it appears that > presentations were chosen based on compnies that backed them up rather > then based on individual work as is supposed to be the case for IETF & IRTF. > > Anyway the presentation draft is available at: > http://www.elan.net/~william/args-presentation-verification.ppt > > Feel free to email to the list what you like or do not like about it or > email paul if you think it should have been included in the agenda (I > think its probably still not too late). > > In my side no matter how it goes, I'll prepare draft on using message > tracking protocol to do verification of sender. Though this protocol is > not deployed yet, I think this would be the best way of doing it (rather > then using dns or adding additional extensions to SMTP) and will help in > deployment of message tracking as well. The draft should be ready in 1-2 > months. > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 21:16:48 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA20978 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:16:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2K2YQk31224 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:34:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K2YQO31221 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:34:26 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA20968 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:16:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K2U8O31074; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:30:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K2T2O31035 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:29:02 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA20890 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:10:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2168165; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:13:08 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <000701c2ee6b$aa74fc20$60cefea9@f4n8i1> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030319135608.0489c768@mail.attbi.com> <20030319173329.GA3058@danisch.de> <5.1.0.14.2.20030319122804.048b79f0@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030319135608.0489c768@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030319143655.048b0010@mail.attbi.com> <000701c2ee6b$aa74fc20$60cefea9@f4n8i1> To: "Ian Wilson" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] This research group will fail Cc: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:18:01 -0500 At 7:02 PM -0400 3/19/03, Ian Wilson wrote: >second shooter on a grassy knoll, but isn't there a symbiotic relationship >between SPAMMERS and ISP's. While NBTel isn't paid when a SPAMMER sends me >a message, those messages are a big reason why I have an Unlimited Usage >Plan. I think there are a lot of folks in my position who use email almost They lose far more in time and support costs than they would gain. Spam is a bigger headache for ISPs at this point than for end users. You can just delete it--they have to deliver it, reject the ones they can't deliver, deal with the complaints from the people who get it, deal with the spammers who buy throwaway accounts, set up new systems for blocking spam, get complaints from people because they blocked the wrong email, set up systems for blocking outbound spammers, get complaints from people who can't connect to their business email anymore... the list goes on and on. I'd believe the "anti-spam companies like spammers" conspiracy theory before I believed the "ISPs like spammers" one. And I *work* for an anti-spam company :-). >*wilson@nbntel.nb.ca* make me an easy target. It seems to me that in some >SPAM that I have looked at it appears that the sender just took the name >*wilson* and used a database of ISP's to send it. ie: there might be 40 >addresses in the message, wilson@nbnet.nb.ca, wilson@hotmail.com, >wilson@yahoo.com, wilson@hks.com, etc., etc. They might have, or they may just be sending to the list in sorted order. Both happen. >doesn't exist. ie somebody sends me a SPAM message and the address provided >would just bounce. Can that be detected at the Server. Only in some limited cases (e.g. "the domain doesn't exist"). That is one of the discussions ongoing here. It sounds like a simple thing to do, but it turns out to have lots of complications. >I think a good place to start for SPAMMERS in a legal sense would be that >each message must contain a valid return address, and a way the person >receiving the message can reply and be removed without being directed to a That approach has a lot of supporters. But you need to be careful even there. Establishing penalties for people who forge the return address has potential to be good--but it makes anonymous speech difficult. On the other hand, legislation that said it was okay to spam if the return address was valid could potentially make your spam volume much, much higher. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 21:20:24 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA21133 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:20:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2K2c2832214 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:38:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K2c1O32211 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:38:01 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA21127 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:19:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K2UDO31090; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:30:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K2T1O31023 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:29:01 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA20887 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:10:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2168141; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:13:07 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030319140305.04811d40@mail.attbi.com> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030319100246.04899280@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030318222537.04823958@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030318094728.04804d40@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030317162233.048c73e8@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030317162233.048c73e8@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030318094728.04804d40@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030318222537.04823958@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030319100246.04899280@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030319140305.04811d40@mail.attbi.com> To: Steve Schear From: Kee Hinckley Subject: RE: [Asrg] Thoughts so far Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:06:06 -0500 At 2:35 PM -0800 3/19/03, Steve Schear wrote: >For others, who cannot or will not take the extra time/effort, I >think I can live without their communication. There speaks someone who clearly never wants to talk to his mother-in-law. That's not a bug, it's a feature! Email as an intelligence test! >At 2:35 PM -0800 3/19/03, Steve Schear wrote: >>The business plan for creating something brand new is *way* >>different than the plan for replacing something in use by hundreds >>of millions of people. ... >Look at Kazaa. It takes extra effort to install and learn but 10s >of millions have done so because they see Yes. Now read what I said again and pick an example that actually counters it instead of supporting it. At 2:14 PM -0800 3/19/03, Steve Schear wrote: >>You keep missing the issue. This is nothing like being armed. A >>gun works whether or not anyone else has one. Sender pays works >>*only* if a significant proportion of the users have one. > >A PoW system could be deployed almost immediately at a web-based email system. What does this have to do with my statement? >Past that I really don't care if they can or cannot contact me. I >can live with that. A bit of balkenization might be desirable, even >necessary, to coerce a change. You're right. Balkanization may be necessary to coerce change. If people discover that they cannot communicate with their friends, the businesses that they buy things from, and the periodicals that they read, they most certainly will switch systems. I'm glad we both agree on that. Now please apply that logic to your initial deployment. Let's say you manage to persuade 5% of the population (I'm being generous) to use your system at first release. Which do you think will be coerced to change? The 5% that adopted your system initially, or the 95% that didn't? >>At 2:13 PM -0500 3/19/03, Paul Judge wrote: >>>2. must not affect delivery(latency, integrity, cost, reliability) of >>>wanted messages to a point that would effect the normal use of email >>>3. must be easy to use >>>4. must be easy to deploy, incrementally >>> a. must provide incentives to deploy for those doing the >>>deployment >>>5. must not depend on universal deployment to be effective >>>7. must have minimal administration and implementation overhead >>>8. must have minimal computational and bandwidth overhead >>...it has serious problems with those requirements. > >I don't accept number 8 as being necessary. Okay. How do you respond to 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7? >I don't think postage requires a universal acceptance off the bat. >If it works for me, that's all I care. Progress occurs when a >small, but Please explain how it works for you when nobody else is using it. >influential group, adopt some new technology or behavior which is >beneficial to them. As other's notice the advantages they too will >see if it can work Yes. That is true. Please explain what the advantages are when only a small group is using it. >for them. I like Freenet and other P2P systems. I don't care if >they are not universal. Absolutely. So long as they have a critical mass, they are useful. How are you going to get a critical mass? >>At the early adopter stage you aren't forcing unknown senders to >>spend more time and money--you're forcing the users of the system >>to spend time and money. The unknown senders aren't using the >>system. And you can't block them because they constitute the >>majority of your correspondents. > >No they do not. I'll white list all my current correspond ants all >others are, ifso facto, unknown senders. My .sigs will inform >respondents on lists how to contact me in the same way people >sometimes use intentional ill-formed email addresses to thwart >harvesting. So, you agree that in the early stages your system is a combination of whitelisting and challenge/response. Now take a user looking for an anti-spam system. He can install two systems. 1. A whitelisting and challenge/response system. 2. A whitelisting and challenge/response system that makes his correspondents install special software and makes it more difficult and expensive for him to send email. Why will he install #2? >>Again, you've skipped to the "everyone has it" stage. Take that >>person currently facing the pain of having to change their address. >>You say to them, "Here, instead of changing your address. Install >>this system. It will take longer to send your email (or cost you >>money to send), and it won't stop any spam right now. > >It will stop spam and all unknown senders immediately. Sure. If you're willing to manually whitelist all your correspondants and/or use a challenge/response system. But that has nothing to do with the feature that you are pushing--sender-pays. >>Stop telling me how it's going to stop spam when everyone is using >>it. I believe you! Tell me how you're going to convince people to >>use it in the first place. > >For those who cannot or will not accept this aspect its not for them >until it approaches more universal acceptance. Okay, now I think we may be approaching understanding. All you need to realize is that the number of people who will decide "its not for them" is greater than the number who won't. Therefore, you'll never approach universal acceptance. Therefore it's a dead-end. And at this point I give up on my end of this discussion. If you aren't persuaded now, I suggest you go start a software company selling end user software (find a good area to tackle--something where Microsoft is giving away their product for free, for instance--and sell something that doesn't interoperate with other software in the area) and we can pick up this discussion in ten years or so when you've had some experience trying to sell software to end-users who already have a solution that sucks, but basically works. But thank's for the discussion. You have changed my opinion of sender-pays. I've gone from thinking that it's an interesting concept to thinking it's a complete waste of time. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 21:31:50 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA21368 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:31:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2K2nTT32620 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:49:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K2nTO32617 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:49:29 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA21365 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:31:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K2k8O32471; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:46:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K2jhO32428 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:45:43 -0500 Received: from dogma.slashnull.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA21267 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:27:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.jmason.org (ga183055.reshsg.uci.edu [128.195.183.55]) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K2QPx31720; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 02:26:25 GMT Received: by localhost.jmason.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id CC8118C5F8; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:28:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from jmason.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C78018C5F7; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 18:28:41 -0800 (PST) To: william@elan.net Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Mail path verification presentation In-Reply-To: Message from william@elan.net of "Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:11:26 PST." From: jm@jmason.org (Justin Mason) X-GPG-Key-Fingerprint: 0A48 2D8B 0B52 A87D 0E8A 6ADD 4137 1B50 6E58 EF0A X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to . Message-Id: <20030320022841.CC8118C5F8@localhost.jmason.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 18:28:41 -0800 william@elan.net said: > I'v been preparing presentation for the session tomorrow and unfortunetly > it appears this will not be part of the agenda. This is rather unfortunate > since this dealt with very commonly discussed issues of being able to deal > with stopping header forgery and first part also provided good diagram and > example of what solution should able to handle as far as not screwing > up existing email use. This goes into larger issue that it appears that > presentations were chosen based on compnies that backed them up rather > then based on individual work as is supposed to be the case for IETF & IRTF. > Anyway the presentation draft is available at: > http://www.elan.net/~william/args-presentation-verification.ppt BTW I would point out that DS, aka Designated Sender is a form of the can-this-IP-address-send-mail-as-my-domain query scheme; and IMO is more elegant/well-thought-out than some of the others. ;) Could you list that as well on page 12? An interesting presentation; it's interesting to see the 'complex verification' system, which was hashed out on another list a while back, in another form (called 'porkhash' there). Also, I was not aware of the MSGTRK WG at all. ;) A good presentation, all in all, --j. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 21:34:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA21398 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:34:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2K2qN432691 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:52:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K2qNO32688 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:52:23 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA21395 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:34:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K2kFO32488; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:46:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K2jrO32443 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:45:53 -0500 Received: from sydmr01.aust.csc.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA21277 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:27:42 -0500 (EST) From: tcleary2@csc.com.au Received: from aus-syd11.int.csc.com.au ([20.10.3.50]) by sydmr01.aust.csc.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.1-GA) with ESMTP id ANC60136; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 13:29:51 +1100 (EST) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] This research group will fail X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.7 March 21, 2001 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on AUS-SYD11/AUST/CSC(Release 5.0.9a |January 7, 2002) at 20-03-2003 13:29:48, Serialize complete at 20-03-2003 13:29:48 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 10:30:23 +0800 >A ubiquitous and pervasive authentication mechanism has value even if there >is no more spam. > >Phill .....and in most places it still doesn't work. ( ask the French Gendarmerie where ID cards are mandatory ) And when it doesn't exist the Police are not rendered ineffective ( ask the Police in the U.K. where ID cards are not used at all ) Any authentication mechanism has holes - check out the problems with DNA identification. (... and yes I do know the difference between authentication and identification. I just happen to believe that the nomral 1:1 between legitimate email users and their addresses blurs the distinction here ) Yes, there are processes where proving your identity to the satisfaction of "the authorities" is mandatory e.g. drivers licence, gun licence etc. etc. But none of these has the ubiquity, utility or pervasiveness of email and so will never hit the issues of scaling that trying to enforce strong authentication on email users would meet. I believe spam is a social evil and requires a social cure. There are not Technical answers to all problems. Spam is a case in point. OK, we may be able to do Technical things which can help in the short term, but in the long term figuring out a way to get legislators in a global context to harmonise the legal context for misuse of public Services is likely to be the only solution. And adapting "junk mail" laws probably won't cut it - extradited for sending unsolicited leaflets? Anyone remember E. E. Smith? The context here is very similar to the reasons given in "Triplanetary" - but watch out! We could end up with Judge Dredd instead of the Lensmen..... ;-) Regards, tom. __________________________________________________ Security Consultant/Analyst CSC Ph: +61 8 9429 6478 Email: tcleary2@csc.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This email, including any attachments, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or personal information and may also be the subject of legal privilege. Any personal information contained in this email is not to be used or disclosed for any purpose other than the purpose for which you have received it. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not disclose or use the information contained in it. In this case, please let me know by return email, delete the message permanently from your system and destroy any copies. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sent by: asrg-admin@ietf.org To: Hadmut Danisch , asrg@ietf.org cc: Subject: RE: [Asrg] This research group will fail _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 21:41:02 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA21529 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:41:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2K2we800447 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:58:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K2weO00444 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:58:40 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA21519 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:40:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K2t2O00356; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:55:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K2sQO32767 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:54:26 -0500 Received: from simmts5-srv.bellnexxia.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA21486 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:36:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from f4n8i1 ([156.34.231.11]) by simmts5-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.19 201-253-122-122-119-20020516) with SMTP id <20030320023829.DJWN10828.simmts5-srv.bellnexxia.net@f4n8i1>; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:38:29 -0500 Message-ID: <001701c2ee89$a0e83d20$60cefea9@f4n8i1> From: "Ian Wilson" To: "Kee Hinckley" Cc: References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030319135608.0489c768@mail.attbi.com> <20030319173329.GA3058@danisch.de> <5.1.0.14.2.20030319122804.048b79f0@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030319135608.0489c768@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030319143655.048b0010@mail.attbi.com> <000701c2ee6b$aa74fc20$60cefea9@f4n8i1> Subject: Re: [Asrg] This research group will fail MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 22:36:41 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Only in some limited cases (e.g. "the domain doesn't exist"). That > is one of the discussions ongoing here. It sounds like a simple > thing to do, but it turns out to have lots of complications. Hi, The vast majority of my troublesome mail appears my untrained eye to be easily identifiable. Most of the SPAM I get comes from Domains that only change a bit. optprofessionals.com, freegift.com, and a lot of others that don't leap to mind right now. > >I think a good place to start for SPAMMERS in a legal sense would be that > >each message must contain a valid return address, and a way the person > >receiving the message can reply and be removed without being directed to a > > That approach has a lot of supporters. But you need to be careful > even there. Establishing penalties for people who forge the return > address has potential to be good--but it makes anonymous speech > difficult. I'm not sure *anonymous speech* is worth protecting. I'm not saying Free Speech isn't worth protecting, but I should not have the protection to say whatever I want, and the protection of doing it under cover. While I'm no lawyer isn't there a distinction between *Free Speech* and *Freedom of the Press* and what the framers of the Constitution wanted to protect was my right to get on my soapbox down on the corner and launch into a diatribe on the government, or any other topic I wanted to. Seems to me that what I write on the Internet isn't *Speech*, but *Press*, and there are all kinds of restrictions on the press. I can't publish the collected works of a noted Child Pornographer for example. Here in Canada there have been cases that have said people to do not have the right to publish hate crime against an identifiable group of people, the most common example would be people of the Jewish Faith, but I don't believe I can be stopped from getting on my sopabox down on the corner and denying the Holocaust. On the other hand, legislation that said it was okay to > spam if the return address was valid could potentially make your spam > volume much, much higher. I would clarify that a bit. My idea is that I be able to reply to a SPAM, and asked to be removed from future mailings. Currently there seems to be no reason for a SPAMMER to do that because there are no repercussions to him if he doesn't. But with the backing of my ISP, if he is faced with losing access to the entire Mail Server for NBTel, that may be enough of a penalty for the SPAMMER to respect my wishes. Today I am going to get at least 20 messages from suzy-acbyxuqd@free-gift-offers.com to suzy-yxtvmuxk@free-gift-offers.com The first part of the address changes all the time, but the Domain remains the same. I currently use a program called Mail Washer, and I have over 1000 messages from these people. As a paying customer of NBTel they should address concerns. If they backed me up I'm sure it would stop If I could stop SPAMMERS like that, my problems would be cut down by 85%, I could live with the rest of the crap I get, and these folks could continue on with their business, but just not bother me with it. ian _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 22:38:16 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA22523 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 22:38:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2K3tuR03820 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 22:55:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K3tuO03817 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 22:55:56 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA22480 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 22:37:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K3jQO03369; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 22:45:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K3g0O03208 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 22:42:00 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA22205 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 22:23:49 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2K1Vxvw006521; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:31:59 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2K1VxD3006517; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:31:59 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: Justin Mason cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Mail path verification presentation In-Reply-To: <20030320022841.CC8118C5F8@localhost.jmason.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:31:59 -0800 (PST) > BTW I would point out that DS, aka Designated Sender is a form of the > can-this-IP-address-send-mail-as-my-domain query scheme; and IMO is more > elegant/well-thought-out than some of the others. ;) >Could you list that as well on page 12? I'll add it. But this is all the same and unfortunetly they all suffer from the same problem of not handling full mail path and only limited protect for one header that is not even seen by most headers. > > An interesting presentation; it's interesting to see the 'complex > verification' system, which was hashed out on another list a while back, > in another form (called 'porkhash' there). I was trying to remember where I got it from but could not. You remined it now. Thank you. > Also, I was not aware of the MSGTRK WG at all. ;) They finished most of their work about year ago or more. There was no meeting at this ietf for this WG. But when my draft is ready I'll bring it up and see if people there are willing to modify protocol. > A good presentation, all in all, > > --j. > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 19 23:17:59 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA23612 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 23:17:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2K4ZeY06535 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 23:35:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K4ZeO06532 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 23:35:40 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA23608 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 23:17:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K4ERO05411; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 23:14:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K4CbO05280 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 23:12:37 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA22894 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 22:54:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from video.attbi.com (12-235-20-211.client.attbi.com[12.235.20.211]) by rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (rwcrmhc53) with SMTP id <20030320035639053004gccge>; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 03:56:40 +0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030319192922.04810f38@mail.attbi.com> X-Sender: schear@mail.attbi.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: Kee Hinckley From: Steve Schear Subject: RE: [Asrg] Thoughts so far Cc: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030319140305.04811d40@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030319100246.04899280@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030318222537.04823958@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030318094728.04804d40@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030317162233.048c73e8@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030317162233.048c73e8@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030318094728.04804d40@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030318222537.04823958@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030319100246.04899280@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030319140305.04811d40@mail.attbi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 19:59:25 -0800 At 08:06 PM 3/19/2003 -0500, you wrote: >At 2:35 PM -0800 3/19/03, Steve Schear wrote: >>Past that I really don't care if they can or cannot contact me. I can >>live with that. A bit of balkenization might be desirable, even >>necessary, to coerce a change. > >You're right. Balkanization may be necessary to coerce change. If people >discover that they cannot communicate with their friends, the businesses >that they buy things from, and the periodicals that they read, they most >certainly will switch systems. I'm glad we both agree on that. Now >please apply that logic to your initial deployment. Let's say you manage >to persuade 5% of the population (I'm being generous) to use your system >at first release. Which do you think will be coerced to change? The 5% >that adopted your system initially, or the 95% that didn't? Depends on whether the 95% continue be deluged with spam and the 5% claim they no longer do. >>>At 2:13 PM -0500 3/19/03, Paul Judge wrote: >>>>2. must not affect delivery(latency, integrity, cost, reliability) of >>>>wanted messages to a point that would effect the normal use of email >>>>3. must be easy to use >>>>4. must be easy to deploy, incrementally >>>> a. must provide incentives to deploy for those doing the >>>>deployment >>>>5. must not depend on universal deployment to be effective >>>>7. must have minimal administration and implementation overhead >>>>8. must have minimal computational and bandwidth overhead >>>...it has serious problems with those requirements. >> >>I don't accept number 8 as being necessary. > >Okay. How do you respond to 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7? The sender-pays system, when implemented via PoW, is asymmetric to the extent that only the recipient, if that, needs to install special SW. The postage generation by the sender can be initiated via an applet DL from a linked web site communicated by the recipient in what you are calling the challenge/response. >>I don't think postage requires a universal acceptance off the bat. If it >>works for me, that's all I care. Progress occurs when a small, but > >Please explain how it works for you when nobody else is using it. You've jumped from a small number to zero, just as you're jumping to no solution without universality. >>influential group, adopt some new technology or behavior which is >>beneficial to them. As other's notice the advantages they too will see >>if it can work > >Yes. That is true. Please explain what the advantages are when only a >small group is using it. That group is, hopefully protected from a majority of spam. >>for them. I like Freenet and other P2P systems. I don't care if they >>are not universal. > >Absolutely. So long as they have a critical mass, they are useful. How >are you going to get a critical mass? Critical mass, from my view, is when most of my would-be-correspondents use it. I care not otherwise. >>>At the early adopter stage you aren't forcing unknown senders to spend >>>more time and money--you're forcing the users of the system to spend >>>time and money. The unknown senders aren't using the system. And you >>>can't block them because they constitute the majority of your correspondents. >> >>No they do not. I'll white list all my current correspond ants all >>others are, ifso facto, unknown senders. My .sigs will inform >>respondents on lists how to contact me in the same way people sometimes >>use intentional ill-formed email addresses to thwart harvesting. > >So, you agree that in the early stages your system is a combination of >whitelisting and challenge/response. I never said otherwise. Have you read the papers at http:www.camram.org? >Now take a user looking for an anti-spam system. He can install two systems. >1. A whitelisting and challenge/response system. That's camram with a web applet for generating postage. >2. A whitelisting and challenge/response system that makes his >correspondents install special software and makes it more difficult and >expensive for him to send email. I guess this system, who's ever it is may be at a disadvantage. >Why will he install #2? Depends on perceived effectiveness and other, perhaps intangible factors. >>>Again, you've skipped to the "everyone has it" stage. Take that person >>>currently facing the pain of having to change their address. You say to >>>them, "Here, instead of changing your address. Install this system. It >>>will take longer to send your email (or cost you money to send), and it >>>won't stop any spam right now. >> >>It will stop spam and all unknown senders immediately. > >Sure. If you're willing to manually whitelist all your correspondants >and/or use a challenge/response system. But that has nothing to do with >the feature that you are pushing--sender-pays. Of course it does. Please read the papers at http:www.camram.org before responding, if you do. >>>Stop telling me how it's going to stop spam when everyone is using >>>it. I believe you! Tell me how you're going to convince people to use >>>it in the first place. >> >>For those who cannot or will not accept this aspect its not for them >>until it approaches more universal acceptance. > >Okay, now I think we may be approaching understanding. All you need to >realize is that the number of people who will decide "its not for them" is >greater than the number who won't. Therefore, you'll never approach >universal acceptance. Therefore it's a dead-end. The requirement of universal acceptance is probably a dead end. >And at this point I give up on my end of this discussion. If you aren't >persuaded now, I suggest you go start a software company selling end user >software (find a good area to tackle--something where Microsoft is giving >away their product for free, for instance--and sell something that doesn't >interoperate with other software in the area) and we can pick up this >discussion in ten years or so when you've had some experience trying to >sell software to end-users who already have a solution that sucks, but >basically works. All the work I'm referring to is open source, like Freenet, and Linux. I'm not trying to sell SW to anyone. I'm looking for a viable solution for me. One that raises the bar just enough that spammers and people who aren't really willing to spend just a bit more time then they do now to contact me initially are culled out. >But thank's for the discussion. You have changed my opinion of >sender-pays. I've gone from thinking that it's an interesting concept to >thinking it's a complete waste of time. And all without reading the detailed material. Amazing! steve _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 00:26:02 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA26245 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 00:25:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2K5hdY12016 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 00:43:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K5hTO12011 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 00:43:29 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA26215 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 00:25:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K5bHO11452; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 00:37:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K5ZsO10964 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 00:35:54 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA26069 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 00:17:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc01.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53] (may be forged)) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2K5HCMX028855; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:17:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:19:33 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'tcleary2@csc.com.au'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] This research group will fail MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:19:29 -0800 > And when it doesn't exist the Police are not rendered > ineffective ( ask > the Police in the U.K. where ID cards are not used at all ) UK law requires every business to list on its letterhead its registered office at which service can be effected. > I believe spam is a social evil and requires a social cure. > There are not > Technical answers to all problems. Spam is a case in point. It is a purely technical problem, the email infrastructure was designed to be used by a small number of people most of whom were highly expert and almost none of whom would attack the network. Today the network is vast, approaching a billion users. Almost all of whom are clueless technically and a very large number of whom are malicious if not outright evil. You go off and try solving the social problems if you like. I believe you will find that they are far less tractable than technical approaches that face the reality of the social constraints. I don't care whether you are a slave to a right wing ideology like the sender pays people for whom a market is the solution to every ill or a slave to a left wing ideology like the anti-corporativists for whom the problem is always a corporate interest and the solution always to eliminate the corporations. If you are a slave to an ideology you become an idiot. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 00:27:24 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA26293 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 00:27:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2K5j1Q12091 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 00:45:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K5ikO12070 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 00:44:46 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA26260 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 00:26:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K5e3O11902; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 00:40:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K5daO11850 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 00:39:36 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA26126 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 00:21:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc02.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2K5NGqd012669; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:23:17 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:23:16 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'asrg@bobf.frankston.com'" , "'Frank de Lange'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Tragedy of the Commons MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:23:16 -0800 Be carefull bandying about slogans of this sort. The tragedy of the commons was a slogan used in the 18th and 19th century to justify the enclosure of common land as private property. The argument had some validity but the outcome of the enclosures was that the poor were completely disposessed and the wealth was appropriated by the aristocracy. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 01:15:01 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA27319 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 01:14:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2K6Weh14707 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 01:32:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K6WZO14696 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 01:32:35 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA27314 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 01:14:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K6J9O14265; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 01:19:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K6IFO14202 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 01:18:15 -0500 Received: from ciphertrust.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA27011 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 00:59:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.com with ESMTP ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 01:00:22 -0500 (EST) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 00:51:19 -0500 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)'" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Subject: [Asrg] Taxonomy of anti-spam systems version 3 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 00:51:12 -0500 Here is a third draft of the taxonomy of anti-spam systems. Once I started to put this in a graphical format, some flaws became obvious. I went back and looked at some of my older work in creating taxonomies. The top level classification was incorrect. Instead of prevention, deterrence, and response, I believe that it should be prevention, detection, and response. Prevention systems are subcategorized into deterrence systems and protection systems. The detection category is essentially the old fail-open category. This should help folks understand it better, since some seemed to not agree with the use of 'fail-open' as a label. Actually, this particular change is not drastic at all since I had already explained in the text that 'fail-open' systems detect unwanted messages. I also incorporated feedback from the list about draft 2. (Thanks Tom, Chris, Jon and Hadmut.) Please provide feedback. Thanks. -Paul ----------------------------- 1. Spam Prevention Approaches - These systems aim to prevent the spread of spam messages. This includes protection systems and deterrence systems. a) Spam Protection (to shield from exposure) i) Whitelists (1) Basic (2) Verified (a) Authenticated sender identity (b) Token supported (c) Disposable email addresses ii) Challenge/Response systems (1) Basic (2) Human verification (i.e. turing tests) iii) Consent Tokens (a priori consent) (1) Proof-of-work (i.e. hashcash) (2) Stamps iv) Don't receive messages, just notification (i.e. IM2000) b) Spam Deterrence Approaches - (to discourage from acting) These systems aim to deter spamming activities. In most areas of life, deterrence is achieved by introducing the ability to identify and track wrongdoers. These systems provide input to certain spam reaction techniques such as charging, legal prosecution, malicious response, and feedback to reputation systems. i) Authentication ii) Tracking iii) Non-repudiation 2) Spam Detection a) Human determination i) Collaborative filtering (i.e., razor) b) System Determination i) Who is it from? (1) Blacklists (2) Reputation systems ii) What's in it? (Content Filtering) (1) Static lists (2) Learning methods iii) How was it sent? (1) Forged info? (i.e. reverse DNS, domain lookup, verify email address on calling server, verify message on sending server,reverse MX record) (2) Envelope characteristics; delivery path information (3) Quantity? (i.e. DCC) 3) Spam Responses - These are the different approaches that can be taken upon receipt. a) Accept b) Quarantine c) Reject d) Drop e) Label f) Challenge g) Limit Rate i) Ingress ii) Egress h) Feedback i) to detection systems i.e. blacklists, reputation systems, learning content filtering methods ii) to other response systems i) Charge i) Confirmed payment (i.e. Bonded Sender, Trusted Sender) ii) Pursue payment (i.e.Habeas) j) Legal Prosecution k) Malicious response (e.g., teargrubbing and hackback) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 01:16:51 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA27346 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 01:16:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2K6YUA14748 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 01:34:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K6YKO14740 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 01:34:20 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA27334 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 01:15:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K6S2O14543; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 01:28:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K6RIO14503 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 01:27:18 -0500 Received: from sydmr02.aust.csc.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA27183 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 01:08:43 -0500 (EST) From: tcleary2@csc.com.au Received: from aus-syd11.int.csc.com.au ([20.10.3.50]) by sydmr02.aust.csc.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.1-GA) with ESMTP id ANX88560; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 17:10:43 +1100 (EST) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] This research group will fail X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.7 March 21, 2001 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on AUS-SYD11/AUST/CSC(Release 5.0.9a |January 7, 2002) at 20-03-2003 17:10:41, Serialize complete at 20-03-2003 17:10:41 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:10:30 +0800 >UK law requires every business to list on its letterhead its >registered office at which service can be effected. But ( and you'll correct me if I'm wrong ) not all spammers are businesses, and even when they are, setting up a business for the Xmas season and closing it in January is still legal. Where's your process server when the goods fall apart in two months, despite Consumer Protection laws? >If you are a slave to an ideology you become an idiot. > >Phill Mate, I couldn't agree more. I still get this feeling that altering the behaviour of spammers in the long term won't happen by changing the RFCs, however much I'm willing to try it because I have to hope it is possible to improve on what we have. But I'd be willing to bet my $.02 that "judging intent" of email whether by content or "authorised source" will turn out to be beyond a Computer, particularly without mucking things up for the billion clueless users who WANT to send anything anywhere quickly. On with the show! Regards, tom. __________________________________________________ Security Consultant/Analyst CSC Ph: +61 8 9429 6478 Email: tcleary2@csc.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This email, including any attachments, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or personal information and may also be the subject of legal privilege. Any personal information contained in this email is not to be used or disclosed for any purpose other than the purpose for which you have received it. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not disclose or use the information contained in it. In this case, please let me know by return email, delete the message permanently from your system and destroy any copies. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 01:17:02 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA27358 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 01:16:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2K6YfD14763 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 01:34:41 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K6YQO14745 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 01:34:26 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA27337 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 01:15:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K6S7O14576; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 01:28:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K6RdO14517 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 01:27:39 -0500 Received: from mail.cdt.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA27202 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 01:08:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from tosh (cdt [206.112.85.61]) by mail.cdt.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E6F14900DF; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 01:00:58 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20030319214931.0197a5e0@localhost> X-Sender: john@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 To: "Ian Wilson" , "Kee Hinckley" From: John Morris Subject: Re: [Asrg] This research group will fail Cc: In-Reply-To: <001701c2ee89$a0e83d20$60cefea9@f4n8i1> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030319135608.0489c768@mail.attbi.com> <20030319173329.GA3058@danisch.de> <5.1.0.14.2.20030319122804.048b79f0@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030319135608.0489c768@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030319143655.048b0010@mail.attbi.com> <000701c2ee6b$aa74fc20$60cefea9@f4n8i1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 22:11:38 -0800 Not to drag us into an extended legal debate, but At 10:36 PM 3/19/03 -0400, Ian Wilson wrote: > > >I'm not sure *anonymous speech* is worth protecting. I'm not saying Free >Speech isn't worth protecting, but I should not have the protection to say >whatever I want, and the protection of doing it under cover. Lots and lots of anonymous speech is very valuable and some important speech would not take place without anonymity (we can discuss that more off-list if desired). But there are lots of situations in which anonymity will fall to other interests, and courts will likely agree that false return addresses and headers in UCE will not be protected. >While I'm no >lawyer isn't there a distinction between *Free Speech* and *Freedom of the >Press* and what the framers of the Constitution wanted to protect was my >right to get on my soapbox down on the corner and launch into a diatribe on >the government, or any other topic I wanted to. Seems to me that what I >write on the Internet isn't *Speech* In the US, FWIW, the opposite of this is true. A key conclusion of the US Supreme Court's decision in 1997 in Reno v. ACLU, is that in fact the Internet is the modern day embodiment of the soap box of old. When the First Amendment was written, the town commons was important in community life and a soapbox was an effective way to raise a public concern. By the late 20th Century, an actual soapbox in a park had become absolutely irrelevant. Internet communications are definitely viewed as protected speech by US courts. The bottom line for this group is that (at least in the US) the First Amendment is likely to impose some constraints on anti-spam legislation, making technical approaches to reduce spam all the more important. John _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 01:20:20 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA27456 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 01:20:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2K6bxS15691 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 01:37:59 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K6bnO15688 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 01:37:49 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA27426 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 01:19:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K6S6O14560; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 01:28:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K6RQO14505 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 01:27:26 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA27192 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 01:08:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2168604; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 01:11:09 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <001701c2ee89$a0e83d20$60cefea9@f4n8i1> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030319135608.0489c768@mail.attbi.com> <20030319173329.GA3058@danisch.de> <5.1.0.14.2.20030319122804.048b79f0@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030319135608.0489c768@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030319143655.048b0010@mail.attbi.com> <000701c2ee6b$aa74fc20$60cefea9@f4n8i1> <001701c2ee89$a0e83d20$60cefea9@f4n8i1> To: "Ian Wilson" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] This research group will fail Cc: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 23:15:55 -0500 At 10:36 PM -0400 3/19/03, Ian Wilson wrote: >The vast majority of my troublesome mail appears my untrained eye to be >easily identifiable. Most of the SPAM I get comes from Domains that only >change a bit. optprofessionals.com, freegift.com, and a lot of others that >don't leap to mind right now. They change as they get blocked. Some spammers use fake ones. Others create new (real) domains on a weekly basis. If it were just a matter of blocking domains there wouldn't be a business for anti-spam companies. >I'm not sure *anonymous speech* is worth protecting. I'm not saying Free >Speech isn't worth protecting, but I should not have the protection to say >whatever I want, and the protection of doing it under cover. While I'm no A quick google search turned up lots of references on the consitution and anonymous speech. This one seems to cover the issues pretty well: http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=1380 > On the other hand, legislation that said it was okay to >> spam if the return address was valid could potentially make your spam >> volume much, much higher. > >I would clarify that a bit. My idea is that I be able to reply to a SPAM, >and asked to be removed from future mailings. Currently there seems to be Of course the people who violate this are the ones you won't be able to track down easily. The issue with making this rule is that it has the potential to legitimize unsolicited email. While getting thousands of spam messages every week is really unpleasant. Getting thousands of offers from legitimate companies every day would be even worse. Yes, you could unsubscribe. But you'd spend all day doing it. I'm not arguing against requiring legitimate return addresses on bulk email. I think it's a very good idea. But we do want to make sure that we *still* require some form of opt-in. >for the SPAMMER to respect my wishes. Today I am going to get at least 20 >messages from > >suzy-acbyxuqd@free-gift-offers.com to suzy-yxtvmuxk@free-gift-offers.com > >The first part of the address changes all the time, but the Domain remains >the same. I currently use a program called Mail Washer, and I have over >1000 messages from these people. As a paying customer of NBTel they should >address concerns. If they backed me up I'm sure it would stop What should they do? That domain maps to optindeals.com. (Amusing rule of thumb, I have *never* gotten a false positive flagging an address with "optin" in the domain name :-). That domain maps to a DSL connection on cais.net. It wouldn't surprise me at all if that IP address periodically changed. They can complain to cais (and so can you). They might close the account. Not clear if they could safely block the entire ISP. And in any case--you've said the email's from address is free-gift-offers.com. But do you have any evidence that the email actually comes from the owner of that domain? The circumstantial evidence looks good--but presumably you'd want your ISP to carefully check for proof before shutting off *your* account if someone accused you of spamming. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 02:55:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA11081 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 02:55:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2K8DZr32744 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 03:13:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K8DPO32739 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 03:13:25 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA11075 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 02:54:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K82KO31588; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 03:02:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K81lO31565 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 03:01:47 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA10916 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 02:43:00 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2K7jD5R004662; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 02:45:13 -0500 Message-Id: <200303200745.h2K7jD5R004662@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.2 03/18/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: jm@jmason.org (Justin Mason) Cc: "'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Requirements for anti-spam systems-Draft 1 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:48:32 PST." <20030319234837.7BB538C78F@localhost.jmason.org> References: <20030319234837.7BB538C78F@localhost.jmason.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_141916046P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 02:45:13 -0500 --==_Exmh_141916046P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:48:32 PST, Justin Mason said: > c. a user sending a mail via one ISP's SMTP server, with the rfc-822 > "From" address set to another account on another ISP (quite > pathological, but it happens) > For example, personally I would be happy with a solution that deals with > spam but breaks the c. case, since IMO it's a hack, and the old adage > about omelettes and eggs springs to mind. ;) I wouldn't go quite *that* far, personally. Yes, it's a hack. But it's a widely deployed hack. Solutions that break widely deployed things are a Bad Idea. We need to examine things, and ask (a) who will be screwed over by the proposal and (b) what can be done to alleviate the problem? (In this case, it's (a) "road warriors" and (b) Port 587). Fortunately, there's already a solution in hand, we just need to deploy it. Unfortunately, there *will* be corner cases where we will have to make life difficult for somebody, and hard choices will have to be made... --==_Exmh_141916046P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+eXGJcC3lWbTT17ARAlZQAKDCL2CUblM/GRBNSTSvZHp1EsqEowCcDn/r tQyKxTAcreOYbnRD9fFCiMI= =agGS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_141916046P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 03:22:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA11489 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 03:22:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2K8ePW02071 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 03:40:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K8e5O02052 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 03:40:05 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA11462 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 03:21:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K8b3O01129; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 03:37:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K8a2O01047 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 03:36:03 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA11387 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 03:17:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc02.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2K8Jdqd002693; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 00:19:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 00:19:39 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'John Morris'" , Ian Wilson , Kee Hinckley Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] This research group will fail MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 00:19:37 -0800 Anonymous email is pretty easy to support if we have a mechanism that allows us to control spam. Then we can bring up the pnet gateway and its ilk again. Phill > -----Original Message----- > From: John Morris [mailto:jmorris@cdt.org] > Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 10:12 PM > To: Ian Wilson; Kee Hinckley > Cc: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] This research group will fail > > > Not to drag us into an extended legal debate, but > > At 10:36 PM 3/19/03 -0400, Ian Wilson wrote: > > > > > >I'm not sure *anonymous speech* is worth protecting. I'm > not saying Free > >Speech isn't worth protecting, but I should not have the > protection to say > >whatever I want, and the protection of doing it under cover. > > Lots and lots of anonymous speech is very valuable and some important > speech would not take place without anonymity (we can discuss > that more > off-list if desired). But there are lots of situations in > which anonymity > will fall to other interests, and courts will likely agree that false > return addresses and headers in UCE will not be protected. > > >While I'm no > >lawyer isn't there a distinction between *Free Speech* and > *Freedom of the > >Press* and what the framers of the Constitution wanted to > protect was my > >right to get on my soapbox down on the corner and launch > into a diatribe on > >the government, or any other topic I wanted to. Seems to me > that what I > >write on the Internet isn't *Speech* > > In the US, FWIW, the opposite of this is true. A key > conclusion of the US > Supreme Court's decision in 1997 in Reno v. ACLU, is that in fact the > Internet is the modern day embodiment of the soap box of old. > When the > First Amendment was written, the town commons was important > in community > life and a soapbox was an effective way to raise a public > concern. By the > late 20th Century, an actual soapbox in a park had become absolutely > irrelevant. Internet communications are definitely viewed as > protected > speech by US courts. > > The bottom line for this group is that (at least in the US) the First > Amendment is likely to impose some constraints on anti-spam > legislation, > making technical approaches to reduce spam all the more important. > > John > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 03:26:16 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA11604 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 03:26:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2K8hue02163 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 03:43:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K8hpO02160 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 03:43:51 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA11579 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 03:25:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K8Z9O01025; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 03:35:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K8YuO01003 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 03:34:56 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA11356 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 03:16:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.57] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2K8IYqd002636 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 00:18:34 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 00:18:34 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)'" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [Asrg] List Kiddies Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 00:18:34 -0800 OK so we thought we should get a pejorative name for the twits who BUY the CDROM of 10 million email addresses, many 8 years old or more. This is what we did a while back with hackers, inventing a demeaning term for them to strip them of the mistique. After some thought we came up with 'something like suckers' but no further. So I'll make an executive decision here and the name is LIST KIDDIES. This name is self explanatory, a lot of the spam problem is caused by clueless dweebs who will never make a dollar sending spam to a 10 year old list. The 'kiddie' part is a little on the opaque side but will be readily understood by the community and the trade press. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 04:13:07 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA12313 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 04:13:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2K9Unl05121 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 04:30:49 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K9UhO05106 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 04:30:43 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA12292 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 04:12:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K9OJO04922; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 04:24:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K9NMO04882 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 04:23:22 -0500 Received: from olgisoft.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id EAA12254 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 04:04:28 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200303200904.EAA12254@ietf.org> Received: by 127.0.0.1 (EzMTS MTSAgent 1.55a3) ; Thu, 20 Mar 03 10:07:05 +0100 for Received: from olgisoft.com (127.0.0.1) by 127.0.0.1 (EzMTS MTSSmtp 1.55d5) ; Thu, 20 Mar 03 10:06:43 +0100 for From: Olger Diekstra To: X-Mailer: PocoMail 2.6 (1006) - Licensed Version Reply-To: olger@olgisoft.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Envelope-Receiver: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h2K9NMO04883 Subject: [Asrg] A possible way to a solution? Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 10:06:42 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi all, I've been monitoring the list for the past few days now. Hearing (well, reading) everyone with all the different types of solutions and arguments brings me to the following concept. Although its far from covering everything, there are still some lose ends, I think its a good starting point. Although spam should be (and in most countries is) illegal, that's not going to stop it. As long as there are countries that are more flexible to spammers, it will be hard to get them before court. Which ultimately leads to conclude that the law is not going to be able to solve this. So any discussion whether it should be more illegal or not, heavier punishments or cheaper ways to bring a spammer to justice will not make spam go away. In other words, a futile discussion. Since justice needs a person or organization to stand trial, what we need to do first is find out who is spamming in a legal way. Then Justice can take place much more easily. Content filtering is (as has been pointed out before) ultimately an enduser solution. As email can be encrypted (although encrypted spam is hardly very likely) it becomes difficult for an automated process to be checked. Besides, the same content can sometimes be wanted and sometimes be spam (as has also been described in emails from others on the list). If I like to write dirty to my girlfriend, that is not spam. However, if it is to thousands of users around the world that I do not know, that would make it spam for most, although there might still be a few who would want that kind of mail... Systems that rely on remote systems setting tags, or having certificates are also not very reliable in the end. They can be forged. If a spammer has its own mailserver, it can forge any tag that is invented to prevent spam. Seperation of spam and legitimate mail must be close to 100%. Something like 99.99999%. If on a billion mails only one gets lost, that's acceptable to me. Furthermore, the traffic spam consumes must be reduced to its absoluut minimum. Determining if an email is spam can only be done at the receiving side on the server or on the client. A spammer can be a legitimate sender at one time, and a spammer at another. Which ultimately leads me to the conclusion that the receiving mailserver should be the first place to start. This is the place where the spammer has no control over. If he knocks on my door and doesn't know the password, I can simply keep the door locked. Whatever authentication or certification my mailserver wants to receive an email, the spammer will have to comply to. (As long as my security on the server is sound of course...But even then, if security is low, the spammer will have to be a hacker as well, totally different skills, and much more timeconsuming). So the question is probably, how do we do that? Firstly, I want my mailserver to garantee the sender. That will give me much more control. The server could do this as follows: whenever a remote mailserver sends an email to a receiving mailserver, the receiving mailserver should lookup the domain of which the sender claims the email is from, contact the mailserver of that domain, and check it is actually trying to send the email. This will garantee the source to my mailserver, giving me full control over the check. It will be very difficult for the spammer to forge this. Now a problem rises for users that send from a mailserver that's is not part of the source domain. Like mobile users sending mail from their hotelroom, home users sending with an office emailaddress, etc. This can be solved by informing the mailserver of the domain in the FROM field that a message is being send. Basically, you could send the header of the email which will provide enough information. For this to happen reliably, the user would have to login to the mailserver. In the end, if the mailserver of the domain in the FROM field is not notified, the sender will not be able to get the email to me. So now that I know the source, I could setup a list of users on the mailserver that are save. Whenever the mailserver receives an email for me, it'll check against the list of known addresses. If the sending party is in my list, the email can go right to my mailbox. If not, additional action is needed (and has to be defined). Very safe, and without too much need for server resources. I can still send email from anywhere in the world to anyone. Thus, I can create a whitelist of folks whom I trust. Of course, I would need to setup all my emailboxes with the necessary filters. This mechanisme ensures that an email can be traced back to the sending domain, it has to have a valid sending emailaddress of which the domainname is registered in DNS and the authorized mailserver of that domain must have send the email. If more mailservers exists within the sending domain, it is likely that the receiving mailserver connects to a different mailserver from the sending domain. So there also has to be a mechanisme for the sending mailservers to communicate amongst each other. Basically, it should do a sort of broadcast to is fellow mailservers of the domain, and ask if anyone is sending the email. Since we now know who is sending the spam (forging emailaddresses just became much more difficult) we can put up a blacklist with known spammers. An email server should be able to either mirror it in case the blacklist goes down (due to a DoS attack of some sort) or use it realtime. Every user should have an option somewhere, in its client, thru a website of the ISP, whatever, to select a particular blacklist and tell the emailserver to use that list or lists for the users mailbox. The email server will first use the users whitelist, and then the blacklist. If a user considers an email spam, it should be able to reply the email and sent it out again, using a special tag in the subject stating SPAM or something. The email server will pick this up and instead of sending the reply to the spammer (though he might get perhaps a copy?) it will sent it to the blacklist. If the sending address gets, say, twenty emails from different persons stating the sender is a spammer, it could be added to the list. Spammers who use a temporary hotmail account might still form a problem, but they will not be able to send email using that account if they do not notify the hotmail emailserver. Webmail accounts usually can only be used from a webpage which sends the email using an unknown (to the sender) mailserver. I have a feeling spammers are not going to use a webpage to construct thousands of email spam.... Remember, this is just a thought (though a long one...) of how it could be done. The above described method can be slowly implemented in the existing systems. If users also authenticate to SMTP servers, the ISP or administrator can also make sure no unauthorised person gets to use the mailserver. In the end, it will make spamming a whole lot harder. Happy thinking! Olger Diekstra. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 04:48:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA13117 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 04:48:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2KA6BE07024 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 05:06:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KA61O07020 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 05:06:01 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA13111 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 04:47:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K9v6O06737; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 04:57:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2K9unO06696 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 04:56:49 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA12838 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 04:38:09 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2K7kSvw010667; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 23:46:28 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2K7kSXr010663; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 23:46:28 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: Olger Diekstra cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] A possible way to a solution? In-Reply-To: <200303200904.EAA12254@ietf.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 23:46:28 -0800 (PST) Once again this is type of verification based on DNS, I described majority of this approaches in my presentation and in the beginning described what these approaches would need to deal with and the solution described here is pretty much what I called complex mail verficiation. Again ANYBODY who is considering doing any kind DNS based mail sender verification any kind of solution like has been discussed at "Domain Authorized SMTP Mail" thread and RMX and number of other threads (and there are many many people like this on the list), I strongly recommend to read my presentation at: http://www.elan.net/~william/asrg-emailpathverification-presentation.pdf (Note that right now it looks like I will not be presenting this on actual meeting as chair has chosen different presentations for it) I also do think that being able to track spammer to his real location will go 1/2 way in stopping them, the rest would fall into being able to contstruct good black/whitelists and doing legal and other actions to close spammer business. On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Olger Diekstra wrote: > Hi all, > > I've been monitoring the list for the past few days now. Hearing (well, reading) everyone with all > the different types of solutions and arguments brings me to the following concept. Although its far > from covering everything, there are still some lose ends, I think its a good starting point. > > Although spam should be (and in most countries is) illegal, that's not going to stop it. As long as > there are countries that are more flexible to spammers, it will be hard to get them before court. > Which ultimately leads to conclude that the law is not going to be able to solve this. So any > discussion whether it should be more illegal or not, heavier punishments or cheaper ways to bring a > spammer to justice will not make spam go away. In other words, a futile discussion. > Since justice needs a person or organization to stand trial, what we need to do first is find out > who is spamming in a legal way. Then Justice can take place much more easily. > > Content filtering is (as has been pointed out before) ultimately an enduser solution. As email can > be encrypted (although encrypted spam is hardly very likely) it becomes difficult for an automated > process to be checked. Besides, the same content can sometimes be wanted and sometimes be spam (as > has also been described in emails from others on the list). If I like to write dirty to my > girlfriend, that is not spam. However, if it is to thousands of users around the world that I do > not know, that would make it spam for most, although there might still be a few who would want that > kind of mail... > > Systems that rely on remote systems setting tags, or having certificates are also not very reliable > in the end. They can be forged. If a spammer has its own mailserver, it can forge any tag that is > invented to prevent spam. > > Seperation of spam and legitimate mail must be close to 100%. Something like 99.99999%. If on a > billion mails only one gets lost, that's acceptable to me. Furthermore, the traffic spam consumes > must be reduced to its absoluut minimum. Determining if an email is spam can only be done at the > receiving side on the server or on the client. A spammer can be a legitimate sender at one time, > and a spammer at another. > > Which ultimately leads me to the conclusion that the receiving mailserver should be the first place > to start. This is the place where the spammer has no control over. If he knocks on my door and > doesn't know the password, I can simply keep the door locked. Whatever authentication or > certification my mailserver wants to receive an email, the spammer will have to comply to. (As long > as my security on the server is sound of course...But even then, if security is low, the spammer > will have to be a hacker as well, totally different skills, and much more timeconsuming). > > So the question is probably, how do we do that? > Firstly, I want my mailserver to garantee the sender. That will give me much more control. > The server could do this as follows: whenever a remote mailserver sends an email to a receiving > mailserver, the receiving mailserver should lookup the domain of which the sender claims the email > is from, contact the mailserver of that domain, and check it is actually trying to send the email. > This will garantee the source to my mailserver, giving me full control over the check. It will be > very difficult for the spammer to forge this. > Now a problem rises for users that send from a mailserver that's is not part of the source domain. > Like mobile users sending mail from their hotelroom, home users sending with an office > emailaddress, etc. This can be solved by informing the mailserver of the domain in the FROM field > that a message is being send. Basically, you could send the header of the email which will provide > enough information. For this to happen reliably, the user would have to login to the mailserver. In > the end, if the mailserver of the domain in the FROM field is not notified, the sender will not be > able to get the email to me. > > So now that I know the source, I could setup a list of users on the mailserver that are save. > Whenever the mailserver receives an email for me, it'll check against the list of known addresses. > If the sending party is in my list, the email can go right to my mailbox. If not, additional action > is needed (and has to be defined). Very safe, and without too much need for server resources. > I can still send email from anywhere in the world to anyone. Thus, I can create a whitelist of > folks whom I trust. Of course, I would need to setup all my emailboxes with the necessary filters. > > This mechanisme ensures that an email can be traced back to the sending domain, it has to have a > valid sending emailaddress of which the domainname is registered in DNS and the authorized > mailserver of that domain must have send the email. > If more mailservers exists within the sending domain, it is likely that the receiving mailserver > connects to a different mailserver from the sending domain. So there also has to be a mechanisme > for the sending mailservers to communicate amongst each other. Basically, it should do a sort of > broadcast to is fellow mailservers of the domain, and ask if anyone is sending the email. > > Since we now know who is sending the spam (forging emailaddresses just became much more difficult) > we can put up a blacklist with known spammers. An email server should be able to either mirror it > in case the blacklist goes down (due to a DoS attack of some sort) or use it realtime. Every user > should have an option somewhere, in its client, thru a website of the ISP, whatever, to select a > particular blacklist and tell the emailserver to use that list or lists for the users mailbox. The > email server will first use the users whitelist, and then the blacklist. > If a user considers an email spam, it should be able to reply the email and sent it out again, > using a special tag in the subject stating SPAM or something. The email server will pick this up > and instead of sending the reply to the spammer (though he might get perhaps a copy?) it will sent > it to the blacklist. > If the sending address gets, say, twenty emails from different persons stating the sender is a > spammer, it could be added to the list. > > Spammers who use a temporary hotmail account might still form a problem, but they will not be able > to send email using that account if they do not notify the hotmail emailserver. Webmail accounts > usually can only be used from a webpage which sends the email using an unknown (to the sender) > mailserver. I have a feeling spammers are not going to use a webpage to construct thousands of > email spam.... > > Remember, this is just a thought (though a long one...) of how it could be done. The above > described method can be slowly implemented in the existing systems. If users also authenticate to > SMTP servers, the ISP or administrator can also make sure no unauthorised person gets to use the > mailserver. In the end, it will make spamming a whole lot harder. > > Happy thinking! > > Olger Diekstra. > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > -- William Leibzon Elan Communications Inc. Office & Support: 408-519-6243 Sales: 877-ELAN-NET or 650-333-7658 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 05:02:11 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA13449 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 05:02:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2KAJsl08442 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 05:19:54 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KAJiO08424 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 05:19:44 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA13434 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 05:01:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KAH7O08274; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 05:17:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KAG7O08231 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 05:16:07 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA13316 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 04:57:28 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2K85lvw010884; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 00:05:47 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2K85lD9010880; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 00:05:47 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] This research group will fail In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 00:05:46 -0800 (PST) I do not think you're quite right, depending on what system is used, amonymous email can become more difficult, i.e. if you can trace user to such to exact ip/isp/company/domain, the anonymity remains only as long as the company you traced it to is willing to protect that anomymity. As we have seen in latest MPAA vs Verizon, some ISPs can be very protective of that information but in the end Verizon still lost... Also I'm not familiar with ilk. Can you explain that? On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > Anonymous email is pretty easy to support if we have a mechanism that allows > us to control spam. > > Then we can bring up the pnet gateway and its ilk again. > > Phill > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: John Morris [mailto:jmorris@cdt.org] > > Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 10:12 PM > > To: Ian Wilson; Kee Hinckley > > Cc: asrg@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [Asrg] This research group will fail > > > > > > Not to drag us into an extended legal debate, but > > > > At 10:36 PM 3/19/03 -0400, Ian Wilson wrote: > > > > > > > > >I'm not sure *anonymous speech* is worth protecting. I'm > > not saying Free > > >Speech isn't worth protecting, but I should not have the > > protection to say > > >whatever I want, and the protection of doing it under cover. > > > > Lots and lots of anonymous speech is very valuable and some important > > speech would not take place without anonymity (we can discuss > > that more > > off-list if desired). But there are lots of situations in > > which anonymity > > will fall to other interests, and courts will likely agree that false > > return addresses and headers in UCE will not be protected. > > > > >While I'm no > > >lawyer isn't there a distinction between *Free Speech* and > > *Freedom of the > > >Press* and what the framers of the Constitution wanted to > > protect was my > > >right to get on my soapbox down on the corner and launch > > into a diatribe on > > >the government, or any other topic I wanted to. Seems to me > > that what I > > >write on the Internet isn't *Speech* > > > > In the US, FWIW, the opposite of this is true. A key > > conclusion of the US > > Supreme Court's decision in 1997 in Reno v. ACLU, is that in fact the > > Internet is the modern day embodiment of the soap box of old. > > When the > > First Amendment was written, the town commons was important > > in community > > life and a soapbox was an effective way to raise a public > > concern. By the > > late 20th Century, an actual soapbox in a park had become absolutely > > irrelevant. Internet communications are definitely viewed as > > protected > > speech by US courts. > > > > The bottom line for this group is that (at least in the US) the First > > Amendment is likely to impose some constraints on anti-spam > > legislation, > > making technical approaches to reduce spam all the more important. > > > > John > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Asrg mailing list > > Asrg@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 05:24:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA13762 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 05:24:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2KAftu09963 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 05:41:55 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KAfjO09955 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 05:41:45 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA13740 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 05:23:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KAbKO09583; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 05:37:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KAakO09064 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 05:36:46 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id FAA13676 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 05:18:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 526 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2003 10:17:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO startechgroup.co.uk) (10.2.100.157) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 19 Mar 2003 10:17:28 -0000 Subject: Re: [Asrg] An amazing amount of spam Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: asrg@ietf.org To: "Alan DeKok" From: Matt Sergeant In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <91EFAA36-5ABD-11D7-AA5A-0003939CB5D8@startechgroup.co.uk> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 10:20:27 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wednesday, Mar 19, 2003, at 20:34 Europe/London, Alan DeKok wrote: > wayne wrote: >> The spam problem *can't* get as bad as Alan's spam problem. There >> aren't enough pipes on the whole planet to create enough spam to make >> it that bad. Spam may be growning at an exponential rate right now, >> but we all know that exponential growth can't go on forever. > > It can stop when the outbound pipes from the spammers are full. The > problem is that there are a lot of pipes. > > I see no reason why spam can't increase by 2-3 orders of magnitude > over where it is now. While spam may be 50% of the SMTP traffic on > the backbone, there is a LOT of unused bandwidth out there. From my measurements, spam represents about 0.05% of internet bandwidth (at 5% of all email traffic in terms of size (though 50% in terms of quantity)). Matt. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 06:35:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA14884 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 06:35:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2KBrJV13723 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 06:53:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KBr9O13712 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 06:53:09 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA14858 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 06:34:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KBoJO13535; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 06:50:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KBmwO13444 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 06:48:58 -0500 Received: from cs.rice.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA14730 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 06:30:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with SMTP id C7A9A4AB92; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 05:32:32 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95A754AB49; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 05:32:32 -0600 (CST) Received: from cs.rice.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (cs.rice.edu [127.0.0.1:10024]) (amavisd-new) with ESMTP id 04772-03; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 05:32:30 -0600 (CST) Received: from inky (bert.cs.rice.edu [128.42.3.146]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8F3D4AA2A; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 05:32:30 -0600 (CST) Received: by inky (Postfix, from userid 14314) id 1C6ADF3628; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 05:32:00 -0600 (CST) To: mike.pearson@ssc.govt.nz Cc: asrg@ietf.org References: <7B170C5E4008D311ABB70008C7D3825B03BC3592@saison.ssc.govt.nz> From: Scott A Crosby Organization: Rice University In-Reply-To: <7B170C5E4008D311ABB70008C7D3825B03BC3592@saison.ssc.govt.nz> Message-ID: Lines: 68 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Scanned: by amavis-20021227p2 X-DCC--Metrics: cs.rice.edu 1066; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 Subject: [Asrg] Re: Tragedy of the Commons Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 20 Mar 2003 05:31:59 -0600 On Thu, 20 Mar 2003 09:13:47 +1200, mike.pearson@ssc.govt.nz writes: > Thanks to those contributors who mentioned this issue. I found the following > 1-page summary useful in understanding the background of the concept: > http://members.aol.com/trajcom/private/commons.htm > > An important concept though, is that the scarce resource is not [bandwidth], > but [our attention] i.e. technology can give extra Mbs, but not extra > minutes. Exactly! At computer prices of $10,000 for 1ghz. [1] At bandwidth of $100/gb. [2] At storage of $50/gig. [3] In an exaggerated situation, I'd rather burn 60ghz*seconds, 60kb of bandwidth, and 120kb*100 weeks of storage than to deal with a *single* message. In the first case, I'm out $.02 in resources, in the second, I'm out 5 seconds. I value 5 seconds of my time as much more valuable than $.02. For an unexagerated situation, with bandwidth prices of $5/gig, and assuming you actually nuke unwanted email weekly, instead of save it for 2 years, the numbers come to that I'd rather burn 60ghz seconds, 2400kb of bandwidth, 12MB*weeks of storage, for one spam. Thus, I've still thought that the mantra of 'stealing my bandwidth' is an argument I cannot understand, because of how weak it is. I have no idea who made it, or why they focussed on the absolute cheapest resource that spam consumes. (Could someone illuminate this with some history?) Had the mantra been 'they steal my time' or 'they steal my client's time', I'd agree 100%. The real irony is that that argument seems to be getting even more weak, as CPU, storage, and bandwith prices continue to decrease, and human time becomes more valuable. Ergo, my pet-idea of, at some level, essentially forgetting about those ever-cheapening resources; bandwidth, CPU, and space and instead focus on the only resource that is expensive, and getting more expensive: human attention&time. Thus, without *really* good arguments, I can't see the point of ideas that embed complicated policy langauges into SMTP. Nor others that force a sender to burn an infitestimal amount of CPU; I'd rather burn an ghz*hour of CPU than waste a minute of my time. Now, my pet theory of either reducing the cost, in human time to the recipients of unwanted communication, or increase the cost, in human time, to the sender. (And do it in a way that avoids breaking mailing lists.) I throw out CAPTCHA as a starting point. Scott [1] Assume 1ghz for $10,000 over a lifetime of 3 years or 100M seconds, this comes out to $.0001 per second of 1ghz CPU. [2] Colo seems to be about 300 gigs monthly at $3500, taken from www.anchor.net.au; australian dollars. [3] HD is now $1/gig at commodity prices. 50 is conservative. Assume they last 100 weeks. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 10:21:24 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA21563 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 10:21:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2KFdIE28100 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 10:39:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KFdHO28097 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 10:39:17 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA21550 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 10:20:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KFYQO27134; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 10:34:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KFXmO27038 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 10:33:48 -0500 Received: from smtp5.andrew.cmu.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA20958 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 10:15:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from navi.WV.CC.CMU.EDU (CMU-65129.WV.CC.cmu.edu [128.2.78.14]) (user=hparry mech=KERBEROS_V4 (0 bits)) by smtp5.andrew.cmu.edu (8.12.8/8.12.3.Beta2) with ESMTP id h2KFHa9j026757; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 10:17:36 -0500 From: halloran parry To: Scott A Crosby cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Tragedy of the Commons Message-ID: <1173307.1048155457@navi.WV.CC.CMU.EDU> In-Reply-To: References: Originator-Info: login-token=Mulberry:01E7Xne3slSO03OTbyPjVe6kYSXpp5IHRBGFTw8yVaBA==; token_authority=postmaster@andrew.cmu.edu X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.2.1 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 10:17:37 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --On Thursday, March 20, 2003 5:31 AM -0600 Scott A Crosby wrote: > On Thu, 20 Mar 2003 09:13:47 +1200, mike.pearson@ssc.govt.nz writes: > >> Thanks to those contributors who mentioned this issue. I found the >> following 1-page summary useful in understanding the background of the >> concept: http://members.aol.com/trajcom/private/commons.htm >> >> An important concept though, is that the scarce resource is not >> [bandwidth], but [our attention] i.e. technology can give extra Mbs, but >> not extra minutes. > > Exactly! > > At computer prices of $10,000 for 1ghz. [1] > At bandwidth of $100/gb. [2] > At storage of $50/gig. [3] > > In an exaggerated situation, I'd rather burn 60ghz*seconds, 60kb of > bandwidth, and 120kb*100 weeks of storage than to deal with a *single* > message. In the first case, I'm out $.02 in resources, in the second, > I'm out 5 seconds. I value 5 seconds of my time as much more valuable > than $.02. > > For an unexagerated situation, with bandwidth prices of $5/gig, and > assuming you actually nuke unwanted email weekly, instead of save it > for 2 years, the numbers come to that I'd rather burn 60ghz seconds, > 2400kb of bandwidth, 12MB*weeks of storage, for one spam. > > Thus, I've still thought that the mantra of 'stealing my bandwidth' is > an argument I cannot understand, because of how weak it is. I have no > idea who made it, or why they focussed on the absolute cheapest > resource that spam consumes. (Could someone illuminate this with some > history?) Had the mantra been 'they steal my time' or 'they steal my > client's time', I'd agree 100%. > > The real irony is that that argument seems to be getting even more > weak, as CPU, storage, and bandwith prices continue to decrease, and > human time becomes more valuable. > > Ergo, my pet-idea of, at some level, essentially forgetting about > those ever-cheapening resources; bandwidth, CPU, and space and instead > focus on the only resource that is expensive, and getting more > expensive: human attention&time. > > Thus, without *really* good arguments, I can't see the point of ideas > that embed complicated policy langauges into SMTP. Nor others that > force a sender to burn an infitestimal amount of CPU; I'd rather burn > an ghz*hour of CPU than waste a minute of my time. > > Now, my pet theory of either reducing the cost, in human time to the > recipients of unwanted communication, or increase the cost, in human > time, to the sender. (And do it in a way that avoids breaking mailing > lists.) I throw out CAPTCHA as a starting point. > > > Scott On 3/18/03, Matthew Richards posted an interesting idea of developing a new email protocol that used a website based login system for every message sent ([Asrg]try this on for size). The thread was never picked up, and I had criticisms due to its potentially cumbersome nature as far as sending legitimate mass emails was concerned. However, if you're looking to make spamming extremely tedious, time consuming, and difficult for the sender, I think it's worth revisiting that thread. Halloran Parry _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 10:49:46 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA22323 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 10:49:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2KG7eP30209 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:07:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KG7eO30206 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:07:40 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA22312 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 10:49:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KG5DO29346; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:05:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KG4MO29298 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:04:22 -0500 Received: from mailhost.aix.cc (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA22223 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 10:45:56 -0500 (EST) Received: by mailhost.aix.cc (Postfix, from userid 2) id 055951DB642; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 10:45:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from wildmlt (unknown [4.36.172.251]) by mailhost.aix.cc (Postfix) with SMTP id 061B41DBF7A for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 10:15:51 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <015201c2eef3$988f7fc0$1174fea9@aix.cc> From: "M Wild" To: Subject: re: [Asrg] This research group will fail MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 10:15:46 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This proposition really depends on how you define fail. If you mean the solution does not eliminate *ALL* spam I'd say I have to agree. However my requirement is not a 100% solution...I just want some relief, for my users, for my servers and for me. A number of list members have mentioned that it appears folks are looking for the "magic bullet" There is not one so looking for it is a waste of time. I suspect that there will be a number of different measures that solve small parts of the problem and when combined make a real difference. My ideal solution is something that takes place during the SMTP handshake...if the mail gets to the DATA phase then my mail server is committed to doing the work of virus scanning the mail, marching it around the various queues and either delivering it to the user's mailbox or having to bounce it back to the (probably fictitious) sender. That is a loss for me. I have philosophical issues with whitelists/blacklists mainly due to the fact that I don't want my mail servers to have to keep track of a lot of stuff and/or turn over control of who I will/will not accept mail from to an external party. I may have to get over this in order to get to a solution that works. If I really thought this group was going to fail this would be an unsubscribe...the mail volume on this list is, well, significant. I'm still here because I'm convinced the collective wisdom of the list will come up with *SOMETHING* If nothing else the humor of some of the posters gives me a chuckle on a regular basis and that is definitely worth reading. Regards Mike _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 10:54:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA22472 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 10:54:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2KGCdi30408 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:12:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KGCdO30405 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:12:39 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA22461 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 10:54:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KG93O30283; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:09:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KG80O30230 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:08:00 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA22317 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 10:49:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h2KFpig07551 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 10:51:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF4Z8JB; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 10:51:45 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBG10L; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 10:51:45 -0500 Message-ID: <3E79E453.9090305@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] A method to eliminate spam References: <80386.1048109492@monkeys.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 10:54:59 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > In message <3E78C984.1020505@americasm01.nt.com>, > "Chris Lewis" wrote: > And the winner is.... <... > :-) I was expecting you to chime in :-) >>[*] I have an issue with MONKEYSPROXY because the criteria for removal >>isn't "just fix the open socks or proxy and ask for retest" - because >>asking for the retest has other extraneous requirements. > The UPL re-testing/de-listing requirements are detailed here: > http://www.monkeys.com/upl/delisting-policy.html > They are reasonably trivial to satisfy... unless you are a complete > dumbshit and/or unless your ISP is totally worthless and totally > unresponsive, even to YOUR requests for assistance. I'm half expecting/dreading this to turn into a long protracted discussion. Ron and I have had this conversation before, and I don't expect my comments here will change his mind. So, I'm going to say my piece as it pertains to general principles of spam control and then shut up on this subject. In my view, the criteria for "delisting" an IP in a blacklist should be the exact reverse of the criteria for "listing". This is true in most blacklists. Not true for Monkeys - it's saving grace _so_far_ is simply that it _is_ very effective (partially due to us, as you'll recall, Ron). But this will degrade over time given your delisting criteria. I agree with your remark about ISPs. But, that's not the point. The goal of any anti-spam "technique" is to stop spam, not to to attempt to enforce "best practises" which are unrelated to the technique, and are at best only indirectly addressing spam. As such, a list where being listed means "you're an open proxy", being delisted should mean "you're no longer an open proxy", not "you're no longer an open proxy, and your provider isn't an idiot". For our purposes in handling false positives, I need to be able to tell the person who hit the block that "I've triggered a retest" subject only to issues surrounding, say, OSIRUS's or ORDB's retesting mechanism glitching and missing a request, not "I tried to, pray your ISP pays attention, your WHOIS entry is sane, etc". The UPL isn't strictly a "open proxy/socks" list, it's more of a awkward combination of "open proxy/socks" plus "RFCIgnorant". Those who want to use it need to be aware of that fact. When we hit a MONKEYS block we provide the end-user with the appropriate link for the sender progressing through your delisting criteria, but I'd expect the majority of users not be able to complete it successfully. As I said, it's not a problem in practise yet, because we automatically whitelist hits in "security lists" (open relay, proxy, socks) unless we have reason to believe that the IP in question is actively spewing spam _now_. However, as the UPL gets older (it's only a few months old), and more and more entries become out-of-date because of the delisting requirements, we may have to rethink all of our interactions with it. > Hummmm.... <>... So only about 1/90th of your > whitelist requests arise due to your use of the UPL, but the UPL is > stopping half, or more than half of your incoming spam. As I mentioned, I expect this to degrade over time. BOPM by itself is almost as effective as Monkeys, and it doesn't have this problem - it can't degrade into a list of "stupid providers" instead of "open proxies/socks". As for BOPM - only two "false positive" reports over a period several months longer than we've been using Monkeys. They were really open at the time and spewing spam. We got the sites fixed and delisted. In other words, we've not seen a FP due to BOPM's entries being stale yet. At least half of those with the UPL were stale and no longer valid. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 11:06:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA23069 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:06:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2KGOUX32444 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:24:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KGOTO32441 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:24:29 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA23052 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:06:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KGM5O30922; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:22:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KGL0O30854 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:21:00 -0500 Received: from zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA22810 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:02:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h2KG4mB15698 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:04:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF4Z8X6; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:04:48 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBGFAB; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:04:48 -0500 Message-ID: <3E79E762.9030506@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] A method to eliminate spam References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:08:02 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Matt Sergeant wrote: > On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Chris Lewis wrote: >>TOTAL 1885655 100.00 >>TOTAL BLOCK 316567 16.79 (total blocked) > How come you're such a large entity yet this figure is so much lower than > everyone else is seeing? Is it because the companies (like ours) that work > in spam filtering are sought out by those with a spam problem, whereas > your user base covers everyone? The figure is much lower than some other people see simply because of an historical accident - we changed our domain name (from the domains in our spamtrap to nortelnetworks.com) a few years ago. We didn't change it because of spam volumes directly, but, the timing turned out to be extremely fortuitous. [My involvement with the old domain decommissioning was to get the messaging group to stop routing the old domains, rather than simply not using them in From: stamping anymore.] If you had looked in at our nortelnetworks.com spam volumes then, you'd have seen < 1% spam. Meanwhile, on the other domains that are now in the spamtrap, it was often hitting or exceeding 50%. If you want to see the "real" picture as to what we would have looked like now without the domain name change, you need to combine our spamtrap and production figures. In other words, if we hadn't changed our domain name, this is roughly what you would have seen per day: 300,000 ham 40,000 + 950,000 spams. Ie: around 77% spam. But it's just a matter of time before our production domains get back up to that figure on its own. >>2) Lesser used blacklists have higher FP rates, because fewer legit >>senders hit them. OBrelays is only used by two sites: us, and its >>maintainer. Despite being _large_ (OB is > 30 million mail addresses), >>it's still small compared to the coverage of the other lists, hence the >>relatively higher FP percentage. > Why don't they make it publicly available then? I can't speak for them. Sorry. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 11:15:24 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA23264 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:15:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2KGXJh00445 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:33:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KGXJO00442 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:33:19 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA23256 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:14:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KGS2O32679; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:28:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KGRDO32627 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:27:13 -0500 Received: from gorgoroth.localnet (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA23148 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:08:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from unternet.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gorgoroth.localnet (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2KGB5Kp001791 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 17:11:05 +0100 Message-ID: <3E79E819.6040803@unternet.org> From: Frank de Lange User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4a) Gecko/20030310 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] List Kiddies References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 17:11:05 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > OK so we thought we should get a pejorative name for the twits who BUY the > CDROM of 10 million email addresses, many 8 years old or more. > > This is what we did a while back with hackers, inventing a demeaning term > for them to strip them of the mistique. > > After some thought we came up with 'something like suckers' but no further. > So I'll make an executive decision here and the name is LIST KIDDIES. > > This name is self explanatory, a lot of the spam problem is caused by > clueless dweebs who will never make a dollar sending spam to a 10 year old > list. The 'kiddie' part is a little on the opaque side but will be readily > understood by the community and the trade press. > > Phill > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg Hm , for a moment I thought you were referring to people on this list when I read 'list kiddies'. The term does give room for widely different interpretations. Maybe we should look for something which brings up visions of clouds of nasty insects hovering around a lamppost, or fleas in a scruffy dog's pelt, or... Frank _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 11:23:00 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA23482 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:23:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2KGetC02885 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:40:55 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KGetO02882 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:40:55 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA23478 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:22:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KGbKO02167; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:37:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KGaeO01664 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:36:40 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc03.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA23338 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:18:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from video.attbi.com (12-235-20-211.client.attbi.com[12.235.20.211]) by sccrmhc03.attbi.com (sccrmhc03) with SMTP id <2003032016202800300d95kre>; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 16:20:28 +0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030319231119.04877068@mail.attbi.com> X-Sender: schear@mail.attbi.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: Kee Hinckley From: Steve Schear Subject: RE: [Asrg] Thoughts so far Cc: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030319192922.04810f38@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030319140305.04811d40@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030319100246.04899280@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030318222537.04823958@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030318094728.04804d40@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030317162233.048c73e8@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030317162233.048c73e8@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030318094728.04804d40@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030318222537.04823958@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030319100246.04899280@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030319140305.04811d40@mail.attbi.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030319192922.04810f38@mail.attbi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 08:23:27 -0800 At 01:47 AM 3/20/2003 -0500, you wrote: >Well, I'm sure the list is tired of this, so I'll take it off line. > >>>do you think will be coerced to change? The 5% that adopted your system >>>initially, or the 95% that didn't? >> >>Depends on whether the 95% continue be deluged with spam and the 5% claim >>they no longer do. > >But you haven't explained, despite multiple requests, how sender-pays >protects the 5%. Spammers are not likely to respond to a challenge response, especially one that requires them to undertake a computational effort (even assuming they could automate their response). >You've explained how whitelisting and challenge-response (requiring the >sender to do something and send again) can help the 5%. (And you haven't >even addressed the obvious problems with those.) > >>The sender-pays system, when implemented via PoW, is asymmetric to the >>extent that only the recipient, if that, needs to install special >>SW. The postage generation by the sender can be initiated via an applet >>DL from a linked web site communicated by the recipient in what you are >>calling the challenge/response. > >"apple DL from a linked web site" == "install special SW" Although this is technically correct, most people don't equate DL'ing an applet (which may involve nothing more than granting download access) with the installation of special SW. A good example of this is Hushmail. >>>>I don't think postage requires a universal acceptance off the bat. If >>>>it works for me, that's all I care. Progress occurs when a small, but >>> >>>Please explain how it works for you when nobody else is using it. >> >>You've jumped from a small number to zero, just as you're jumping to no >>solution without universality. > >Fine. 5% of your correspondents. 50% of your correspondents. How are >stamps helping you any more than whitelisting? White listing helps with entities you already know, or if you trust 3rd party white list sources then sources that others trust. Stamps raise a barrier to unknown correspondents, spammers or otherwise, to getting your attention. >>>Yes. That is true. Please explain what the advantages are when only a >>>small group is using it. >> >>That group is, hopefully protected from a majority of spam. > >You've yet to explain how. Remember. We're talking about sender >pays. I've never argued that you can't get people to deploy whitelisting. > >>>Absolutely. So long as they have a critical mass, they are useful. How >>>are you going to get a critical mass? >> >>Critical mass, from my view, is when most of my would-be-correspondents >>use it. I care not otherwise. > >Then why on earth did you join this mailing list? The mailing list is >concerned with solving the problem for the majority of email users. Not >just your friends. But that's how most of the Net's useful solutions came about. A group got together and solved their problems. Then they released the solution for others to use. If the solution was good then others took it up and created something for a much wider audience. A lot of good ideas are being discussed on this list, but only those ideas that don't require changing the basic infrastructures or ISP economics are likely to get a real try. (Consider how politics and economics have thwarted widespread deployment of IPv6). Most of the current spam solutions create an 'arms race' with the spammers. PoW is certainly no different, but real value stamps are. All I'm saying is that until real sender-pays system(s) get built and tested we won't know if they can reasonably be extended to this wider audience. But the place to start is with smaller dedicated group(s) testing and deploying what they can and reporting back what they have discovered. Insisting that any solution recommendations have almost no end-user experience impact is, IMHO, naive. The end-user points are the only ones which don't require >>>So, you agree that in the early stages your system is a combination of >>>whitelisting and challenge/response. >> >>I never said otherwise. Have you read the papers at http:www.camram.org? > >Yes. Did I ever say I hadn't? > >>>Now take a user looking for an anti-spam system. He can install two >>>systems. >>>1. A whitelisting and challenge/response system. >> >>That's camram with a web applet for generating postage. > >To the person trying to talk to you--it's a request to do something before >they can talk to you. You can see my previous postings on issues with >web-based challenge response, not the least of which is that many large >companies restrict outbound web connections for security reasons. (I >know, you don't care, you don't talk to them.) > >>>2. A whitelisting and challenge/response system that makes his >>>correspondents install special software and makes it more difficult and >>>expensive for him to send email. >> >>I guess this system, who's ever it is may be at a disadvantage. > >You say that as though you weren't talking about camram. The *goal* of >sender-pays is to make it more difficult or expensive to send email. And >we both agree that it requires software to do it. Yes. >>>Why will he install #2? >> >>Depends on perceived effectiveness and other, perhaps intangible factors. > >Altruism perhaps? SETI@Home is one such example. >>>Okay, now I think we may be approaching understanding. All you need to >>>realize is that the number of people who will decide "its not for them" >>>is greater than the number who won't. Therefore, you'll never approach >>>universal acceptance. Therefore it's a dead-end. >> >>The requirement of universal acceptance is probably a dead end. > >I agree 100%. That's why I believe that systems that don't work without >close-to-universal acceptance are dead ends. Everytime I bring this up, >however, you back-off and claim that you don't care if you can't get email >from people you don't know. I didn't say that (or didn't mean that if I did). What I mean is that I don't care if I don't get email from unknown correspondents that won't agree to do even a small amount of additional work (e.g., running a Java applet from a site I direct them to in my challenge to generate a stamp) to make first contact. >That's very nice for a personal system for a limited set of people. But >it's not a general anti-spam solution. I agree that unless/until such solutions become well established and widely understood, if not universal, it won't help those whose use of email requires little or no first contact friction. >>>And at this point I give up on my end of this discussion. If you aren't >>>persuaded now, I suggest you go start a software company selling end >>>user software (find a good area to tackle--something where Microsoft is >>>giving away their product for free, for instance--and sell something >>>that doesn't interoperate with other software in the area) and we can >>>pick up this discussion in ten years or so when you've had some >>>experience trying to sell software to end-users who already have a >>>solution that sucks, but basically works. >> >>All the work I'm referring to is open source, like Freenet, and >>Linux. I'm not trying to sell SW to anyone. I'm looking for a viable >>solution for me. > >You know. I thought you'd say that, and I almost dealt with it in my >response, but I didn't think you'd be that silly. > >My point, which you seem to deliberately evade, is that you apparently >have absolutely no concept of how the market works, how end users make >decisions, and how companies choose to adopt software. Those factors >impact the adoption of software--whether you are selling it or giving it away. > >But, as you admit. You don't care. You're developing a toy for you and >your friends to play with, and you have no plans to address the needs of >general users at all. You don't give a damn about the impact your system >would have on customer support. You don't care whether any company will >want to adopt it. You don't care if unsophisticated users won't be able >to learn to use it. When pushed on any issues that apply to general >use--you back off and claim that all you care about is whether it works >for yourself. What I'm saying is that until spender-pays systems are deployed and tested no one will know whether and how well they work. Whether its Camram or M$'s PennyBlack they need fielding before any of us can vote with our feet, wallets and keyboards. >>And all without reading the detailed material. Amazing! > >Only if it were true. I have read the site. It also has no clear >explanation for why anyone would want to install this system over one that >doesn't require spending time or money. I think it does. It explains that spending time or money creates a practical 'economic' basis for email where little or none now exists. It is this lack of market forces which we believes is one missing aspect to the spam solution. steve _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 11:27:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA23552 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:27:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2KGjVt03188 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:45:31 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KGjVO03185 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:45:31 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA23539 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:27:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KGd1O02698; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:39:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KGcPO02647 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:38:25 -0500 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA23395 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:19:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 18w2o2-0000JX-00; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 16:22:14 +0000 Subject: Re: [Asrg] Taxonomy of anti-spam systems version 3 To: "Paul Judge" From: "Jon Kyme" Reply-To: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.4.12] Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 16:22:14 +0000 > Here is a third draft of the taxonomy of anti-spam systems. > > > and response, I believe that it should be prevention, detection, and > response. Prevention systems are subcategorized into deterrence systems > and > protection systems. Good so far I think. I still believe a more general message classification taxonomy (including spam) would be useful. Of course that's not what you're trying to do here so I'll shut up (for now). > 3) Spam Responses - These are the different approaches that can be > taken upon receipt. > maybe add (l) Bounce Back as performed by (I'm sure otherwise excellent) "Mailwasher", "Spam CSI" etc. I don't think this is covered by "Malicious response". -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 11:41:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24046 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:41:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2KGxff04108 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:59:41 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KGxfO04105 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:59:41 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24032 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:41:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KGu2O03891; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:56:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KGtqO03841 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:55:52 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc03.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA23941 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:37:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from video.attbi.com (12-235-20-211.client.attbi.com[12.235.20.211]) by sccrmhc03.attbi.com (sccrmhc03) with SMTP id <2003032016394100300dagpde>; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 16:39:41 +0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030320084215.048f2548@mail.attbi.com> X-Sender: schear@mail.attbi.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: Tony Finch , frank@unternet.org From: Steve Schear Subject: Re: [Asrg] Thoughts so far Cc: Damien Morton , Margie Arbon , asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: References: <3E77AEA8.7020100@unternet.org> <010201c2ed87$ff85c580$6401a8c0@damien> <010201c2ed87$ff85c580$6401a8c0@damien> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 08:42:43 -0800 At 04:04 PM 3/19/2003 +0000, Tony Finch wrote: >Frank de Lange wrote: > > > >All this talk about 'handling rates' and charges and stamps and such... > >how will we make sure that this does not become just another profit > >center? > >I like the Microsoft Penny Black idea of refundable stamps, which is >unfortunately not described on their web page. The idea being that >legitimate email is effectively free, but unwanted email costs money. > >Having spend some time working on algorithms for proof-of-work systems >that take a comparable amount of time on all sorts of computers, they >also make the point that schemes like this are doomed by Moore's Law. >Hence work on a mechanism that can provide a proper financial incentive >to use email responsibly or at least professionally. > >http://research.microsoft.com/research/sv/PennyBlack/ Funny how they focus on the ticket service, the only variant that requires a central server run by, err, guess who? steve _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 11:41:46 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24054 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:41:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2KGxg204124 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:59:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KGxgO04121 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:59:42 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24034 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:41:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KGtKO03779; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:55:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KGq2O03519 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:52:02 -0500 Received: from cs.rice.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA23806 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:33:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with SMTP id C81D04AA15; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 10:35:50 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6FCF4AA0C; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 10:35:50 -0600 (CST) Received: from cs.rice.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (cs.rice.edu [127.0.0.1:10024]) (amavisd-new) with ESMTP id 28852-04; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 10:35:49 -0600 (CST) Received: from inky (bert.cs.rice.edu [128.42.3.146]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCA834A9BA; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 10:35:48 -0600 (CST) Received: by inky (Postfix, from userid 14314) id 7EF84F3628; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 10:35:18 -0600 (CST) To: halloran parry Cc: asrg@ietf.org From: Scott A Crosby Organization: Rice University In-Reply-To: <1173307.1048155457@navi.WV.CC.CMU.EDU> Message-ID: Lines: 120 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Scanned: by amavis-20021227p2 X-DCC--Metrics: cs.rice.edu 1067; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 Subject: [Asrg] Stamping Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 20 Mar 2003 10:35:18 -0600 On Thu, 20 Mar 2003 10:17:37 -0500, halloran parry writes: > On 3/18/03, Matthew Richards posted an interesting idea of developing > a new email protocol that used a website based login system for every > message sent ([Asrg]try this on for size). The thread was never > picked up, and I had criticisms due to its potentially cumbersome > nature as far as sending legitimate mass emails was concerned. > However, if you're looking to make spamming extremely tedious, time > consuming, and difficult for the sender, I think it's worth revisiting > that thread. That consumes the only resource that is gaining in cost each year. I don't like that, but how about some notion of stamping? Each message recieved must include a valid stamp. Stamps are only usable once. Stamps are 96 bits, and thus may be represented as 17 ASCII base64 characters each. The two types are: 1. Stamps that encode a partial hash collision, of a sufficient number of bits so that the MD5 hash of the stamp agrees with a sufficient number of bits in the MD5 hash of the recipients email address. The input to MD5 is 64 bits and forms 2/3 of the stamp. The remaining 32 bits is a random nonce supplied by the recipient. 2. Stamps may be random nonces created by the recipient. This document does not discuss additional means to disburse stamps (such as CAPTCHA's). In both cases, the recipient is responsible for tracking the use of a stamp to prevent double-spending. All messages SHOULD include a stamp in order to be recieved. 1. Each sent message MUST include at least two fresh stamps for each To, Cc, or Bcc recipient. The stamps must be valid for the Reply-To address. 2. Stamps may also be generated through partial hash collision requiring 10 Ghz*min of work. There is a stamp-control protocol supporting the following messages: 1. QueryValidStamp: Given a set of stamps, report which stamps are and are not valid for a recipient. 2. RequestStamp: A request of a sender for a roll of stamps. This request must be forwarded to the user-agent who will decide whether to allow or deny the user's request. 3. StampMissingBounce: A message was sent but not delivered because no valid stamp attached. In this case, the user-agent is required to create a hash-partial-collision stamp, then resend the message. This bounce also includes a random nonce that must be used for partial hash collisions. 4. RescindStamps: A request by the user agent to rescind a prior set of granted stamps granted by RequestStamp. ** I don't think it would seem to signifigantly hurt many current email parties: 1. Resources per stamp are small; the amount of stamp text required in an email would be little more than the amount currently required for email addresses. 2. When sending an email, if the sender has a valid stamp for each recipient, they use it and send the email. If not, they attempt to send the message with no stamp. If they recieve a StampMissingBounce for a messsage without a stamp, create a partial hash collision stamp. If they recieve a StampMissingBounce for an address with a stamp, then their understanding of valid and invalid stamps is in error. They send a QueryValidStamp request to that recipient to see which other stamps they hold for the recipient are also invalid. They then repeat this step. 3. Robotic replies would not be harmed. Each email sent MUST include two valid stamps suitable for automatic replies. 4. Mailing lists would also not be harmed, because the mailing list manager could request stamps from the user in blocks of 1000, then use them on the outgoing messages. When they run low, they send a RequestStamp request to the user to give more stamps. 5. First-time senders would be impacted with a 3-30 minute CPU bill, but not too badly. 6. I use nonces in the construction of stamps that may be timed out by recipients. ---Flaws--- I've not discussed the seperation of interests between ISP's and end-users, nor what protocol would be used to represent this seperation. I've not discussed when parties such as mailing lists strip stamps off of messages. As stamps are not tied per-sender, they are transferrable, so, for instance, stamps should not be put online. One can still be spammed by RequestStamp messages, and ignorant users may allow them. Fortunatly this can be half-solved; one attaches a 'report spam' button to an email client, which then sends a RescindStamps to rescind all of the stamps in the given group. Webmail and similar email-to-X gateways may be socked with the CPU bill. ------- So, go ahead and shred it. Scott _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 12:14:02 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25510 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:14:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2KHVxh07528 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:31:59 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KHVxO07524 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:31:59 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25492 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:13:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KHPDO06843; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:25:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KH5kO04509 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:05:46 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24167 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:47:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18vyRC-000588-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 06:42:22 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] List Kiddies In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 20 Mar 2003 00:18:34 PST." Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 06:42:22 -0500 "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" wrote: > OK so we thought we should get a pejorative name for the twits who BUY the > CDROM of 10 million email addresses, many 8 years old or more. My thought was "garbage provider". e.g. We have network providers, access providers, so why not garbage provider? They have a very good business model. They take other people's garbage, and dump it on your front lawn. It's a phenomonally successful business model for them, and a stinky problem for everyone else. > After some thought we came up with 'something like suckers' but no further. > So I'll make an executive decision here and the name is LIST KIDDIES. IMHO, that's too close to 'script kiddies', and thus shares mindset with it. A name which doesn't have overlap with an existing term would get more unique mindshare. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 12:14:20 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25524 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:14:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2KHWGU07562 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:32:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KHWGO07559 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:32:16 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25505 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:13:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KHPJO06867; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:25:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KH7JO05027 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:07:19 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24207 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:48:51 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2KGp45R007831; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:51:04 -0500 Message-Id: <200303201651.h2KGp45R007831@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.2 03/18/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: Scott A Crosby Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Tragedy of the Commons In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 20 Mar 2003 05:31:59 CST." References: <7B170C5E4008D311ABB70008C7D3825B03BC3592@saison.ssc.govt.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_259139506P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:51:03 -0500 --==_Exmh_259139506P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Thu, 20 Mar 2003 05:31:59 CST, Scott A Crosby said: > Thus, I've still thought that the mantra of 'stealing my bandwidth' is > an argument I cannot understand, because of how weak it is. I have no > idea who made it, or why they focussed on the absolute cheapest There's two corner cases that you need to consider here: 1) Your note arrived at my laptop over a last-hop link over a 44K modem link (poor copper out to my place). If your note had been a 200K spam-gram, it would have delayed the arrival of something legitimate that I was *waiting* for by some number of seconds. Also note that bandwidth used by inbound mail is bandwidth I can't use to check www.weather.com (which is a bit important, due to heavy rain this part of Virginia has a flash flood watch in place). If I have to upgrade mu last-hop link to ADLS or cablemodem, that will be a hit of some $50/month. It's one thing to decide spending $50/mo because you'd like to websurf faster. It's another thing to find out that you no longer have that $50/mo to spend on other things because you can't cope with spam anymore. 2) Dark fiber is cheap. Bandwidth is cheap. However, we recently kicked our campus backbone to gig-E and our main off-campus pipe to OC12. If we need to upgrade the off-campus to 2xOC12 or OC48, that is going to *COST* a pretty chunk of change, as we'd need to upgrade routers, and NetworkVirginia would have to upgrade routers, etc etc.... --==_Exmh_259139506P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+efF3cC3lWbTT17ARAgF8AKDFG9CDCwNk1VMqE4OWrX/jYP3qjACg5P0W XBLk3tH3UV113BIh6iioNLo= =SEJ+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_259139506P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 12:16:49 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25680 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:16:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2KHYke07730 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:34:46 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KHYkO07727 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:34:46 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25615 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:16:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KHU9O07377; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:30:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KHTuO07282 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:29:56 -0500 Received: from dogma.slashnull.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25367 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:11:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.jmason.org (ga183055.reshsg.uci.edu [128.195.183.55]) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KHAXx06513; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 17:10:33 GMT Received: by localhost.jmason.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id E51B38C7D8; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:12:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from jmason.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E18EF8C7D2; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 09:12:41 -0800 (PST) To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] List Kiddies In-Reply-To: Message from "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" of "Thu, 20 Mar 2003 00:18:34 PST." From: jm@jmason.org (Justin Mason) X-GPG-Key-Fingerprint: 0A48 2D8B 0B52 A87D 0E8A 6ADD 4137 1B50 6E58 EF0A X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to . Message-Id: <20030320171241.E51B38C7D8@localhost.jmason.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 09:12:36 -0800 Hallam-Baker, Phillip said: > OK so we thought we should get a pejorative name for the twits who BUY the > CDROM of 10 million email addresses, many 8 years old or more. What about "chickenboners"? It's been in use for that crowd, for 5 years or so, and is pretty perjorative ;) --j. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 12:16:57 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25706 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:16:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2KHYs507765 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:34:54 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KHYsO07762 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:34:54 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25633 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:16:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KHU7O07361; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:30:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KHTIO07251 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:29:18 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25343 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:10:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2169582; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:13:07 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <7B170C5E4008D311ABB70008C7D3825B03BC3592@saison.ssc.govt.nz> To: Scott A Crosby From: Kee Hinckley Subject: [Asrg] Re: Tragedy of the Commons Cc: mike.pearson@ssc.govt.nz, asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 10:50:06 -0500 At 5:31 AM -0600 3/20/03, Scott A Crosby wrote: >Thus, I've still thought that the mantra of 'stealing my bandwidth' is >an argument I cannot understand, because of how weak it is. I have no The problem isn't an end-user problem. It's a mail-server problem. Matt just posted a stat showing that spam accounted for 5% of all email traffic. (And it's mail traffic I'm concerned about--since it's the bandwidth to my mail server that's a problem.) I'll give good odds that that was percentage of *delivered* mail. (Matt?) What it doesn't count are the millions and millions of messages that couldn't be delivered, had to be rejected, and then had the destination machine "temporarily" unavailable, and sat in the queue retrying for three days before they were discarded. That can consume a serious amount of bandwidth and disk space. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 12:16:59 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25719 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:16:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2KHYuo07781 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:34:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KHYtO07778 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:34:55 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25638 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:16:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KHUBO07393; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:30:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KHTxO07286 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:29:59 -0500 Received: from dogma.slashnull.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25371 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:11:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.jmason.org (ga183055.reshsg.uci.edu [128.195.183.55]) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KHAXx06512; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 17:10:33 GMT Received: by localhost.jmason.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 486EA8C7D2; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:12:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from jmason.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E25E28C7D6; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 09:12:41 -0800 (PST) To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] List Kiddies In-Reply-To: Message from "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" of "Thu, 20 Mar 2003 00:18:34 PST." From: jm@jmason.org (Justin Mason) X-GPG-Key-Fingerprint: 0A48 2D8B 0B52 A87D 0E8A 6ADD 4137 1B50 6E58 EF0A X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to . Message-Id: <20030320171241.486EA8C7D2@localhost.jmason.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 09:12:36 -0800 Hallam-Baker, Phillip said: > OK so we thought we should get a pejorative name for the twits who BUY the > CDROM of 10 million email addresses, many 8 years old or more. What about "chickenboners"? It's been in use for that crowd, for 5 years or so, and is pretty perjorative ;) --j. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 12:19:52 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25759 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:19:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2KHbnU08648 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:37:49 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KHbnO08645 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:37:49 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25754 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:19:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KHS4O07161; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:28:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KHR8O07056 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:27:08 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA25115 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:08:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 25486 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2003 17:07:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO startechgroup.co.uk) (10.2.100.157) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 19 Mar 2003 17:07:59 -0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed From: Matt Sergeant To: asrg@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Sender pays vs Forgeries Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 17:11:00 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I've not seen any of the "Sender pays" (camram, money or otherwise) or "Whitelist" people address this issue... Assumptions: 1. The vast majority of spam is sent with invalid return addresses (be they forged or since-closed freemail accounts). 2. A large proportion (approaching or in excess of 50%) of all email is spam. Conclusions: 1. First time contact "bounces", whether to ask for payment, or to ask for a computation, or to ask for "proof of human", get sent to an invalid address. 2. Someone (most likely your ISP or email provider) has to deal with the resulting bounce from the receiving domain. 3. A sender pays system doubles the number of junk emails traveling through the internet. 4. This can only be solved by somehow solving the problem of falsified return addresses. 5. Solve (4) and you're half way there (perhaps all the way there?) to solving the spam problem, and you don't need sender pays. Anyone in the sender pays camp want to address these points? Matt. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 12:43:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA26801 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:43:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2KI1Wd09933 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 13:01:32 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KI1WO09930 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 13:01:32 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA26791 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:43:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KHwKO09559; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:58:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KHnrO09078 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:49:53 -0500 Received: from gorgoroth.localnet (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA26230 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:31:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from unternet.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gorgoroth.localnet (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2KHXgKp001966 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 18:33:42 +0100 Message-ID: <3E79FB76.4080106@unternet.org> From: Frank de Lange User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4a) Gecko/20030310 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Wsanted: pointers to scientific research into the spam problem Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 18:33:42 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hiya! (live from the ASRG meeting in SF) I just volunteered for the task of finding pointers to all the research which has been done into the spam phenomenon during the last 11 years. As many eyes make all problems shallow, I'd like to ask you to send me pointers to research projects you know of. Please send them to my personal email address: frank@unternet,org ...to keep down the noise on the list. I will compile a list of everything you send and everything I find, and post it back to the list in a day or so. TIA//Frank _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 13:07:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27534 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 13:07:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2KIPRN11899 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 13:25:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KIPRO11896 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 13:25:27 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27521 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 13:06:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KIM4O11696; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 13:22:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KIHVO11460 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 13:17:31 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA27276 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:59:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from sputnik (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h2KI1II6002411 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 19:01:18 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sputnik.mobil.danisch.de (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-8) id h2KI0bQt013411 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 19:00:37 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] This research group will fail Message-ID: <20030320180036.GA13324@danisch.de> References: <20030319173329.GA3058@danisch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030319173329.GA3058@danisch.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 10:00:36 -0800 On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 09:33:29AM -0800, Hadmut Danisch wrote: > > Spam doesn't sell significant numbers of penis enlargement devices. After hearing Steve Atkins' talk I have to admit that my assumption was wrong... Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 13:20:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA28026 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 13:20:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2KIcQt13349 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 13:38:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KIcQO13346 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 13:38:26 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27986 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 13:19:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KIa5O12435; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 13:36:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KIZJO12382 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 13:35:19 -0500 Received: from chiark.greenend.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27866 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 13:16:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from fanf by chiark.greenend.org.uk with local (Exim 3.12 #1) id 18w4d1-0003ld-00 (Debian); Thu, 20 Mar 2003 18:18:59 +0000 From: Tony Finch To: Steve Schear Cc: Tony Finch , frank@unternet.org, Damien Morton , Margie Arbon , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Thoughts so far Message-ID: <20030320181859.B20152@chiark.greenend.org.uk> References: <3E77AEA8.7020100@unternet.org> <010201c2ed87$ff85c580$6401a8c0@damien> <010201c2ed87$ff85c580$6401a8c0@damien> <5.1.0.14.2.20030320084215.048f2548@mail.attbi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030320084215.048f2548@mail.attbi.com>; from schear@attbi.com on Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 08:42:43AM -0800 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 18:18:59 +0000 On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 08:42:43AM -0800, Steve Schear wrote: > At 04:04 PM 3/19/2003 +0000, Tony Finch wrote: > > > >I like the Microsoft Penny Black idea of refundable stamps, which is > >unfortunately not described on their web page. The idea being that > >legitimate email is effectively free, but unwanted email costs money. > > Funny how they focus on the ticket service, the only variant that requires > a central server run by, err, guess who? Yes :-) Though I think it could be changed into a distributed system not unlike the DNS, in which case it would have equivalent privacy implications. Though of course then you have to decide which ticket servers you trust... Tony. -- f.a.n.finch http://dotat.at/ SHETLAND ISLES: WEST 4 OR 5 BACKING SOUTHWEST 3 OR 4, INCREASING 5 OR 6 ON FRIDAY. PATCHY RAIN. MODERATE OR GOOD. MODERATE OR ROUGH. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 13:20:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA28039 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 13:20:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2KIcRc13365 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 13:38:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KIcRO13362 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 13:38:27 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27990 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 13:19:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KIaAO12452; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 13:36:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KIZWO12389 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 13:35:32 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA27869 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 13:17:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 29657 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2003 18:16:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO startechgroup.co.uk) (10.2.100.157) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 19 Mar 2003 18:16:23 -0000 Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Tragedy of the Commons Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: Scott A Crosby , mike.pearson@ssc.govt.nz, asrg@ietf.org To: Kee Hinckley From: Matt Sergeant In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <7AB3426C-5B00-11D7-AA5A-0003939CB5D8@startechgroup.co.uk> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 18:19:24 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thursday, Mar 20, 2003, at 15:50 Europe/London, Kee Hinckley wrote: > At 5:31 AM -0600 3/20/03, Scott A Crosby wrote: >> Thus, I've still thought that the mantra of 'stealing my bandwidth' is >> an argument I cannot understand, because of how weak it is. I have no > > The problem isn't an end-user problem. It's a mail-server problem. > Matt just posted a stat showing that spam accounted for 5% of all > email traffic. (And it's mail traffic I'm concerned about--since it's > the bandwidth to my mail server that's a problem.) I'll give good > odds that that was percentage of *delivered* mail. (Matt?) No, that's the percentage of mail we do. We have no idea at that point if it can be delivered or not (we don't keep individual username details on our servers). Spam is 50% of all email. But the average email size is 60k (this gets bloated to the high end by word documents and other large things that get emailed around, but it's still an accurate average). The average spam size is 6k at the moment. So at 1/10th of the size of regular email, spam accounts for 5% bandwidth wise. However, on the flip side, we still have to apply aggressive filters to every email we see. Our virus filters are extremely aggressive (but we don't have any false positive problems there - about 2 FPs every 10 million mails), and so it takes us about 1 second to process a mail, *regardless* of the size. So while spam is only 5% of the bandwidth, it's 50% of the processor time. That's 100% more servers we have to buy just because of spam. Hope that helps ;-) Matt. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 13:51:46 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA29253 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 13:51:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2KJ9jN16180 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:09:45 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KJ9jO16177 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:09:45 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA29241 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 13:51:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KJ2GO14690; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:02:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KJ1RO14645 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:01:27 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA28926 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 13:42:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.57] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2KIjDqd022904 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 10:45:13 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 10:45:13 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: asrg@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [Asrg] Answers to the questions on PKI etc Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 10:45:12 -0800 OK Bob and others have made some statements about PKI and how it won't work because the spam senders are organized. Well so ar the gangs that do credit card fraud, offline gangs will go as far as renting premises, setting up storefronts and doing legit business for many months before they take in a huge amount of business, get the account factored and run. There are instances of that online but not as many as offline. The fact is that providing a registered address is very hard for a spam sender to do. The big ones simply do not want to give an offline identity, it is hard to do that in a way that cannot be traced back, particularly if you intend to do so repeatedly. The cost of a certificate is not going to be a major barrier for spamhaus, but the authentication process is. The other point is that authentication is only one half of access control. The other half is authorization. You are not obligated to accept a message just because it is signed or otherwise authenticated. However a simple algorithm for choosing the parties I would whitelist would be to take the F500 companies, the Internet 500 companies, the edu domains, the major ISPs who implement rate filtering, etc. All the rest of the mail would go through very tight filtering and I would accept a very high level of false positives on the residual. If someone really wants to contact me they can go to a hosted mail provider that implements rate limiting and send a contact ping. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 14:21:02 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA00800 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:21:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2KJd0m18420 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:39:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KJd0O18417 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:39:00 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA00735 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:20:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KJU5O17151; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:30:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KJThO17124 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:29:43 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA00161 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:11:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from aland by mail.nitros9.org with local (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18w0gU-0005DT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 09:06:18 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Message-Id: Subject: [Asrg] Spam vs. fax laws Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 09:06:18 -0500 The presentation on the legal aspects of spam asked why junk fax laws worked, and why anti-spam ones haven't worked so far. The simplest answer is that junk faxers won't pay long distance charges to send faxes, so going off-shore where the laws don't apply isn't an option. In contrast, there are no long distance charges on the internet. Going offshore to avoid local laws and to acheive plausible deniability is a viable option. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 14:30:20 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA01066 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:30:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2KJmIJ18827 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:48:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KJmIO18824 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:48:18 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA00990 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:29:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KJc2O18299; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:38:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KJb6O17633 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:37:06 -0500 Received: from mercury.ex.ac.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA00586 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:18:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from [144.173.6.20] (helo=cronus.ex.ac.uk) by mercury.ex.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18w5at-00GabT-00; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 19:20:51 +0000 From: Adam Back To: Matt Sergeant Cc: asrg@ietf.org, Adam Back Subject: Re: [Asrg] Sender pays vs Forgeries Message-ID: <20030320192051.A4869066@exeter.ac.uk> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.2i In-Reply-To: ; from msergeant@startechgroup.co.uk on Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 05:11:00PM +0000 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 19:20:51 +0000 I think the primary cost is the recipients cost in classifying a ddeleting mail, and ISPs costs in handling complaints. Bandwidth is a smaller aspect of the problem, so I think that would be a good tradeoff - bandwidth for less received spam. The problems with sender pays are with deployment; could work well if 95% deployed but how to get there. My favorite at this point is hashcash as a way to avoid false positives, which gives incentives to users to use as it helps email reliability short-term, rather than hindering reliability which most other solutins impose, plus the status quo with filtering is already leading to reliability problems. Adam On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 05:11:00PM +0000, Matt Sergeant wrote: > I've not seen any of the "Sender pays" (camram, money or otherwise) or > "Whitelist" people address this issue... > > Assumptions: > > 1. The vast majority of spam is sent with invalid return addresses (be > they forged or since-closed freemail accounts). > 2. A large proportion (approaching or in excess of 50%) of all email is > spam. > > Conclusions: > > 1. First time contact "bounces", whether to ask for payment, or to ask > for a computation, or to ask for "proof of human", get sent to an > invalid address. > 2. Someone (most likely your ISP or email provider) has to deal with > the resulting bounce from the receiving domain. > 3. A sender pays system doubles the number of junk emails traveling > through the internet. > 4. This can only be solved by somehow solving the problem of falsified > return addresses. > 5. Solve (4) and you're half way there (perhaps all the way there?) to > solving the spam problem, and you don't need sender pays. > > Anyone in the sender pays camp want to address these points? > > Matt. > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 14:35:49 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA01320 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:35:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2KJrlo19178 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:53:47 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KJrlO19175 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:53:47 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA01312 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:35:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KJj4O18683; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:45:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KJieO18661 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:44:40 -0500 Received: from zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA00922 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:26:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h2KJSOB05662 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:28:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF45DJZ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:28:24 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBGFHQ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:28:23 -0500 Message-ID: <3E7A1719.3080602@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "asrg@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Blacklist metrics FYI Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:31:37 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Got a number of signs of interest in my metrics, so, I thought I'd spend a little more time on them. Added a few of the more famous BLs we don't use, and "fixed" our whitelist metrics so they're useful in determining relative effectiveness in getting entries removed (which includes _our_ effectiveness in being able to request a retest). We're not using the "not used" blacklists, and they're not included in the "TOTAL BLOCKED". They're included for "relative performance" only. I'll only annotate those that have changed. Blacklist effectiveness spamtrap only: BOPM 3907738 51.57 DYNABLOCK (not used) 77373 1.02 [1] Flonetwork 283 0.00 IP, NOT BL 94011 1.24 MONKEYPROXY 4943111 65.24 NTblack 880901 11.63 NTmanual 362157 4.78 OBproxies 1556609 20.54 OBrelays 442915 5.85 OK 65 0.00 [2] OK MONKEYPROXY 0 0.00 [3] OK NTblack 0 0.00 ... OK NTmanual 6 0.00 OK OBproxies 0 0.00 OK OBrelays 0 0.00 OK OSinputs 0 0.00 OK OSsocks 0 0.00 OK SBL 0 0.00 OSinputs 830086 10.95 OSproxy 109974 1.45 OSsocks 1923861 25.39 PERMBLOCK (not used) 5477053 72.28 [4] SBL 578476 7.63 SPEWS (not used) 1521310 20.08 [5] TOTAL 7577266 100.00 TOTAL BLOCK 6365664 84.01 [1] Wirehub DHCP pool (we were using this until recently, but due to technical problems with the zone builder, we've had to back off) [2] Emails corresponding to current whitelist entries. [3] Emails actually _needing_ a whitelist, and which one [4] Wirehub PERMBLOCK is a consolidation of several other blacklists, including SPEWS and SBL. Not using it because of SPEWS. [5] SPEWS level one. SPEWS' relative aggressiveness is because they've escalated to whole class Bs (eg: Brazil proxy problems etc). Their escalation/listing criteria are a little too unpredictable for our taste. Worthy of note that SPEWS is vastly more famous than, say, BOPM, despite being only 1/4 as "effective". Blacklist effectiveness excluding spamtrap: BOPM 99250 5.25 CONTENT 54312 2.87 DYNABLOCK (not used) 6088 0.32 Flonetwork 6054 0.32 IP, NOT BL 29551 1.56 MONKEYPROXY 139631 7.39 NTblack 38278 2.03 NTmanual 26689 1.41 OBproxies 47601 2.52 OBrelays 16545 0.88 OK 6139 0.32 OK MONKEYPROXY 53 0.00 OK NTblack 93 0.00 OK NTmanual 443 0.02 OK OBproxies 2221 0.12 OK OBrelays 67 0.00 OK OSinputs 296 0.02 OK OSsocks 15 0.00 OK SBL 37 0.00 OSinputs 32263 1.71 OSproxy 2032 0.11 OSsocks 54823 2.90 PERMBLOCK (not used) 245617 12.99 SBL 54785 2.90 SPEWS (not used) 80014 4.23 TOTAL 1890155 100.00 TOTAL BLOCK 314863 16.66 The extremely high number on "OK OBproxies" is because of a single mailing list server whose "now closed" determination hasn't made it through the processing cycle yet. Also, there has been some trouble with retest request submission with OB*. Contrast that with BOPM - removal is sufficiently quick and reliable that NONE of its whitelist entries are required anymore. The open relay blacklists have longer "retention" periods and higher FP rates as expected. The OK versus sumof(OK *) entries indicates that we're tending to get 60% or so of blacklist entries cleared (as per volume of email). Once the atypical OBproxies entry out of the way, it'd be closer to 95%. The high numbers on NTmanual are due to the fact we block some whole ranges with NTmanual (NTmanual is a local blacklist), but punch holes for individual "good" sites. And secondly, because we can't actually _do_ a removal on NTmanual yet. Have to figure out what's happening with NTblack. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 14:38:49 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA01404 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:38:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2KJumx19350 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:56:48 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KJumO19347 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:56:48 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA01393 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:38:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KJo3O19036; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:50:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KJnPO18959 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:49:25 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id OAA01109 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:30:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 1694 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2003 19:30:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.2.100.178?) (10.2.100.178) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 19 Mar 2003 19:30:15 -0000 From: Matt Sergeant X-X-Sender: matt@localhost.localdomain To: Adam Back cc: "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Sender pays vs Forgeries In-Reply-To: <20030320192051.A4869066@exeter.ac.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 19:49:40 +0000 (GMT) On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Adam Back wrote: > I think the primary cost is the recipients cost in classifying a > ddeleting mail, and ISPs costs in handling complaints. > > Bandwidth is a smaller aspect of the problem, so I think that would be > a good tradeoff - bandwidth for less received spam. See my previous email on why bandwidth isn't the only issue in doubling the number of emails travelling around. Matt. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 14:46:14 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA01903 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:46:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2KK4Dm20230 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:04:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KK4DO20227 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:04:13 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA01900 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:45:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KJx8O19768; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:59:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KJwgO19642 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:58:42 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA01474 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:40:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc01.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53] (may be forged)) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2KJe3MX004045 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:40:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:42:25 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: asrg@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C2EF18.D4B8CE50" Subject: [Asrg] Text of my slides Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:42:24 -0800 This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2EF18.D4B8CE50 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Authentication Approaches Phillip Hallam-Baker VeriSign Inc. Why? Authentication + Authorization = Access Control Authentication IP Address Cryptographic Authorization Email Address Whitelists [alice@example.com] Domain Whitelists [example.com] Payment [$0.01 stamp] How Strong is Enough? LIST Kiddies Like a script kiddie but they pay for the mailing list Actually a spam victim, they get worthless service in return SPAM Houses Will adapt to heuristic authentication approaches But it will cost them PKI Infrastructure exists to Ensure that a party owns the purported domain name Ensure that legal process can be served on the certificate holder With a high (but not absolute) degree of confidence SECURITY IS RISK CONTROL NOT RISK ELIMINATION Deployment Argument Authentication Compliments Filtering Network effect, aka Chicken and Egg problem Avoid false positives Without creating backdoors 'Allow all mail from hotmail.com, they use rate limiting' Allows more aggressive criteria Cryptographic Authentication is robust Asymmetric work factor No viable counter-strategies Problem - Email Insecure by Default Downgrade attack I can tell a signed message comes from the sender I cannot assume an unsigned message is false Key is to know the security policy of the domain DNS Based Security Policy Reverse IP look up Some Current Use Only demonstrates that the IP address has been assigned IPv4 address exhaustion will make this uninteresting Configuration problem - servers handling 1000's of domains Many ISPs do not delegate reverse DNS as they should Get a new ISP is an idiotic deployment strategy Forward DNS Address based authentication RCPT From [Vixie] Reverse MX Pro: Lightweight, almost costless Pro: Obsoletes most existing spamware Con: Could be vulnerable to new spamware Con: Some operational issues Con: Only works if mail from domain is relayed Generalized Security Policy Security Policy Advertisement Mechanism Advertise any form of security policy ALWAYS comes from address X, Y or Z OPTIONAL uses STARTTLS, cert root has SHA1 P OPTIONAL uses S/MIME, cert root has SHA1 Q OPTIONAL uses PGP, validate against XKMS R NEVER uses NULL Authentication Can be generalized to other protocols IPSEC, SSH, NNTP, POP, IMAP... This is Just a Bug We Are going to FIX IT ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2EF18.D4B8CE50 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"

Authentication Approaches

Phillip Hallam-Baker

VeriSign Inc.

Why?

Authentication + Authorization =
Access Control

Authentication

IP Address

Cryptographic

Authorization

Email Address Whitelists [alice@example.com]

Domain Whitelists [example.com]

Payment [$0.01 stamp]

How Strong is Enough?

LIST Kiddies

Like a script kiddie but they pay for the mailing list

Actually a spam victim, they get worthless service in return

SPAM Houses

Will adapt to heuristic authentication approaches

But it will cost them

PKI

Infrastructure exists to

Ensure that a party owns the purported domain name

Ensure that legal process can be served on the certificate holder

With a high (but not absolute) degree of confidence

SECURITY IS RISK CONTROL
NOT RISK ELIMINATION

Deployment Argument

Authentication Compliments Filtering

Network effect, aka Chicken and Egg problem

Avoid false positives

Without creating backdoors

'Allow all mail from hotmail.com, they use rate limiting'

Allows more aggressive criteria

Cryptographic Authentication is robust

Asymmetric work factor

No viable counter-strategies

Problem - Email Insecure by Default

Downgrade attack

I can tell a signed message comes from the sender

I cannot assume an unsigned message is false

Key is to know the security policy of the domain

DNS Based Security Policy

Reverse IP look up

Some Current Use

Only demonstrates that the IP address has been assigned

IPv4 address exhaustion will make this uninteresting

Configuration problem - servers handling 1000's of domains

Many ISPs do not delegate reverse DNS as they should

Get a new ISP is an idiotic deployment strategy

Forward DNS

Address based authentication

RCPT From [Vixie]

Reverse MX

Pro: Lightweight, almost costless

Pro: Obsoletes most existing spamware

Con: Could be vulnerable to new spamware

Con: Some operational issues

Con: Only works if mail from domain is relayed

Generalized Security Policy

Security Policy Advertisement Mechanism

Advertise any form of security policy

ALWAYS comes from address X, Y or Z

OPTIONAL uses STARTTLS, cert root has SHA1 P

OPTIONAL uses S/MIME, cert root has SHA1 Q

OPTIONAL uses PGP, validate against XKMS R

NEVER uses NULL Authentication

Can be generalized to other protocols

IPSEC, SSH, NNTP, POP, IMAP...

This is Just a Bug

We Are going to

FIX IT

 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2EF18.D4B8CE50-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 14:46:58 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA01931 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:46:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2KK4vL20264 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:04:57 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KK4vO20261 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:04:57 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA01918 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:46:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KK02O19937; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:00:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KJxkO19882 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:59:46 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc01.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA01650 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:41:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from video.attbi.com (12-235-20-211.client.attbi.com[12.235.20.211]) by sccrmhc01.attbi.com (sccrmhc01) with SMTP id <2003032019433100100ika8pe>; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 19:43:31 +0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030320113601.04880c60@mail.attbi.com> X-Sender: schear@mail.attbi.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: Matt Sergeant , asrg@ietf.org From: Steve Schear Subject: Re: [Asrg] Sender pays vs Forgeries In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:46:32 -0800 At 05:11 PM 3/20/2003 +0000, Matt Sergeant wrote: >I've not seen any of the "Sender pays" (camram, money or otherwise) or >"Whitelist" people address this issue... > >Assumptions: > >1. The vast majority of spam is sent with invalid return addresses (be >they forged or since-closed freemail accounts). >2. A large proportion (approaching or in excess of 50%) of all email is spam. > >Conclusions: > >1. First time contact "bounces", whether to ask for payment, or to ask for >a computation, or to ask for "proof of human", get sent to an invalid address. >2. Someone (most likely your ISP or email provider) has to deal with the >resulting bounce from the receiving domain. >3. A sender pays system doubles the number of junk emails traveling >through the internet. >4. This can only be solved by somehow solving the problem of falsified >return addresses. >5. Solve (4) and you're half way there (perhaps all the way there?) to >solving the spam problem, and you don't need sender pays. > >Anyone in the sender pays camp want to address these points? I agree with 1 & 2. 3 is technically true but the data volume of the 'challenges' will likely be significantly smaller than the spam. (If white lists are combined with sender-pays and the white lists are implemented in the ISP then clients need not be exposed to the spam flood nor its bandwidth impact.) If you can solve 4 without impacting anonymous emails I'd like to hear about it. I consider anonymous communication an extremely important social good (e.g., whistle blowers, etc.) that should not be harmed. steve _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 15:11:00 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA03759 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:10:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2KKSxb22174 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:28:59 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KKSxO22171 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:28:59 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA03688 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:10:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KKOEO21895; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:24:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KKJvO21642 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:19:57 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA02392 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:01:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from sputnik (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h2KK3fHn004860 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 21:03:41 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sputnik.mobil.danisch.de (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-8) id h2KK19VM014740 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 21:01:09 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <20030320195756.GA14464@danisch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Subject: [Asrg] presentation slides? Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:01:09 -0800 Hi, could we have copies of the slides of today's IETF presentations available? regards Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 15:11:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA03845 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:11:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2KKTXu22263 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:29:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KKTWO22260 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:29:32 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA03780 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:11:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KKNiO21825; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:23:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KKHoO21577 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:17:50 -0500 Received: from dogma.slashnull.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA02272 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:59:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.jmason.org (ga183055.reshsg.uci.edu [128.195.183.55]) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KJwDx21671 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 19:58:19 GMT Received: by localhost.jmason.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 63F398C7CD; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:00:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from jmason.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A4F78C5F8 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:00:18 -0800 (PST) To: "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Blacklist metrics FYI In-Reply-To: Message from "Chris Lewis" of "Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:31:37 EST." <3E7A1719.3080602@americasm01.nt.com> From: jm@jmason.org (Justin Mason) X-GPG-Key-Fingerprint: 0A48 2D8B 0B52 A87D 0E8A 6ADD 4137 1B50 6E58 EF0A X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to . Message-Id: <20030320200018.63F398C7CD@localhost.jmason.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:00:12 -0800 Chris Lewis said: > Got a number of signs of interest in my metrics, so, I thought I'd spend > a little more time on them. Added a few of the more famous BLs we don't > use, and "fixed" our whitelist metrics so they're useful in determining > relative effectiveness in getting entries removed (which includes _our_ > effectiveness in being able to request a retest). While we're at it, then, I'll post the SpamAssassin effectiveness measurements from the most recent GA run (Feb 16 2003). These are taken from a mail corpus of 63203 spam messages and 83465 non-spam messages, taken as a representative, hand-sorted sample from about 15-20 people's mail feed over the 6 months before Feb 16 (spam from only 3 months). So it's not live, but it's reasonably close. Each line consists of several figures, like so: total% spam% nonspam% soratio rank score name 2.752 6.3763 0.0072 0.999 0.94 4.29 RCVD_IN_OPM spam% and nonspam% are the most important ones in this case; it indicates the percentages of the spam or nonspam corpora that were hit by the rule. "soratio" is the "spam over overall" ratio -- so the probability that a mail hit by this rule is spam. A rule with an soratio of 1.0 is a perfect rule for finding spam, and 0.0 is a perfect rule for nonspam. They're sorted by the rule's "rank", which is effectively accuracy (as per s/o ratio) and number of hits combined. "score" is the score assigned inside SpamAssassin 2.50. First, the DNSBL effectiveness ratings: 2.752 6.3763 0.0072 0.999 0.94 4.29 RCVD_IN_OPM 3.468 8.0139 0.0264 0.997 0.94 1.10 RCVD_IN_SBL 0.751 1.7420 0.0012 0.999 0.93 4.29 RCVD_IN_DSBL 1.328 2.9097 0.1306 0.957 0.82 0.18 RCVD_IN_RELAYS_ORDB_ORG 18.118 33.6297 6.3715 0.841 0.60 1.21 RCVD_IN_NJABL 29.728 53.1889 11.9619 0.816 0.58 0.51 RCVD_IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM 5.883 8.7290 3.7273 0.701 0.33 1.25 RCVD_IN_RFCI 12.092 13.6607 10.9040 0.556 0.18 0.00 RCVD_IN_UNCONFIRMED_DSBL and some others of general interest. Here's Razor 2's effectiveness on our corpora. RAZOR2_CHECK is Razor's default check, while the CF_RANGE tests are for Razor's "confidence factor" of 0 to 100. 19.503 45.1039 0.1162 0.997 0.99 1.11 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_91_100 23.614 54.1794 0.4685 0.991 0.99 0.79 RAZOR2_CHECK 0.200 0.4367 0.0216 0.953 0.81 0.58 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_31_40 0.147 0.3323 0.0072 0.979 0.88 0.85 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_60 0.168 0.3797 0.0084 0.978 0.88 0.33 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_81_90 0.822 1.8448 0.0467 0.975 0.87 0.98 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_21_30 1.293 2.8986 0.0779 0.974 0.87 0.59 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_11_20 0.278 0.6171 0.0216 0.966 0.84 0.37 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_41_50 0.162 0.3528 0.0168 0.955 0.81 0.00 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_61_70 0.595 1.2230 0.1198 0.911 0.71 0.27 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_01_10 0.130 0.2468 0.0419 0.855 0.58 1.86 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_71_80 next, Pyzor and DCC on our corpora: 4.535 10.4900 0.0264 0.997 0.94 1.25 PYZOR_CHECK 5.736 13.2367 0.0563 0.996 0.94 2.76 DCC_CHECK Finally, Bayesian learning results, using SpamAssassin's auto-learning alone: 27.135 0.0190 47.6679 0.000 1.00 -6.60 BAYES_01 20.542 47.5832 0.0659 0.999 1.00 2.85 BAYES_90 8.457 0.0016 14.8601 0.000 0.95 -6.40 BAYES_00 6.427 14.8996 0.0120 0.999 0.95 2.81 BAYES_80 7.458 0.0142 13.0953 0.001 0.95 -5.80 BAYES_10 3.479 8.0613 0.0084 0.999 0.94 2.79 BAYES_99 4.613 10.5660 0.1054 0.990 0.92 2.19 BAYES_70 3.376 0.0490 5.8959 0.008 0.92 -3.10 BAYES_20 3.417 0.2753 5.7952 0.045 0.82 -1.60 BAYES_30 3.560 7.4395 0.6218 0.923 0.74 1.16 BAYES_60 Notes: SBL's effectiveness is 8.01% for us; for Chris it's 7.63%. Pretty close. But our effectiveness for OPM is much lower, at 6.3% instead of 51%. Chris notes an accuracy rate of 20% for SPEWS. We get 53% (as relays.osirusoft.com), but with 11% FPs. --j. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 15:17:03 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA04437 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:17:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2KKZ2322496 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:35:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KKZ2O22493 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:35:02 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA04379 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:16:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KKO1O21858; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:24:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KKIRO21604 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:18:27 -0500 Received: from chiark.greenend.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA02295 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:59:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from fanf by chiark.greenend.org.uk with local (Exim 3.12 #1) id 18w6Eu-0008Mm-00 (Debian); Thu, 20 Mar 2003 20:02:12 +0000 To: msergeant@startechgroup.co.uk From: Tony Finch Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Bounces, was Re: [Asrg] Sender pays vs Forgeries In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 20:02:12 +0000 Matt Sergeant wrote: > >1. The vast majority of spam is sent with invalid return addresses (be >they forged or since-closed freemail accounts). >2. A large proportion (approaching or in excess of 50%) of all email is >spam. I expect to see a lot more junk email from <> and therefore a lot more systems rejecting all bounces. I haven't seen much talk about maintaining the reliablility of Internet email in the face of this kind of attack. Tony. -- f.a.n.finch http://dotat.at/ VIKING NORTH UTSIRE SOUTH UTSIRE: SOUTH OR SOUTHEAST 5 OR 6, VEERING WEST 4 FOR A TIME IN WEST VIKING. OCCASIONAL RAIN. MODERATE. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 15:20:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA04564 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:20:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2KKccW23469 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:38:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KKccO23466 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:38:38 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA04548 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:20:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KKY5O22443; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:34:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KKXtO22426 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:33:55 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA04236 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:15:23 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2KKGf1M003418; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:16:41 -0500 Message-Id: <200303202016.h2KKGf1M003418@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.2 03/18/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: Tony Finch Cc: msergeant@startechgroup.co.uk, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: Bounces, was Re: [Asrg] Sender pays vs Forgeries In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 20 Mar 2003 20:02:12 GMT." References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_-1817526024P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:16:31 -0500 --==_Exmh_-1817526024P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Thu, 20 Mar 2003 20:02:12 GMT, Tony Finch said: > Matt Sergeant wrote: > > > >1. The vast majority of spam is sent with invalid return addresses (be > >they forged or since-closed freemail accounts). > >2. A large proportion (approaching or in excess of 50%) of all email is > >spam. > > I expect to see a lot more junk email from <> and therefore a lot more > systems rejecting all bounces. I haven't seen much talk about maintaining > the reliablility of Internet email in the face of this kind of attack. It's bad enough that www.rfc-ignorant.org keeps a list of DSN-borked sites. For some odd reason, the majority of sites that I encounter that reject mail from <> are spamhauses that don't want to deal with bounces. Fancy that. ;) --==_Exmh_-1817526024P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+eiGecC3lWbTT17ARAg+NAKCpS8SkT82dxzT/24VSjZZ8XGzVywCgyNGV mvRGVmUwjks1LH1U4XsE5X4= =MLJy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_-1817526024P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 15:45:03 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA05492 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:45:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2KL34L24545 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 16:03:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KL33O24542 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 16:03:03 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA05489 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:44:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KKsAO24070; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:54:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KKrqO24046 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:53:52 -0500 Received: from backbone.midwestcs.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA04901 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:35:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from footbone.midwestcs.com ([206.222.212.237] helo=midwestcs.com) by backbone.midwestcs.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18w6n4-00038p-00 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:37:30 -0600 To: asrg@ietf.org (IRTF Anti-Spam Research Group) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam vs. fax laws References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: wayne In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lines: 44 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanner: exiscan *18w6n4-00038p-00*mKvqteYiy6.* () Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 20 Mar 2003 14:37:29 -0600 In "Alan DeKok" writes: > The simplest answer is that junk faxers won't pay long distance > charges to send faxes, so going off-shore where the laws don't apply > isn't an option. Add to that: * Even when the phone call is local, faxing costs a lot more money than email. * This eliminates a lot of the very marginal sales. * It also means that is very important that there is a way of contacting the seller (a surprising percentage have no valid contact info). * It is too expensive to use junk faxes as a DoS attack. * Faxes are more public. You aren't going to be able to advertise things like porn or viagra. * Phones have never, by default, allowed you to dial into them and silently dial back out to any number of your choosing the way the early versions of WinSocks was an open proxy. * Fax machines have never, by default, allowed you to automatically relay faxes to another fax machine the way early versions of sendmail was an open relay. * Faxes are point to point rather than regularly sent through (closed) relays. * It is also harder to "forge" the caller-id, or prevent the phone company to trace the call. Hard core junk faxers could be caught much easier. * By the time email spam started up, there were vastly more email mailboxes than fax machines. This gap has only increased. -wayne _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 16:01:03 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA06465 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 16:01:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2KLJ4i27621 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 16:19:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KLJ4O27618 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 16:19:04 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA06430 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 16:00:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KLB2O27046; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 16:11:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KLATO27007 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 16:10:29 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA06079 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:51:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (zcard307.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h2KKsBg00630 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:54:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDFCGA4K; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:54:07 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBGFJL; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:54:07 -0500 Message-ID: <3E7A2B30.9090705@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Blacklist metrics FYI References: <20030320200018.63F398C7CD@localhost.jmason.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:57:20 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Justin Mason wrote: > SBL's effectiveness is 8.01% for us; for Chris it's 7.63%. Pretty > close. But our effectiveness for OPM is much lower, at 6.3% instead > of 51%. Two reasons for the OPM issue. One is that OPM's coverage has had a huge jump over the past month or two. Second is "I'd have to kill you" (which is also related to reason #1) :-) Too bad you didn't have MONKEYS in there too. That'd have answered the question of whether the "I'd have to kill you" factor predominates or not. > Chris notes an accuracy rate of 20% for SPEWS. We get 53% (as > relays.osirusoft.com), but with 11% FPs. My numbers for SPEWS and yours for relays.osirusoft.com aren't comparable. relays.osirusoft.com is a combination of several things in addition to SPEWS. OSIRUS relays (inputs.relays.osirusoft.com) and Socks (socks.relays.osirusoft.com) are very large (OSsocks larger than SPEWS), and together they skew the relays.osirusoft.com values far away from SPEWS alone. However, I'd suggest that SPEWS was the main contributor to the "nonspam" value (tho, "spamsites" may have contributed too). It'd have been more useful if you differentiated the contributing lists to OSIRUS. Strangely enough, we did try DSBL, and weren't very happy with it. No, we weren't using "unconfirmed". Ditto NJABL. It may be better now. Be interesting to try SpamAssassin on our spamtrap. Maybe one day. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 16:02:49 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA06524 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 16:02:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2KLKon27787 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 16:20:50 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KLKoO27784 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 16:20:50 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA06516 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 16:02:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KL84O26794; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 16:08:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KL77O26019 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 16:07:07 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id PAA05847 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:48:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 6395 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2003 20:47:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.2.100.178?) (10.2.100.178) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 19 Mar 2003 20:47:54 -0000 From: Matt Sergeant X-X-Sender: matt@localhost.localdomain To: Justin Mason cc: "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Blacklist metrics FYI In-Reply-To: <20030320200018.63F398C7CD@localhost.jmason.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 21:07:21 +0000 (GMT) On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Justin Mason wrote: > Chris notes an accuracy rate of 20% for SPEWS. We get 53% (as > relays.osirusoft.com), but with 11% FPs. It's worth noting that those 11% FPs are a little skewed by SPEWS listing a netblock containing the Linux Kernel Mailing List. Which is, of course, rather high traffic (even higher than this list!). Of course this is one of the major reasons not to use SPEWS, so the end result (low score in SA), is appropriate. Matt. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 16:09:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA06728 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 16:09:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2KLRZf28195 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 16:27:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KLRZO28192 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 16:27:35 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA06711 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 16:09:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KLL3O27820; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 16:21:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KLKCO27742 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 16:20:12 -0500 Received: from earth.tc.umn.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA06495 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 16:01:35 -0500 (EST) Received: by earth.tc.umn.edu; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:03:48 -0600 From: Steven F Siirila To: Chris Lewis Cc: "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Blacklist metrics FYI Message-ID: <20030320210348.GA13930@earth.tc.umn.edu> References: <20030320200018.63F398C7CD@localhost.jmason.org> <3E7A2B30.9090705@americasm01.nt.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E7A2B30.9090705@americasm01.nt.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.25i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:03:48 -0600 On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 03:57:20PM -0500, Chris Lewis wrote: > > Strangely enough, we did try DSBL, and weren't very happy with it. No, > we weren't using "unconfirmed". > > Ditto NJABL. It may be better now. We use DSBL and NJABL to find open relays/proxies (yes, NJABL now tests for open proxies as of recently). Both have been very effective for us. We also use SBL to find known spammers and find it is very effective. -- Steven F. Siirila Office: Lind Hall, Room 130B Internet Services E-mail: sfs@umn.edu Office of Information Technology Voice: (612) 626-0244 University of Minnesota _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 16:10:11 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA06790 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 16:10:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2KLSBx28301 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 16:28:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KLSBO28298 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 16:28:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA06745 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 16:09:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KLM0O27894; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 16:22:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KLLsO27879 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 16:21:54 -0500 Received: from maillist.grax.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA06544 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 16:03:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (grax_web1 [127.0.0.1]) by maillist.grax.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24E772C5D5; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:05:30 -0600 (CST) From: David Walker Reply-To: asrg@ietf.org Organization: Vorteon, LLC To: Tony Finch , msergeant@startechgroup.co.uk Subject: Re: Bounces, was Re: [Asrg] Sender pays vs Forgeries User-Agent: KMail/1.5 Cc: asrg@ietf.org References: In-Reply-To: X-Hockey: Colorado Avalanche MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200303201508.11078@grx> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:08:11 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I don't understand why mail servers treat bounces as regular messages. I believe that your mail server should encapsulate a bounce message in a generic "here is a mail error" report. Certainly a spammer would be less enthusiastic if the end users were going to receive "here is a mail error: underage cheerleaders sell you cheap viagra" On Thursday 20 March 2003 02:02 pm, Tony Finch wrote: > Matt Sergeant wrote: > >1. The vast majority of spam is sent with invalid return addresses (be > >they forged or since-closed freemail accounts). > >2. A large proportion (approaching or in excess of 50%) of all email is > >spam. > > I expect to see a lot more junk email from <> and therefore a lot more > systems rejecting all bounces. I haven't seen much talk about maintaining > the reliablility of Internet email in the face of this kind of attack. > > Tony. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 16:13:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA07065 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 16:13:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2KLVi828710 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 16:31:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KLVhO28707 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 16:31:43 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA07020 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 16:13:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KLT1O28412; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 16:29:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KLSdO28343 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 16:28:39 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA06783 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 16:10:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (zcard307.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h2KLCLg07169 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 16:12:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDFCGC33; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 16:12:21 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBGFJ7; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 16:12:21 -0500 Message-ID: <3E7A2F76.4020805@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: Bounces, was Re: [Asrg] Sender pays vs Forgeries References: <200303201508.11078@grx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 16:15:34 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit David Walker wrote: > I don't understand why mail servers treat bounces as regular messages. > I believe that your mail server should encapsulate a bounce message in a > generic "here is a mail error" report. They do exactly that. Problem being that the "generic here is a mail error" technique also happens to have a desirable feature for spammers - no bounce back, aka the <> envelope sender. Bouncing email simply because it has an envelope sender of <> is truly a bad idea over and above the fact that the RFC states you shouldn't. Eg: double bounces to postmaster. Your users not seeing NDRs when they should. Missing vacation messages etc. However, you can finesse this somewhat. We inline reject <> envelope from in the following two circumstances: 1) The From: has no "@", or doesn't contain "mailer-daemon" or "postmaster", or, 2) There's multiple RCPT TOs (recipients). No FPs ever on (1). Only two FPs on (2) - broken mailing lists, which we assisted the listowner in fixing. Quite happy with both rules. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 16:15:18 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA07103 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 16:15:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2KLXJc28887 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 16:33:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KLXJO28884 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 16:33:19 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA07100 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 16:14:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KLQMO28111; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 16:26:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KLPxO28065 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 16:25:59 -0500 Received: from dogma.slashnull.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA06649 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 16:07:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.jmason.org (ga183055.reshsg.uci.edu [128.195.183.55]) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KL6Ix27022; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 21:06:27 GMT Received: by localhost.jmason.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 5A70D8C7CD; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 16:08:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from jmason.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5445B8C5F8; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 13:08:26 -0800 (PST) To: "Chris Lewis" Cc: "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Blacklist metrics FYI In-Reply-To: Message from "Chris Lewis" of "Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:57:20 EST." <3E7A2B30.9090705@americasm01.nt.com> From: jm@jmason.org (Justin Mason) X-GPG-Key-Fingerprint: 0A48 2D8B 0B52 A87D 0E8A 6ADD 4137 1B50 6E58 EF0A X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to . Message-Id: <20030320210826.5A70D8C7CD@localhost.jmason.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 13:08:20 -0800 Chris Lewis said: > Justin Mason wrote: > > > SBL's effectiveness is 8.01% for us; for Chris it's 7.63%. Pretty > > close. But our effectiveness for OPM is much lower, at 6.3% instead > > of 51%. > > Two reasons for the OPM issue. One is that OPM's coverage has had a > huge jump over the past month or two. Second is "I'd have to kill you" > (which is also related to reason #1) :-) > Too bad you didn't have MONKEYS in there too. That'd have answered the > question of whether the "I'd have to kill you" factor predominates or not. Yeah -- basically, there was a time when the Monkeys BL was down, so it didn't seem quite reliable enough for distribution in SpamAssassin by default. > > Chris notes an accuracy rate of 20% for SPEWS. We get 53% (as > > relays.osirusoft.com), but with 11% FPs. > > My numbers for SPEWS and yours for relays.osirusoft.com aren't > comparable. relays.osirusoft.com is a combination of several things in > addition to SPEWS. OSIRUS relays (inputs.relays.osirusoft.com) and > Socks (socks.relays.osirusoft.com) are very large (OSsocks larger than > SPEWS), and together they skew the relays.osirusoft.com values far away > from SPEWS alone. However, I'd suggest that SPEWS was the main > contributor to the "nonspam" value (tho, "spamsites" may have > contributed too). It'd have been more useful if you differentiated the > contributing lists to OSIRUS. oops, should have posted this to break that out: 0.682 1.4714 0.0839 0.946 0.79 0.00 X_OSIRU_OPEN_RELAY 4.438 8.6452 1.2520 0.873 0.63 0.00 X_OSIRU_SPAMWARE_SITE 3.277 1.4857 4.6343 0.243 0.41 0.00 X_OSIRU_DUL_FH 0.000 0.0000 0.0000 0.500 0.12 0.00 X_OSIRU_SPAM_SRC 1.522 1.4224 1.5983 0.471 0.10 0.00 X_OSIRU_DUL There's those ratings. However I think Osirusoft's "Confirmed Spam Source" (127.0.0.4) still includes more than SPEWS anyway.... > Be interesting to try SpamAssassin on our spamtrap. Maybe one day. with a big machine ;) --j. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 17:46:12 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA10980 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 17:46:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2KN4Fl03894 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 18:04:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KN4FO03891 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 18:04:15 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA10962 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 17:45:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KMuKO03340; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 17:56:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KMKkO01228 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 17:20:46 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA09862 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 17:02:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2170276; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 17:04:29 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: "Alan DeKok" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam vs. fax laws Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:49:18 -0500 At 9:06 AM -0500 3/20/03, Alan DeKok wrote: > In contrast, there are no long distance charges on the internet. >Going offshore to avoid local laws and to acheive plausible >deniability is a viable option. One does occasionally get overseas junk faxes. But I agree that the cost barriers are high. The one consistent junk fax that I used to get from overseas was, not surprisingly, the Nigerian scam. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 17:46:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA11022 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 17:46:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2KN4cx04009 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 18:04:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KN4cO04006 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 18:04:38 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA10974 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 17:46:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KMuXO03364; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 17:56:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KMO6O01338 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 17:24:06 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA09937 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 17:05:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2KM7YME004953 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:07:34 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303202207.h2KM7YME004953@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Testing content filters References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:07:34 -0700 (MST) > From: Matt Sergeant > > However, this does not sound useful enough for me to > > put it into the DCC this year. Spam and viruses differ. It's far > > more difficult and/or dangerous to give a Windows box a test infection > > of a virus than to send test spam to a mail system. To test a spam > > filter that can be tested with a standardized test, you can instead > > grab something from NANAS or whatever spam you hate and send it from > > somewhere, such as a free provider or one of your own systems. > > That would be fine if your content filter is 100% effective, but last > time I looked the DCC wasn't. So you have no guarantee that a > particular spam is going to trigger it. You're effectively asking your > users to do the legwork, and that doesn't scale. That the DCC is not 100% effective is a reason users (i.e. system operators) should do their own leg work. I don't see how "scaling" in any normal sense might be relevant. But the real problem is that standardized test messages don't make sense for some spam filters. Spam is unlike viruses. Viruses are evil data but spam is behavior regardless of data. I could twist DCC client software to recognize some test messages, but that would tell users nothing abut whether their DCC client is talking to a DCC server that is getting current bulk checksums. A better example is what you would have a DNS blacklist client do about a standardized test message. A test message is just entirely wrong for DNS blacklists.. The right test for something like the SBL is a permanently listed auto-responder, not a test message. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 17:54:16 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA11545 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 17:54:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2KNCKE05860 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 18:12:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KNCKO05857 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 18:12:20 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA11510 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 17:53:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KMuYO03384; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 17:56:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KMW8O01658 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 17:32:08 -0500 Received: from dogma.slashnull.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA10081 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 17:13:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.jmason.org (ga183055.reshsg.uci.edu [128.195.183.55]) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KMCVx30483; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 22:12:38 GMT Received: by localhost.jmason.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id C463F8C811; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 17:14:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from jmason.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F1838C7CE; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:14:40 -0800 (PST) To: jm@jmason.org (Justin Mason) Cc: "Chris Lewis" , "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Blacklist metrics FYI In-Reply-To: Message from jm@jmason.org (Justin Mason) of "Thu, 20 Mar 2003 13:08:20 PST." <20030320210826.5A70D8C7CD@localhost.jmason.org> From: jm@jmason.org (Justin Mason) X-GPG-Key-Fingerprint: 0A48 2D8B 0B52 A87D 0E8A 6ADD 4137 1B50 6E58 EF0A X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to . Message-Id: <20030320221440.C463F8C811@localhost.jmason.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:14:35 -0800 Justin Mason said: > 0.682 1.4714 0.0839 0.946 0.79 0.00 X_OSIRU_OPEN_RELAY > 4.438 8.6452 1.2520 0.873 0.63 0.00 X_OSIRU_SPAMWARE_SITE > 3.277 1.4857 4.6343 0.243 0.41 0.00 X_OSIRU_DUL_FH > 0.000 0.0000 0.0000 0.500 0.12 0.00 X_OSIRU_SPAM_SRC > 1.522 1.4224 1.5983 0.471 0.10 0.00 X_OSIRU_DUL > > There's those ratings. However I think Osirusoft's "Confirmed Spam > Source" (127.0.0.4) still includes more than SPEWS anyway.... hmm. That's 0 hits for X_OSIRU_SPAM_SRC. I don't know why... but that makes that break-out of those stats somewhat less helpful. ;) --j. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 18:11:59 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA13154 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 18:11:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2KNU3006719 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 18:30:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KNU3O06716 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 18:30:03 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA13077 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 18:11:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KNM4O06345; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 18:22:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KNL2O06285 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 18:21:02 -0500 Received: from slarti.muc.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id SAA11846 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 18:02:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 21499 invoked by uid 66); 20 Mar 2003 23:04:40 -0000 Received: from faerber.muc.de by slarti.muc.de with BSMTP (rsmtp-qm-ot 0.4) for asrg@ietf.org; 20 Mar 2003 23:04:40 -0000 Received: by faerber.muc.de (OpenXP/32 v3.9.4 (Win32) alpha @ 2003-03-20-2126d); 21 Mar 2003 00:04:31 +0000 From: list-ietf-antispam@faerber.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Claus_F=E4rber?=) To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <8iFAmrDocDD@3247.org> In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: Bounces, was Re: [Asrg] Sender pays vs Forgeries User-Agent: OpenXP/32 v3.9.4 (Win32) alpha @ 2003-03-20-2126d MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 20 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0000 Tony Finch schrieb/wrote: > I expect to see a lot more junk email from <> and therefore a lot more > systems rejecting all bounces. I haven't seen much talk about maintaining > the reliablility of Internet email in the face of this kind of attack. One could use special addresses as the envelope recipient which become invalid after a month. Mail to these addresses is only accepted if it has a return path of <> and mail to other addresses only if it has a return path that is not <>. The addresses would have to contain a timestamp and a digital signature, which is checked by the MTA that receives mail for the user who uses such a scheme. Claus -- http://www.faerber.muc.de/ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 18:53:54 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA14615 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 18:53:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2L0BxH10019 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 19:11:59 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2L0BxO10016 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 19:11:59 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA14605 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 18:53:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2L02KO08856; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 19:02:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2L01tO08834 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 19:01:55 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA14404 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 18:43:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18w4vo-0005JU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 13:38:24 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] A possible way to a solution? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 19 Mar 2003 23:46:28 PST." Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 13:38:23 -0500 william@elan.net wrote: > I strongly recommend to read my presentation at: > > http://www.elan.net/~william/asrg-emailpathverification-presentation.pdf I think the document is very helpful. Simply having the picture of a complex "real-word" e-mail deliver path means that any potential solution can point to the picture, and say "we fit here." That capability was what was missing from many of the proposed solutions. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 19:07:04 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA14912 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 19:07:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2L0P9a10584 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 19:25:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2L0P9O10581 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 19:25:09 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA14892 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 19:06:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2L0F4O10164; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 19:15:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2L0E3O10139 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 19:14:03 -0500 Received: from dogma.slashnull.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA14649 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 18:55:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.jmason.org (ga183055.reshsg.uci.edu [128.195.183.55]) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2KNrsx02595; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 23:54:01 GMT Received: by localhost.jmason.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 433478C87F; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 18:56:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from jmason.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1311B8C87E; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:56:01 -0800 (PST) To: "Alan DeKok" Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] A possible way to a solution? In-Reply-To: Message from "Alan DeKok" of "Thu, 20 Mar 2003 13:38:23 EST." From: jm@jmason.org (Justin Mason) X-GPG-Key-Fingerprint: 0A48 2D8B 0B52 A87D 0E8A 6ADD 4137 1B50 6E58 EF0A X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to . Message-Id: <20030320235602.433478C87F@localhost.jmason.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:55:56 -0800 Alan DeKok said: > william@elan.net wrote: > > I strongly recommend to read my presentation at: > > > > http://www.elan.net/~william/asrg-emailpathverification-presentation.pdf > > I think the document is very helpful. Simply having the picture of > a complex "real-word" e-mail deliver path means that any potential > solution can point to the picture, and say "we fit here." That > capability was what was missing from many of the proposed solutions. Yes, it's a good summary of some troublesome spots in modern SMTP use. --j. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 19:13:51 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA15157 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 19:13:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2L0VvV11029 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 19:31:57 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2L0VvO11026 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 19:31:57 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA15153 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 19:13:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2L0Q6O10676; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 19:26:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2L0MWO10493 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 19:22:32 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA14838 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 19:03:55 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2KMCVvw028506 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:12:31 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2KMCVFd028502 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:12:31 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Asrg] My Opinion regarding ietf asrg session (it went badly!) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:12:30 -0800 (PST) Hello everybody, As I have little more time now, so I want to express my opinion regarding asrg live session on IETF meeting. I think it went badly and choice for presentations were not appropriate for the IETF conference. First part, were presentations on how bad spam is, what users should do, legal, etc. These are information to people who do not know about the problem and people at ietf are quite aware of the problem. Now these kind of presentations might have been ok if there were scientific in its nature or presentation, i.e. result of research efforts, like ARTG is supposed to actually do, but these were just views of particular organizations. But even that would have been ok if not for that fact, that these presentations took majority of time and being controversial to some, resulted in lots of discussions. And regarding these discussions, these were to a degree what we on the list call "noise". Now this noise is exactly the reason why some people who are experts in email have left this email list and do not participate any more, some of them were present at the meeting and I think they saw the same on the life meeting and this only made matters worse if we want to get any kind of support from IETF in general and IESG for whatever solutions we can think are appropriate to stop/reduce/control spam. Second part of the meeting was supposed to be little more technical (half of the room was emtpy by the time it started...) but unfortunetly there was really not enough time for it and it was completely dominated by vendors trying to push their own solutions and all solutions were very commercial in nature. None was big help at this point and none (except verisign, though presentation was still one-sided towards S/MIME) tried to see what else similar is available that may not be commercial and may do the same. Also it can be noted that AT&T presented technology on which they have some patents and IETF has very clear guidelines that this is dscoraged to say the least and group chairs should when two solutions exist (one patented, one not) always choose non-patented solution, same applies for presentations, this should have been screened and patent-related presentation made available if nothing else similar exist. Also have to be noted that most presentations on the live meeting were by persons who did not try to participate at the mailing list and are completely unknown to us and this is also against general policies for IETF and IRTF as first what are supposed to be presented are work done as part of mailing list efforts (i.e. general work area) usually by people who are most active on the list and only afterwards at the very end are there allowed presentations by other organizations with similar interest or work area (and those presentations should be carefully chose to minimize commercial views). In short, like I said in previous email - the presentations were all opinions of particular organizations and all commercial (even spamcon is really what I call "commercial" non-profit foundation, as apposed to say CAUSE) and were not individual submission as is supposed to be done at IETF and IRTF. As a result engineers who were attending IETF probably got negative view of our group and our efforts. The only thing I can think of why chair did something like that would have been to get media exposure, I'm sure media not be research or engineering centric would not see serious downsides that I have noticed. Now I'n not against additional media exposure, but I do not believe we're at the point where this is really needed, what we need are people serious about working on technical solutions and media will provide information about our group to general user audience that would only bring more noise. In the future meetings done in connection with IETF (are we meeting in Vienna?) if we're going to have so many non-technical discussions, I would strongly recommend separting into two sessions, one for this general/media-centric and one for actual engineers to work on technical issues that we may have. I do hope chair takes my comments seriously! He really did a bad job today chosing what is to be presented (i'm sure he had multiple options), keeping discussions short (so that there was time for additional presentations) or in general being prepared for this life meeting (remember agenda is supposed to be reviewed by mail list and be announced well before the actual meeting, that is just one example). -- William Leibzon Elan Communications Inc. william@elan.net _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 19:56:59 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA16233 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 19:56:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2L1F6214212 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 20:15:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2L1F6O14209 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 20:15:06 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA16206 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 19:56:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2L18NO13933; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 20:08:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2L17xO13907 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 20:07:59 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA16067 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 19:49:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from sputnik (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h2L0pYDO009592; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 01:51:34 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sputnik.mobil.danisch.de (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-8) id h2L0otb6018635; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 01:50:55 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: william@elan.net Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] My Opinion regarding ietf asrg session (it went badly!) Message-ID: <20030321005054.GA18280@danisch.de> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 16:50:54 -0800 William, I do fully agree with you and can 100% confirm what you said. As I stated in the session at the microphone, I was deeply disappointed about the session. Most of what was presented was simply pointless. I continuously had the feeling of waiting for the commercials to end to get back to the subject of the group - unfortunately they didn't end. Also, I was astonished to find presentations mostly disjunctive from what was done on the mailing list. The presenation were mostly a playground for commercial interests, and thus the session ironically appeared to be jammed by spam. I wonder what the mailing list is supposed to be good for if it has almost no influence. Those statistics were somehow interesting, but not worth wasting the short time we have. And extrapolating an exponential growth from just two measurements is at least questionable. I was waiting more than 2.5 hours for the beef to come. Finally, after the official end time at 11.30, the group was moving a little bit to the technical part. Unfortunately, time was so short that three talks had to be pressed in less than 30 minutes, and technical items could not even be touched. The presented taxonomy was as short as poor, but due to the short time left to present it, this didn't matter anymore. I came from Germany on my own private expense mainly to discuss technical solutions. If I had known the agenda before, I simply could have saved the money I wasted. I was quite amazed to see so many journalists participating. I've never seen so many journalists in a IETF session before. This could have been a great opportunity to step into public awareness as the ones who start to solve problem by engineering. Unfortunately, this chance was lost. As a balance, that session didn't bring us any further. On the contrary, this casted a very negative light on us. That's why many attendees, even some journalists, left early and were highly disappointed, or even upset. After this session I am even more convinced, that any effort to effectively stop spam will be blocked in order to keep a billion dollar market of spam filters open. Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 20:14:24 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA17027 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 20:14:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2L1WVv15300 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 20:32:31 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2L1WVO15297 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 20:32:31 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA17001 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 20:13:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2L1NfO14754; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 20:23:41 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2L1MXO14653 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 20:22:33 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA16529 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 20:03:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from rmf19 (h00055df0474a.ne.client2.attbi.com[65.96.217.174]) by rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (rwcrmhc51) with SMTP id <20030321010611051003i66se>; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 01:06:11 +0000 From: "Ye Olde Curmdudgeon" To: Keywords: asrg;filename=20030320-184811-734.mht;x-sender=asrg-admin@ietf.org;List-ID=Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF asrg.ietf.org Message-ID: <00a201c2ef46$10704ea0$66e237c0@rmf19> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Misunderstandings ... Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 20:06:11 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I don't have time to read all of the messages so it's likely that someone pointed out some serious flaws in this approach. But first I need to emphasize the difference between the envelope used to transport the message and the header which is like the inner header in a business letter and it is entirely optional. Sure, you're supposed to have from, to and date but it works without it. There is an unfortunate design error in that envelope is out of band and there is no standard way to preserve it. This should be fixed but ... Second, the word "forge", that's a moral term. One synthesize the envelope for whatever purpose is appropriate and we shouldn't prejudge this. In fact, I have to forge the from address for this letter in order to keep the list manager happy since I use a different address for each list. It isn't bogus, just informative. The Caller-ID for phone calls is buggy since it doesn't tell me who is calling, just which phone they happen to be using. I don't want to have be authorized to send mail. How do you know I'm not a synthesized persona or that I don't present different persona depending upon my role, job or mood. That's normal and fundamental to living in an ambiguous universe. You cannot get authentication from the DNS. It's just a repository of lookup keys that get reused over time (unfortunately). Authentication is a very deep and complex concept and there is no magic trust algebra. You can buy services for vouching or other purposes from third parties and require others who communicate you meet your own criteria such as having VeriSign certs or having ones generated by Joe if you want "Joe sent me" in your own private key community. Or you can simply have their bank say "yeah, he has the money to cover the purchase". Conclusion. This is not an Email issue -- it's a product that you might want to offer but it cannot be mandated any more than you can have .XXX and .KIDs. Also, please define what it means for mail to be delivered? PS: I am replying to the forwarded pointer because it also illustrate a bigger problem -- the damn wrapping that occurs because of teletype compatibility mode. I'm became quite proficient with the KSR and ASR 33,35,37 and 43 (well, not much with the 43 -- too new). But that doesn't mean I'm glad to be living in the 1960's in terms of email. But that's a separate grip -- I resisted using HTML though that's enough of a reason to use it. -----Original Message----- From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alan DeKok Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 13:38 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] A possible way to a solution? william@elan.net wrote: > I strongly recommend to read my presentation at: > > http://www.elan.net/~william/asrg-emailpathverification-presentation.pdf I think the document is very helpful. Simply having the picture of a complex "real-word" e-mail deliver path means that any potential solution can point to the picture, and say "we fit here." That capability was what was missing from many of the proposed solutions. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 20:29:26 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA17490 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 20:29:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2L1lVd16677 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 20:47:31 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2L1lVO16674 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 20:47:31 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA17486 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 20:28:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2L1V3O15241; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 20:31:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2L1U8O15173 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 20:30:08 -0500 Received: from mail.cdt.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA16959 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 20:11:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from tosh (cdt [206.112.85.61]) by mail.cdt.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92D564900A4 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 20:03:26 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20030320171215.018e9210@localhost> X-Sender: john@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 To: asrg@ietf.org From: John Morris Subject: Re: [Asrg] presentation slides? In-Reply-To: <20030320195756.GA14464@danisch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 17:14:08 -0800 At a minimum, speakers should send their slides to minutes@ietf.org and they will be posted at http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/03mar/index.html (look under the "general" area) Right now, only my slides are there (along with a misplaced set of slides from geopriv). At 12:01 PM 3/20/03 -0800, Hadmut Danisch wrote: >Hi, > >could we have copies of the slides of today's IETF >presentations available? > > >regards >Hadmut >_______________________________________________ >Asrg mailing list >Asrg@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 20:39:58 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA18114 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 20:39:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2L1w4q17421 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 20:58:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2L1w4O17418 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 20:58:04 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA18081 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 20:39:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2L1j9O16590; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 20:45:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2L1itO16550 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 20:44:55 -0500 Received: from gorgoroth.localnet (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA17427 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 20:26:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from unternet.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gorgoroth.localnet (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2L1SZA6003449 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 02:28:35 +0100 Message-ID: <3E7A6AC3.6010104@unternet.org> From: Frank de Lange User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4a) Gecko/20030310 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] My Opinion regarding ietf asrg session (it went badly!) References: <20030321005054.GA18280@danisch.de> In-Reply-To: <20030321005054.GA18280@danisch.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 02:28:35 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hadmut Danisch wrote: > William, > > I do fully agree with you and can 100% confirm what you said. > > As I stated in the session at the microphone, I was deeply > disappointed about the session. Most of what was presented was > simply pointless. I continuously had the feeling of waiting for > the commercials to end to get back to the subject of the group > - unfortunately they didn't end. > > Also, I was astonished to find presentations mostly disjunctive > from what was done on the mailing list. The presenation were mostly > a playground for commercial interests, and thus the session > ironically appeared to be jammed by spam. I wonder what the > mailing list is supposed to be good for if it has almost no influence. > > Those statistics were somehow interesting, but not worth > wasting the short time we have. And extrapolating an > exponential growth from just two measurements is at least > questionable. > > I was waiting more than 2.5 hours for the beef to come. Finally, > after the official end time at 11.30, the group was moving a little > bit to the technical part. Unfortunately, time was so short that three > talks had to be pressed in less than 30 minutes, and technical items > could not even be touched. The presented taxonomy was as short as > poor, but due to the short time left to present it, this didn't matter > anymore. > > I came from Germany on my own private expense mainly to > discuss technical solutions. If I had known the agenda before, > I simply could have saved the money I wasted. > > I was quite amazed to see so many journalists participating. > I've never seen so many journalists in a IETF session before. > This could have been a great opportunity to step into public > awareness as the ones who start to solve problem by engineering. > Unfortunately, this chance was lost. > > As a balance, that session didn't bring us any further. On the > contrary, this casted a very negative light on us. That's why > many attendees, even some journalists, left early and were highly > disappointed, or even upset. > > After this session I am even more convinced, that any effort > to effectively stop spam will be blocked in order to keep > a billion dollar market of spam filters open. > > Hadmut > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg I agree that the meeting was.... unbalanced. It would have be en more appropriate to have a meeting like this at a symposium or conference attended by management and 'decision makers'. Like Hadmut, I came here on my own expense from Sweden. I expected some 'product presentations', but I also expected 'independent' research projects to be presented. Unfortunately, the latter did not really figure on the agenda, for whatever reason. We have three months to Vienna. In those three months, we need to show to ourselves and the world - which is watching, as shown by the presence of journalists in the meeting and earlier media interest - that the IETF/IRTF is an independent organisation which works to create and promote a vendor-neutral, univeral internet. Whatever we end up with (that is, the working group(s) which might come after this research group) is going to be implemented by commercial vendors (and free software projects, hopefully). This is a good thing! It should, however, not be the other way around. As I have always understood it - and this was supported by everyone at the plenary meeting last night - people at the IETF work with the best interest of the internet in mind, not the best interest of their employers. I trust this is the case. Frank -- WWWWW ________________________ ## o o\ / Frank de Lange \ }# \| / +46-734352015 \ \ `--| _/ \ `---' \ +31-640037120 / \ frank@unternet.org / `------------------------' [ "Omnis enim res, quae dando non deficit, dum habetur et non datur, nondum habetur, quomodo habenda est." ] _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 20:50:12 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA18322 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 20:50:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2L28I818579 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 21:08:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2L28IO18576 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 21:08:18 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA18274 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 20:49:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2L1u2O17206; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 20:56:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2L1s6O17088 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 20:54:06 -0500 Received: from chiark.greenend.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA17852 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 20:35:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from fanf by chiark.greenend.org.uk with local (Exim 3.12 #1) id 18wBTZ-0006UC-00 (Debian); Fri, 21 Mar 2003 01:37:41 +0000 From: Tony Finch To: asrg@ietf.org Cc: Tony Finch , msergeant@startechgroup.co.uk Subject: Re: Bounces, was Re: [Asrg] Sender pays vs Forgeries Message-ID: <20030321013741.B5161@chiark.greenend.org.uk> References: <200303201508.11078@grx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200303201508.11078@grx>; from antispam@grax.com on Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 03:08:11PM -0600 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 01:37:41 +0000 On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 03:08:11PM -0600, David Walker wrote: > I don't understand why mail servers treat bounces as regular messages. > I believe that your mail server should encapsulate a bounce message in a > generic "here is a mail error" report. It's for historical reasons, the main reason being that the protocols assume that email failures are always complicated or unusual or at a high enough layer that they warrant the attention of a human. There is no accommodation in the standards for a denial-of-service attack on this back-channel. There *are* better bounce standards, but they are not widely-enough implemented and still leave something to be desired. For example, RFC 3461 really MUST be implemented everywhere to maintain the viability of bounces, but it does not allow you to sensibly verify a legitimate bounce at SMTP time because the ENVID parameter is copied into the 2822 headers of the bounce and isn't exposed to the 2821 level -- you can't reject a forged bounce until after CRLF.CRLF. It also only records the original and final recipients of a message, not the intermediate aliases, which reduces its effectiveness at improving email's debuggability. Note that verifying legitimate bounces implies that the MXs for a domain know the ENVID of all MAIL FROM that domain, which implies the death of asymmetrical email routing (but I think we all agree that that needs to die anyway). Tony. -- f.a.n.finch http://dotat.at/ SOUTHEAST SHANNON: SOUTHERLY 4 OR 5. FAIR. GOOD. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 20:56:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA18450 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 20:56:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2L2Ek618781 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 21:14:46 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2L2EkO18778 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 21:14:46 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA18429 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 20:56:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2L244O17680; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 21:04:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2L23hO17647 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 21:03:43 -0500 Received: from shego.dbc.mtview.ca.us (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA18222 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 20:45:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from shego.dbc.mtview.ca.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by shego.dbc.mtview.ca.us (8.12.6/8.12.6) with SMTP id h2L1l4NP023829; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 17:47:05 -0800 (PST) From: Marshall Rose To: Frank de Lange Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] My Opinion regarding ietf asrg session (it went badly!) Message-Id: <20030320174704.41e4fdf0.mrose+internet.irtf.asrg@dbc.mtview.ca.us> In-Reply-To: <3E7A6AC3.6010104@unternet.org> References: <20030321005054.GA18280@danisch.de> <3E7A6AC3.6010104@unternet.org> Organization: Dover Beach Consulting, Inc. X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.8claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 17:47:04 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > We have three months to Vienna. In those three months, we need to show > to ourselves and the world - which is watching, as shown by the presence > of journalists in the meeting and earlier media interest - that the > IETF/IRTF is an independent organisation which works to create and > promote a vendor-neutral, univeral internet. > ... at the risk of adding the voluminous nature of this mailing list by stating the very obvious: the IRTF is not the IETF applying IETF-like expectations to an IRTF research group will result only in heartbreak. although it is unlikely that the instigators of this research group had this intent, no one should be surprised by today's meltdown. let's face it, an open mailing list that averages 90 messages/day does not mix with a group trying to do research. neither does press participation. some of my more wagish friends have suggested that "the B ark" lives. for myself, i merely note the usual about paving things with good intentions. /mtr _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 21:08:48 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA18711 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 21:08:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2L2Qsq19241 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 21:26:54 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2L2QsO19238 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 21:26:54 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA18703 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 21:08:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2L2HKO18919; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 21:17:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2L2GmO18880 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 21:16:48 -0500 Received: from gorgoroth.localnet (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA18513 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 20:58:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from unternet.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gorgoroth.localnet (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2L20RA6004154 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 03:00:27 +0100 Message-ID: <3E7A723A.9090906@unternet.org> From: Frank de Lange User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4a) Gecko/20030310 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] My Opinion regarding ietf asrg session (it went badly!) References: <20030321005054.GA18280@danisch.de> <3E7A6AC3.6010104@unternet.org> <20030320174704.41e4fdf0.mrose+internet.irtf.asrg@dbc.mtview.ca.us> In-Reply-To: <20030320174704.41e4fdf0.mrose+internet.irtf.asrg@dbc.mtview.ca.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 03:00:26 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Marshall Rose wrote: > some of my more wagish friends have suggested that "the B ark" > lives. for myself, i merely note the usual about paving things with good > intentions. > > /mtr Nâââh, I spotted quite a few dirty telephones here and there... Really... //Frank _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 23:24:57 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA21020 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 23:24:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2L4h7C26888 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 23:43:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2L4h7O26885 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 23:43:07 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA21007 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 23:24:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2L4XNO25834; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 23:33:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2L4W5O25786 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 23:32:05 -0500 Received: from chiark.greenend.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA20896 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 23:13:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from fanf by chiark.greenend.org.uk with local (Exim 3.12 #1) id 18wDwS-00076b-00 (Debian); Fri, 21 Mar 2003 04:15:40 +0000 To: clewis@nortelnetworks.com From: Tony Finch Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: Bounces, was Re: [Asrg] Sender pays vs Forgeries In-Reply-To: <3E7A2F76.4020805@americasm01.nt.com> References: <200303201508.11078@grx> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 04:15:40 +0000 "Chris Lewis" wrote: > >However, you can finesse this somewhat. We inline reject <> envelope >from in the following two circumstances: > > 1) The From: has no "@", or doesn't contain "mailer-daemon" > or "postmaster", or, > 2) There's multiple RCPT TOs (recipients). > >No FPs ever on (1). Only two FPs on (2) - broken mailing lists, which >we assisted the listowner in fixing. Quite happy with both rules. (2) prevents you from having more than one manager for a list that doesn't have automated bounce handling. Neither of these checks prevents spammers. Tony. -- f.a.n.finch http://dotat.at/ LOUGH FOYLE TO CARLINGFORD LOUGH: SOUTH OR SOUTHEAST 3 OR 4. MOSTLY FAIR. GOOD. SLIGHT. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 23:26:04 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA21063 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 23:26:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2L4iE026920 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 23:44:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2L4iEO26917 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 23:44:14 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA21038 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 23:25:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2L4Z2O25897; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 23:35:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2L4YUO25872 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 23:34:30 -0500 Received: from chiark.greenend.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA20903 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 23:15:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from fanf by chiark.greenend.org.uk with local (Exim 3.12 #1) id 18wDyn-0007DJ-00 (Debian); Fri, 21 Mar 2003 04:18:05 +0000 To: list-ietf-antispam@faerber.muc.de From: Tony Finch Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: Bounces, was Re: [Asrg] Sender pays vs Forgeries In-Reply-To: <8iFAmrDocDD@3247.org> References: Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 04:18:05 +0000 list-ietf-antispam@faerber.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Claus_F=E4rber?=) wrote: > >One could use special addresses as the envelope recipient which become >invalid after a month. >Mail to these addresses is only accepted if it has a return path of <> >and mail to other addresses only if it has a return path that is not <>. >The addresses would have to contain a timestamp and a digital signature, >which is checked by the MTA that receives mail for the user who uses >such a scheme. There's already an equivalent solution in RFC 3461. Tony. -- f.a.n.finch http://dotat.at/ SELSEY BILL TO LYME REGIS: VARIABLE MAINLY NORTH OR NORTHEAST 3 OR 4, LOCALLY 2. MOST OF THE MIST THINNING. MODERATE OR POOR WITH FOG PATCHES BECOMING MODERATE LOCALLY GOOD. SLIGHT. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 20 23:42:48 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA21489 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 23:42:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2L50xi27402 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 00:00:59 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2L50wO27399 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 00:00:59 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA21485 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 23:42:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2L4o6O27125; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 23:50:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2L4nLO27089 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 23:49:21 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA21300 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 23:30:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from sputnik (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h2L4WtXc012117 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 05:32:55 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sputnik.mobil.danisch.de (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-8) id h2L4WELQ021450 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 05:32:14 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <20030321043212.GA21403@danisch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Subject: [Asrg] Quotation Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 20:32:12 -0800 From http://www.emaildepot.net/, a commercial provider for address lists for spamming: The 1,000,000 email addresses that we provide each week are general, non-targeted addresses, and are about 90% USA-based. These are not opt-in addresses, but we have removed many of the flamers and trouble-makers from the lists. We run them all through our commercial grade verification programs to ensure deliverability. Lovely. Let's become "trouble-makers". Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 00:03:11 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA21871 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 00:03:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2L5LMS28844 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 00:21:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2L5LMO28840 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 00:21:22 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA21866 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 00:02:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2L589O28435; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 00:08:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2L57pO28399 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 00:07:51 -0500 Received: from hotmail.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA21621 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 23:49:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 20:51:25 -0800 Received: from 130.129.135.82 by OE34.law14.internal.hotmail.com with DAV; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 04:51:25 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [130.129.135.82] X-Originating-Email: [notbobwyman@hotmail.com] Reply-To: "Bob Wyman" From: "Bob Wyman" To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , References: Subject: Re: [Asrg] Text of my slides MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0015_01C2EF3B.E4818E80" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Mar 2003 04:51:25.0312 (UTC) FILETIME=[86DC6000:01C2EF65] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 23:53:23 -0500 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C2EF3B.E4818E80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I must say that I regret that some of the less valuable presentations in = today's meetings took up so much time that this presentation by Phillip = Hallam-Baker ended up being rushed and thus was not presented as well as = it could have been. My hope is that in future meetings we'll have more = time to hear about such solutions and much less time devoted to trying = to convince us that a problem exists... Thanks for providing the = slides... bob wyman ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C2EF3B.E4818E80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I must say that I regret that some of = the less=20 valuable presentations in today's meetings took up so much time that = this=20 presentation by Phillip Hallam-Baker ended up being rushed and thus was = not=20 presented as well as it could have been. My hope is that in future = meetings=20 we'll have more time to hear about such solutions and much less time = devoted to=20 trying to convince us that a problem exists... Thanks for providing the=20 slides...
 
        = bob=20 wyman
 
------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C2EF3B.E4818E80-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 00:49:21 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA22560 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 00:49:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2L67X831890 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 01:07:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2L67XO31887 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 01:07:33 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA22550 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 00:48:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2L60GO30923; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 01:00:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2L5xDO30871 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 00:59:13 -0500 Received: from joy.songbird.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA22476 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 00:40:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from wl-131-195.wireless.ietf56.ietf.org (208.184.79.252.songbird.com [208.184.79.252] (may be forged)) by joy.songbird.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2L5gOQ18397; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 21:42:24 -0800 From: Dave Crocker X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.63 Beta/4) Personal Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <8329761334.20030320214342@brandenburg.com> To: Marshall Rose CC: Frank de Lange , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] My Opinion regarding ietf asrg session (it went badly!) In-Reply-To: <20030320174704.41e4fdf0.mrose+internet.irtf.asrg@dbc.mtview.ca.us> References: <20030321005054.GA18280@danisch.de> <3E7A6AC3.6010104@unternet.org> <20030320174704.41e4fdf0.mrose+internet.irtf.asrg@dbc.mtview.ca.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 21:43:42 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Marshall, Thursday, March 20, 2003, 5:47:04 PM, you wrote: MR> at the risk of adding the voluminous nature of this mailing list by MR> stating the very obvious: MR> the IRTF is not the IETF MR> applying IETF-like expectations to an IRTF research group will result MR> only in heartbreak. On the other hand, we need to ask what the goal of having an open meeting at an IETF event reasonably should be. Somehow, I do not think that filling most of the schedule with presentations primarily trying to tell us that spam is a problem is appropriate. Nor do I think that presentations that present invalid statistics or simplistic suggestions are all that helpfuyl. Somehow, I think that targeting technical research work IS appropriate. Perhaps that happened in the half-hour overtime after the scheduled portion, but of course, many of us had to be elsewhere. So, yes, we need to make sure we do not review this as if it were a working group meeting. However the meeting failed in plenty of other ways. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking Sunnyvale, CA USA , _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 01:09:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA22986 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 01:09:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2L6Rkg32690 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 01:27:46 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2L6RkO32687 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 01:27:46 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA22980 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 01:09:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2L6L3O32476; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 01:21:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2L6KWO32459 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 01:20:32 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA22795 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 01:01:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc02.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2L644qe017944 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 22:04:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 22:04:04 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] My Opinion regarding ietf asrg session (it went badly! ) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 22:03:59 -0800 > None was big help at this point and > none (except > verisign, though presentation was still one-sided towards > S/MIME) tried to > see what else similar is available that may not be commercial > and may do > the same. Actually if I had had a little more time it would probably have been rather clearer that I was proposing a range of authentication options, starting with the free ones albiet with certain possible counter-strategies. S/MIME is clearly an authentication option and the most flexible for this particular application (PGP is a close second but there is a conflict in that the PGP security model is strictly endpoint based and hence does not immediately map to a service MTA gateway deployment unless a validation service like XKMS is interjected). However S/MIME is also the most expensive to deploy - whether you issue your own certificates or pay a CA since you need a cert for every end user which is expensive to manage, far more expensive than an SSL cert. The only "authentication" strategy I think is bogus is using the reverse DNS. This will at best demonstrate that the address block the IP is in has been legitimately allocated. This is actually a modest spam indicator, it is certainly not foolproof and is certainly not an accept/deny criteria. Lots of legitimate IP addresses do not have reverse DNS configured. There are definitely instances where garbage creators (high volume spam senders) have hijacked unallocated IP ranges and advertised routes for them. The problem is that it is almost as easy for the garbage creator to hijack a legit IP address range by advertising a false route. So all things being equal I would rather not create incentives for garbage creators to move to strategies that are far more destructive. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 01:11:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA23025 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 01:11:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2L6Th432748 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 01:29:43 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2L6ThO32745 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 01:29:43 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA23001 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 01:10:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2L6F4O32323; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 01:15:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2L6E5O32290 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 01:14:05 -0500 Received: from gorgoroth.localnet (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA22726 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 00:55:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from unternet.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gorgoroth.localnet (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2L5vdA6010285 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 06:57:39 +0100 Message-ID: <3E7AA9D3.2070001@unternet.org> From: Frank de Lange User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4a) Gecko/20030310 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] First few links to studies Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 06:57:39 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Well, I don't have any semblance of a complete list of studies yet (if you have some pointers, please send them... One down - thanks Adam - more to go? will include them in the list later), but here are some links which can be interesting anyway... 'targeted scientific research' Teamed filters catch more spam http://www.trnmag.com/Stories/2001/082201/Teamed_filters_catch_more_spam_082201.html Unsolicited Commercial Communications and Data Protection, a study by the European Union http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/dataprot/studies/spamstudyen.pdf Unsolicited Bulk Email: Mechanisms for Control http://www.imc.org/ube-sol.html Anonymity and Pseudonymity in Cyberspace http://www2.norwich.edu/mkabay/overviews/anonpseudo.htm http://www2.norwich.edu/mkabay/overviews/anonpseudo.pdf Deterrence Measures for Spam http://www.almaden.ibm.com/cs/k53/pmail/ Security research papers from IBM. Some related issues, eg. privacy preferences/consent (P3P) for web sites. http://www.research.ibm.com/compsci/security/seminars.html There are many more papers on web-related issues. Some of the issues are related (especially the privacy-related issues). http://www.almaden.ibm.com/software/theory/Web/ Selling interrupt rights: A way to control unwanted e-mail and telephone calls http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/414/forum.pdf (more later) 'operational research' alt.spam faq, zillions of links... http://digital.net/~gandalf/spamfaq.html 'legal research' GARBAGE IN: EMERGING MEDIA AND REGULATION OF UNSOLICITED COMMERCIAL SOLICITATIONS http://www.law.berkeley.edu/journals/btlj/articles/vol11/Carroll/html/text.html List of links (reading list) for a course in 'cyberlaw', theme 'Why Regulating Spam is Difficult' http://www.law.berkeley.edu/institutes/bclt/courses/fall00/cyberlaw/cybersyllabus.html 'the Enemy' Why Bulk Email Marketing? http://www.marketing-2000.net/ 'rfc's' rfc2505 - Anti-Spam Recommendations for SMTP MTAs rfc2635 - DON'T SPEW A Set of Guidelines for Mass Unsolicited Mailings and Postings (spam*) rfc3098 - How to Advertise Responsibly Using E-Mail and Newsgroups This is not the promised overview of research, it is a starter for those who want something to reado n the way home :-) Cheers//Frank -- WWWWW ________________________ ## o o\ / Frank de Lange \ }# \| / +46-734352015 \ \ `--| _/ \ `---' \ +31-640037120 / \ frank@unternet.org / `------------------------' [ "Omnis enim res, quae dando non deficit, dum habetur et non datur, nondum habetur, quomodo habenda est." ] _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 02:46:10 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA07166 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 02:46:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2L84NQ16786 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 03:04:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2L84NO16783 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 03:04:23 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA07145 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 02:45:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2L80KO16678; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 03:00:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2L7x5O16609 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 02:59:05 -0500 Received: from dogma.slashnull.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA06823 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 02:40:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.jmason.org (ga183055.reshsg.uci.edu [128.195.183.55]) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2L7dFx29307; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 07:39:20 GMT Received: by localhost.jmason.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 56AA98C7D2; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 01:41:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from jmason.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50E058C762; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 22:41:35 -0800 (PST) To: Hadmut Danisch Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Quotation In-Reply-To: Message from Hadmut Danisch of "Thu, 20 Mar 2003 20:32:12 PST." <20030321043212.GA21403@danisch.de> From: jm@jmason.org (Justin Mason) X-GPG-Key-Fingerprint: 0A48 2D8B 0B52 A87D 0E8A 6ADD 4137 1B50 6E58 EF0A X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to . Message-Id: <20030321064135.56AA98C7D2@localhost.jmason.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 22:41:30 -0800 Hadmut Danisch said: > >>From http://www.emaildepot.net/, a commercial provider for > address lists for spamming: > > The 1,000,000 email addresses that we provide each week are general, > non-targeted addresses, and are about 90% USA-based. These are not > opt-in addresses, but we have removed many of the flamers and > trouble-makers from the lists. We run them all through our commercial > grade verification programs to ensure deliverability. > > Lovely. Let's become "trouble-makers". Aha. That explains something I've been wondering about. Spammers are often keen to get hold of the address of people who complain about spam; hence the disguised email addrs in headers, HTML comments etc. I assumed it was for "revenge" actions like joe-jobs. In fact, it's to clean lists of "trouble-makers", to reduce abuse complaints. A good reason for us all to complain, then! --j. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 05:09:51 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA09454 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 05:09:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2LAS8w25780 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 05:28:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LAS8O25777 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 05:28:08 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA09447 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 05:09:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LAGRO25273; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 05:16:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LAF5O25214 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 05:15:05 -0500 Received: from olgisoft.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id EAA09029 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 04:56:15 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200303210956.EAA09029@ietf.org> Received: by 127.0.0.1 (EzMTS MTSAgent 1.55a3) ; Fri, 21 Mar 03 10:58:33 +0100 for Received: from olgisoft.com (127.0.0.1) by 127.0.0.1 (EzMTS MTSSmtp 1.55d5) ; Fri, 21 Mar 03 10:58:21 +0100 for From: Olger Diekstra To: CC: X-Mailer: PocoMail 2.6 (1006) - Licensed Version Reply-To: olger@olgisoft.com In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Asrg] A possible way to a solution? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Envelope-Receiver: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h2LAF5O25215 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 10:58:21 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I didn't mean to use DNS for authentication. I'll illustrate the method I had in mind for this. If my receiving mailserver gets a message from a remote mailserver, it'll use the emailheader which contains the FROM field (basically, I think the FROM field should contain the senders address, like there's ultimately one TO field that really matters, there should also be one FROM field that contains the actual senders address. That's the one I'm gonna check.). From that field I take the domainname, look it up in DNS, get the mailserver's IP address, and then contact that mailserver. Using a new protocol my mailserver communicates with the sending mailserver, to find out whether or not it is actually trying to send an email to my mailserver. If the domain in the FROM emailaddress nonexistence, the email will get bounced. The sender will get notified by means of an email. The sender can then take appropriate action, and eventually resend his/her email. With a correct emailaddress. DNS is used as it was intended, not for authentication, not with rDNS. There's no point in trying to find a solution that will totally eliminate spam. It might work for a while, but anything is ultimately breakable. In my opinion, its better to make it very hard to spam, and/or give a spammer a lot of work to sending his/her email. Just look at the all the copy protection schema's that are around. They make it harder to copy a CD or DVD for a while, not impossible. Olger. >Once again this is type of verification based on DNS, I described >majority of this approaches in my presentation and in the beginning >described what these approaches would need to deal with and the >solution described here is pretty much what I called complex mail >verficiation. Again ANYBODY who is considering doing any kind DNS >based mail sender verification any kind of solution like has been >discussed at "Domain Authorized SMTP Mail" thread and RMX and number >of other threads (and there are many many people like this on the >list), I strongly recommend to read my presentation at: > >http://www.elan.net/~william/asrg-emailpathverification- >presentation.pdf > >(Note that right now it looks like I will not be presenting this on >actual meeting as chair has chosen different presentations for it) > >I also do think that being able to track spammer to his real >location will go 1/2 way in stopping them, the rest would fall into >being able to contstruct good black/whitelists and doing legal and >other actions to close spammer business. > >On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Olger Diekstra wrote: > >>Hi all, >> >>I've been monitoring the list for the past few days now. Hearing >>(well, reading) everyone with all the different types of solutions >>and arguments brings me to the following concept. Although its far >>from covering everything, there are still some lose ends, I think >>its a good starting point. >> >>Although spam should be (and in most countries is) illegal, that's >>not going to stop it. As long as there are countries that are more >>flexible to spammers, it will be hard to get them before court. >>Which ultimately leads to conclude that the law is not going to be >>able to solve this. So any discussion whether it should be more >>illegal or not, heavier punishments or cheaper ways to bring a >>spammer to justice will not make spam go away. In other words, a >>futile discussion. >>Since justice needs a person or organization to stand trial, what >>we need to do first is find out who is spamming in a legal way. >>Then Justice can take place much more easily. >> >>Content filtering is (as has been pointed out before) ultimately an >>enduser solution. As email can be encrypted (although encrypted >>spam is hardly very likely) it becomes difficult for an automated >>process to be checked. Besides, the same content can sometimes be >>wanted and sometimes be spam (as has also been described in emails >>from others on the list). If I like to write dirty to my >>girlfriend, that is not spam. However, if it is to thousands of >>users around the world that I do not know, that would make it spam >>for most, although there might still be a few who would want that >>kind of mail... >> >>Systems that rely on remote systems setting tags, or having >>certificates are also not very reliable in the end. They can be >>forged. If a spammer has its own mailserver, it can forge any tag >>that is invented to prevent spam. >> >>Seperation of spam and legitimate mail must be close to 100%. >>Something like 99.99999%. If on a billion mails only one gets lost, >>that's acceptable to me. >>Furthermore, the traffic spam consumes must be reduced to its >>absoluut minimum. Determining if an email is spam can only be done >>at the receiving side on the server or on the client. A spammer can >>be a legitimate sender at one time, and a spammer at another. >> >>Which ultimately leads me to the conclusion that the receiving >>mailserver should be the first place to start. This is the place >>where the spammer has no control over. >>If he knocks on my door and doesn't know the password, I can simply >>keep the door locked. >>Whatever authentication or certification my mailserver wants to >>receive an email, the spammer will have to comply to. (As long as >>my security on the server is sound of course...But even then, if >>security is low, the spammer will have to be a hacker as well, >>totally different skills, and much more timeconsuming). >> >>So the question is probably, how do we do that? >>Firstly, I want my mailserver to garantee the sender. That will >>give me much more control. The server could do this as follows: >>whenever a remote mailserver sends an email to a receiving >>mailserver, the receiving mailserver should lookup the domain of >>which the sender claims the email is from, contact the mailserver >>of that domain, and check it is actually trying to send the email. >>This will garantee the source to my mailserver, giving me full >>control over the check. It will be very difficult for the spammer >>to forge this. >>Now a problem rises for users that send from a mailserver that's is >>not part of the source domain. Like mobile users sending mail from >>their hotelroom, home users sending with an office emailaddress, >>etc. This can be solved by informing the mailserver of the domain >>in the FROM field that a message is being send. Basically, you >>could send the header of the email which will provide enough >>information. For this to happen reliably, the user would have to >>login to the mailserver. In the end, if the mailserver of the >>domain in the FROM field is not notified, the sender will not be >>able to get the email to me. >> >>So now that I know the source, I could setup a list of users on >>the mailserver that are save. Whenever the mailserver receives an >>email for me, it'll check against the list of known addresses. If >>the sending party is in my list, the email can go right to my >>mailbox. If not, additional action is needed (and has to be >>defined). Very safe, and without too much need for server >>resources. >>I can still send email from anywhere in the world to anyone. Thus, >>I can create a whitelist of folks whom I trust. Of course, I would >>need to setup all my emailboxes with the necessary filters. >> >>This mechanisme ensures that an email can be traced back to the >>sending domain, it has to have a valid sending emailaddress of >>which the domainname is registered in DNS and the authorized >>mailserver of that domain must have send the email. >>If more mailservers exists within the sending domain, it is likely >>that the receiving mailserver connects to a different mailserver >>from the sending domain. So there also has to be a mechanisme for >>the sending mailservers to communicate amongst each other. >>Basically, it should do a sort of broadcast to is fellow >>mailservers of the domain, and ask if anyone is sending the email. >> >>Since we now know who is sending the spam (forging emailaddresses >>just became much more difficult) we can put up a blacklist with >>known spammers. An email server should be able to either mirror it >>in case the blacklist goes down (due to a DoS attack of some sort) >>or use it realtime. Every user should have an option somewhere, in >>its client, thru a website of the ISP, whatever, to select a >>particular blacklist and tell the emailserver to use that list or >>lists for the users mailbox. The email server will first use the >>users whitelist, and then the blacklist. >>If a user considers an email spam, it should be able to reply the >>email and sent it out again, using a special tag in the subject >>stating SPAM or something. The email server will pick this up and >>instead of sending the reply to the spammer (though he might get >>perhaps a copy?) it will sent it to the blacklist. >>If the sending address gets, say, twenty emails from different >>persons stating the sender is a spammer, it could be added to the >>list. >> >>Spammers who use a temporary hotmail account might still form a >>problem, but they will not be able to send email using that account >>if they do not notify the hotmail emailserver. Webmail accounts >>usually can only be used from a webpage which sends the email using >>an unknown (to the sender) mailserver. I have a feeling spammers >>are not going to use a webpage to construct thousands of email >>spam.... >> >>Remember, this is just a thought (though a long one...) of how it >>could be done. The above described method can be slowly implemented >>in the existing systems. >>If users also authenticate to SMTP servers, the ISP or >>administrator can also make sure no unauthorised person gets to use >>the mailserver. In the end, it will make spamming a whole lot >>harder. >> >>Happy thinking! >> >>Olger Diekstra. >> >> >>_______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list >>Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg >> > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 05:21:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA09638 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 05:21:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2LAdNm26925 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 05:39:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LAdNO26922 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 05:39:23 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA09635 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 05:20:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LAW6O25953; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 05:32:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LAVcO25930 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 05:31:38 -0500 Received: from slarti.muc.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id FAA09544 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 05:12:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 29647 invoked by uid 66); 21 Mar 2003 10:15:04 -0000 Received: from faerber.muc.de by slarti.muc.de with BSMTP (rsmtp-qm-ot 0.4) for asrg@ietf.org; 21 Mar 2003 10:15:04 -0000 Received: by faerber.muc.de (OpenXP/32 v3.9.4 (Win32) alpha @ 2003-03-21-1001d); 21 Mar 2003 11:14:57 +0000 From: list-ietf-antispam@faerber.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Claus_F=E4rber?=) To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <8iJCll2ZcDD@3247.org> In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: Bounces, was Re: [Asrg] Sender pays vs Forgeries User-Agent: OpenXP/32 v3.9.4 (Win32) alpha @ 2003-03-21-1001d MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 21 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0000 Tony Finch schrieb/wrote: > list-ietf-antispam@faerber.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Claus_F=E4rber?=) wrote: >> One could use special addresses as the envelope recipient which become >> invalid after a month. >> Mail to these addresses is only accepted if it has a return path of <> >> and mail to other addresses only if it has a return path that is not <>. >> The addresses would have to contain a timestamp and a digital signature, >> which is checked by the MTA that receives mail for the user who uses >> such a scheme. > There's already an equivalent solution in RFC 3461. Detecting bounces by looking for a RFC 3461 messages only works when all sites implement it. And then you can still have your commercial message in the first part of a multipart/report structure (and fake bounce data in the following parts). Special bounce addresses can be deployed on a per-domain (or per- address) basis without support from hosts that send bounces (_and_ they can detect forged bounces after MAIL FROM and RCPT TO, i.e. without DATA). Claus -- http://www.faerber.muc.de/ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 05:35:07 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA09808 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 05:35:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2LArOt27332 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 05:53:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LArOO27329 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 05:53:24 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA09804 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 05:34:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LAk3O27132; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 05:46:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LAjHO27101 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 05:45:17 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA09699 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 05:26:28 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2L8ZFbn003591; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 00:35:15 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2L8ZFiP003587; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 00:35:15 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] My Opinion regarding ietf asrg session (it went badly! ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 00:35:15 -0800 (PST) Being ISP owner and network engineer who manages not only my company network (two /19 blocks, ASN, peers, transits) but also networks for couple other companies, all with multiple transit providers, I have to disagree with this. All transit providers amd large networks employ filtering at bgp advertisment level and you would only be able to send them routes that you have previously told them about and where they were able to confirm you're the owner of the ip block. The only way I could see how somebody would advertise false route is if they tell their upstream that they have such as and such customer as downstream and their upstream is stupid enough not to verify it - at some size level upstream would trust its downstream ISP, i.e. if I tell that this network is for my customer, I would not get questions, but spammers usually do not have network and only use blocks received from theeir upstream, almost nobody would trust such company on their word to advertise another block without proof and advertising false block can also put tier-1 network into legal problems it may also cost them as far as peering contracts. And as far as I can remember (and I'v been on both spam-related lists and even more network-engineering lists) there was only one or two examples and all two years ago or more. Besides that I'm also expert in ip whois and run free public whois referral server at completewhois.com (similar to geektools but all my own code and algorithms and dare say its lot more capable - both on domains and ip info) so I have statistics on what users are requesting and high amounts of spam are easy to see as increase in whois queries on certain ips, sometimes I check this myself and I did not see any clear hijacking. But this is all completely off-topic and really not relevent to the list so I apologize for the rant and will be on topic in next emails. > The problem is that it is almost as easy for the garbage creator to hijack a > legit IP address range by advertising a false route. So all things being > equal I would rather not create incentives for garbage creators to move to > strategies that are far more destructive. > > Phill > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 05:49:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA10005 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 05:49:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2LB7wN28535 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 06:07:58 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LB7wO28532 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 06:07:58 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA09999 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 05:49:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LB4RO27642; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 06:04:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LAvFO27465 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 05:57:15 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA09886 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 05:38:26 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2L8lEbn003713; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 00:47:14 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2L8lEQe003709; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 00:47:14 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] My Opinion regarding ietf asrg session (it went badly! ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 00:47:14 -0800 (PST) Little more on topic now: There is common misconception that hijaking ip block implies being able to do reverse dns for it. This is entirely false, one is ip routing issue another is ip allocation deligated by RIR so to be able to do reverse dns you would need to have record change with RIR (ARIN, APNIC, RIPE, LACNIC) and they would know who the real ip owner is and would report hijacking. But it is true that in some situations with smaller networks, they have their reverse dns servers in the same ip as their block from the RIR, then you could potentially setup your servers on the same ip. But lately that is enough either as RIRs have changed to do in-addr deligation by domain name and not ip, so you need to also hijack domain of the provider who you are hijacking ip block from. As you can see it gets way too complex for a spammer and can put him in way too much legal trouble if he's traced. But I entirely agree that reverse dns check is no substitute for authentication or verification. If you look at it carefully you'll find that it fails on my complex mail path example both on the roaming user part and on intermediate remailer. But checking reverse ip can be used for the actual verification of individual server-server communication, I'll mention difference in next email. > The only "authentication" strategy I think is bogus is using the reverse > DNS. This will at best demonstrate that the address block the IP is in has > been legitimately allocated. This is actually a modest spam indicator, it is > certainly not foolproof and is certainly not an accept/deny criteria. Lots > of legitimate IP addresses do not have reverse DNS configured. There are > definitely instances where garbage creators (high volume spam senders) have > hijacked unallocated IP ranges and advertised routes for them. > > The problem is that it is almost as easy for the garbage creator to hijack a > legit IP address range by advertising a false route. So all things being > equal I would rather not create incentives for garbage creators to move to > strategies that are far more destructive. > > Phill > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 06:31:24 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA10588 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 06:31:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2LBnhd30891 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 06:49:43 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LBnhO30888 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 06:49:43 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA10572 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 06:30:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LBgLO30631; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 06:42:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LBfJO30594 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 06:41:19 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA10483 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 06:22:29 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2L9VHbn004317 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 01:31:17 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2L9VHAO004313 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 01:31:17 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Asrg] Authentication/Verification - really two parts Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 01:31:17 -0800 (PST) I want to mention that authentication and verification have really two parts which are possible independent or parallel pathes: 1. Verify communication between two mail servers. In my presentation slides this is listed as highlated section which I called vulnerable SMTP connection - connection from two sites that do not know each other. In this case its a good idea for each mail server to be able to known and verify who the other mail server is. 2. Verification of actual sender, i.e. you want to know that he's allowed to use email address of the domain he's claiming to be using.. This usually would imply checking on what is listed at "From:" header, though really it might be better to create new "Sender" header with actual verifiable email address of the sender plus with additional info as in: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-newman-msgheader-originfo-05.txt Now #1 and #2 are different things and for example when talking about crypto techniques - #2 is exactly what S/Mime is supposed to solve (identity of sender) while #1 would not be solved by it and would require more standard site certificates as with http ssl. Now the final goal is of course to verify sender by recepient but if all the links in between are secure (each -> in the path Sender-}Site A->Site I->Site J->Site Z-}Recepient) and each site can vauch for one another, then we also have achieved our goal as sender is known to Site A (so it can vauch for it) and obviouly you Recepient knows its mail provider Z. Deployment wise its a lot easier to have solution deployed on thousands on email servers then have billion (is it now?) users getting S/MIME or PGP certificates. Also looking carefully at it, its actually enough that Site Z can verify/authenticate Site A, the problem becomes how to deal with Site I and Site J when they are not running mail software that can apprpriately path along this kind of authorization. Anyway I'm done describing general authentication/verification solution approaches, hope it helped... -- William Leibzon Elan Communications Inc. william@elan.net _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 06:58:14 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA11233 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 06:58:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2LCGY300358 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 07:16:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LCGYO00355 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 07:16:34 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA11227 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 06:57:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LCD6O32720; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 07:13:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LCA4O32591 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 07:10:04 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA10981 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 06:51:12 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2LA01bn004700; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 02:00:01 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2LA01su004693; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 02:00:01 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: Olger Diekstra cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] A possible way to a solution? In-Reply-To: <200303210805.h2L84sbn003255@sokol.elan.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 02:00:00 -0800 (PST) Again I strongly advice you to view my slides and compare difference between "simple" and "complex" mail path and take a look at real-life example of what happens to email when you send it to asrg mail list, you'll see how headers change and how you can not rely on either MAIL FROM or "From:" header as far as what your receiving mail server sees in comparision to remote mail server. What you and many others see as solution are based on misunderstanding on how email travels across the internet - way too many only see it as "simple" mail path. Considering that you're not the first person who proposed this solution (I'v been on way too many lists...) I'll probably add this to my slides as far as failed verification ideas, so we don't get asked about it again! Also very similar thing to yours has been proposed (but it does include callback): http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nunn-ssmtp-00.txt I'll leave it as an exercise for you to check why this does not work, but if you do not I actually have completed slide on this which did not make it into final draft and as I promised to bring up callback, I'll release those slides when I get a change to update this presentation. (I'm considering converting it into html as work-paper describing different approaches and comparisons - slides were obviously something for live show I did not get a chance to do; if I convert it, it'll be some time before you see update as I'll need to be lot more descriptive as would be in research paper). On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Olger Diekstra wrote: > I didn't mean to use DNS for authentication. > I'll illustrate the method I had in mind for this. If my receiving mailserver gets a message from a > remote mailserver, it'll use the emailheader which contains the FROM field (basically, I think the > FROM field should contain the senders address, like there's ultimately one TO field that really > matters, there should also be one FROM field that contains the actual senders address. That's the > one I'm gonna check.). From that field I take the domainname, look it up in DNS, get the > mailserver's IP address, and then contact that mailserver. Using a new protocol my mailserver > communicates with the sending mailserver, to find out whether or not it is actually trying to send > an email to my mailserver. > If the domain in the FROM emailaddress nonexistence, the email will get bounced. The sender will > get notified by means of an email. The sender can then take appropriate action, and eventually > resend his/her email. With a correct emailaddress. > DNS is used as it was intended, not for authentication, not with rDNS. > > There's no point in trying to find a solution that will totally eliminate spam. It might work for a > while, but anything is ultimately breakable. In my opinion, its better to make it very hard to > spam, and/or give a spammer a lot of work to sending his/her email. > Just look at the all the copy protection schema's that are around. They make it harder to copy a CD > or DVD for a while, not impossible. > > Olger. > > >Once again this is type of verification based on DNS, I described > >majority of this approaches in my presentation and in the beginning > >described what these approaches would need to deal with and the > >solution described here is pretty much what I called complex mail > >verficiation. Again ANYBODY who is considering doing any kind DNS > >based mail sender verification any kind of solution like has been > >discussed at "Domain Authorized SMTP Mail" thread and RMX and number > >of other threads (and there are many many people like this on the > >list), I strongly recommend to read my presentation at: > > > >http://www.elan.net/~william/asrg-emailpathverification- > >presentation.pdf > > > >(Note that right now it looks like I will not be presenting this on > >actual meeting as chair has chosen different presentations for it) > > > >I also do think that being able to track spammer to his real > >location will go 1/2 way in stopping them, the rest would fall into > >being able to contstruct good black/whitelists and doing legal and > >other actions to close spammer business. > > > >On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Olger Diekstra wrote: > > > >>Hi all, > >> > >>I've been monitoring the list for the past few days now. Hearing > >>(well, reading) everyone with all the different types of solutions > >>and arguments brings me to the following concept. Although its far > >>from covering everything, there are still some lose ends, I think > >>its a good starting point. > >> > >>Although spam should be (and in most countries is) illegal, that's > >>not going to stop it. As long as there are countries that are more > >>flexible to spammers, it will be hard to get them before court. > >>Which ultimately leads to conclude that the law is not going to be > >>able to solve this. So any discussion whether it should be more > >>illegal or not, heavier punishments or cheaper ways to bring a > >>spammer to justice will not make spam go away. In other words, a > >>futile discussion. > >>Since justice needs a person or organization to stand trial, what > >>we need to do first is find out who is spamming in a legal way. > >>Then Justice can take place much more easily. > >> > >>Content filtering is (as has been pointed out before) ultimately an > >>enduser solution. As email can be encrypted (although encrypted > >>spam is hardly very likely) it becomes difficult for an automated > >>process to be checked. Besides, the same content can sometimes be > >>wanted and sometimes be spam (as has also been described in emails > >>from others on the list). If I like to write dirty to my > >>girlfriend, that is not spam. However, if it is to thousands of > >>users around the world that I do not know, that would make it spam > >>for most, although there might still be a few who would want that > >>kind of mail... > >> > >>Systems that rely on remote systems setting tags, or having > >>certificates are also not very reliable in the end. They can be > >>forged. If a spammer has its own mailserver, it can forge any tag > >>that is invented to prevent spam. > >> > >>Seperation of spam and legitimate mail must be close to 100%. > >>Something like 99.99999%. If on a billion mails only one gets lost, > >>that's acceptable to me. > >>Furthermore, the traffic spam consumes must be reduced to its > >>absoluut minimum. Determining if an email is spam can only be done > >>at the receiving side on the server or on the client. A spammer can > >>be a legitimate sender at one time, and a spammer at another. > >> > >>Which ultimately leads me to the conclusion that the receiving > >>mailserver should be the first place to start. This is the place > >>where the spammer has no control over. > >>If he knocks on my door and doesn't know the password, I can simply > >>keep the door locked. > >>Whatever authentication or certification my mailserver wants to > >>receive an email, the spammer will have to comply to. (As long as > >>my security on the server is sound of course...But even then, if > >>security is low, the spammer will have to be a hacker as well, > >>totally different skills, and much more timeconsuming). > >> > >>So the question is probably, how do we do that? > >>Firstly, I want my mailserver to garantee the sender. That will > >>give me much more control. The server could do this as follows: > >>whenever a remote mailserver sends an email to a receiving > >>mailserver, the receiving mailserver should lookup the domain of > >>which the sender claims the email is from, contact the mailserver > >>of that domain, and check it is actually trying to send the email. > >>This will garantee the source to my mailserver, giving me full > >>control over the check. It will be very difficult for the spammer > >>to forge this. > >>Now a problem rises for users that send from a mailserver that's is > >>not part of the source domain. Like mobile users sending mail from > >>their hotelroom, home users sending with an office emailaddress, > >>etc. This can be solved by informing the mailserver of the domain > >>in the FROM field that a message is being send. Basically, you > >>could send the header of the email which will provide enough > >>information. For this to happen reliably, the user would have to > >>login to the mailserver. In the end, if the mailserver of the > >>domain in the FROM field is not notified, the sender will not be > >>able to get the email to me. > >> > >>So now that I know the source, I could setup a list of users on > >>the mailserver that are save. Whenever the mailserver receives an > >>email for me, it'll check against the list of known addresses. If > >>the sending party is in my list, the email can go right to my > >>mailbox. If not, additional action is needed (and has to be > >>defined). Very safe, and without too much need for server > >>resources. > >>I can still send email from anywhere in the world to anyone. Thus, > >>I can create a whitelist of folks whom I trust. Of course, I would > >>need to setup all my emailboxes with the necessary filters. > >> > >>This mechanisme ensures that an email can be traced back to the > >>sending domain, it has to have a valid sending emailaddress of > >>which the domainname is registered in DNS and the authorized > >>mailserver of that domain must have send the email. > >>If more mailservers exists within the sending domain, it is likely > >>that the receiving mailserver connects to a different mailserver > >>from the sending domain. So there also has to be a mechanisme for > >>the sending mailservers to communicate amongst each other. > >>Basically, it should do a sort of broadcast to is fellow > >>mailservers of the domain, and ask if anyone is sending the email. > >> > >>Since we now know who is sending the spam (forging emailaddresses > >>just became much more difficult) we can put up a blacklist with > >>known spammers. An email server should be able to either mirror it > >>in case the blacklist goes down (due to a DoS attack of some sort) > >>or use it realtime. Every user should have an option somewhere, in > >>its client, thru a website of the ISP, whatever, to select a > >>particular blacklist and tell the emailserver to use that list or > >>lists for the users mailbox. The email server will first use the > >>users whitelist, and then the blacklist. > >>If a user considers an email spam, it should be able to reply the > >>email and sent it out again, using a special tag in the subject > >>stating SPAM or something. The email server will pick this up and > >>instead of sending the reply to the spammer (though he might get > >>perhaps a copy?) it will sent it to the blacklist. > >>If the sending address gets, say, twenty emails from different > >>persons stating the sender is a spammer, it could be added to the > >>list. > >> > >>Spammers who use a temporary hotmail account might still form a > >>problem, but they will not be able to send email using that account > >>if they do not notify the hotmail emailserver. Webmail accounts > >>usually can only be used from a webpage which sends the email using > >>an unknown (to the sender) mailserver. I have a feeling spammers > >>are not going to use a webpage to construct thousands of email > >>spam.... > >> > >>Remember, this is just a thought (though a long one...) of how it > >>could be done. The above described method can be slowly implemented > >>in the existing systems. > >>If users also authenticate to SMTP servers, the ISP or > >>administrator can also make sure no unauthorised person gets to use > >>the mailserver. In the end, it will make spamming a whole lot > >>harder. > >> > >>Happy thinking! > >> > >>Olger Diekstra. > >> > >> > >>_______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list > >>Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > >> _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 07:28:22 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA11869 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 07:28:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2LCkhm02432 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 07:46:43 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LCkdO02429 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 07:46:39 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA11806 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 07:27:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LCe7O02166; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 07:40:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LCdaO02098 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 07:39:36 -0500 Received: from platypuspartners.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA11630 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 07:20:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from pindari.platypuspartners.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by platypuspartners.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2LCLXs4013653 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 23:21:34 +1100 Received: (from dave@localhost) by pindari.platypuspartners.com (8.12.8/8.12.2/Submit) id h2LCLWrH013650; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 23:21:32 +1100 Message-Id: <200303211221.h2LCLWrH013650@pindari.platypuspartners.com> From: David Finnie To: scrosby@cs.rice.edu CC: hparry@andrew.cmu.edu, asrg@ietf.org In-reply-to: (message from Scott A Crosby on 20 Mar 2003 10:35:18 -0600) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Stamping References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 23:21:32 +1100 Scott, > > However, if you're looking to make spamming extremely tedious, time > > consuming, and difficult for the sender, I think it's worth revisiting > > that thread. > > That consumes the only resource that is gaining in cost each year. I agree that technical solutions that use more CPU, bandwidth and storage than mail transport currently does are fine if they reduce spam, and (therefore) also reduce human time resource consumption. Ultimately if spam volumes are reduced, then there will be some saving in CPU, bandwidth and storage resource which will offset any increases due to new protocols. Besides that, as you've pointed out, those resource keep getting cheaper, whereas human resources are the opposite. > I don't like that, but how about some notion of stamping? Each message > recieved must include a valid stamp. Stamps are only usable once. This is an interesting idea. I have some questions for you about your proposal: Can you please describe more fully your concept of a "partial hash collision", and "sufficient number of bits". I think I understand that the first 64 bits of the stamp is input to MD5, and also that the recipient's email address is input to MD5. If we let "x" be the number of bits in "sufficient number of bits", are you saying that: MD5(stamp[0:63])[0:x-1] = MD5(recipient email)[0:x-1] (i.e. the left-hand most part of each MD5 hash match) or perhaps: MD5(stamp[0:63])[128-x:127] = MD5(recipient email)[128-x:127] (i.e. the right-hand most part of each MD5 hash match) or perhaps that it is up to the receiver to determine which bits match ? And presumably "x" is worked out by the recipient when it does it's calculation to produce some stamps ? Or are you suggesting that "x" be a fixed quantity for this protocol ? Forgive my ignorance, but I'm not familiar with working with partial hashes, and I don't know of any gotchas. My main concerns would be: say for a particular recipient email address, could the MD5 hash it produces severely limit the maximum value of "x" that can be used for a partial match against hashes of 64 bit quantities ? Given the good randomness of MD5, I would guess probably not, but it is worth investigating (if you haven't already). My reasoning is that if that were the case, then some unfortunate recipients may be easy targets for spamming because it would be easier to "guess" the first 64 bits of their stamp. Are you proposing that the stamp-control protocol piggy-back within SMTP ? My main reason for asking is that for a sender to acquire a stamp from a receiver, the request really needs to somehow end up at the mail server for the receiver (so that the database of valid stamps can be checked when a mail message containing a stamp is received). I think it would make sense for it to piggy back within SMTP. I am also assuming that a stamp cannot be verified as belonging to, or not belonging to, a particular recipient, except by the recipient itself. (I say this because one of the options is for the recipient to create totally random stamps.) Is this correct ? As an aside from these questions, I haven't found any holes, yet... :-) David Finnie _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 08:43:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA13318 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 08:43:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2LE20H06430 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 09:02:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LE20O06427 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 09:02:00 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA13310 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 08:43:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LDuKO06215; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 08:56:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LDtgO06193 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 08:55:42 -0500 Received: from cs.rice.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA13241 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 08:36:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with SMTP id 3A7524AB9C; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 07:39:05 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14ABA4AA95; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 07:39:05 -0600 (CST) Received: from cs.rice.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (cs.rice.edu [127.0.0.1:10024]) (amavisd-new) with ESMTP id 07666-06; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 07:39:03 -0600 (CST) Received: from inky (bert.cs.rice.edu [128.42.3.146]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7A164AA1F; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 07:38:57 -0600 (CST) Received: by inky (Postfix, from userid 14314) id 36559F3628; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 07:38:27 -0600 (CST) To: David Finnie Cc: hparry@andrew.cmu.edu, asrg@ietf.org References: <200303211221.h2LCLWrH013650@pindari.platypuspartners.com> From: Scott A Crosby Organization: Rice University In-Reply-To: <200303211221.h2LCLWrH013650@pindari.platypuspartners.com> Message-ID: Lines: 126 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Scanned: by amavis-20021227p2 X-DCC--Metrics: cs.rice.edu 1067; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 Subject: [Asrg] Re: Stamping Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 21 Mar 2003 07:38:27 -0600 On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 23:21:32 +1100, David Finnie writes: > Scott, > > > I don't like that, but how about some notion of stamping? Each message > > recieved must include a valid stamp. Stamps are only usable once. > > This is an interesting idea. I have some questions for you about your > proposal: > > Can you please describe more fully your concept of a "partial hash > collision", and "sufficient number of bits". I think I understand that > the first 64 bits of the stamp is input to MD5, and also that the > recipient's email address is input to MD5. If we let "x" be the number > of bits in "sufficient number of bits", are you saying that: The sender gets 32 bits, called HashNonce from the recipient through a stamp-missing bounce. Then then wish to compute the 64 bit quantity XXX, such that: N=(HashNonce || XXX) and MD5(N)[0:x-1] = MD5(recipient email)[0:x-1] N is now a valid stamp. The reason I use HashNonce there is to allow a recipient to eventually time out old used stamps to reduce storage needs for already used stamps. I would expect it to change yearly. > MD5(stamp[0:63])[0:x-1] = MD5(recipient email)[0:x-1] > MD5(stamp[0:63])[128-y:127] = MD5(recipient email)[128-y:127] This does not matter, what matters is the number of bits that are forced to be matched. IE, x=20 in your first example is as equally hard problem as y=20 in the second. > or perhaps that it is up to the receiver to determine which bits match > ? And presumably "x" is worked out by the recipient when it does it's > calculation to produce some stamps ? Or are you suggesting that "x" be > a fixed quantity for this protocol ? $x$ is a fixed quantity, say 32, such that computing such an XXX requires a signifigant amount of work. Benchmarking, it looks like 1ghz machine can do 5 million/second MD5's, so for $x$=32, this means about 15 minutes/stamp, but will go down with increasing computing power. I want it to be this long, because nominally, this cost is only payed once between a pair of participants. Generally, anyone you've sent email to won't have to burn this CPU time to reply. MD5 may not be the best function however; anyone have any idea how greatly can be greatly sped up using hardware? (And for what cost?) > Forgive my ignorance, but I'm not familiar with working with partial > hashes, and I don't know of any gotchas. My main concerns would be: > say for a particular recipient email address, could the MD5 hash it > produces severely limit the maximum value of "x" that can be used for > a partial match against hashes of 64 bit quantities ? Given the good > randomness of MD5, I would guess probably not, but it is worth > investigating (if you haven't already). My reasoning is that if that > were the case, then some unfortunate recipients may be easy targets > for spamming because it would be easier to "guess" the first 64 bits > of their stamp. Assuming that MD5 is a random function of its inputs, $x=32$ means that the probability of successfully forging a stamp is one in 4 billion. > Are you proposing that the stamp-control protocol piggy-back within > SMTP ? My main reason for asking is that for a sender to acquire a Undecided. There are four sets of data that need to be kept: 1. Canceled/Used stamps. 2. Outstanding stamps (that were sent in response to a request) 3. HashNonce 4. Unused stamps IMHO, #1, #2 may be kept by the user or the ISP. #3 should be kept by the ISP, so that first-time senders can learn the currently valid HashNonce with paying a user-agent to ISP trip instead of = paying a full user-agent user-agent round trip. So, if #3 is not kept by the ISP, email latency could require two round trips. #4 is who keeps track of which stamps are unused for a particular recipient. If this is kept by the ISP, how does the ISP avoid paying the time for a partial hash collision. > stamp from a receiver, the request really needs to somehow end up at > the mail server for the receiver (so that the database of valid stamps > can be checked when a mail message containing a stamp is received). I > think it would make sense for it to piggy back within SMTP. I'm not entirely certain, and leave this to others. > I am also assuming that a stamp cannot be verified as belonging to, or > not belonging to, a particular recipient, except by the recipient > itself. (I say this because one of the options is for the recipient to > create totally random stamps.) Is this correct ? There are two notions of stamp: Random nonces created by a recipient, and partial hash collisions. In the first case, identification can come from the fact that all nonces are fresh. In the second case, identification may come from the HashNonce. There is no identification attached to a stamp, except for the knowledge that the probability of someone successfully forging one is extremely small. If I create stamp *EMovyZQWSXggt1uV*, I can be assured that nobody will guess it, I can also keep track of who I origionally sent it to. I also keep track when its been used. So, when a stamp is recieved, it is 1. If a nonce, looked up in the hash table of all unused stamps. If yes, accept, if no, bounce. 2. If a partial-hash stamp, the HashNonce is looked up in the hash table of all currently accepted HashNonce's. If its not there, bounce. Then the the partial hash collision is checked. If invalid, bounce. Finally, the stamp is checked in the used-stamps hashtable. If there, bounce, if not accept. Scott _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 09:25:24 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA14175 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 09:25:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2LEhjw09473 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 09:43:45 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LEhjO09470 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 09:43:45 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA14159 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 09:24:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LEfCO09406; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 09:41:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LEeiO09367 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 09:40:44 -0500 Received: from maillist.grax.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA14131 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 09:21:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (grax_web1 [127.0.0.1]) by maillist.grax.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DBA92C5D5; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 04:23:59 -0600 (CST) From: David Walker Reply-To: asrg@ietf.org Organization: Vorteon, LLC To: william@elan.net, Olger Diekstra Subject: Re: [Asrg] A possible way to a solution? User-Agent: KMail/1.5 Cc: asrg@ietf.org References: In-Reply-To: X-Hockey: Colorado Avalanche MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200303210826.42979@grx> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 08:26:42 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit There is a reason these ideas keep getting proposed. The idea is solid. (Different descriptions do overlook certain items but those items can all be solved.) Implemented properly it is no more of a load than a blacklist and a lot less subject to the whims of a madman than the blacklists that exist now. As far as "simple" vs "complex", for all the complexities you may add every mail must travel the simple path when traveling between domains. Take mailing list mail, since that seems to be one of the more complex ideas. You send a message from your workstation which travels among any number of complex patterns until it must leave your domain and travel to the domain of the mailing list post address. It must traverse the "simple" path to get there. Then the mailing list software processes it and sends it out to the list. Each of those deliveries must also traverse the "simple" path. Currently most mailing list servers rely on the MAIL FROM to pseudo-authenticate mailing list members. With a working dns scheme they could at least ensure that the sender was using an outgoing mail server approved by their domain administrator. The MAIL FROM does not represent the entire path of the message. It only really represents a bounce path back to the server that is currently accepting responsibility for that message. In essence, in our mailing list example there are 2 separate messages. Simple Path #1: The poster is claiming "I am poster@example.com and I have a message for mail.list@example.org" Simple Path #2: The mail server is claiming "I am mail.list@example.org and I have a message for mail.list.member@example.net" These should not be viewed as a single message. They are 2 distinct messages. On Friday 21 March 2003 04:00 am, william@elan.net wrote: > Again I strongly advice you to view my slides and compare difference > between "simple" and "complex" mail path and take a look at real-life > example of what happens to email when you send it to asrg mail list, you'll > see how headers change and how you can not rely on either MAIL FROM or > "From:" header as far as what your receiving mail server sees in > comparision to remote mail server. What you and many others see as solution > are based on misunderstanding on how email travels across the internet - > way too many only see it as "simple" mail path. > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 09:37:26 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA14381 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 09:37:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2LEtm109828 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 09:55:48 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LEtkO09825 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 09:55:46 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA14376 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 09:36:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LEr3O09766; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 09:53:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LEqiO09738 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 09:52:44 -0500 Received: from nycsmtp2out.rdc-nyc.rr.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA14352 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 09:33:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from damien (66-108-13-38.nyc.rr.com [66.108.13.38]) by nycsmtp2out.rdc-nyc.rr.com (8.12.1/Road Runner SMTP Server 1.0) with ESMTP id h2LETogD020417; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 09:29:50 -0500 (EST) From: "Damien Morton" To: "'Scott A Crosby'" , "'David Finnie'" Cc: , Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: Stamping Message-ID: <011301c2efb6$4bea2e40$6401a8c0@damien> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 09:29:34 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Could a daily, globally published, random number somehow come into this computation. Incorporating this number into the hash computation somehow would then validate a stamp for 24 hours (or some other period). > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Scott A Crosby > Sent: Friday, 21 March 2003 08:38 > To: David Finnie > Cc: hparry@andrew.cmu.edu; asrg@ietf.org > Subject: [Asrg] Re: Stamping > > > On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 23:21:32 +1100, David Finnie > writes: > > > Scott, > > > > > I don't like that, but how about some notion of stamping? Each > > > message recieved must include a valid stamp. Stamps are > only usable > > > once. > > > > This is an interesting idea. I have some questions for you > about your > > proposal: > > > > Can you please describe more fully your concept of a "partial hash > > collision", and "sufficient number of bits". I think I > understand that > > the first 64 bits of the stamp is input to MD5, and also that the > > recipient's email address is input to MD5. If we let "x" be > the number > > of bits in "sufficient number of bits", are you saying that: > > The sender gets 32 bits, called HashNonce from the recipient > through a stamp-missing bounce. Then then wish to compute the > 64 bit quantity XXX, such that: > > N=(HashNonce || XXX) > > and > > MD5(N)[0:x-1] = MD5(recipient email)[0:x-1] > > N is now a valid stamp. The reason I use HashNonce there is > to allow a recipient to eventually time out old used stamps > to reduce storage needs for already used stamps. I would > expect it to change yearly. > > > MD5(stamp[0:63])[0:x-1] = MD5(recipient email)[0:x-1] > > MD5(stamp[0:63])[128-y:127] = MD5(recipient email)[128-y:127] > > This does not matter, what matters is the number of bits that > are forced to be matched. IE, x=20 in your first example is > as equally hard problem as y=20 in the second. > > > or perhaps that it is up to the receiver to determine which > bits match > > ? And presumably "x" is worked out by the recipient when it > does it's > > calculation to produce some stamps ? Or are you suggesting > that "x" be > > a fixed quantity for this protocol ? > > $x$ is a fixed quantity, say 32, such that computing such an > XXX requires a signifigant amount of work. Benchmarking, it > looks like 1ghz machine can do 5 million/second MD5's, so for > $x$=32, this means about 15 minutes/stamp, but will go down > with increasing computing power. I want it to be this long, > because nominally, this cost is only payed once between a > pair of participants. Generally, anyone you've sent email to > won't have to burn this CPU time to reply. > > MD5 may not be the best function however; anyone have any > idea how greatly can be greatly sped up using hardware? (And > for what cost?) > > > Forgive my ignorance, but I'm not familiar with working > with partial > > hashes, and I don't know of any gotchas. My main concerns would be: > > say for a particular recipient email address, could the MD5 hash it > > produces severely limit the maximum value of "x" that can > be used for > > a partial match against hashes of 64 bit quantities ? Given > the good > > randomness of MD5, I would guess probably not, but it is worth > > investigating (if you haven't already). My reasoning is > that if that > > were the case, then some unfortunate recipients may be easy targets > > for spamming because it would be easier to "guess" the > first 64 bits > > of their stamp. > > Assuming that MD5 is a random function of its inputs, $x=32$ > means that the probability of successfully forging a stamp is > one in 4 billion. > > > Are you proposing that the stamp-control protocol piggy-back within > > SMTP ? My main reason for asking is that for a sender to acquire a > > Undecided. There are four sets of data that need to be kept: > > 1. Canceled/Used stamps. > 2. Outstanding stamps (that were sent in response to a request) > 3. HashNonce > 4. Unused stamps > > IMHO, #1, #2 may be kept by the user or the ISP. #3 should be > kept by the ISP, so that first-time senders can learn the > currently valid HashNonce with paying a user-agent to ISP > trip instead of = paying a full user-agent user-agent round > trip. So, if #3 is not kept by the ISP, email latency could > require two round trips. > > #4 is who keeps track of which stamps are unused for a > particular recipient. If this is kept by the ISP, how does > the ISP avoid paying the time for a partial hash collision. > > > stamp from a receiver, the request really needs to somehow > end up at > > the mail server for the receiver (so that the database of > valid stamps > > can be checked when a mail message containing a stamp is > received). I > > think it would make sense for it to piggy back within SMTP. > > I'm not entirely certain, and leave this to others. > > > I am also assuming that a stamp cannot be verified as > belonging to, or > > not belonging to, a particular recipient, except by the recipient > > itself. (I say this because one of the options is for the > recipient to > > create totally random stamps.) Is this correct ? > > There are two notions of stamp: Random nonces created by a > recipient, and partial hash collisions. In the first case, > identification can come from the fact that all nonces are > fresh. In the second case, identification may come from the HashNonce. > > There is no identification attached to a stamp, except for > the knowledge that the probability of someone successfully > forging one is extremely small. If I create stamp > *EMovyZQWSXggt1uV*, I can be assured that nobody will guess > it, I can also keep track of who I origionally sent it to. I > also keep track when its been used. > > So, when a stamp is recieved, it is > > 1. If a nonce, looked up in the hash table of all unused stamps. If > yes, accept, if no, bounce. > > 2. If a partial-hash stamp, the HashNonce is looked up in the hash > table of all currently accepted HashNonce's. If its not there, > bounce. Then the the partial hash collision is checked. If invalid, > bounce. Finally, the stamp is checked in the used-stamps > hashtable. If there, bounce, if not accept. > > > Scott > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 10:16:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA16311 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 10:16:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2LFYq412142 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 10:34:52 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LFYpO12139 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 10:34:51 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA16277 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 10:15:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LFTIO11965; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 10:29:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LFS6O11810 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 10:28:06 -0500 Received: from cs.rice.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA15521 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 10:09:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with SMTP id 589244AA70; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 09:11:28 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23E094AA43; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 09:11:28 -0600 (CST) Received: from cs.rice.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (cs.rice.edu [127.0.0.1:10024]) (amavisd-new) with ESMTP id 15967-08; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 09:11:26 -0600 (CST) Received: from inky (bert.cs.rice.edu [128.42.3.146]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07CC24AA1F; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 09:11:16 -0600 (CST) Received: by inky (Postfix, from userid 14314) id A7815F3628; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 09:10:45 -0600 (CST) To: "Damien Morton" Cc: "'David Finnie'" , , References: <011301c2efb6$4bea2e40$6401a8c0@damien> From: Scott A Crosby Organization: Rice University In-Reply-To: <011301c2efb6$4bea2e40$6401a8c0@damien> Message-ID: Lines: 27 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Scanned: by amavis-20021227p2 X-DCC--Metrics: cs.rice.edu 1066; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 Subject: [Asrg] Re: Stamping Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 21 Mar 2003 09:10:45 -0600 On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 09:29:34 -0500, "Damien Morton" writes: > Could a daily, globally published, random number somehow come into this > computation. Incorporating this number into the hash computation somehow > would then validate a stamp for 24 hours (or some other period). No. Stamps are intended to be good for months/years. The reason for that design decision is to reduce resouce use, to avoid having to remember *every* past used stamp to detect double-spending. Unused random nonces (the first type of stamp) may be flushed after a year or two and no longer accepted. On the other hand, how does one avoid having to remember every past hash-stamp, forever? Thus, the only reason I include a HashNonce in the protocol is to allow me to invalidate past (say, 2 years old) hash-stamps. If I could, I'd take them out of the protocol, they require additional semantics, and they're one main reason that prevents this protocol from being implemented soley by user-agents. On reflection, the correct design decision may be to remove the HashNonce and remember all hash-collision stamps forever. At 20 bytes each. (hash table implementation), the cost to store used Hash-Stamps is pennies/million. Accidently losing that table allows stamps to be double-spent, but if that occurs only rarely, its not an issue. Scott _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 11:37:22 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA18230 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:37:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2LGtlg17716 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:55:47 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LGtlO17713 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:55:47 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA18215 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:36:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LGoWO17534; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:50:32 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LGnOO17485 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:49:24 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA18145 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:30:28 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2LGWgv5006137; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:32:42 -0500 Message-Id: <200303211632.h2LGWgv5006137@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.2 03/18/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: william@elan.net Cc: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] My Opinion regarding ietf asrg session (it went badly! ) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 21 Mar 2003 00:35:15 PST." References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_-675139600P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:32:42 -0500 --==_Exmh_-675139600P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 00:35:15 PST, william@elan.net said: > All transit providers amd large networks employ filtering at bgp advertisment > level and you would only be able to send them routes that you have previously > told them about and where they were able to confirm you're the owner of > the ip block. Ah yes. Wander over to NANOG and hear the complaints about swamp /24's being filtered, and 69/8 issues, and... ;) (For the non-NANOG crew - BGP filtering is something that *should* be done, and everybody *claims* they do, but I'd estimate that less than 5% of the routers actually do it right). For bonus points - did the BGP announcement come in over an MD5-auth'ed BGP session? (Another fine idea that doesn't work in practice when you need to have a separate shared-secret for each AS that you're peering with). > The only way I could see how somebody would advertise false route is if > they tell their upstream that they have such as and such customer as > downstream and their upstream is stupid enough not to verify it - at > some size level upstream would trust its downstream ISP, i.e. if I AS7007. How far did THAT propagate? (for the non-NANOG people, AS7007 was one of the more famous/spectacular routing meltdowns, where basically ALL the routes got accidentally misrouted). This morning's CIDR-Report shows AS701 (UUNET) advertises 1,555 routes. AS7018 (ATT Worldnet) has 1,353. AS1221 (Telstra) has 1,104. I'm willing to bet that if you could inject a route to one of those, the rest of the net would bite. And you don't even need to advertise it everywhere - you pick (say) a /20 at an AS that looks vulnerable, inject a /24 for your spam-net, let the victim route that /24 internally, the rest of the net never sees anything more than the /20. --==_Exmh_-675139600P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+ez6pcC3lWbTT17ARAnoVAJoCxft4IfHOKITOe6YEFpzv/MQbbACgoAZc h8K2pdDv+SCki/fL1SCIBpM= =LBa1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_-675139600P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 11:37:48 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA18264 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:37:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2LGuDv17758 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:56:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LGuDO17755 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:56:13 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA18226 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:37:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LGr1O17621; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:53:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LGq5O17592 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:52:05 -0500 Received: from mxsmta03.inithost.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA18182 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:33:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from garbagedump.com ([204.57.52.62]) by mxsmta03.inithost.com (InterMail vM.5.01.03.06 201-253-122-118-106-20010523) with ESMTP id <20030321163604.FZRF1333.mxsmta03.inithost.com@garbagedump.com>; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:36:04 -0500 Message-ID: <3E7B3F96.3030803@garbagedump.com> From: C Wegrzyn User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.3b) Gecko/20030127 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Scott A Crosby CC: Damien Morton , "'David Finnie'" , hparry@andrew.cmu.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Stamping References: <011301c2efb6$4bea2e40$6401a8c0@damien> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:36:38 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have to ask this one question: why e-stamps? It seems a solution looking for a problem to solve. It seems to me the whole idea behind stopping spam would be for ISPs to levy a "use tax" on email being sent. Right now the reason spam is so prevalent is that there is no difference in cost between sending one email or ten million. While I don't want to get into a war about single price, unlimited usage vs. pay for services model, it would be very appropriate. For what it is worth... Chuck Wegrzyn Scott A Crosby wrote: >On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 09:29:34 -0500, "Damien Morton" writes: > > > >>Could a daily, globally published, random number somehow come into this >>computation. Incorporating this number into the hash computation somehow >>would then validate a stamp for 24 hours (or some other period). >> >> > >No. Stamps are intended to be good for months/years. The reason for >that design decision is to reduce resouce use, to avoid having to >remember *every* past used stamp to detect double-spending. > >Unused random nonces (the first type of stamp) may be flushed after a >year or two and no longer accepted. > >On the other hand, how does one avoid having to remember every past >hash-stamp, forever? Thus, the only reason I include a HashNonce in >the protocol is to allow me to invalidate past (say, 2 years old) >hash-stamps. If I could, I'd take them out of the protocol, they >require additional semantics, and they're one main reason that >prevents this protocol from being implemented soley by user-agents. > >On reflection, the correct design decision may be to remove the >HashNonce and remember all hash-collision stamps forever. At 20 bytes >each. (hash table implementation), the cost to store used Hash-Stamps >is pennies/million. Accidently losing that table allows stamps to be >double-spent, but if that occurs only rarely, its not an issue. > >Scott >_______________________________________________ >Asrg mailing list >Asrg@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 11:47:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA18531 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:47:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2LH69x18338 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:06:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LH69O18335 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:06:09 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA18515 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:47:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LH03O17914; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:00:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LGv6O17814 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:57:06 -0500 Received: from gorgoroth.localnet (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA18283 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:38:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from unternet.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gorgoroth.localnet (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2LGeRF2001805 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 17:40:28 +0100 Message-ID: <3E7B407B.2080208@unternet.org> From: Frank de Lange User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4a) Gecko/20030310 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] As seen on /. : IBM Researcher Offers an E-Stamp Spam Solution Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 17:40:27 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Slashdot has found that electronic stamp system to which I posted a link yesterday... Discussion here: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/03/21/1429248&mode=flat&tid=111 Article on Internet Week here: http://www.internetwk.com/breakingNews/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=7900141 The original link here: http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/414/forum.pdf Frank _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 12:01:24 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA18846 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:01:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2LHJnk19989 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:19:49 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LHJnO19986 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:19:49 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA18829 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:00:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LHEhO19707; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:14:43 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LHAVO19286 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:10:31 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA18623 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:51:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2173583; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:53:52 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20030321064135.56AA98C7D2@localhost.jmason.org> References: <20030321064135.56AA98C7D2@localhost.jmason.org> To: jm@jmason.org (Justin Mason) From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Quotation Cc: Hadmut Danisch , asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:21:10 -0500 At 10:41 PM -0800 3/20/03, Justin Mason wrote: >In fact, it's to clean lists of "trouble-makers", to reduce abuse >complaints. That used to be true. But I now get as much spam sent to abuse@domain-name as to any other address. So some may be doing that, but it's certainly not the majority. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 12:02:06 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA18871 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:02:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2LHKWH20048 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:20:32 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LHKVO20045 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:20:31 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA18860 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:01:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LHEkO19759; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:14:46 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LH1hO18008 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:01:43 -0500 Received: from plaidworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA18428 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:42:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.8/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h2LGioZQ013542; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 08:44:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Stamping Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: Scott A Crosby , Damien Morton , "'David Finnie'" , hparry@andrew.cmu.edu, asrg@ietf.org To: C Wegrzyn From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <3E7B3F96.3030803@garbagedump.com> Message-Id: <6EFEA078-5BBC-11D7-B8A9-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 08:44:50 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Friday, March 21, 2003, at 08:36 AM, C Wegrzyn wrote: > It seems to me the whole idea behind stopping spam would be for ISPs > to levy a "use tax" on email being sent. What about people (like me) who act as their own ISPs? I buy network from my upstream server. I run my own DNS. I run my own SMTP. I run my own web and other services. I have to charge myself to send email now? that's gonna stop the spammers... -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 12:03:02 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA18901 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:03:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2LHLRr20107 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:21:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LHLRO20104 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:21:27 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA18890 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:02:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LHEiO19723; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:14:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LHB4O19325 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:11:04 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA18631 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:52:07 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2LGsNv5006950; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:54:23 -0500 Message-Id: <200303211654.h2LGsNv5006950@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.2 03/18/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: C Wegrzyn Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Stamping In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:36:38 EST." <3E7B3F96.3030803@garbagedump.com> References: <011301c2efb6$4bea2e40$6401a8c0@damien> <3E7B3F96.3030803@garbagedump.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_-672103648P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:54:22 -0500 --==_Exmh_-672103648P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:36:38 EST, C Wegrzyn said: > It seems to me the whole idea behind stopping spam would be for ISPs to > levy a "use tax" on email being sent. You're assuming that the spammers are sending mail via the ISP's mail server. The really hard-core spammers are just buying bandwidth from the ISP. So those ISPs *ARE* levying a use tax - they're charging for the T-1 or T-3 or whatever. --==_Exmh_-672103648P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+e0O+cC3lWbTT17ARAk5wAJsHAw+tQZ4yuhxzYlPSEc1JhDpHYACfTgxs FnU7QoWzbcvXtnYs4jHOBVU= =PGhP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_-672103648P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 12:05:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19005 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:05:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2LHOBG20263 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:24:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LHOBO20260 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:24:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA18982 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:05:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LHE5O19625; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:14:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LH5iO18216 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:05:44 -0500 Received: from gorgoroth.localnet (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA18485 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:46:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from unternet.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gorgoroth.localnet (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2LGn5F2001813 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 17:49:05 +0100 Message-ID: <3E7B4281.1020101@unternet.org> From: Frank de Lange User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4a) Gecko/20030310 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Stamping References: <011301c2efb6$4bea2e40$6401a8c0@damien> <3E7B3F96.3030803@garbagedump.com> In-Reply-To: <3E7B3F96.3030803@garbagedump.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 17:49:05 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit C Wegrzyn wrote: > I have to ask this one question: why e-stamps? It seems a solution > looking for a problem to solve. > > It seems to me the whole idea behind stopping spam would be for ISPs to > levy a "use tax" on email being sent. Right now the reason spam is so > prevalent is that there is no difference in cost between sending one > email or ten million. While I don't want to get into a war about single > price, unlimited usage vs. pay for services model, it would be very > appropriate. maybe we should try to use a different name for these things? Stamps are from a bygone era when you had to pay for mail to be sent. Email is free to send, and I'd prefer it to stay that way. Call them 'authentication tokens' or something like that, which does not have this 'pay-per-view' idea attached to it. And no, I don't think we absolutely need these tokens. Since we are still in the research phase it is good to hear about all possibilities though... Frank -- WWWWW ________________________ ## o o\ / Frank de Lange \ }# \| / +46-734352015 \ \ `--| _/ \ `---' \ +31-640037120 / \ frank@unternet.org / `------------------------' [ "Omnis enim res, quae dando non deficit, dum habetur et non datur, nondum habetur, quomodo habenda est." ] _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 12:17:04 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19314 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:17:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2LHZUM20685 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:35:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LHZUO20682 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:35:30 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19289 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:16:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LHW4O20574; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:32:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LHVmO20552 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:31:48 -0500 Received: from mailhost.aix.cc (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19200 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:12:50 -0500 (EST) Received: by mailhost.aix.cc (Postfix, from userid 2) id 3855D1DB2F4; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:44:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from wildmlt (unknown [4.36.172.251]) by mailhost.aix.cc (Postfix) with SMTP id 620801DEA9C for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:02:44 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <039601c2efc3$49603c20$1174fea9@aix.cc> From: "M Wild" To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] rDNS revisited Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:02:33 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alrighty then...are there flaws with using rDNS? Yes there are, many of which various posters have covered. I am not claiming that it is the end all/be all solution it just worked on *MY* mail servers. spam (note that Spam is trademarked by Hormel...they request the email version be lowercase) on my test account went from 180 messages per day to *TWO* I don't think anyone can argue that those numbers show that the test is effective. Interestingly (and amusingly :) enough I also stopped receiving my M$ security bulletins and my ComputerWorld newsletter. This was the pain I had to put up with in order to reap the benefit. Albeit this is my experience...YMMV What this test really cuts out is the ability for a dynamic/pseudo-static client from masquerading as a "legitimate" mail server. Perhaps I haven't touched all the spam knobs on my MTA but when a client says HELO 4.nnn.nnn.16 my mail server knows that this is patently untrue however it is not instructed to check for that and just says 250 OK (well it doesn't now :-/ ) This is ridiculous. rDNS in this application isn't meant to be an infallible identification of the sending server. It is meant to cull out the blatantly lying machines. If you have to lie to me to get me to take your mail I can assure you that I don't want it. Regards Mike _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 12:17:27 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19328 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:17:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2LHZrj20705 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:35:53 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LHZrO20702 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:35:53 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19307 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:16:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LHT2O20447; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:29:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LHSiO20419 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:28:44 -0500 Received: from joy.songbird.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19096 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:09:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from wl-139-231.wireless.ietf56.ietf.org (208.184.79.252.songbird.com [208.184.79.252] (may be forged)) by joy.songbird.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LHBiQ08135; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 09:11:44 -0800 From: Dave Crocker X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.63 Beta/4) Personal Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <11310158877.20030321091304@brandenburg.com> To: David Walker CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] A possible way to a solution? In-Reply-To: <200303210826.42979@grx> References: <200303210826.42979@grx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 09:13:04 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit David, Friday, March 21, 2003, 6:26:42 AM, you wrote: DW> There is a reason these ideas keep getting proposed. The idea is solid. Many ideas that are otherwise wonderful prove unworkable when they must be applied to a working system. Many ideas that are otherwise wonderful prove unworkable when they must be applied to a system with a hundred million users. Too often, ideas are evaluated on their basic appeal, rather than their serious feasibility in terms of deployment and use within an existing, large-scale service. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking Sunnyvale, CA USA , _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 12:17:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19341 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:17:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2LHZwd20725 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:35:58 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LHZvO20721 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:35:57 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19311 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:17:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LHQ7O20337; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:26:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LHPfO20310 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:25:41 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19052 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:06:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2173649; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:09:02 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3E7B3F96.3030803@garbagedump.com> References: <011301c2efb6$4bea2e40$6401a8c0@damien> <3E7B3F96.3030803@garbagedump.com> To: C Wegrzyn From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Stamping Cc: Scott A Crosby , Damien Morton , "'David Finnie'" , hparry@andrew.cmu.edu, asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:07:43 -0500 At 11:36 AM -0500 3/21/03, C Wegrzyn wrote: >I have to ask this one question: why e-stamps? It seems a solution >looking for a problem to solve. That certainly seems to be the attitude of the systems I've seen. However e-stamps do address an ISP concern (namely, they don't get reimbursed for incoming email, and they can't charge the user, but the user doesn't *want* most of the incoming email). Of course hashcash type solutions don't address that. Just e-stamp solutions where the final MTA actually gets real money. >It seems to me the whole idea behind stopping spam would be for ISPs >to levy a "use tax" on email being sent. Right now the reason spam >is so prevalent is This assumes that ISPs have control over the email being sent. If all ISPs did (and all ISPs wore white hats), then we wouldn't be sitting here. From the white-hat ISP perspective, outbound spam is a bug in their security. e-stamps won't fix that. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 12:32:51 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19776 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:32:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2LHpH922284 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:51:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LHpHO22281 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:51:17 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19771 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:32:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LHm5O21915; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:48:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LHaXO20764 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:36:33 -0500 Received: from jackson.redwire.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19355 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:17:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from ophelia.redwire.net (209-246-240-074.custnet.redwired.net [209.246.240.74]) (authenticated bits=0) by jackson.redwire.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2LHJouN007687 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 09:19:50 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030321091856.026f6d30@pop.redwire.net> X-Sender: robmail@pop.redwire.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Rob In-Reply-To: <3E7B4281.1020101@unternet.org> References: <3E7B3F96.3030803@garbagedump.com> <011301c2efb6$4bea2e40$6401a8c0@damien> <3E7B3F96.3030803@garbagedump.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [Asrg] Scrambled headers? Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 09:19:50 -0800 First time I saw this - what does anyone make of it? X-From_: tim_shopstock@eudora.com Fri Mar 21 02:04:29 2003 Return-Path: Received: from hudson.redwire.net (064-186-240-103.prvnet.redwired.net [64.186.240.103]) by lily.redwire.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2LA4Qts011823 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 02:04:26 -0800 Received: from sm23.localdomain ([206.40.229.123]) by hudson.redwire.net (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id h2LA4AmH015374 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 02:04:11 -0800 Received: from unknown Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 02:57:59 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <200303210957.h2L9vxLB023336@sm23.localdomain> Comments: Received: from Pb:;692?o4962A7C:D366D]4@>|:>=F4Nz B Received: from Jx:?7@oH2D966ED]4@>|:?7@oHHH\\3>8>FD:4D6CG:46]4@>|:?7@o36C8\D2442?:]4@>|:>3:8>2?;o2@=]4@>|:644:oAC@\FD2]4@>|9@FC=23o6C@=D]4@>Tx M Received: from Ma:>2E6<4@>o2@=]4@>|:==FD:@?o4J36CC62=:EJ]?6E|:?7@o2C>@C42D6]4@>|:?7@oDF3D62=6G6=]4@>|:?7@oA6C\G2D4\DFC8]4@>|:46>2?d`eo9@E>2:=]4@>Tv T Received: from Tu:??@G2E:G6o2C8@9@FDE@?]4@>|9J3@FoFD2]?6E|:?>JH@C=5gbo2@=]4@>|:?DFC6o:?7:]?6E|:?7@DG4DoA6?6=]4@>|:?7@o;@9??J3C@?4@]4@>Tq R Received: from Ac:?7@o3:==9@==:?8]4@>|:?7@o>2:?6=24C@DD6]4@>|9@DE>2DE6CoG@=@?6E]4@>|:?7@o3C25JA=4]4@]F<|:==FDA=FDo>:?5DAC:?8]4@>|:>>:Io9@E>2:=]4@>Tz G Received: from Rm9@DE>2DE6CoHAC6DD]4@>|:?7@oH84E]4@>|9F>2?0=628F6a__`F|:?7@o7C@>A2C25:D6]4@>|9C@25DAF3277oH@C=5?6E]2EE]?6E|9F?E6C]D4o>:?5DAC:?8]4@>Mr Z Received: from Nr:;F:46o255C]4@>|9F>AEJ56G2o2@=]4@>|:592J?6Do>@F?6E]4@>|:4:>=@o9@>6]42|:0>:DD0J@F0H6DoJ29@@]4@>|:2CE@>o2@=]4@>TT T Received: from Nz:37:G6o2@=]4@>|:>2C=J>2Co9@>6]4@>|9F89aaego2@=]4@>|9A]<2H2?o<2H2?]56|:5?E9D@o4D]4@>|:?7@o52E2DFAA@CE:?4]4@>Rb Y Received: from PQ9@J@?8oD|9D5>2C49o2@=]4@>|:=2>@E96oH@C=5?6E]2EE]?6E|:<5EE>oJ29@@]4@]F<|:<52G:Do9@E>2:=]4@>|:?7@oE96C>2=6?8:?DE]4@>Rz M Errors: tim_shopstock@eudora.com From: OTC-Stocks To: ZzNjiADf <_B7-DB4NEX18xyMW@otcstockwatch.com> ----------------------------------------------------------- Rob Ayer - Network Operations ----------------------------------------------------------- Office 858-244-9040 x205 Fax 858-244-9043 Mobile 858-518-4894 Tollfree 866-4REDWIRE Pager rob-pager@redwire.net RedWire Broadband 5771 Copley Drive Suite 100 San Diego, Ca 92111 http://www.redwire.net ----------------------------------------------------------- I'm a SpamCon Foundation Member, #638 Verify it at http://www.spamcon.org/search/member-search.shtml Why aren't you? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 12:37:08 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19894 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:37:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2LHtZB22461 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:55:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LHtZO22455 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:55:35 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19881 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:36:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LHmBO21953; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:48:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LHbCO21003 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:37:12 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19367 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:18:15 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2LHKVv5008196; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:20:31 -0500 Message-Id: <200303211720.h2LHKVv5008196@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.2 03/18/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: M Wild Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] rDNS revisited In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:02:33 EST." <039601c2efc3$49603c20$1174fea9@aix.cc> References: <039601c2efc3$49603c20$1174fea9@aix.cc> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_-662903920P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:20:31 -0500 --==_Exmh_-662903920P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:02:33 EST, M Wild said: > Interestingly (and amusingly :) enough I also stopped receiving my M$ > security bulletins and my ComputerWorld newsletter. This was the pain I had So you miss the security bulletin, and as a result a user doesn't get patched, and gets hit by some spam-injecting Trojan and now your rDNS check doesn't stop the spam because your user has valid rDNS. ;) *DAMN* those false positives can get expensive. ;) --==_Exmh_-662903920P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+e0nfcC3lWbTT17ARAu2wAJ9thKYhiDFqD76CQ/BHNFB95f3ePwCg5kiq OpxmVHmY3YPgawGTLZDk6L4= =5U3I -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_-662903920P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 12:37:12 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19907 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:37:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2LHtcX22477 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:55:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LHtbO22474 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:55:37 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19886 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:36:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LHmxO22120; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:48:59 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LHh7O21777 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:43:08 -0500 Received: from mxsmta03.inithost.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19476 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:24:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from garbagedump.com ([204.57.52.62]) by mxsmta03.inithost.com (InterMail vM.5.01.03.06 201-253-122-118-106-20010523) with ESMTP id <20030321172705.GNYD1333.mxsmta03.inithost.com@garbagedump.com>; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:27:05 -0500 Message-ID: <3E7B4B8B.8030607@garbagedump.com> From: C Wegrzyn User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.3b) Gecko/20030127 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Chuq Von Rospach CC: Scott A Crosby , Damien Morton , "'David Finnie'" , hparry@andrew.cmu.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Stamping References: <6EFEA078-5BBC-11D7-B8A9-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> In-Reply-To: <6EFEA078-5BBC-11D7-B8A9-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:27:39 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I too was an ISP in the very early days. I remember paying $10,000/year just to have routing done between the various private networks. It really isn't a difficult concept to understand - it is a tax you collect and is collected from you. Europeans have had a VAT for years. It could work just like a VAT. As to just buying bandwidth, well we all know that isn't quite true. It does have to go through a router some where. Intercepting the SMTP traffic would be trivial. Chuck Wegrzyn Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > > On Friday, March 21, 2003, at 08:36 AM, C Wegrzyn wrote: > >> It seems to me the whole idea behind stopping spam would be for ISPs >> to levy a "use tax" on email being sent. > > > What about people (like me) who act as their own ISPs? I buy network > from my upstream server. I run my own DNS. I run my own SMTP. I run my > own web and other services. > > I have to charge myself to send email now? that's gonna stop the > spammers... > > > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 12:40:27 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA20013 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:40:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2LHwrJ22653 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:58:53 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LHwrO22650 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:58:53 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19992 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:39:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LHt3O22429; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:55:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LHsQO22373 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:54:26 -0500 Received: from maillist.grax.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19831 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:35:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (grax_web1 [127.0.0.1]) by maillist.grax.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1BE82C5D5; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 07:37:35 -0600 (CST) From: David Walker Reply-To: asrg@ietf.org Organization: Vorteon, LLC To: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [Asrg] A possible way to a solution? User-Agent: KMail/1.5 Cc: asrg@ietf.org References: <200303210826.42979@grx> <11310158877.20030321091304@brandenburg.com> In-Reply-To: <11310158877.20030321091304@brandenburg.com> X-Hockey: Colorado Avalanche MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200303211140.20516@grx> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:40:20 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit You are absolutely correct. In my opinion these schemes are being rejected because they lack some basic appeal, without regard to their feasibility in terms of deployment and use within an existing large-scale service. On Friday 21 March 2003 11:13 am, Dave Crocker wrote: > David, > > Friday, March 21, 2003, 6:26:42 AM, you wrote: > DW> There is a reason these ideas keep getting proposed. The idea is > solid. > > Many ideas that are otherwise wonderful prove unworkable when they > must be applied to a working system. Many ideas that are otherwise > wonderful prove unworkable when they must be applied to a system with > a hundred million users. > > Too often, ideas are evaluated on their basic appeal, rather than > their serious feasibility in terms of deployment and use within an > existing, large-scale service. > > d/ > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > Sunnyvale, CA USA , _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 12:40:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA20029 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:40:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2LHx7L22677 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:59:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LHx7O22674 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:59:07 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA20004 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:40:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LHpGO22279; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:51:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LHoUO22233 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:50:30 -0500 Received: from maillist.grax.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19762 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:31:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (grax_web1 [127.0.0.1]) by maillist.grax.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 957842C5D5; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 07:33:41 -0600 (CST) From: David Walker Reply-To: asrg@ietf.org Organization: Vorteon, LLC To: "Chris Lewis" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: Bounces, was Re: [Asrg] Sender pays vs Forgeries User-Agent: KMail/1.5 References: <200303201508.11078@grx> <3E7A2F76.4020805@americasm01.nt.com> In-Reply-To: <3E7A2F76.4020805@americasm01.nt.com> X-Hockey: Colorado Avalanche MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200303211136.25765@grx> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:36:25 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit My point is that if my mail server receives a message with a <> envelope sender it should not deliver the message intact to the user. It should wrap that message to make it obvious that is an error report. If it is a spam but is delivered looking like an error report it loses it's effectiveness as a spam. On Thursday 20 March 2003 03:15 pm, Chris Lewis wrote: > They do exactly that. Problem being that the "generic here is a mail > error" technique also happens to have a desirable feature for spammers - > no bounce back, aka the <> envelope sender. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 12:40:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA20042 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:40:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2LHx8T22693 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:59:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LHx8O22690 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:59:08 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA20008 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:40:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LHn0O22142; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:49:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LHiEO21805 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:44:14 -0500 Received: from mxsmta02.inithost.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19489 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:25:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from garbagedump.com ([204.57.52.62]) by mxsmta02.inithost.com (InterMail vM.5.01.03.06 201-253-122-118-106-20010523) with ESMTP id <20030321172642.WAXM24316.mxsmta02.inithost.com@garbagedump.com>; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:26:42 -0500 Message-ID: <3E7B4BCD.4060501@garbagedump.com> From: C Wegrzyn User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.3b) Gecko/20030127 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kee Hinckley CC: Scott A Crosby , Damien Morton , "'David Finnie'" , hparry@andrew.cmu.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Stamping References: <011301c2efb6$4bea2e40$6401a8c0@damien> <3E7B3F96.3030803@garbagedump.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:28:45 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Having been an ISP (destek.net) for many years, it isn't all that difficult to filter traffic going through a network. It is done all the time. Chuck Wegrzyn Kee Hinckley wrote: > At 11:36 AM -0500 3/21/03, C Wegrzyn wrote: > >> I have to ask this one question: why e-stamps? It seems a solution >> looking for a problem to solve. > > > That certainly seems to be the attitude of the systems I've seen. > However e-stamps do address an ISP concern (namely, they don't get > reimbursed for incoming email, and they can't charge the user, but the > user doesn't *want* most of the incoming email). Of course hashcash > type solutions don't address that. Just e-stamp solutions where the > final MTA actually gets real money. > >> It seems to me the whole idea behind stopping spam would be for ISPs >> to levy a "use tax" on email being sent. Right now the reason spam is >> so prevalent is > > > This assumes that ISPs have control over the email being sent. If all > ISPs did (and all ISPs wore white hats), then we wouldn't be sitting > here. From the white-hat ISP perspective, outbound spam is a bug in > their security. e-stamps won't fix that. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 12:46:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA20229 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:46:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2LI4ip23004 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:04:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LI4hO23001 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:04:43 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA20217 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:45:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LHwEO22608; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:58:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LHvgO22576 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:57:42 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19967 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:38:45 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2LHf0v5009006; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:41:00 -0500 Message-Id: <200303211741.h2LHf0v5009006@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.2 03/18/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: asrg@ietf.org Cc: Chris Lewis Subject: Re: Bounces, was Re: [Asrg] Sender pays vs Forgeries In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:36:25 CST." <200303211136.25765@grx> References: <200303201508.11078@grx> <3E7A2F76.4020805@americasm01.nt.com> <200303211136.25765@grx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_-660023872P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:41:00 -0500 --==_Exmh_-660023872P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:36:25 CST, David Walker said: > My point is that if my mail server receives a message with a <> envelope > sender it should not deliver the message intact to the user. It should wrap > that message to make it obvious that is an error report. If it is a spam but > is delivered looking like an error report it loses it's effectiveness as a > spam. You *DID* know that there's some legitimate mail that isn't an error report that goes with a MAIL FROM:<>, right? In particular, LSoft's Listserv product sends the "confirmation cookie" messages for opt-in lists with MAIL FROM:<> specifically *BECAUSE* if it's mailing to 'fred@foobar.com' to confirm that it's a valid address and an intended request, the bounce will be dropped on the floor if in fact it's a bogus address. --==_Exmh_-660023872P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+e06scC3lWbTT17ARAkjOAKCmpTZ6YeKUFuSiH+3PflIwFUxblACfTx05 eaHmK/xyl6QO2GLw4wAA88c= =HYSX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_-660023872P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 12:56:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA20476 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:56:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2LIF1C24350 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:15:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LIF1O24347 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:15:01 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA20466 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:56:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LI88O23976; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:08:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LI7iO23844 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:07:44 -0500 Received: from dogma.slashnull.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA20275 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:48:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.jmason.org (ga183055.reshsg.uci.edu [128.195.183.55]) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LHlrx25784; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 17:47:53 GMT Received: by localhost.jmason.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id B85AC8C6E9; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:49:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from jmason.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B22118C6E6; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 09:49:47 -0800 (PST) To: Frank de Lange Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] As seen on /. : IBM Researcher Offers an E-Stamp Spam Solution In-Reply-To: Message from Frank de Lange of "Fri, 21 Mar 2003 17:40:27 +0100." <3E7B407B.2080208@unternet.org> From: jm@jmason.org (Justin Mason) X-GPG-Key-Fingerprint: 0A48 2D8B 0B52 A87D 0E8A 6ADD 4137 1B50 6E58 EF0A X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to . Message-Id: <20030321174947.B85AC8C6E9@localhost.jmason.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 09:49:42 -0800 Frank de Lange said: > Slashdot has found that electronic stamp system to which I posted a link > yesterday... Discussion here: > http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/03/21/1429248&mode=flat&tid=111 > Article on Internet Week here: > http://www.internetwk.com/breakingNews/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=7900141 > The original link here: > http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/414/forum.pdf What's the patent situation with this, though? It *is* IBM we're talking about here, after all :( --j. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 13:00:27 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20588 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:00:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2LIIsF24539 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:18:54 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LIIrO24536 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:18:54 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA20568 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:59:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LIC2O24198; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:12:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LIBiO24178 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:11:44 -0500 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA20399 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:52:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com [171.71.163.14]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h2LHt14c008324; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 09:55:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from CSCOAMERA19540.cisco.com (sjc-vpn1-572.cisco.com [10.21.98.60]) by mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.1-GA) with ESMTP id AFI71369; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 09:53:42 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030321093523.03fd14d8@mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com> X-Sender: fred@mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Rob From: Fred Baker Subject: Re: [Asrg] Scrambled headers? Cc: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030321091856.026f6d30@pop.redwire.net> References: <3E7B4281.1020101@unternet.org> <3E7B3F96.3030803@garbagedump.com> <011301c2efb6$4bea2e40$6401a8c0@damien> <3E7B3F96.3030803@garbagedump.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 09:35:47 -0800 At 09:19 AM 3/21/2003 -0800, Rob wrote: >First time I saw this - what does anyone make of it? looks like a lot of the spam I receive from Asian countries. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 13:01:51 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20661 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:01:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2LIKIa24646 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:20:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LIKIO24643 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:20:18 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20645 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:01:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LIH3O24478; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:17:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LIGCO24423 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:16:12 -0500 Received: from gorgoroth.localnet (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA20506 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:57:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from unternet.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gorgoroth.localnet (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2LHxWF2002652 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 18:59:33 +0100 Message-ID: <3E7B5304.8090709@unternet.org> From: Frank de Lange User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4a) Gecko/20030310 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] As seen on /. : IBM Researcher Offers an E-Stamp Spam Solution References: <20030321174947.B85AC8C6E9@localhost.jmason.org> In-Reply-To: <20030321174947.B85AC8C6E9@localhost.jmason.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 18:59:32 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Justin Mason wrote: > What's the patent situation with this, though? It *is* IBM we're talking > about here, after all :( > > --j. Valid concern. If it is encumbered, we shall not use it (does that sound like one of the ten commandments?) But still, good to see things are happening, even if some of the proposals are not what I would like to see implemented on a wide scale. Frank _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 13:13:55 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21134 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:13:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2LIWNc25484 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:32:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LIWMO25481 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:32:22 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21068 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:13:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LIT6O25142; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:29:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LISYO25108 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:28:34 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20932 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:09:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from rmf19 (h00055df0474a.ne.client2.attbi.com[65.96.217.174]) by rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (rwcrmhc51) with SMTP id <20030321181151051003g6lpe>; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 18:11:51 +0000 From: To: , "'Chris Lewis'" Subject: RE: Bounces, was Re: [Asrg] Sender pays vs Forgeries Keywords: asrg;filename=20030321-130939-546.mht;x-sender=asrg-admin@ietf.org;List-ID=Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF asrg.ietf.org Message-ID: <017901c2efd5$5946cd40$66e237c0@rmf19> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <200303211136.25765@grx> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:11:51 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Such protection is the job of your mail program, not the mindless transports. You can do instream processing at your end like popfile but the mail server cannot and must not meddle. -----Original Message----- From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of David Walker Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 12:36 To: Chris Lewis; asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: Bounces, was Re: [Asrg] Sender pays vs Forgeries My point is that if my mail server receives a message with a <> envelope sender it should not deliver the message intact to the user. It should wrap that message to make it obvious that is an error report. If it is a spam but is delivered looking like an error report it loses it's effectiveness as a spam. On Thursday 20 March 2003 03:15 pm, Chris Lewis wrote: > They do exactly that. Problem being that the "generic here is a mail > error" technique also happens to have a desirable feature for spammers - > no bounce back, aka the <> envelope sender. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 13:25:08 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21558 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:25:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2LIhai27131 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:43:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LIhZO27128 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:43:35 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21526 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:24:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LIdUO26829; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:39:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LIakO25866 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:36:46 -0500 Received: from mail-out1.apple.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21288 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:17:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailgate2.apple.com (A17-129-100-225.apple.com [17.129.100.225]) by mail-out1.apple.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2LIK4Or002190 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 10:20:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from scv3.apple.com (scv3.apple.com) by mailgate2.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 10:19:02 -0800 Received: from plaidworks.com (vg0602e-dhcp175.apple.com [17.216.21.175]) by scv3.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h2LIJ2d14395; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 10:19:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Scrambled headers? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: asrg@ietf.org To: Rob From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030321091856.026f6d30@pop.redwire.net> Message-Id: <98A842CC-5BC9-11D7-A9F5-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 10:19:03 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit someone's trying that new sendmail exploit. On Friday, March 21, 2003, at 09:19 AM, Rob wrote: > > First time I saw this - what does anyone make of it? > > Message-Id: <200303210957.h2L9vxLB023336@sm23.localdomain> > Comments: Received: from > Pb:;692?o4962A7C:D366D]4@>|:>=F4Nz B > Received: from -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/ -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 13:31:00 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21835 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:31:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2LInSb27450 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:49:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LInRO27447 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:49:27 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21830 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:30:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LIdFO26774; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:39:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LIZkO25780 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:35:46 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21214 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:16:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from rmf19 (h00055df0474a.ne.client2.attbi.com[65.96.217.174]) by rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (rwcrmhc52) with SMTP id <20030321181904052000585ce>; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 18:19:04 +0000 From: To: Message-ID: <018001c2efd6$5b2b4f40$66e237c0@rmf19> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0181_01C2EFAC.72554740" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal Subject: [Asrg] ISPs Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:19:04 -0500 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0181_01C2EFAC.72554740 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit We need to distinguish between the access provider (IAP) which provide bit (or packet) transport and the ISP which providers services outside the network. Most people buy both services from the same company and there is no wall between the two in that the ISP is tempted to help the IAP part of the business reduce traffic. But that's no different than buying a newspaper which chooses and positions stories to maximize the advertising revenue. Like many, I only want an IAP and not an ISP. This discussion should make a distinction between basic protocols and services that an ISP can provide. It shouldn't presume that the purpose of the ISP is to make the IAP more profitable by reducing the traffic. Bob Frankston rmf19@bobf.frankston.com ------=_NextPart_000_0181_01C2EFAC.72554740 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

We need to distinguish between the access provider (IAP) which provide bit = (or packet) transport and the ISP which providers services outside the = network. Most people buy both services from the same company and there is no wall = between the two in that the ISP is tempted to help the IAP part of the business = reduce traffic. But that’s no different than buying a newspaper which = chooses and positions stories to maximize the advertising = revenue.

 

Like many, I only want an IAP and not an ISP. This discussion should make a = distinction between basic protocols and services that an ISP can provide. It shouldn’t presume that the purpose of the ISP is to make the IAP more profitable = by reducing the traffic.

 

 

Bob = Frankston

rmf19@bobf.frankston.com

 

------=_NextPart_000_0181_01C2EFAC.72554740-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 13:51:27 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA22360 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:51:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2LJ9tV29178 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:09:55 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LJ9tO29175 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:09:55 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA22354 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:50:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LJ3NO28144; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:03:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LJ2BO28099 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:02:11 -0500 Received: from cs.rice.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA22169 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:43:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with SMTP id E89984ABBD; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:45:28 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0BEF4ABBC; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:45:28 -0600 (CST) Received: from cs.rice.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (cs.rice.edu [127.0.0.1:10024]) (amavisd-new) with ESMTP id 09084-01; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:45:26 -0600 (CST) Received: from inky (bert.cs.rice.edu [128.42.3.146]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 201494ABB6; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:45:05 -0600 (CST) Received: by inky (Postfix, from userid 14314) id C8BDCF3628; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:44:34 -0600 (CST) To: Kee Hinckley Cc: C Wegrzyn , Damien Morton , "'David Finnie'" , hparry@andrew.cmu.edu, asrg@ietf.org References: <011301c2efb6$4bea2e40$6401a8c0@damien> <3E7B3F96.3030803@garbagedump.com> From: Scott A Crosby Organization: Rice University In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lines: 74 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Scanned: by amavis-20021227p2 X-DCC--Metrics: cs.rice.edu 1067; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 Subject: [Asrg] Re: Stamping Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 21 Mar 2003 12:44:34 -0600 On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:07:43 -0500, Kee Hinckley writes: > At 11:36 AM -0500 3/21/03, C Wegrzyn wrote: > > I have to ask this one question: why e-stamps? It seems a solution > > looking for a problem to solve. > > > That certainly seems to be the attitude of the systems I've > seen. However e-stamps do address an ISP concern (namely, they don't > get reimbursed for incoming email, and they can't charge the user, but > the user doesn't *want* most of the incoming email). Of course > hashcash type solutions don't address that. Just e-stamp solutions > where the final MTA actually gets real money. There are a few problems with this. 1. If the price were over $.001, it would kill mailing lists. For instance, this mailing list would cost IETF a $.10 /subscriber/day. At, say, 500 subscribers, thats $15,000/year. If one puts in an 'exception' mechanism for lists, how does one avoid having it be abused? 2. If the price were under $.001, would it really affect unwanted email that much? 3. How does one enforce it. Many organizations just get a leased line. How would they get charged? Would you require that every cross-domain router MUST have a content-aware packet inspector to redirect all email to the 'billing machine'? This severely breaks end-to-end, as showable on #4. 4. With respect to #3, such a mechanism would seriously impact robustness of email. Now, its not enough that the bits get there, but that every cross-domain router's content-aware inspector must work. 5. Administrative overhead and disputes. Imagine the administrative horror in unravelling the accounting of something like Melissa or I-LOVE-YOU. 6. Abuse. Now, someone can recieve money for getting email. They can use cracked machines, worms, proxies, and viruses to transfer money to themselves. In any case, we already have a billing mechanism. If I want to send email to you, do I not incur half of the technical cost? I incur bandwidth charges and CPU utilization. I may not incur HD charges, (but, assuming stuff is removed from the ISP server weekly, those are pretty small in comparison to the others.) If those sender charges are insufficient to stop spam, why would merely doubling them, with a 'fair' fictional sender-pays model, suddenly stop spam? Two-three years ago, internet costs were twice what they are now, and it didn't stop abuse. I think what you want is to charge the sender for the time wasted by the receiver, but is that relevant to MTA's or ISP's? > This assumes that ISPs have control over the email being sent. If all Not true, and not necessarily a good idea; many people are already noticing breakage because their ISP's are unfortunately breaking end-to-end. > ISPs did (and all ISPs wore white hats), then we wouldn't be sitting > here. From the white-hat ISP perspective, outbound spam is a bug in > their security. e-stamps won't fix that. Outbound spam is not a bug in security. Outbound spam is like any other outbound communication. Bits are sent to the internet sourced from their customers. Though it may be annoying to you, is my ability to give you a prank phone call a bug in the telephone system? Scott _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 13:59:09 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA22590 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:59:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2LJHbg29661 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:17:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LJHbO29658 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:17:37 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA22579 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:58:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LJCCO29390; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:12:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LJB3O29257 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:11:03 -0500 Received: from gorgoroth.localnet (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA22385 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:52:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from unternet.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gorgoroth.localnet (8.12.7/8.12.7) with ESMTP id h2LIsMbI029442 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 19:54:22 +0100 Message-ID: <3E7B5FDD.2050908@unternet.org> From: Frank de Lange User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4a) Gecko/20030310 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Scrambled headers? References: <98A842CC-5BC9-11D7-A9F5-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> In-Reply-To: <98A842CC-5BC9-11D7-A9F5-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 19:54:21 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > someone's trying that new sendmail exploit. No, the sendmail exploit is based on overflowing a buffer in the crackaddr() function which is fed with the contents of 'To', 'Cc' and such. Find the exploit here: http://www.security.nnov.ru/files/linx86_sendmail.c //Frank -- WWWWW ________________________ ## o o\ / Frank de Lange \ }# \| / +46-734352015 \ \ `--| _/ \ `---' \ +31-640037120 / \ frank@unternet.org / `------------------------' [ "Omnis enim res, quae dando non deficit, dum habetur et non datur, nondum habetur, quomodo habenda est." ] _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 14:02:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA22695 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:02:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2LJKYD29871 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:20:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LJKYO29868 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:20:34 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA22675 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:01:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LJHFO29646; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:17:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LJEiO29574 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:14:44 -0500 Received: from aismtp1g.bellsouth.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA22528 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:55:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from 01al10015010061.ad.bls.com ([90.152.5.165] [90.152.5.165]) by aismtp1g.bellsouth.com with ESMTP; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:58:18 -0500 Received: by 01al10015010061.ad.bls.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:58:01 -0600 Message-Id: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D65B@bremocag> From: "Sauer, Damon" To: "'Rob'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Scrambled headers? MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:58:00 -0600 Junk added in by the spammer to thwart scripts that look at "Received: from" and filter based on that. Damon -----Original Message----- From: Rob [mailto:rob@redwire.net] Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 12:20 PM To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] Scrambled headers? First time I saw this - what does anyone make of it? X-From_: tim_shopstock@eudora.com Fri Mar 21 02:04:29 2003 Return-Path: Received: from hudson.redwire.net (064-186-240-103.prvnet.redwired.net [64.186.240.103]) by lily.redwire.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2LA4Qts011823 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 02:04:26 -0800 Received: from sm23.localdomain ([206.40.229.123]) by hudson.redwire.net (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id h2LA4AmH015374 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 02:04:11 -0800 Received: from unknown Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 02:57:59 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <200303210957.h2L9vxLB023336@sm23.localdomain> Comments: Received: from Pb:;692?o4962A7C:D366D]4@>|:>=F4Nz B Received: from Jx:?7@oH2D966ED]4@>|:?7@oHHH\\3>8>FD:4D6CG:46]4@>|:?7@o36C8\D2442?:]4@>|:>3: 8>2?;o2@=]4@>|:644:oAC@\FD2]4@>|9@FC=23o6C@=D]4@>Tx M Received: from Ma:>2E6<4@>o2@=]4@>|:==FD:@?o4J36CC62=:EJ]?6E|:?7@o2C>@C42D6]4@>|:?7@oDF3D62 =6G6=]4@>|:?7@oA6C\G2D4\DFC8]4@>|:46>2?d`eo9@E>2:=]4@>Tv T Received: from Tu:??@G2E:G6o2C8@9@FDE@?]4@>|9J3@FoFD2]?6E|:?>JH@C=5gbo2@=]4@>|:?DFC6o:?7:]? 6E|:?7@DG4DoA6?6=]4@>|:?7@o;@9??J3C@?4@]4@>Tq R Received: from Ac:?7@o3:==9@==:?8]4@>|:?7@o>2:?6=24C@DD6]4@>|9@DE>2DE6CoG@=@?6E]4@>|:?7@o3C 25JA=4]4@]F<|:==FDA=FDo>:?5DAC:?8]4@>|:>>:Io9@E>2:=]4@>Tz G Received: from Rm9@DE>2DE6CoHAC6DD]4@>|:?7@oH84E]4@>|9F>2?0=628F6a__`F|:?7@o7C@> A2C25:D6]4@>|9C@25DAF3277oH@C=5?6E]2EE]?6E|9F?E6C]D4o>:?5DAC:?8]4@>Mr Z Received: from Nr:;F:46o255C]4@>|9F>AEJ56G2o2@=]4@>|:592J?6Do>@F?6E]4@>|:4:>=@o9@>6]42|:0>: DD0J@F0H6DoJ29@@]4@>|:2CE@>o2@=]4@>TT T Received: from Nz:37:G6o2@=]4@>|:>2C=J>2Co9@>6]4@>|9F89aaego2@=]4@>|9A]<2H2?o<2H2?]56|:5?E9 D@o4D]4@>|:?7@o52E2DFAA@CE:?4]4@>Rb Y Received: from PQ9@J@?8oD|9D5>2C49o2@=]4@>|:=2>@E96oH@C=5?6E]2EE]?6E|:<5EE>oJ29@@ ]4@]F<|:<52G:Do9@E>2:=]4@>|:?7@oE96C>2=6?8:?DE]4@>Rz M Errors: tim_shopstock@eudora.com From: OTC-Stocks To: ZzNjiADf <_B7-DB4NEX18xyMW@otcstockwatch.com> ----------------------------------------------------------- Rob Ayer - Network Operations ----------------------------------------------------------- Office 858-244-9040 x205 Fax 858-244-9043 Mobile 858-518-4894 Tollfree 866-4REDWIRE Pager rob-pager@redwire.net RedWire Broadband 5771 Copley Drive Suite 100 San Diego, Ca 92111 http://www.redwire.net ----------------------------------------------------------- I'm a SpamCon Foundation Member, #638 Verify it at http://www.spamcon.org/search/member-search.shtml Why aren't you? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg ***** "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers." _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 14:10:11 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA22951 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:10:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2LJSej30238 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:28:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LJSeO30235 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:28:40 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA22919 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:09:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LJK3O29842; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:20:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LJJxO29808 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:19:59 -0500 Received: from aismtp1g.bellsouth.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA22643 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:00:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from 01al10015010061.ad.bls.com ([90.152.5.165] [90.152.5.165]) by aismtp1g.bellsouth.com with ESMTP; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:03:33 -0500 Received: by 01al10015010061.ad.bls.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:03:16 -0600 Message-Id: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D65C@bremocag> From: "Sauer, Damon" To: "'Chuq Von Rospach'" , Rob Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Scrambled headers? MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:03:16 -0600 Nahh... Those headers are after the message ID. Just spam "value add". Damon -----Original Message----- From: Chuq Von Rospach [mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com] Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 1:19 PM To: Rob Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Scrambled headers? someone's trying that new sendmail exploit. On Friday, March 21, 2003, at 09:19 AM, Rob wrote: > > First time I saw this - what does anyone make of it? > > Message-Id: <200303210957.h2L9vxLB023336@sm23.localdomain> > Comments: Received: from > Pb:;692?o4962A7C:D366D]4@>|:>=F4Nz B > Received: from -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/ -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg ***** "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers." _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 14:15:59 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23163 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:15:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2LJYS630574 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:34:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LJYSO30567 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:34:28 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23135 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:15:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LJR2O30182; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:27:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LJQnO30148 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:26:49 -0500 Received: from maillist.grax.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA22861 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:07:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (grax_web1 [127.0.0.1]) by maillist.grax.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1393B2C5D5; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 09:09:54 -0600 (CST) From: David Walker Reply-To: asrg@ietf.org Organization: Vorteon, LLC To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: Bounces, was Re: [Asrg] Sender pays vs Forgeries User-Agent: KMail/1.5 Cc: Chris Lewis References: <200303211136.25765@grx> <200303211741.h2LHf0v5009006@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> In-Reply-To: <200303211741.h2LHf0v5009006@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Hockey: Colorado Avalanche MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200303211312.38711@grx> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:12:38 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit You may consider that a legitimate use. I do not. Everyone is so keen on not losing any existing functionality. The existing functionality is what got us into this problem. You would have to make a case that a Listserv requires that scheme to function properly. There is no reason Listserv cannot give a MAIL FROM address and process or ignore the error message. From all appearances it is just a cheap shortcut. Can you point to something in the RFC that indicates there is a valid use for null senders other than bounce/error messages? On Friday 21 March 2003 11:41 am, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:36:25 CST, David Walker said: > > My point is that if my mail server receives a message with a <> envelope > > sender it should not deliver the message intact to the user. It should > > wrap that message to make it obvious that is an error report. If it is a > > spam but > > > > is delivered looking like an error report it loses it's effectiveness as > > a spam. > > You *DID* know that there's some legitimate mail that isn't an error report > that goes with a MAIL FROM:<>, right? > > In particular, LSoft's Listserv product sends the "confirmation cookie" > messages for opt-in lists with MAIL FROM:<> specifically *BECAUSE* if it's > mailing to 'fred@foobar.com' to confirm that it's a valid address and an > intended request, the bounce will be dropped on the floor if in fact it's a > bogus address. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 14:16:22 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23210 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:16:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2LJYpr30627 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:34:51 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LJYpO30624 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:34:51 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23159 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:15:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LJV4O30406; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:31:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LJSIO30225 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:28:18 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA22893 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:09:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2173954; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:11:31 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3E7B4BCD.4060501@garbagedump.com> References: <011301c2efb6$4bea2e40$6401a8c0@damien> <3E7B3F96.3030803@garbagedump.com> <3E7B4BCD.4060501@garbagedump.com> To: C Wegrzyn From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Stamping Cc: Scott A Crosby , Damien Morton , "'David Finnie'" , hparry@andrew.cmu.edu, asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:07:28 -0500 At 12:28 PM -0500 3/21/03, C Wegrzyn wrote: >Having been an ISP (destek.net) for many years, it isn't all that >difficult to filter traffic going through a network. It is done all >the time. True. But you argued that a (per-recipient) email use tax would help stop tax. But the problem you are trying to stop (arbitrary sending of large amounts of email from within a network) doesn't require that. It just requires better ISP security. And if you don't have better security, then the use tax will be evaded. But the real point I'm trying to make here is that anti-spam solutions that depend on the sender obeying a rule are not going to be successful. They rely on an ISP (or more likely, a bandwidth provider) restricting their customers. Financially they have no incentive to do so. As good citizens, they should do it. But that isn't their primary focus. We could get rid of lots of DoS attacks with very straightforward outbound packet filtering as well--but it hasn't happened. So. Any recommendation from this group should specify certain actions that responsible ISPs should take to secure their networks. But don't expect them to be immediately followed. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 14:37:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24192 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:37:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2LJtlQ32687 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:55:47 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LJtkO32683 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:55:46 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24181 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:36:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LJr5O32550; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:53:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LJqjO32527 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:52:45 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24039 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:33:45 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2LJa2v5013888; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:36:02 -0500 Message-Id: <200303211936.h2LJa2v5013888@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.2 03/18/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: asrg@ietf.org Cc: Chris Lewis Subject: Re: Bounces, was Re: [Asrg] Sender pays vs Forgeries In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:12:38 CST." <200303211312.38711@grx> References: <200303211136.25765@grx> <200303211741.h2LHf0v5009006@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <200303211312.38711@grx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_-632877088P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:36:02 -0500 --==_Exmh_-632877088P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:12:38 CST, David Walker said: > Can you point to something in the RFC that indicates there is a valid use for > null senders other than bounce/error messages? RFC2821, section 6.1 says: If there is a delivery failure after acceptance of a message, the receiver-SMTP MUST formulate and mail a notification message. This notification MUST be sent using a null ("<>") reverse path in the envelope. The recipient of this notification MUST be the address from the envelope return path (or the Return-Path: line). However, if this address is null ("<>"), the receiver-SMTP MUST NOT send a notification. Obviously, nothing in this section can or should prohibit local decisions (i.e., as part of the same system environment as the receiver-SMTP) to log or otherwise transmit information about null address events locally if that is desired. If the address is an explicit source route, it MUST be stripped down to its final hop. So it specifically codifies that <> is to be used if you don't want a notification. Nowhere does 2821 actually *RESERVE* <> for bounces. RFC1891, section 10.4: 10.4 Relay to Bombs.AF.MIL The SMTP at Pure-Heart.ORG relays the message to Bombs.AF.MIL, which does not support the SMTP extension. Because the sender specified NOTIFY=NEVER for recipient Fred@Bombs.AF.MIL, the SMTP at Pure- Heart.ORG chooses to send the message for that recipient in a separate transaction with a reverse-path of <>. So here we have an example where <> is specifically used to get the behavior of 1891 'notify=never' with a remote MTA that doesn't support it, even when sending a non-bounce mail. --==_Exmh_-632877088P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+e2micC3lWbTT17ARAnNuAJ4l4i+Ggx6N8P+oC45fgwwcpasbfQCfUtHb oQ74xmnOecFFFOKq6XoCM+U= =H7a0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_-632877088P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 14:41:55 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24291 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:41:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2LK0Os00534 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:00:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LK0OO00531 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:00:24 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24272 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:41:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LJs1O32601; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:54:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LJrKO32562 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:53:20 -0500 Received: from mxsmta02.inithost.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24065 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:34:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from garbagedump.com ([204.57.52.62]) by mxsmta02.inithost.com (InterMail vM.5.01.03.06 201-253-122-118-106-20010523) with ESMTP id <20030321193546.XJZJ24316.mxsmta02.inithost.com@garbagedump.com>; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:35:46 -0500 Message-ID: <3E7B6A0E.7010904@garbagedump.com> From: C Wegrzyn User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.3b; MultiZilla v1.1.33 (b)) Gecko/20030127 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@bobf.frankston.com CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] ISPs References: <018001c2efd6$5b2b4f40$66e237c0@rmf19> In-Reply-To: <018001c2efd6$5b2b4f40$66e237c0@rmf19> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:37:50 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sure, that is fine. But it doesn't make a difference as to intercepting the email traffic and billing for it. asrg@bobf.frankston.com wrote: > We need to distinguish between the access provider (IAP) which provide > bit (or packet) transport and the ISP which providers services outside > the network. Most people buy both services from the same company and > there is no wall between the two in that the ISP is tempted to help > the IAP part of the business reduce traffic. But that’s no different > than buying a newspaper which chooses and positions stories to > maximize the advertising revenue. > > Like many, I only want an IAP and not an ISP. This discussion should > make a distinction between basic protocols and services that an ISP > can provide. It shouldn’t presume that the purpose of the ISP is to > make the IAP more profitable by reducing the traffic. > > Bob Frankston > > rmf19@bobf.frankston.com > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 14:43:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24340 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:43:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2LK28600637 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:02:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LK28O00634 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:02:08 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24331 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:43:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LK02O00512; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:00:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LJxOO00436 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:59:24 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24256 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:40:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from rmf19 (h00055df0474a.ne.client2.attbi.com[65.96.217.174]) by rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (rwcrmhc53) with SMTP id <2003032119424005300pvkvle>; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 19:42:41 +0000 From: To: "'C Wegrzyn'" , Cc: Subject: RE: [Asrg] ISPs Keywords: asrg;filename=20030321-143934-062.mht;x-sender=asrg-admin@ietf.org;List-ID=Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF asrg.ietf.org Message-ID: <01f201c2efe2$093c7680$66e237c0@rmf19> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3E7B6A0E.7010904@garbagedump.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:42:40 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'm confused -- too much ambiguity in your response. Can you please explain in more detail? -----Original Message----- From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of C Wegrzyn Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 14:38 To: asrg@bobf.frankston.com Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] ISPs Sure, that is fine. But it doesn't make a difference as to intercepting the email traffic and billing for it. asrg@bobf.frankston.com wrote: > We need to distinguish between the access provider (IAP) which provide > bit (or packet) transport and the ISP which providers services outside > the network. Most people buy both services from the same company and > there is no wall between the two in that the ISP is tempted to help > the IAP part of the business reduce traffic. But thats no different > than buying a newspaper which chooses and positions stories to > maximize the advertising revenue. > > Like many, I only want an IAP and not an ISP. This discussion should > make a distinction between basic protocols and services that an ISP > can provide. It shouldnt presume that the purpose of the ISP is to > make the IAP more profitable by reducing the traffic. > > Bob Frankston > > rmf19@bobf.frankston.com > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 14:50:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24451 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:50:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2LK8xL01701 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:08:59 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LK8xO01698 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:08:59 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24434 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:49:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LK32O00677; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:03:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LK2rO00661 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:02:53 -0500 Received: from mercury.ex.ac.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24359 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:43:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from [144.173.6.20] (helo=cronus.ex.ac.uk) by mercury.ex.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18wSSv-00Gqhe-00; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 19:46:09 +0000 From: Adam Back To: Scott A Crosby Cc: David Finnie , hparry@andrew.cmu.edu, asrg@ietf.org, Adam Back Subject: "HashStamp" == hashcash? (Re: [Asrg] Re: Stamping) Message-ID: <20030321194608.A5619380@exeter.ac.uk> References: <200303211221.h2LCLWrH013650@pindari.platypuspartners.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.2i In-Reply-To: ; from scrosby@cs.rice.edu on Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 07:38:27AM -0600 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 19:46:08 +0000 The Stamps discussion seems to be reinventing hashcash (are some not aware of hashcash, or is there some aspect of the Stamps discussion different from hashcash in some way I am not seeing?) Take a look at the paper: Aug 02 - "Hashcash - A Denial of Service Counter Measure" (5 years on), Tech Report, Adam Back http://www.cypherspace.org/adam/hashcash/hashcash.pdf and the hashcash home page: http://www.cypherspace.org/hashcash/ all of the options discussed so far in this thread are documented, or improved upon in that paper. In particular: - the original hashcash proposal (made back in 1997) proposed to use hash(email) as the challenge, but more recently this was changed to use the string 0^k (all 0-bits) as the challenge -- simpler and equally fair challenge. - the expiry of tokens -- with hashcash the token includes a date / timestamp, so that the recipient can expire tokens. I suggest 1 month to allow for communications delays. - hashcash is also (by default) non-interactive, so there is no need for an interactively issued challenge -- this makes it more suited to store-and-forward and more efficient as you don't need the bounce - however there is an interactive option (see section 4). - the idea of a beacon (slowly changing public value) is discussed in the last para of section 3. - library, command line and client software is available for download - there is a java implementation for "clientless" token generation via web browser which runs at 50% of speed of native code - MUA integration is available for a couple of mailers From the command line tool man page an example 33 bit token: X-Hashcash: 0:020814:foo:4333957e84db47f6 first : separated parameter is version number, next is date/time in UTCTime format, next is resource string (email address 'foo', or other resource identifier), and finally a random string. Because of the format you can verify with the sha1 command line tool: echo -n 0:020814:foo:4333957e84db47f6 | sha1 000000007fb83d9c3cbd501628b7a6c1cd352ad4 where you can visually see the leading 33 bits of 0s. Adam On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 07:38:27AM -0600, Scott A Crosby wrote: > On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 23:21:32 +1100, David Finnie writes: > > > Scott, > > > > > I don't like that, but how about some notion of stamping? Each message > > > recieved must include a valid stamp. Stamps are only usable once. > > > > This is an interesting idea. I have some questions for you about your > > proposal: > > > > Can you please describe more fully your concept of a "partial hash > > collision", and "sufficient number of bits". I think I understand that > > the first 64 bits of the stamp is input to MD5, and also that the > > recipient's email address is input to MD5. If we let "x" be the number > > of bits in "sufficient number of bits", are you saying that: > > The sender gets 32 bits, called HashNonce from the recipient through a > stamp-missing bounce. Then then wish to compute the 64 bit quantity > XXX, such that: > > N=(HashNonce || XXX) > > and > > MD5(N)[0:x-1] = MD5(recipient email)[0:x-1] > > N is now a valid stamp. The reason I use HashNonce there is to allow a > recipient to eventually time out old used stamps to reduce storage > needs for already used stamps. I would expect it to change yearly. > > > MD5(stamp[0:63])[0:x-1] = MD5(recipient email)[0:x-1] > > MD5(stamp[0:63])[128-y:127] = MD5(recipient email)[128-y:127] > > This does not matter, what matters is the number of bits that are > forced to be matched. IE, x=20 in your first example is as equally > hard problem as y=20 in the second. > > > or perhaps that it is up to the receiver to determine which bits match > > ? And presumably "x" is worked out by the recipient when it does it's > > calculation to produce some stamps ? Or are you suggesting that "x" be > > a fixed quantity for this protocol ? > > $x$ is a fixed quantity, say 32, such that computing such an XXX > requires a signifigant amount of work. Benchmarking, it looks like > 1ghz machine can do 5 million/second MD5's, so for $x$=32, this means > about 15 minutes/stamp, but will go down with increasing computing > power. I want it to be this long, because nominally, this cost is only > payed once between a pair of participants. Generally, anyone you've > sent email to won't have to burn this CPU time to reply. > > MD5 may not be the best function however; anyone have any idea how > greatly can be greatly sped up using hardware? (And for what cost?) > > > Forgive my ignorance, but I'm not familiar with working with partial > > hashes, and I don't know of any gotchas. My main concerns would be: > > say for a particular recipient email address, could the MD5 hash it > > produces severely limit the maximum value of "x" that can be used for > > a partial match against hashes of 64 bit quantities ? Given the good > > randomness of MD5, I would guess probably not, but it is worth > > investigating (if you haven't already). My reasoning is that if that > > were the case, then some unfortunate recipients may be easy targets > > for spamming because it would be easier to "guess" the first 64 bits > > of their stamp. > > Assuming that MD5 is a random function of its inputs, $x=32$ means > that the probability of successfully forging a stamp is one in 4 > billion. > > > Are you proposing that the stamp-control protocol piggy-back within > > SMTP ? My main reason for asking is that for a sender to acquire a > > Undecided. There are four sets of data that need to be kept: > > 1. Canceled/Used stamps. > 2. Outstanding stamps (that were sent in response to a request) > 3. HashNonce > 4. Unused stamps > > IMHO, #1, #2 may be kept by the user or the ISP. #3 should be kept by > the ISP, so that first-time senders can learn the currently valid > HashNonce with paying a user-agent to ISP trip instead of = paying a > full user-agent user-agent round trip. So, if #3 is not kept by the > ISP, email latency could require two round trips. > > #4 is who keeps track of which stamps are unused for a particular > recipient. If this is kept by the ISP, how does the ISP avoid paying > the time for a partial hash collision. > > > stamp from a receiver, the request really needs to somehow end up at > > the mail server for the receiver (so that the database of valid stamps > > can be checked when a mail message containing a stamp is received). I > > think it would make sense for it to piggy back within SMTP. > > I'm not entirely certain, and leave this to others. > > > I am also assuming that a stamp cannot be verified as belonging to, or > > not belonging to, a particular recipient, except by the recipient > > itself. (I say this because one of the options is for the recipient to > > create totally random stamps.) Is this correct ? > > There are two notions of stamp: Random nonces created by a recipient, > and partial hash collisions. In the first case, identification can > come from the fact that all nonces are fresh. In the second case, > identification may come from the HashNonce. > > There is no identification attached to a stamp, except for the > knowledge that the probability of someone successfully forging one is > extremely small. If I create stamp *EMovyZQWSXggt1uV*, I can be > assured that nobody will guess it, I can also keep track of who I > origionally sent it to. I also keep track when its been used. > > So, when a stamp is recieved, it is > > 1. If a nonce, looked up in the hash table of all unused stamps. If > yes, accept, if no, bounce. > > 2. If a partial-hash stamp, the HashNonce is looked up in the hash > table of all currently accepted HashNonce's. If its not there, > bounce. Then the the partial hash collision is checked. If invalid, > bounce. Finally, the stamp is checked in the used-stamps > hashtable. If there, bounce, if not accept. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 15:36:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA26769 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:36:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2LKtBL04456 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:55:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LKtBO04453 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:55:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA26749 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:36:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LKlFO04166; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:47:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LKk2O04116 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:46:02 -0500 Received: from cs.rice.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA26540 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:27:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with SMTP id 7DFED4AB82; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:29:15 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4977D4AA09; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:29:15 -0600 (CST) Received: from cs.rice.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (cs.rice.edu [127.0.0.1:10024]) (amavisd-new) with ESMTP id 20886-10; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:29:12 -0600 (CST) Received: from inky (bert.cs.rice.edu [128.42.3.146]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0FEB4ABBC; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:29:01 -0600 (CST) Received: by inky (Postfix, from userid 14314) id 5D893F3628; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:28:31 -0600 (CST) To: Adam Back Cc: David Finnie , hparry@andrew.cmu.edu, asrg@ietf.org References: <200303211221.h2LCLWrH013650@pindari.platypuspartners.com> <20030321194608.A5619380@exeter.ac.uk> From: Scott A Crosby Organization: Rice University In-Reply-To: <20030321194608.A5619380@exeter.ac.uk> Message-ID: Lines: 38 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Scanned: by amavis-20021227p2 X-DCC--Metrics: cs.rice.edu 1067; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 Subject: [Asrg] Re: "HashStamp" == hashcash? (Re: Stamping) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 21 Mar 2003 14:28:31 -0600 On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 19:46:08 +0000, Adam Back writes: > The Stamps discussion seems to be reinventing hashcash (are some not > aware of hashcash, or is there some aspect of the Stamps discussion > different from hashcash in some way I am not seeing?) Yes, it is strongly inspired by HashCash, but it is different. The differences is that HashCash is only used for initial communication. In my system, almost all stamps are really one-time-use random nonces generated by the recipient. The stamps are automatically attached to all outgoing messages, but may be obtained by solving a CAPTCHA or other out-of-band means. This means the HashCash stamps are relegated to only being used for the initial message in a communication. Thus, I can afford to make the hashcash stamps incredibly expensive, on the order of tens of minutes, because few messages ever use them. Since so few are used, I consider it acceptable to require the recipient to maintain a database of all of them ever used. The lack of datestamps allows a MUA to precompute stamps ahead-of-time based on for addresses in the address book. Also, since MUA's may mint arbitrary stamps and bulk mailers may send a control message requesting the same, bulk emailers do not require users to implement an exception mechanism. > all of the options discussed so far in this thread are documented, or > improved upon in that paper. I ruthlessly simplified Hashcash to suit the limited situation I am using it for. > where you can visually see the leading 33 bits of 0s. Nice change. Scott _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 15:44:52 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27091 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:44:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2LL3Lf04877 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:03:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LL3LO04874 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:03:21 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27063 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:44:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LKv3O04591; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:57:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LKsPO04417 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:54:25 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA26720 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:35:25 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2LKbdv5016004; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:37:39 -0500 Message-Id: <200303212037.h2LKbdv5016004@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.2 03/18/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: Scott A Crosby Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: "HashStamp" == hashcash? (Re: Stamping) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:28:31 CST." References: <200303211221.h2LCLWrH013650@pindari.platypuspartners.com> <20030321194608.A5619380@exeter.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_-618767776P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:37:38 -0500 --==_Exmh_-618767776P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:28:31 CST, Scott A Crosby said: > Thus, I can afford to make the hashcash stamps incredibly expensive, > on the order of tens of minutes, because few messages ever use them. ... > Also, since MUA's may mint arbitrary stamps and bulk mailers may send > a control message requesting the same, bulk emailers do not require > users to implement an exception mechanism. "Hi.. I'm a bulk mailer. Cound you send me 5 or 10 stamps?" "Hi.. I'm some other bulk mailer. Could you send me 5 or 10 stamps?" Lather, rinse, repeat. DOS. ;) (Yes, it can probably be fixed/rate limited, but you're screwed if you don't fix that problem....) --==_Exmh_-618767776P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+e3gScC3lWbTT17ARAsaEAJwO8PKPLyb0T1A8w1/Ko6nzkllNPQCgkhf7 4NlMpBpDzw8+/MpRrgRCe/U= =MHnN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_-618767776P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 15:48:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27183 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:48:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2LL6vx05048 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:06:57 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LL6vO05045 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:06:57 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27165 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:47:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LL49O04927; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:04:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LL3YO04893 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:03:34 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27068 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:44:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2174188; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:46:50 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <011301c2efb6$4bea2e40$6401a8c0@damien> <3E7B3F96.3030803@garbagedump.com> To: Scott A Crosby From: Kee Hinckley Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Subject: [Asrg] Re: Stamping Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:40:16 -0500 At 12:44 PM -0600 3/21/03, Scott A Crosby wrote: > > seen. However e-stamps do address an ISP concern (namely, they don't > > get reimbursed for incoming email, and they can't charge the user, but >There are a few problems with this. There are *lots* of problems with it. But someone asked what problem the solution was looking for. And there are certainly some ISPs (not just The World) who would very much like someone to reimburse them for the volume of email they have to handle--especially the bounces. And spammers are only part of the problem. > 3. How does one enforce it. Many organizations just get a leased > line. How would they get charged? Would you require that every > cross-domain router MUST have a content-aware packet inspector to > redirect all email to the 'billing machine'? This severely breaks > end-to-end, as showable on #4. The proposals I've heard from ISPs is that they want to be able to charge bulk senders for mail destined for users at the ISP. So if Microsoft wants to send thousands of non-deliverable Passport messages (to take an actually example) they are going to have to pay for it. I understand the pain there. A large percentage of the email I bounce is from non-spammers who didn't bother to verify and never clean their lists (for example, deerfield.com used to be a major offender, although they seem to have finally cleaned up their act.) >In any case, we already have a billing mechanism. If I want to send >email to you, do I not incur half of the technical cost? I incur >bandwidth charges and CPU utilization. I may not incur HD charges, >(but, assuming stuff is removed from the ISP server weekly, those are >pretty small in comparison to the others.) No, the email sender incurs a much smaller percentage of the cost. I can trivially send one message to several hundred people at your site. I send one. You have to process, store and bounce hundreds of messages. Never mind the customer support costs. >If those sender charges are insufficient to stop spam, why would >merely doubling them, with a 'fair' fictional sender-pays model, >suddenly stop spam? Two-three years ago, internet costs were twice >what they are now, and it didn't stop abuse. First of all, I never said this had anything to do with spam. Someone asked who would want stamps--I answered. But in answer to your question, it's not a doubling of the cost, is way more than that because you send one message and the ISP handles many more. > > ISPs did (and all ISPs wore white hats), then we wouldn't be sitting >> here. From the white-hat ISP perspective, outbound spam is a bug in >> their security. e-stamps won't fix that. > >Outbound spam is not a bug in security. Outbound spam is like any >other outbound communication. Bits are sent to the internet sourced In theory, yes. In practice, no. Outbound spam makes very heavy use of security bugs to go out, precisely *because* ISPs have some degree of control over their email systems. >from their customers. Though it may be annoying to you, is my ability >to give you a prank phone call a bug in the telephone system? It is if you use a bluebox to do it. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 15:51:15 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27280 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:51:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2LL9iv05986 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:09:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LL9iO05983 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:09:44 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27265 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:50:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LL4EO04943; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:04:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LL3aO04898 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:03:36 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27071; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:44:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2174190; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:46:52 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200303211312.38711@grx> References: <200303211136.25765@grx> <200303211741.h2LHf0v5009006@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <200303211312.38711@grx> To: asrg@ietf.org From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: Bounces, was Re: [Asrg] Sender pays vs Forgeries Cc: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, asrg@ietf.org, Chris Lewis , David Walker Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:45:25 -0500 At 1:12 PM -0600 3/21/03, David Walker wrote: >Can you point to something in the RFC that indicates there is a valid use for >null senders other than bounce/error messages? Null senders are to be used for delivery errors. You are assuming that it is possible to encode all possible delivery problems in such a way that a spammer cannot put their own message in there. I don't believe that's true. However, it would certainly help if MUAs handled such messages specially. My experience with the more clueless spectrum of end-users is that the current bounce system does not work. They get mail from this scary address (mailer-daemon) and it contains a bunch of garbage they don't understand (if they open it). In general they delete it without opening it (might be a virus). They certainly don't use it to fix their address book. And anything that makes it harder for spammers to get their message across is certainly going to help limit the class of people who use a spammer. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 15:58:15 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27489 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:58:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2LLGjr06396 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:16:45 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LLGjO06393 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:16:45 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27482 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:57:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LLC3O06173; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:12:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LLBpO06124 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:11:51 -0500 Received: from maillist.grax.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27314 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:52:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (grax_web1 [127.0.0.1]) by maillist.grax.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCF9D2C5D5; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 10:54:57 -0600 (CST) From: David Walker Reply-To: asrg@ietf.org Organization: Vorteon, LLC To: Kee Hinckley , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: Bounces, was Re: [Asrg] Sender pays vs Forgeries User-Agent: KMail/1.5 References: <200303211312.38711@grx> In-Reply-To: X-Hockey: Colorado Avalanche MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200303211457.42738@grx> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:57:42 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'm not actually assuming that we could prevent the spam from appearing. My assumption is that a spam that is encapsulated in a system mail will lose its effectiveness. On Friday 21 March 2003 02:45 pm, Kee Hinckley wrote: > At 1:12 PM -0600 3/21/03, David Walker wrote: > >Can you point to something in the RFC that indicates there is a valid use > > for null senders other than bounce/error messages? > > Null senders are to be used for delivery errors. You are assuming > that it is possible to encode all possible delivery problems in such > a way that a spammer cannot put their own message in there. I don't > believe that's true. > > However, it would certainly help if MUAs handled such messages > specially. My experience with the more clueless spectrum of > end-users is that the current bounce system does not work. They get > mail from this scary address (mailer-daemon) and it contains a bunch > of garbage they don't understand (if they open it). In general they > delete it without opening it (might be a virus). They certainly > don't use it to fix their address book. > > And anything that makes it harder for spammers to get their message > across is certainly going to help limit the class of people who use a > spammer. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 16:00:03 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA27530 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:00:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2LLIWK06494 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:18:32 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LLIWO06491 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:18:32 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27512 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:59:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LLD1O06222; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:13:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LLC1O06153 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:12:01 -0500 Received: from mercury.ex.ac.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27320 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:53:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from [144.173.6.20] (helo=cronus.ex.ac.uk) by mercury.ex.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18wTXo-00GqFp-00; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 20:55:16 +0000 From: Adam Back To: Scott A Crosby Cc: David Finnie , hparry@andrew.cmu.edu, asrg@ietf.org, Adam Back Message-ID: <20030321205515.A5115486@exeter.ac.uk> References: <200303211221.h2LCLWrH013650@pindari.platypuspartners.com> <20030321194608.A5619380@exeter.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.2i In-Reply-To: ; from scrosby@cs.rice.edu on Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 02:28:31PM -0600 Subject: [Asrg] Re: "HashStamp" == hashcash? (Re: Stamping) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 20:55:15 +0000 On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 02:28:31PM -0600, Scott A Crosby wrote: > On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 19:46:08 +0000, Adam Back writes: > > > The Stamps discussion seems to be reinventing hashcash (are some not > > aware of hashcash, or is there some aspect of the Stamps discussion > > different from hashcash in some way I am not seeing?) > > Yes, it is strongly inspired by HashCash, but it is different. The > differences is that HashCash is only used for initial communication. This is an optimization also proposed for hashcash when one gets down to "so how would you deploy this" question. See for example the CAMRAM architecture: http://www.camram.org > In my system, almost all stamps are really one-time-use random nonces > generated by the recipient. The stamps are automatically attached to > all outgoing messages, but may be obtained by solving a CAPTCHA or > other out-of-band means. This means the HashCash stamps are relegated > to only being used for the initial message in a communication. > > Thus, I can afford to make the hashcash stamps incredibly expensive, > on the order of tens of minutes, because few messages ever use them. ditto see CAMRAM. I had proposed a token sent from the recipient to the sender attached to any message which could be re-used by the sender to send replies in the vein of Lucent's LPWA (Lucent Personalized Web Assistant) target revokable email address: http://www.bell-labs.com/project/lpwa/proxy_index.html In particular I proposed such a token would be a MAC computed using a secret key held by the user. Then he could verify it without storage, based just on the sender address and the token. Having expiry could be optional feature, but there is limited need given the storage-less aspect. Tokens could be revoked by putting them in a recipient local black-list. CAMRAM settled on using signatures for the tokens in place of a MAC-based token but it's effectively the same idea I think. CAMRAM also proposed allowing turing proofs in place of tokens (CAPTCHA is one example of a turing proof). An additional idea previously proposed was that reducing the use of hashcash tokens to first unsolicited email could perhaps be used instead of increasing practical hashcash cost, could be used to deploy hashcash token creation into the senders sending mail hub. This would then remove the need for a hashcash aware client. The downside is it increases sending MTA load, but the deployment problem is easier for MTAs than for clients. Adam > Since so few are used, I consider it acceptable to require the > recipient to maintain a database of all of them ever used. The lack of > datestamps allows a MUA to precompute stamps ahead-of-time based on > for addresses in the address book. > > Also, since MUA's may mint arbitrary stamps and bulk mailers may send > a control message requesting the same, bulk emailers do not require > users to implement an exception mechanism. > > > all of the options discussed so far in this thread are documented, or > > improved upon in that paper. > > I ruthlessly simplified Hashcash to suit the limited situation I am > using it for. > > > where you can visually see the leading 33 bits of 0s. > > Nice change. > > Scott _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 16:03:20 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA27597 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:03:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2LLLn006662 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:21:49 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LLLnO06659 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:21:49 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA27591 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:02:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LLH2O06428; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:17:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LLGDO06377 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:16:13 -0500 Received: from smtp.mcn.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27455 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:57:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from [204.189.3.167] (larkam2-39.mcn.org [204.189.3.167]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.mcn.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2LKx07u017278 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:59:17 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: larkam24@mail.mcn.org Message-Id: To: asrg@ietf.org From: matthew richards Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Subject: [Asrg] follow up (to last post) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:58:52 -0800 these are examples, not real urls. the idea is to give email users administrative control over their contact lists just like in any decent instant messaging client. this prevents the possibility of spam while still allowing the formation of potential contacts. main multifunctionmail public portal: http://multifunctionmail.com/ ============================== userx's public account page: http://userx/multifunctionmail.com/ ============================== contact1's private sub page in blog/chat log format: http://userx/contact1/multifunctionmail.com/ contact2's private sub page in blog/chat log format: http://userx/contact2/multifunctionmail.com/ contact3's private sub page in blog/chat log format: http://userx/contact3/multifunctionmail.com/ ============================== userx's inbox: ------------------------------ test message a (from contact1) (linked via http://userx/contact1/multifunctionmail.com/) test message b (from contact2) (linked via http://userx/contact2/multifunctionmail.com/) test message c (from contact3) (linked via http://userx/contact3/multifunctionmail.com/) ============================== userx's contact control panel: ------------------------------ contact1 (options: add or remove) contact2 (options: add or remove) contact3 (options: add or remove) for contact1 to create a sub account and be added to userx's contact list requires them to first visit http://userx/multifunctionmail.com/ and fill out a strict submit request form. this request is then reviewed by userx, either allowed, disallowed or ignored. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 16:11:19 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA27703 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:11:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2LLTmu06975 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:29:48 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LLTmO06972 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:29:48 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA27674 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:10:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LLN4O06732; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:23:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LLMkO06718 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:22:46 -0500 Received: from cs.rice.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA27615 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:03:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with SMTP id 2269E4AA9D; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:06:01 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D79B64AA97; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:06:00 -0600 (CST) Received: from cs.rice.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (cs.rice.edu [127.0.0.1:10024]) (amavisd-new) with ESMTP id 24310-08; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:05:58 -0600 (CST) Received: from inky (bert.cs.rice.edu [128.42.3.146]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 918514AA24; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:05:58 -0600 (CST) Received: by inky (Postfix, from userid 14314) id 5F9FBF3628; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:05:28 -0600 (CST) To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Cc: asrg@ietf.org References: <200303211221.h2LCLWrH013650@pindari.platypuspartners.com> <20030321194608.A5619380@exeter.ac.uk> <200303212037.h2LKbdv5016004@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> From: Scott A Crosby Organization: Rice University In-Reply-To: <200303212037.h2LKbdv5016004@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: Lines: 46 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Scanned: by amavis-20021227p2 X-DCC--Metrics: cs.rice.edu 1067; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 Subject: [Asrg] Re: "HashStamp" == hashcash? (Re: Stamping) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 21 Mar 2003 15:05:28 -0600 On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:37:38 -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu writes: > On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:28:31 CST, Scott A Crosby said: > > > Thus, I can afford to make the hashcash stamps incredibly expensive, > > on the order of tens of minutes, because few messages ever use them. > .. > > Also, since MUA's may mint arbitrary stamps and bulk mailers may send > > a control message requesting the same, bulk emailers do not require > > users to implement an exception mechanism. > > "Hi.. I'm a bulk mailer. Cound you send me 5 or 10 stamps?" > "Hi.. I'm some other bulk mailer. Could you send me 5 or 10 stamps?" > > Lather, rinse, repeat. DOS. ;) Yup. I didn't want to make it any longer, so I elided out some of the policy and UI issues. And stamped requests should be made for 3 months of average traffic, or about 6,000 for a subscriber to this list. :) > (Yes, it can probably be fixed/rate limited, but you're screwed if you don't > fix that problem....) How about: Hi.. I'm a bulk mailer. Here's stamped request. Could you send me 5 or 10 stamps. So it costs a stamp (10 minutes of CPU, or a the stamp in the subscription request) to send this message. There are a few policy issues that I am not going into now. For instance, there may be a problem with unused stamps publically viewable (mailing list archives, etc), so it might be smart policy to only allow these requests from either recently minted stamps, hashcash stamps, or old stamps that were previously given to that address. If someone accepts a request and decides it was a mistake---one of the stamps was used to send a spam---then the MUA has a 'spam' button. Click it and the MUA forgets that the set of stamps was valid. Users will quickly be trained to be carefull in what they accept. :) Scott _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 16:17:02 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA27859 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:17:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2LLZWJ07348 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:35:32 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LLZWO07345 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:35:32 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA27852 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:16:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LLX4O07190; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:33:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LLWRO07133 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:32:27 -0500 Received: from cs.rice.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA27775 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:13:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with SMTP id 5CC3A4AA8A; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:15:42 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 258C84AA24; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:15:42 -0600 (CST) Received: from cs.rice.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (cs.rice.edu [127.0.0.1:10024]) (amavisd-new) with ESMTP id 25557-03; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:15:40 -0600 (CST) Received: from inky (bert.cs.rice.edu [128.42.3.146]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 328334AA09; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:15:40 -0600 (CST) Received: by inky (Postfix, from userid 14314) id E4CFCF3628; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:15:09 -0600 (CST) To: Kee Hinckley Cc: asrg@ietf.org References: <011301c2efb6$4bea2e40$6401a8c0@damien> <3E7B3F96.3030803@garbagedump.com> From: Scott A Crosby Organization: Rice University In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lines: 28 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Scanned: by amavis-20021227p2 X-DCC--Metrics: cs.rice.edu 1067; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 Subject: [Asrg] Re: Stamping Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 21 Mar 2003 15:15:09 -0600 On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:40:16 -0500, Kee Hinckley writes: > At 12:44 PM -0600 3/21/03, Scott A Crosby wrote: > The proposals I've heard from ISPs is that they want to be able to > charge bulk senders for mail destined for users at the ISP. So if > Microsoft wants to send thousands of non-deliverable Passport messages > (to take an actually example) they are going to have to pay for it. Sure. who wouldn't. I'm sure that Mc.Donalds would like to charge patrons for unreimbursed cost of toilet paper for their patrons. :) I don't want email to go this way, with toll roads between every ISP. If the emails were sent to non-existant addresses, then the ISP isn't being paid by anyone for the traffic, but the can't they just block it? If the emails were sent to customers, then is the ISP not being paid by their customers to deliver them? > No, the email sender incurs a much smaller percentage of the cost. I > can trivially send one message to several hundred people at your site. > I send one. You have to process, store and bounce hundreds of > messages. Never mind the customer support costs. My error. I had forgotten about having multiple addresses in a To or Cc line and the impact of bounce messages. It was true only insofar as the origional message. Scott _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 16:25:59 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA27989 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:25:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2LLiTg08664 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:44:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LLiTO08661 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:44:29 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA27973 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:25:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LLf3O08459; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:41:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LLe4O08404 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:40:04 -0500 Received: from nber13.nber.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA27914 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:21:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from nber13.nber.org (localhost.nber.org [127.0.0.1]) by nber13.nber.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h2LLNIZQ072090 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:23:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by nber13.nber.org (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id h2LLNI6m072089 for asrg@ietf.org.KAV; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:23:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from nber1.nber.org (nber1.nber.org [207.113.108.252]) by nber13.nber.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h2LLNIZR072081; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:23:18 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Feenberg To: asrg@ietf.org cc: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, Chris Lewis Subject: Re: Bounces, was Re: [Asrg] Sender pays vs Forgeries In-Reply-To: <200303211312.38711@grx> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:23:18 -0500 (EST) On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, David Walker wrote: > You may consider that a legitimate use. I do not. > Everyone is so keen on not losing any existing functionality. The existing > functionality is what got us into this problem. > > You would have to make a case that a Listserv requires that scheme to function > properly. There is no reason Listserv cannot give a MAIL FROM address and > process or ignore the error message. From all appearances it is just a cheap > shortcut. You can prevent nearly all bounces by placing a "Precedence: Bulk" header in the mail. This is NOT endorsed by and RFC, but it does work. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 16:29:15 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA28027 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:29:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2LLlkh08770 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:47:46 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LLljO08767 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:47:45 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA28024 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:28:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LLi7O08648; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:44:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LLhuO08591 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:43:56 -0500 Received: from backbone.midwestcs.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA27958 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:24:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from footbone.midwestcs.com ([206.222.212.237] helo=midwestcs.com) by backbone.midwestcs.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18wU2a-0002Qb-00 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:27:04 -0600 To: asrg@ietf.org (IRTF Anti-Spam Research Group) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Stamping References: <011301c2efb6$4bea2e40$6401a8c0@damien> <3E7B3F96.3030803@garbagedump.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: wayne In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lines: 24 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanner: exiscan *18wU2a-0002Qb-00*4Uqw9IGl35.* () Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 21 Mar 2003 15:27:00 -0600 In Scott A Crosby writes: > On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:07:43 -0500, Kee Hinckley writes: > > > ISPs did (and all ISPs wore white hats), then we wouldn't be sitting > > here. From the white-hat ISP perspective, outbound spam is a bug in > > their security. e-stamps won't fix that. > > Outbound spam is not a bug in security. Outbound spam is like any > other outbound communication. Bits are sent to the internet sourced > from their customers. Though it may be annoying to you, is my ability > to give you a prank phone call a bug in the telephone system? Prank phone calls are illegal. Your ablility to make a single prank call is not a bug in the telephone system. If you had the ablility to make even a dozen prank phone calls per week without being caught, then I would say there is a bug in the telephone systems. -wayne _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 17:25:50 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA29346 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 17:25:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2LMiMI13550 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 17:44:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LMiLO13547 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 17:44:21 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA29334 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 17:25:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LMfFO13459; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 17:41:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LMepO13436 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 17:40:51 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA29293 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 17:21:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2174446; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 17:24:06 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: matthew richards From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] follow up (to last post) Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:18:13 -0500 At 12:58 PM -0800 3/21/03, matthew richards wrote: >these are examples, not real urls. the idea is to give email users I'm sorry. Was this in reference to a post I missed, or is it a new proposal? And if the latter, could you give an abstract instead of just an implementation. About all I'm certain of (I think) is that you are requiring all correspondents to fill out a form on some web server if they want to talk to someone else. How you prevent spammers from automating this, and how you allow automated email from non-spammers I'm not sure. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 17:51:54 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA00117 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 17:51:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2LNARQ15798 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 18:10:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LNAQO15795 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 18:10:26 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA00101 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 17:51:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LN35O14618; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 18:03:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2LN2NO14564 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 18:02:23 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA29856 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 17:43:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2174483; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 17:45:37 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <011301c2efb6$4bea2e40$6401a8c0@damien> <3E7B3F96.3030803@garbagedump.com> To: Scott A Crosby From: Kee Hinckley Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Subject: [Asrg] Re: Stamping Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 17:45:21 -0500 At 3:15 PM -0600 3/21/03, Scott A Crosby wrote: >I don't want email to go this way, with toll roads between every >ISP. If the emails were sent to non-existant addresses, then the ISP >isn't being paid by anyone for the traffic, but the can't they just >block it? If the emails were sent to customers, then is the ISP not >being paid by their customers to deliver them? What do you do when a legit company sends you two hundred copies of a mesage to 190 non-existent addresses, and 10 real ones? You can't block the company. You have to deal with the bounces. And there are no customers paying for those bounces. They left years ago. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 19:25:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA03337 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 19:25:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2M0i5U21900 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 19:44:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2M0i5O21897 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 19:44:05 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA03309 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 19:24:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2M0fMO21800; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 19:41:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2M0edO21752 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 19:40:39 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc01.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA03251 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 19:21:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from video.attbi.com (12-235-20-211.client.attbi.com[12.235.20.211]) by sccrmhc01.attbi.com (sccrmhc01) with SMTP id <2003032200235000100d11ipe>; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 00:23:50 +0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030321162328.048ae690@mail.attbi.com> X-Sender: schear@mail.attbi.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: wayne , asrg@ietf.org (IRTF Anti-Spam Research Group) From: Steve Schear Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Stamping In-Reply-To: References: <011301c2efb6$4bea2e40$6401a8c0@damien> <3E7B3F96.3030803@garbagedump.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:26:07 -0800 At 03:27 PM 3/21/2003 -0600, wayne wrote: >In Scott A Crosby >writes: > > > On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:07:43 -0500, Kee Hinckley > writes: > > > > > ISPs did (and all ISPs wore white hats), then we wouldn't be sitting > > > here. From the white-hat ISP perspective, outbound spam is a bug in > > > their security. e-stamps won't fix that. > > > > Outbound spam is not a bug in security. Outbound spam is like any > > other outbound communication. Bits are sent to the internet sourced > > from their customers. Though it may be annoying to you, is my ability > > to give you a prank phone call a bug in the telephone system? > >Prank phone calls are illegal. Your ablility to make a single prank >call is not a bug in the telephone system. If you had the ablility to >make even a dozen prank phone calls per week without being caught, >then I would say there is a bug in the telephone systems. But anyone can. Just go to random pay phones and make the calls. Of course, the costs associated with this mean that those calls have got to be somewhat important to you. Stamps to the same. If its free it gets abused. If it costs value judgements come into the picture. steve _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 20:12:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA04430 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 20:12:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2M1VJk23993 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 20:31:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2M1VJO23990 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 20:31:19 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA04423 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 20:12:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2M1R9O23830; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 20:27:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2M1PnO23794 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 20:25:49 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA04319 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 20:06:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc01.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53] (may be forged)) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2M16ZMX023410 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 17:06:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 17:08:58 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] My Opinion regarding ietf asrg session (it went badly! ) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 17:08:56 -0800 > I agree that the meeting was.... unbalanced. It would have be en more > appropriate to have a meeting like this at a symposium or conference > attended by management and 'decision makers'. I was pretty irritated that more time was spent on ill informed comments against certificate based authentication alone BEFORE the authentication presentation than was spent on the authentication presentation. We had four people come to the mike with comments about why certificates won't work before they had actually been proposed. Such comments are rarely constructive or usefull. In particular I was very surprised to see people who should know better stating that a straw man system in which email from anyone with a certificate is automatically accepted is 'not going to work'. Well like Homer Simpson would say Duuuhhh!!!! That is not the proposal that has been made on this list but we had four people attacking this straw man at great length. I would hope in particular that people who have been arround PKIX for as many years as Bob Moscowitz would have enough of a clue to realize that I would not suggest anything as stupid as the proposal he argued against. You cannot rely on certificates alone. Once people use certificates on a widespread basis the spam senders are going to attempt to get hold of certificates. This is expected. The first line of defense is to have good authentication procedures. CAs who perform authentication before a certificate is issued are going to provide a higher bar for the spam-senders. As Jon demonstrated spam senders, in particular garbage creators do not want to give a genuine address. Disclosure of interest - I have a commercial interest here since once the spam senders decide they need certificates they are going to start with the CA's whose 'authentication process' consists of an unchecked Web form. A second line of defense is the law, anyone who applies for a certificate on the basis of false information has committed fraud in practially every single jurisdiction where the law means anything. Spam senders are not going to be deterred by certificate cost but they can and will be deterred by the risk of being caught. Obtaining a false instrument for monetary gain is a serious offense. Using a false instrument to obtain computer services (mail delivery) is a very serious offense that the FBI, Special Branch, Interpol etc. treat very seriously. Of course the Nigerian scams are pretty sophisticated and it is likely that false businesses will be established that meet the authentication criteria for a certificate to be issued. Note that the cost here is not the amount a certificate might cost but the cost of setting up the front business. If a lot of certificates are required these costs increase dramatically since any cert that can be linked to a spamy cert can also be revoked. The third line of defense is black listing and revocation. To take revocation first, it now works PERIOD. We have the proven capacity to support revocation via OCSP or XKMS at any scale. This is not cost free, that is why the cert cost might well be higher for high, high volume certs. Caching is going to be an absolute MUST here. The CA has to reserve the right to only provide a limited number of responses for the same cert within the given validity period 10 lookups a day good, 10,000 an hour and you get blocked). It may not be possible to revoke a spammy cert however as the criteria for revocation are quite strict - as strict as the original authentication criteria. This is where blacklisting and more likely greylisting comes in. A mechanism is required to report that a certificate is considered 30% spammy. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 20:12:57 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA04444 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 20:12:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2M1VXr24017 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 20:31:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2M1VWO24014 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 20:31:32 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA04427 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 20:12:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2M1QhO23812; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 20:26:43 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2M1PmO23790 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 20:25:48 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA04317 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 20:06:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc02.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2M18sqd004134; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 17:08:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 17:08:54 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: Marshall Rose , Frank de Lange Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] My Opinion regarding ietf asrg session (it went badly! ) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 17:08:52 -0800 I think we should have a moratorium on discussion of requirements and how bad the problem is. Yes I am completely serious. There is no point in measurement without knowing which theory you want to test. Particularly when there is no actual measurement, only anecdotes. I don't see any point in people shooting down proposals on the basis of anecdotal evidence. I believe we should present high level architectural solutions, stating the part of the spam problem we intend to solve and the parts that we do not intend to solve and any operational or deployment constraints involved. In particular I am intersted in the cost of deployment, the point at which the proposal provides value to the party expected to deploy and any preconditions for obtaining value. I believe that there should be a moratorium on useless comments such as 'that will never work' or 'that will fail' unless accompanied by a solution within the specific architectural approach concerned. So simply saying flat out that reverse DNS does not work is unhelpful, saying that you get the desired effect in an equivalent manner by working through the forward track is helpful. Instead of saying 'no headers are forged so authentication is useless' put the question, what proportion of headers are forged? which then becomes an issue that we ask the measurement people to address. By an architectural proposal I suggest that something much more than 'lets introduce sender charges' but not necessarily the bits on the wire. So proposing to propose a scheme for sender charges someone should describe all the components involved, including the infrastructure required to aggregate payments and transfer settlements and a security proof to demonstrate the system was proof against fraud. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 20:22:57 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA04609 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 20:22:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2M1fYK25109 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 20:41:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2M1fYO25106 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 20:41:34 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA04606 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 20:22:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2M1d3O25042; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 20:39:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2M1c2O25003 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 20:38:02 -0500 Received: from new.agentzero.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA04561 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 20:18:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.123.193] (h0050e4251179.ne.client2.attbi.com [66.30.24.79]) by new.agentzero.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2M1KLlD014202; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 20:20:22 -0500 Message-Id: <200303220120.h2M1KLlD014202@new.agentzero.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , asrg@ietf.org From: Jim Youll Subject: RE: [Asrg] My Opinion regarding ietf asrg session (it went badly! ) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 20:21:04 -0500 I believe it is possible to formulate solid arguments regarding why an approach will *or will not* work, without trying it first. That there's been a shortage of solid arguments doesn't change this. At 17:08 -0800 3/21/03, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > > I agree that the meeting was.... unbalanced. It would have be en more >> appropriate to have a meeting like this at a symposium or conference >> attended by management and 'decision makers'. > >I was pretty irritated that more time was spent on ill informed comments >against certificate based authentication alone BEFORE the authentication >presentation than was spent on the authentication presentation. > >We had four people come to the mike with comments about why certificates >won't work before they had actually been proposed. > >Such comments are rarely constructive or usefull. In particular I was very >surprised to see people who should know better stating that a straw man >system in which email from anyone with a certificate is automatically >accepted is 'not going to work'. Well like Homer Simpson would say >Duuuhhh!!!! > >That is not the proposal that has been made on this list but we had four >people attacking this straw man at great length. I would hope in particular >that people who have been arround PKIX for as many years as Bob Moscowitz >would have enough of a clue to realize that I would not suggest anything as >stupid as the proposal he argued against. > > >You cannot rely on certificates alone. Once people use certificates on a >widespread basis the spam senders are going to attempt to get hold of >certificates. This is expected. > > >The first line of defense is to have good authentication procedures. CAs who >perform authentication before a certificate is issued are going to provide a >higher bar for the spam-senders. As Jon demonstrated spam senders, in >particular garbage creators do not want to give a genuine address. > >Disclosure of interest - I have a commercial interest here since once the >spam senders decide they need certificates they are going to start with the >CA's whose 'authentication process' consists of an unchecked Web form. > >A second line of defense is the law, anyone who applies for a certificate on >the basis of false information has committed fraud in practially every >single jurisdiction where the law means anything. > >Spam senders are not going to be deterred by certificate cost but they can >and will be deterred by the risk of being caught. Obtaining a false >instrument for monetary gain is a serious offense. Using a false instrument >to obtain computer services (mail delivery) is a very serious offense that >the FBI, Special Branch, Interpol etc. treat very seriously. > >Of course the Nigerian scams are pretty sophisticated and it is likely that >false businesses will be established that meet the authentication criteria >for a certificate to be issued. Note that the cost here is not the amount a >certificate might cost but the cost of setting up the front business. If a >lot of certificates are required these costs increase dramatically since any >cert that can be linked to a spamy cert can also be revoked. > >The third line of defense is black listing and revocation. To take >revocation first, it now works PERIOD. We have the proven capacity to >support revocation via OCSP or XKMS at any scale. This is not cost free, >that is why the cert cost might well be higher for high, high volume certs. >Caching is going to be an absolute MUST here. The CA has to reserve the >right to only provide a limited number of responses for the same cert within >the given validity period 10 lookups a day good, 10,000 an hour and you get >blocked). > >It may not be possible to revoke a spammy cert however as the criteria for >revocation are quite strict - as strict as the original authentication >criteria. This is where blacklisting and more likely greylisting comes in. A >mechanism is required to report that a certificate is considered 30% spammy. > > Phill >_______________________________________________ >Asrg mailing list >Asrg@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 21:23:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA05686 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 21:23:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2M2gBJ28715 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 21:42:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2M2gBO28712 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 21:42:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA05683 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 21:23:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2M2cKO28420; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 21:38:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2M2bWO28364 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 21:37:32 -0500 Received: from fl-webmail02.durocom.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA05512 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 21:18:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from dlampert ([65.35.47.235]) by fl-webmail02.durocom.com with ESMTP id <20030322022041.CZVN17103.fl-webmail02@dlampert>; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 21:20:41 -0500 From: "Dave Lampert" To: "Kee Hinckley" , "matthew richards" Cc: Subject: RE: [Asrg] follow up (to last post) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 21:20:39 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Threads, threads everywhere, and we're trying to weave a tapestry. I believe Matthew's post was threaded back to: [Asrg] try this on for size https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg01634.html which may have sprung as an offshoot from the original thread: [Asrg] Gray list: rating of associates https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg01552.html I like Matthew's extension of the idea where there is a unique address or password or certificate or whatever for every sender/receiver combination, and the receiver is ultimately the one who may choose to break that connection or downplay it as a connection containing unimportant babble. Dave -----Original Message----- From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Kee Hinckley Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 4:18 PM To: matthew richards Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] follow up (to last post) At 12:58 PM -0800 3/21/03, matthew richards wrote: >these are examples, not real urls. the idea is to give email users I'm sorry. Was this in reference to a post I missed, or is it a new proposal? And if the latter, could you give an abstract instead of just an implementation. About all I'm certain of (I think) is that you are requiring all correspondents to fill out a form on some web server if they want to talk to someone else. How you prevent spammers from automating this, and how you allow automated email from non-spammers I'm not sure. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 22:26:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA06430 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 22:26:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2M3jDa32188 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 22:45:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2M3jDO32185 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 22:45:13 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA06427 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 22:26:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2M3dLO31809; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 22:39:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2M3cTO31770 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 22:38:29 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA06336 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 22:19:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2M3LLap020758 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 20:21:21 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303220321.h2M3LLap020758@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Answers to the questions on PKI etc Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 20:21:21 -0700 (MST) > To: asrg@ietf.org > ... > The other point is that authentication is only one half of access control. > The other half is authorization. You are not obligated to accept a message > just because it is signed or otherwise authenticated. > > However a simple algorithm for choosing the parties I would whitelist would > be to take the F500 companies, the Internet 500 companies, the edu domains, > the major ISPs who implement rate filtering, etc. > > All the rest of the mail would go through very tight filtering and I would > accept a very high level of false positives on the residual. > > > If someone really wants to contact me they can go to a hosted mail provider > that implements rate limiting and send a contact ping. That's another way of saying that serious (e.g. crypto) authentication has little to do with spam solutions. Little spam is forged from the F500 etc., so you can get most of the effects of using serious authentication by whitelisting those domains with (an equivalent of) sendmail access_DB entries (i.e. toy authentication) and then requiring contact pings and so forth. This avoids holding your correspondent's hands while they figure out certs, CAs, PGP key rings, or whatever you pick for authentication. (Note that I said "relatively little spam is forged from the F500 etc.," but not "no spam".) Of course, the trouble with this is that white-listing is not a solution for spam except for people who don't have or need not have a spam problem, because they do not want to receive mail from strangers. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 21 23:27:15 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA07036 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 23:27:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2M4js003007 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 23:45:54 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2M4jsO03004 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 23:45:54 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA07031 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 23:26:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2M4a7O02049; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 23:36:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2M4ZnO02030 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 23:35:49 -0500 Received: from jaguar.icir.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA06923 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 23:16:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from jaguar.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jaguar.icir.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h2M4ItQa099800 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 20:18:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from vern@jaguar.icir.org) Message-Id: <200303220418.h2M4ItQa099800@jaguar.icir.org> To: asrg@ietf.org In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 20 Mar 2003 21:04:01 EST. From: Vern Paxson Subject: [Asrg] Re: My Opinion regarding ietf asrg session (it went badly!) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 20:18:55 -0800 As Marshall notes, a number of the points raised on this thread arise from equating IETF practices with IRTF practices, whereas these are in fact quite distinct. > Also it can be noted that AT&T presented technology on which > they have some patents and IETF has very clear guidelines that this is > dscoraged to say the least and group chairs should when two solutions > exist (one patented, one not) always choose non-patented solution First, this overstates the IETF policy. It is not "always" choose, it is to preferentially choose, but the WG can decide otherwise. Second, as I mentioned in the plenary, the IRTF does not have an expressed IPR policy, though it appears one needs to be developed. I picture such a policy requiring that, for any technology discussed within RGs that has related IPR, that the presence of the possible IPR be disclosed; but not beyond that. The AT&T presentation would be in compliance with such a policy. > Also have to be noted that most presentations on the live meeting were by > persons who did not try to participate at the mailing list and are completely > unknown to us and this is also against general policies for IETF and IRTF The IRTF does not have policies in this regard. > In short, like I said in previous email - the presentations were all > opinions of particular organizations and all commercial (even spamcon is > really what I call "commercial" non-profit foundation, as apposed to say > CAUSE) and were not individual submission as is supposed to be done at > IETF and IRTF. The IRTF does not have policies in this regard. > I do hope chair takes my comments seriously! I imagine that stepping back from them and phrasing them with a bit less sharp of a tone would help in this regard. Vern (IRTF chair) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 22 00:43:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA08192 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 00:43:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2M62an06664 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 01:02:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2M62aO06661 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 01:02:36 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA08186 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 00:43:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2M602O06588; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 01:00:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2M5xBO06551 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 00:59:11 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA08150 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 00:39:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2M5gFWi006525 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 22:42:15 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303220542.h2M5gFWi006525@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Blacklist metrics FYI References: <20030320210348.GA13930@earth.tc.umn.edu> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 22:42:15 -0700 (MST) > From: Steven F Siirila > We use DSBL and NJABL to find open relays/proxies (yes, NJABL now tests > for open proxies as of recently). Both have been very effective for us. > > We also use SBL to find known spammers and find it is very effective. The SBL is very different from some other DNS blacklists that send unsolicited and unprovoked bulk email to innocent, virolently anti-spam outifts in the name of various sorts of testing. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 22 00:48:19 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA08253 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 00:48:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2M670f06804 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 01:07:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2M670O06801 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 01:07:00 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA08250 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 00:47:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2M5uMO06500; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 00:56:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2M5t4O06439 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 00:55:04 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA08018 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 00:35:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2M5c79a005750 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 22:38:07 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303220538.h2M5c79a005750@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: Bounces, was Re: [Asrg] Sender pays vs Forgeries References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 22:38:07 -0700 (MST) > From: Tony Finch > ... > I expect to see a lot more junk email from <> and therefore a lot more > systems rejecting all bounces. I haven't seen much talk about maintaining > the reliablility of Internet email in the face of this kind of attack. Why, other than the fact that the conclusion requires that assumption? 4 or 5 years ago, there was more spam from <> than there is now. Any prediction of more spam from <> in the future needs to account for the reduction since then. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 22 01:04:55 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA08511 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 01:04:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2M6Nah08154 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 01:23:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2M6NaO08151 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 01:23:36 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA08500 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 01:04:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2M6J6O07836; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 01:19:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2M6IUO07818 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 01:18:30 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA08382 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 00:59:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2M61TU6008233 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 23:01:29 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303220601.h2M61TU6008233@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] My Opinion regarding ietf asrg session (it went badly!) References: <20030320174704.41e4fdf0.mrose+internet.irtf.asrg@dbc.mtview.ca.us> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 23:01:29 -0700 (MST) > From: Marshall Rose > ... > although it is unlikely that the instigators of this research group had > this intent, no one should be surprised by today's meltdown. let's face > it, an open mailing list that averages 90 messages/day does not mix with > a group trying to do research. neither does press participation. > ... Or marketing or management participation. How can anyone honestly expect research to appear in a group that was created a matter of weeks before? What would anyone expect in the circumstances but general talk about how bad spam is and a pep ralley for the need to work on the problem? At the risk of violating IETF canons, I must observe that some of the strongest condemnations in the list of whatever happened at the meeting came from people who have made the some of the less well founded contributions to the mailing list. From here I can't tell what happened, but I wonder if sour grape sentiments from some people about their favorite solutions not being adopted by acclamation colored other people's perceptions and so reports of the meeting. For that matter, unless I'n confused, I thnk some of the strongest complaints about the meeting came from people associated with spam solutions that have web pages more than 6 months old but (as far as I can tell) nothing more than talk about how they're obviously the one true fix. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 22 04:18:00 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA22641 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 04:18:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2M9aiQ28303 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 04:36:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2M9aiO28300 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 04:36:44 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA22635 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 04:17:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2M9UPO28182; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 04:30:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2M9TJO28157 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 04:29:19 -0500 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA22559 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 04:10:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 18wf36-0002hh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 09:12:20 +0000 In-Reply-To: <018001c2efd6$5b2b4f40$66e237c0@rmf19> Subject: Re: [Asrg] ISPs To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.4.12] Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 09:12:20 +0000 > We need to distinguish between the access provider (IAP) which provide > bit (or packet) transport and the ISP which providers services outside > the network. Most people buy both services from the same company and > there is no wall between the two in that the ISP is tempted to help the > IAP part of the business reduce traffic. But that's no different than > buying a newspaper which chooses and positions stories to maximize the > advertising revenue. > That is a distinction that can be made. But unless it's clear and universal it's problematic. Do you consider IP as being the responsibility of your IAP? For instance - if a IAP is help responsible for traffic originating at one of their IPs then they'll have a strong incentive to control other higher level protocols. > > > > Like many, I only want an IAP and not an ISP. This discussion should > make a distinction between basic protocols and services that an ISP can > provide. It shouldn't presume that the purpose of the ISP is to make the > IAP more profitable by reducing the traffic. > > > > > > > > Bob Frankston > > rmf19@bobf.frankston.com > > > > > -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 22 04:30:24 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA22850 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 04:30:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2M9n8F29728 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 04:49:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2M9n8O29725 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 04:49:08 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA22831 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 04:29:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2M9e2O29191; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 04:40:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2M9YhO28262 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 04:34:43 -0500 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA22628 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 04:15:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 18wf8J-0003Bt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 09:17:43 +0000 Subject: Re: [Asrg] ISPs (correction - sorry) To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--------=_ConnectMail.3.4.12.argon" MIME-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: "Jon Kyme" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.4.12] Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 09:17:43 +0000 This is a MIME-encapsulated message. ----------=_ConnectMail.3.4.12.argon Content-Type: text/plain; charset = "us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Due to incompetence I sent different messages to the list and to Bob. This is what they both should have said: > We need to distinguish between the access provider (IAP) which provide > bit (or packet) transport and the ISP which providers services outside > the network. Most people buy both services from the same company and > there is no wall between the two in that the ISP is tempted to help the > IAP part of the business reduce traffic. But that's no different than > buying a newspaper which chooses and positions stories to maximize the > advertising revenue. > That is a distinction that can be made. But unless it's clear and universal it's problematic. Do you consider IP as being the responsibility of your IAP? If you're talking about "packets" I guess you do. If an IAP is help responsible for traffic originating at one of their IPs (e.g. blacklisting) then they'll have a strong incentive to control other higher level protocols (eg port 25). I'm not sure that this distinction is made widely enough for it to be useful. -- ----------=_ConnectMail.3.4.12.argon Content-Type: text/html; name = unknown_text2.html Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=unknown_text2.html Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

We need to distinguish between the access provider (IAP) which provide bit (or packet) transport and the ISP which providers services outside the network.= Most people buy both services from the same company and there is no wall between= the two in that the ISP is tempted to help the IAP part of the business reduce traffic. But that’s no different than buying a newspaper which choose= s and positions stories to maximize the advertising revenue.

 

Like many, I only want an IAP and not an ISP. This discussion should make a distinctio= n between basic protocols and services that an ISP can provide. It shouldn’t presume that the purpose of the ISP is to make the IAP more profitable by reducing the traffic.

 

 

Bob Frankston<= /span>

rmf19@bobf.frankston.com

 

=00 ----------=_ConnectMail.3.4.12.argon Content-Type: text/plain; charset = "us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -- ----------=_ConnectMail.3.4.12.argon-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 22 09:48:25 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA26648 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 09:48:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2MF7Ii13108 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 10:07:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2MF7IO13105 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 10:07:18 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA26639 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 09:47:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2MF4OO12442; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 10:04:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2MF32O12403 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 10:03:02 -0500 Received: from cs.rice.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA26561 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 09:43:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with SMTP id 69F9F4A9E7; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 08:45:56 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F7E74A9E0; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 08:45:56 -0600 (CST) Received: from cs.rice.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (cs.rice.edu [127.0.0.1:10024]) (amavisd-new) with ESMTP id 04598-09; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 08:45:54 -0600 (CST) Received: from inky (bert.cs.rice.edu [128.42.3.146]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AA234A9EC; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 08:45:49 -0600 (CST) Received: by inky (Postfix, from userid 14314) id 26E6BF3628; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 08:45:14 -0600 (CST) To: Adam Back Cc: asrg@ietf.org References: <200303211221.h2LCLWrH013650@pindari.platypuspartners.com> <20030321194608.A5619380@exeter.ac.uk> <20030321205515.A5115486@exeter.ac.uk> From: Scott A Crosby Organization: Rice University In-Reply-To: <20030321205515.A5115486@exeter.ac.uk> Message-ID: Lines: 111 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Scanned: by amavis-20021227p2 X-DCC--Metrics: cs.rice.edu 1067; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 Subject: [Asrg] Re: "HashStamp" == hashcash? (Re: Stamping) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 22 Mar 2003 08:45:13 -0600 On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 20:55:15 +0000, Adam Back writes: > On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 02:28:31PM -0600, Scott A Crosby wrote: > > On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 19:46:08 +0000, Adam Back writes: > > > > > The Stamps discussion seems to be reinventing hashcash (are some not > > > aware of hashcash, or is there some aspect of the Stamps discussion > > > different from hashcash in some way I am not seeing?) > > > > Yes, it is strongly inspired by HashCash, but it is different. The > > differences is that HashCash is only used for initial communication. > > This is an optimization also proposed for hashcash when one gets down See below, but I believe that this is a necessity, not an optimization; for hashcash to be expensive enough that spammers cannot afford to burn the cycles, email hosts cannot afford to burn the cycles, and legitimate end-users will go bonkers from 10-120 minute latencies. > to "so how would you deploy this" question. See for example the I think what is needed is to pragmatically answer the deployment questions. IE, rather than offer possible design choices/ideas for deployment, bite the bullet and choose the best set of design choices and document them. > CAMRAM architecture: > > http://www.camram.org > How does CAMRAM deal with mailing lists. Are you using the signature stamp, but won't that force a mailing list programs to incur relatively expensive public key operations. Or are 'expensive public key operations' not really considered that expensive anymore? Doing some benchmarking, I find that my P2-450 can sign&verify about 50 messages/second. What is a 'high' email load for a P2-450 running a high-volume mailing list? Is it under 10 messages/second? > > In particular I proposed such a token would be a MAC computed using a > secret key held by the user. Then he could verify it without storage, > based just on the sender address and the token. Having expiry could I think that using the sender's email address in any token is a design mistake. The sender's address is forgable, so the security gained over a plain token is relatively small. If 'they' can find the token, they can probably find out the from address to forge. Second, many people have systems that depend upon forgery in order to direct incoming email where they wish. I also am reluctant to use signatures on emails because emails get massaged and altered between my client and your client. From robots that add on disclaimer notices, to antivirus software to spam/bulk classification software to mailing list software, messages are constantly altered. How does one figure out what is and isn't safe to MAC? I've had a pet theory that email signatures might finally work if we redid the email spec such that a message (headers and body) was actually implemented as a versioned archive like RCS. That way, I could sign the first version, and each host along the email chain would make any modifications and check in a new version. > be optional feature, but there is limited need given the storage-less > aspect. Tokens could be revoked by putting them in a recipient local > black-list. > > CAMRAM settled on using signatures for the tokens in place of a > MAC-based token but it's effectively the same idea I think. > I think so too, the major differences are that the token is a lot larger and a lot more expensive to verify. I do not know if these considerations are relevant in practice anymore. > An additional idea previously proposed was that reducing the use of > hashcash tokens to first unsolicited email could perhaps be used > instead of increasing practical hashcash cost, could be used to deploy > hashcash token creation into the senders sending mail hub. This would > then remove the need for a hashcash aware client. The downside is it > increases sending MTA load, but the deployment problem is easier for > MTAs than for clients. It depends upon the hashcash token minting cost. I'm envisioning 10 ghz*minutes or so, where I don't think this is practical. If the minting cost is on the order of 1*ghz second, I don't think its hashcash will alter anything at all. A shiny new 3ghz system amortized at $1000/year over 3 years amortizes to $3/day, and is good for 300,000 ghz seconds/day. At a 1ghz*second of minting cost, the amortized cost per message is 100,000/$1. The spamvertizing costs are $100 buys a million? Thats $.0001/message, or ten times the costs to the spammer from minting. Even a minting cost of 60 ghz*seconds would only increase the cost to $600/million. Worse, Moore's law will eat into these costs by a factor of 8 over the next 5 years. Thus, I think we'd need on the order of *AT LEAST* 10 ghz*minutes of hashcash to make spamming unaffordable, and perhaps 100 ghz minutes 5 years down the line. IMO, would 10 ghz*minutes of CPU to mint just one stamp makes it impractical to expect a mail gateway to mint hashcash style stamps? You know what the quote goes? ''A protocol is not done when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing more to take away'' Well, I'm taking it to heart when I ruthlessly simplify your system. :) Scott _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 22 11:07:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA28866 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 11:07:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2MGQYp18701 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 11:26:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2MGQYO18698 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 11:26:34 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA28843 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 11:07:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2MGMJO18562; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 11:22:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2MGL1O18464 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 11:21:01 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA28811 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 11:01:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2MG3mSG018519 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 09:03:48 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303221603.h2MG3mSG018519@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Stamping References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 09:03:48 -0700 (MST) > > Outbound spam is not a bug in security. Outbound spam is like any > > other outbound communication. Bits are sent to the internet sourced > > from their customers. Though it may be annoying to you, is my ability > > to give you a prank phone call a bug in the telephone system? > > Prank phone calls are illegal. Your ablility to make a single prank > call is not a bug in the telephone system. If you had the ablility to > make even a dozen prank phone calls per week without being caught, > then I would say there is a bug in the telephone systems. That points out a problem with many spam solutions. They assume that ISPs that don't now care to terminate their spaming customers or their resellers that happily resell to spammers (e.g. UUNET) will do soemthing different because someone talks about e-stamps, authentication, or some other techical widget. Spam-friendly ISPs will continule to support spammers. Other ISPs will continue to hunt down and eliminate the monder equivalents of phone phreaks. Spam friendly ISPs will be happy to mint stamps or sign new, spam-for-a-day certs for spammers where they now sell bandwidth or spam-for-a-day throw-away accounts. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 22 12:17:49 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA00193 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 12:17:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2MHaiX22449 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 12:36:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2MHahO22446 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 12:36:43 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA00184 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 12:17:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2MHYKO22384; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 12:34:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2MHXgO22359 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 12:33:42 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA00101 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 12:14:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2176213; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 12:16:33 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <200303211221.h2LCLWrH013650@pindari.platypuspartners.com> <20030321194608.A5619380@exeter.ac.uk> <200303212037.h2LKbdv5016004@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> To: Scott A Crosby From: Kee Hinckley Subject: [Asrg] Re: "HashStamp" == hashcash? (Re: Stamping) Cc: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 11:44:48 -0500 Wait a second. Most of my incoming email comes from mailing lists. And in that case, if I read your proposal correctly, I'd have to provide them with the stamps. Said stamps take 10 minutes each to generate. I currently *average* 1800 incoming messages a week. (I love Eudora's "Statistics" window.) Or in other words. I'm going to need two machines dedicated to generating stamps 24 hours a day just so that I can read my mailing lists. Did I miss something? -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 22 12:43:23 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA00733 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 12:43:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2MI2J424713 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 13:02:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2MI2IO24710 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 13:02:18 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA00721 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 12:42:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2MI06O24586; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 13:00:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2MHxnO24528 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 12:59:49 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA00641 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 12:40:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2176288 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 12:42:40 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: To: asrg@ietf.org From: Kee Hinckley Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Subject: [Asrg] [Slightly OT] - From: authentication Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 12:42:29 -0500 I found it somewhat ironic that this should happen in the midst of these discussions about whether one should authenticate From/Sender/Return-Path or something else. Yesterday I received a forwarded notice from my ISP. It was a legal threat from Universal Studios, accusing me of posting copyrighted material, and threatening to sue my ISP if they didn't make me stop. As the complaint said: >Under the penalty of perjury, the undersigned is authorized to act >on behalf of Universal with respect to this matter and the >information contained in this transmission is accurate. Their evidence? The From: address of a Usenet posting that had "someone@somewhere.com" in it. And when I objected? "We are aware that this is most likely a spoof, so please disregard the notice for this case." Thank goodness I have an ISP with some technical acumen. If that complaint had gone to my Cable ISP they probably would have just shut me down without even telling me. http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/2003/Copyright.Complaint.From.html for the complaint and my response. http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/2003/Re.Universal.Studios.DMC.html for the followups. And please--if you have friends in the press or the U.S. Congress--send them a copy. This kind of negligent behavior should not go unpunished. And yes. I think that domain authentication, even if not perfect, is a good idea. In the meantime, it's clearly time to restart my somewhere.com Usenet cancelbot. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 22 12:44:52 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA00792 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 12:44:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2MI3m824800 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 13:03:48 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2MI3lO24797 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 13:03:47 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA00776 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 12:44:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2MI11O24639; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 13:01:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2MI0xO24605 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 13:00:59 -0500 Received: from cs.rice.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA00675 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 12:41:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with SMTP id 78E144AAFB; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 11:43:50 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BC984AAFE; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 11:43:50 -0600 (CST) Received: from cs.rice.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (cs.rice.edu [127.0.0.1:10024]) (amavisd-new) with ESMTP id 15735-03; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 11:43:48 -0600 (CST) Received: from inky (bert.cs.rice.edu [128.42.3.146]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FD734AAFB; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 11:43:43 -0600 (CST) Received: by inky (Postfix, from userid 14314) id 0CFE3F3628; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 11:43:12 -0600 (CST) To: Kee Hinckley Cc: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, asrg@ietf.org References: <200303211221.h2LCLWrH013650@pindari.platypuspartners.com> <20030321194608.A5619380@exeter.ac.uk> <200303212037.h2LKbdv5016004@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> From: Scott A Crosby Organization: Rice University In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lines: 16 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Scanned: by amavis-20021227p2 X-DCC--Metrics: cs.rice.edu 1067; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 Subject: [Asrg] Re: "HashStamp" == hashcash? (Re: Stamping) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 22 Mar 2003 11:43:12 -0600 On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 11:44:48 -0500, Kee Hinckley writes: > Wait a second. Most of my incoming email comes from mailing > lists. And in that case, if I read your proposal correctly, I'd have > to provide them with the stamps. Said stamps take 10 minutes each to > generate. I currently *average* 1800 incoming messages a week. (I > love Eudora's "Statistics" window.) I have two types of stamps. One type is partial hash collision stamps. The other is just random nonces. When you need some, you just find some random numbers and send them to the mailing list manager, or attached to outgoing messagges. You remember these nonces as valid and 'forget them' as they are used. Storage is say, 3 months worth of nonces outstanding, or about 25000 nonces, 500kb to store. Scott _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 22 13:00:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00968 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 13:00:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2MIJOR26171 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 13:19:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2MIJNO26168 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 13:19:23 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA00945 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 12:59:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2MIE8O26041; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 13:14:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2MIDUO25975 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 13:13:30 -0500 Received: from cs.rice.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA00884 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 12:54:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with SMTP id BB5B64AB02; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 11:56:20 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86F3E4AAFB; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 11:56:20 -0600 (CST) Received: from cs.rice.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (cs.rice.edu [127.0.0.1:10024]) (amavisd-new) with ESMTP id 16424-04; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 11:56:18 -0600 (CST) Received: from inky (bert.cs.rice.edu [128.42.3.146]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 661FE4AA20; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 11:56:18 -0600 (CST) Received: by inky (Postfix, from userid 14314) id 09A5BF3628; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 11:55:47 -0600 (CST) To: Paul Judge Cc: "'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)'" References: From: Scott A Crosby Organization: Rice University In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lines: 18 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Scanned: by amavis-20021227p2 X-DCC--Metrics: cs.rice.edu 1067; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 Subject: [Asrg] Re: Requirements for anti-spam systems-Draft 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 22 Mar 2003 11:55:47 -0600 On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:13:15 -0500, Paul Judge writes: > This is a draft of high-level requirements for anti-spam systems. This list > was started by Keith Moore. This draft incorporates feedback from > Balachander Krishnamurthy, Gary Feldman, Troy Rollo, Damon Sauer, Paul > Judge, and Hadmut Danisch. This had better be a wish list; if a solution must satisfy all of these requirements, I'm packing up and going home. How abouot elaborating these to give actual ranges for the requirements. What is 'minimal overhead'? Is it 10 RSA key computations, or .1 RSA key computations? What objectives are more important than other objectives. Stopping unwanted email, or burning more CPU? Scott _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 22 13:10:04 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01092 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 13:10:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2MIT0k26605 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 13:29:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2MIT0O26602 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 13:29:00 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01086 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 13:09:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2MIR5O26540; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 13:27:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2MIQRO26502 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 13:26:27 -0500 Received: from nycsmtp2out.rdc-nyc.rr.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01046 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 13:07:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from damien (66-108-13-38.nyc.rr.com [66.108.13.38]) by nycsmtp2out.rdc-nyc.rr.com (8.12.1/Road Runner SMTP Server 1.0) with ESMTP id h2MI31gD028147; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 13:03:01 -0500 (EST) From: "Damien Morton" To: "'Kee Hinckley'" , "'Scott A Crosby'" Cc: , Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: "HashStamp" == hashcash? (Re: Stamping) Message-ID: <000601c2f09d$3dd312d0$6401a8c0@damien> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 13:02:44 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I wonder if the problems of mailing lists are sufficient reason not to implement a reasonable spam preventative. I know the members of this list have a valid concern about the needs of mailing lists, but I would suggest that the vast majority of email users do not share those concerns. At any rate, I tend to think that mailing lists are better handled using NNTP. > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Kee Hinckley > Sent: Saturday, 22 March 2003 11:45 > To: Scott A Crosby > Cc: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu; asrg@ietf.org > Subject: [Asrg] Re: "HashStamp" == hashcash? (Re: Stamping) > > > Wait a second. Most of my incoming email comes from mailing lists. > And in that case, if I read your proposal correctly, I'd have to > provide them with the stamps. Said stamps take 10 minutes each to > generate. I currently *average* 1800 incoming messages a week. (I > love Eudora's "Statistics" window.) > > Or in other words. I'm going to need two machines dedicated to > generating stamps 24 hours a day just so that I can read my mailing > lists. > > Did I miss something? > -- > Kee Hinckley > http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering > http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology > and Society > > I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so > unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or > that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 22 13:40:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01515 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 13:40:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2MIxff28552 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 13:59:41 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2MIxfO28549 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 13:59:41 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01509 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 13:40:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2MIsEO28373; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 13:54:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2MIr5O28341 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 13:53:05 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01433 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 13:33:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2176371; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 13:35:55 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: Scott A Crosby From: Kee Hinckley Subject: [Asrg] Re: Requirements for anti-spam systems-Draft 1 Cc: Paul Judge , "'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)'" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 13:22:31 -0500 At 11:55 AM -0600 3/22/03, Scott A Crosby wrote: >This had better be a wish list; if a solution must satisfy all of >these requirements, I'm packing up and going home. That's standard practice for a requirements list. First you wish everything you could possibly want. Then you start to compromise. Ditto on architectures. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 22 13:53:00 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01716 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 13:53:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2MJBwJ29756 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 14:11:58 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2MJBwO29753 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 14:11:58 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01709 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 13:52:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2MJ95O29683; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 14:09:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2MJ8jO29656 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 14:08:45 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01677 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 13:49:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2176417; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 13:51:35 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <000601c2f09d$3dd312d0$6401a8c0@damien> References: <000601c2f09d$3dd312d0$6401a8c0@damien> To: "Damien Morton" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: [OffTopic - NNTP] RE: [Asrg] Re: "HashStamp" == hashcash? (Re: Stamping) Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 13:50:29 -0500 At 1:02 PM -0500 3/22/03, Damien Morton wrote: >At any rate, I tend to think that mailing lists are better handled using >NNTP. There are plent of reasons not to use NNTP for mailing lists. Privacy, spam control and member control come immediately to mind. There's also a strong social reason. If you think this list is busy now--imagine if it were a newsgroup and anyone could post, but nobody had to stick and around and deal with the volume. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 22 14:46:02 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA02431 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 14:46:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2MK51131928 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 15:05:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2MK50O31925 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 15:05:00 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA02427 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 14:45:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2MJwLO31746; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 14:58:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2MJvYO31695 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 14:57:34 -0500 Received: from srv1.fecyk.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id OAA02352 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 14:38:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from gordshome (wnpgmb11dc1-res-172-221.mts.net [142.161.172.221]) by srv1.fecyk.ca (SMTPRCV 0.48) with SMTP id ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 13:40:23 -0600 From: "Gordon Fecyk - Home" To: "Anti-Spam Research Group of IETF \(E-mail\)" , "Asrg Auth Senders List \(E-mail\)" Message-ID: <000901c2f0ab$363a75f0$0100a8c0@fecyk.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4920.2300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Update to DS Protocol draft Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 13:42:44 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit As I haven't yet submitted it to the IETF, the version number hasn't changed. The big question I was asked two weeks ago was: "What selfish reason do I have for implementing this protocol?" Well, I've now provided several. I've also added notes on mail forwarding, which is still going to be affected. Mailing lists seem unaffected - every list I'm subscribed to either has "[$LIST]-request@" as the envelope sender or some other envelope sender for tracking delivery failures. Finally I've added a note about RFC 2821 section 7.1. That section says how efforts like mine remove otherwise useful functionality. I've tried to address that. -- PGP key (0x0AFA039E): What's a PGP Key? See GOD BLESS AMER, er, THE INTERNET. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 22 14:55:55 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA02551 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 14:55:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2MKEsV00644 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 15:14:54 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2MKEsO00641 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 15:14:54 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA02532 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 14:55:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2MK82O00399; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 15:08:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2MK7XO00334 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 15:07:33 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA02466 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 14:48:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc01.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53] (may be forged)) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2MJluMX005001; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 11:47:56 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 11:50:19 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Vernon Schryver'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] My Opinion regarding ietf asrg session (it went badly! ) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 11:50:19 -0800 > How can anyone honestly expect research to appear in a group that was > created a matter of weeks before? What would anyone expect in the > circumstances but general talk about how bad spam is and a pep ralley > for the need to work on the problem? The first thing that always happens at a meeting like this is always a lot of completely unfocused discussion from people talking ad-nauseam about the need to avoid unfocused discussion. This happened at jam spam as well. We had lots of people pile in to say lets not talk about any technology and instead steered the discussion towards fluff. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 22 15:08:25 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA03333 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 15:08:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2MKRO801206 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 15:27:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2MKRNO01203 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 15:27:23 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA03279 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 15:07:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2MKO4O01070; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 15:24:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2MKNGO01033 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 15:23:16 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA02771 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 15:03:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2MK5umh016211 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 13:05:56 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303222005.h2MK5umh016211@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] My Opinion regarding ietf asrg session (it went badly! ) References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 13:05:56 -0700 (MST) > From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" > ... > You cannot rely on certificates alone. Once people use certificates on a > widespread basis the spam senders are going to attempt to get hold of > certificates. This is expected. > > The first line of defense is to have good authentication procedures. CAs who > perform authentication before a certificate is issued are going to provide a > higher bar for the spam-senders. As Jon demonstrated spam senders, in > particular garbage creators do not want to give a genuine address. > ... > A second line of defense is the law, anyone who applies for a certificate on > the basis of false information has committed fraud in practially every > single jurisdiction where the law means anything. > ... If that could work, then we would not have a spam problem. Spammers already must identify themselves to reputable ISPs with something that has the relevant features of certificates, including laws against fraud that are sometimes even enforced. Those things are credit card numbers. In reality we have the spectacle of ISPs including Sprint claiming they can't figure out how to deal with credit card fraud even when a single spammer has used hundreds of stolen credit card numbers and is known by name. We also have ISPs advertising "try us for 2 weeks; no credit card required" on central California radio stations yesterday. It makes no sense to expect ISPs to know their customers well enough to issue certs that might reduce spam when they can't be bothered to know their customers today to reject well known spammers. If certs were required to send mail, then we'd have big ISPs distributing CDROMs labelled "4000 free hours" and automatically issuing certs along with user names and passwords. There would be no change from the current situation, except that the commercial CAs would have another revenue stream. Any spam filtering you might do based on certs can be done better and faster on IP addresses, unless you can white-list all of your incoming mail because you don't want mail from strangers. If Ralski &co. could not get new certs as often as required to keep sending, then they also could not get new blocks of IP addreses. We know they've no trouble getting either single dial-up addresses or fair sized blocks, and so simple logic shows that they could get as many certs as they might need. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 22 15:13:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA04017 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 15:13:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2MKWhI01453 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 15:32:43 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2MKWhO01450 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 15:32:43 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA03969 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 15:13:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2MKS1O01264; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 15:28:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2MKRsO01237 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 15:27:54 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA03330 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 15:08:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2176540; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 15:10:43 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: RE: [Asrg] My Opinion regarding ietf asrg session (it went badly! ) Cc: "'Vernon Schryver'" , asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 15:10:24 -0500 At 11:50 AM -0800 3/22/03, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >This happened at jam spam as well. We had lots of people pile in to say >lets not talk about any technology and instead steered the discussion >towards fluff. I've been working under the general assumption (based on the participant lists, primarily) that JamSpam wasn't likely to come up with a technical solution but, if anything, a list of requirements. Any technical solution would be more likely to come from the IETF. And if it matches the JamSpam requirements, then the JamSpam participants become a major part of the force we can apply to get something adopted. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 22 16:17:53 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA05322 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 16:17:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2MLasf05439 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 16:36:54 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2MLasO05436 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 16:36:54 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA05319 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 16:17:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2MLUJO05255; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 16:30:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2MLTMO05142 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 16:29:22 -0500 Received: from co1.dslextreme.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA04915 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 16:09:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from kit (eli-208.187.128.88.dslextreme.com [208.187.128.88]) by co1.dslextreme.com (8.12.8/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h2ML9dvq021410 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 13:09:40 -0800 Message-ID: <000f01c2f0b8$6ba7c140$5880bbd0@kit> From: "Jed Margolin" To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.3000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] If You Don't Fix It, The Politicians Will Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 13:17:14 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I am dismayed at the report that the IETF session was not productive. You should consider the following: 1. The Internet has become an important part of the Civilized World's infrastructure. 2. The Internet is threatened by the increasing volume of spam. 3. If the world's Internet Experts (that's you) cannot figure out how to fix it, the Politicians *will*. And how do you think they will do that, considering that politicians hardly ever pass up an opportunity to control things and bring in more revenue? I expect they will use the Postal Service as a model. Yes, the Sender will pay. While you might be thinking, "OK, I'm willing to pay $0.0001 per email if it will eliminate spam," consider that: 1. The higher cost of snailmail has not stopped snailmail spam (junk mail). [The Post Office makes money from junk mail.] 2. The higher cost of phone service has not stopped phone spammers (Telemarketers). [The phone companies make money from selling telcom services to Telemarketers.] 3. The rates for email will eventually be raised to the levels of snailmail and telephone calls, perhaps higher, because of the value of almost instant delivery. They will justify it by offering premium services (just like the U.S. Postal Service) of secure encryption (except for the backdoor for the 3-letter agencies), certified delivery, delivery confirmation, etc. They could conceivably require that *all* email be routed through their servers in order to maintain proper control. (They'll call it the Electronic Post Office.). In any event, it will require new protocols and new software for everyone wanting to use email. So, if you don't fix the problem, the politicians will. Their solution will cost everyone money, the democratic nature of the Internet will be lost, everyone will have to get new software anyway, and it won't even stop spam. Jed Margolin _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 22 16:29:49 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA05451 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 16:29:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2MLmp406633 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 16:48:51 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2MLmpO06630 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 16:48:51 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA05448 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 16:29:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2MLg6O06409; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 16:42:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2MLf6O06363 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 16:41:06 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id QAA05359 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 16:21:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 20943 invoked from network); 21 Mar 2003 21:20:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.2.100.178?) (10.2.100.178) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 21 Mar 2003 21:20:47 -0000 From: Matt Sergeant X-X-Sender: matt@localhost.localdomain To: "Asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] If You Don't Fix It, The Politicians Will In-Reply-To: <000f01c2f0b8$6ba7c140$5880bbd0@kit> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 21:40:54 +0000 (GMT) On Sat, 22 Mar 2003, Jed Margolin wrote: > I am dismayed at the report that the IETF session was not productive. ... > So, if you don't fix the problem, the politicians will. I'm sorry, but I must have missed your point. Should we now consider our bottoms roundly spanked and cough up a solution? We'll get right on it. Matt. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 22 18:28:27 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA08385 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 18:28:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2MNlUT13945 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 18:47:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2MNlUO13942 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 18:47:30 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA08378 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 18:27:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2MNfUO13756; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 18:41:31 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2MNeJO13735 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 18:40:19 -0500 Received: from smtp.istop.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA08273 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 18:20:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from waltdnes.org (ip215-165.tor.istop.com [66.11.165.215]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 0D9D436931 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 18:22:57 -0500 (EST) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sat, 22 Mar 2003 18:23:33 -0500 From: Walter Dnes To: ASRG list Message-ID: <20030322232333.GA2564@m1800> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Subject: [Asrg] The "Human-Shield" effect; the need for end-user control Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 18:23:33 -0500 Hello; I've reviewed the past few days' traffic, and haven't seen this item mentioned (maybe I overlooked it). ISPs can block the most obnoxious and egregious spammers *ON AN ISP-WIDE BASIS*, and all their customers are happy. However, outfits like Topica and Shagmail, that run unconfirmed lists are a much more difficult problem. The basic reason is that their lists (or their customers' lists) do contain *SOME* willing subscribers. Let's pick an example number of 10%. Let's also assume random distribution. An ISP wants to block their biggest sources of spam. Block 1 source, and 90% of your customers are happier, because they see less spam. 10% lose emails they want. Oops. Block a second spamsource. 81% of your customers are happier (less spam), 19% lose emails they want. Etc, etc. Keep this up, and you will eventually alienate most of your customers on a piecemeal basis. ISPs don't want to risk this, so they don't block any but the most obnoxious spammers. The big mailers and/or their customers know about this "Human Shield" effect. And they probably have a good idea of the actual "pain threshold" at which ISPs will start blocking over this. Because it's 100% identical content, coming from the same IP address, no ISP-wide filtering algorithm can possibly be 100% accurate. So the spammers can get away with diluting their lists, and bump up the head count for advertising purposes quite a bit without being blocked. Blocking countries which effectively mailbomb your customers carries the additional risk of being called racism in today's politically correct climate, in addition to alienating the usual small number of your customers who might have friends/family/business contacts in South Korea, Nigeria, China, and Taiwan. The obvious solution to this is to give end-users the final say on a per-user basis. This is usually done after-the-fact. It has drawbacks which all stem from the fact that the entire email has to be received... - broadband ISPs in Canada surcharge their customers for bandwidth in excess of a monthly quota. I'm not into P2P, so I never get near my quota, however, for anyone who is already at or above their quota, receiving the body of the spam email costs real money. - files have to be stored somewhere. This means more and/or bigger hard drives. The resulting higher costs are ultimately passed on to the consumer. - filtering on DNSbls is difficult, and filtering on the user's choice of DNSbls even more so - filtering on lack of "in-addr.arpa" rDNS, a very good spamsign, is also difficult End-user-control at the SMTP stage is actually possible, but it's a relatively new thing. I'm a customer of a small ISP that runs a modified qmail, which parses a filter configuration file in the user's home directory just after the RCPT: stage of the SMTP transaction. If the filter indicates the email should be rejected, qmail sends a 550 reject before the DATA: stage begins. 43 spams in 10 days from South Korea in Korean character set that I can't read (and my computer can't display) at the beginning of November 2002 is now just a bad memory. Ditto for the sob-stories allegedly from Mrs. Miriam Booga, widow of the late dictator of Nigeria, General Ooga Booga. Thanks to the zz.countries.nerd.dk zone, South Korea, Nigeria, China, and Taiwan have disappeared from my email universe. Blocking the 200.0.0.0/8 CIDR blocks the latest spammer attack route of open proxies and/or willing hosts in South America. The USA has its share of spams coming from it. Between... - Osirusoft which also offers other zones like Spamaus.org's SBL zone - open-proxy zones - dynamic IP zones - a few CIDRs that I've hard-coded in - blocking MTAs with no rDNS ..the torrent of US-originated spam has dropped to a trickle. In addition to me being a happy customer, the ISP has not alienated any of its other customers by blocking email addressed to them. And the ISP would obviously have less liklihood of being hit by frivolous lawsuits like Cyberpromo (Sanford Wallace) demanding that ISP-wide filters be taken down at AOL. There are a few drawbacks... - this will obviously *NOT* work with multi-hop MTAs that have the external-facing machine blindly accept all email and relay it to a second machine that does the final delivery. - spammers are persistent. If you block them at your primary MX, they'll try secondaries. Some spammers try secondary MX *BEFORE* trying the primary. Either the backups are identically configured, or else you have to run with only one MX. - there are questions about scalability when it comes to spawning a process that does multiple DNSbl lookups for each incoming email. This is less of a problem on *nix-based systems, where unnecessary processes can be shut down by sysadmins; even excluded in a custom-compiled kernel if necessary. Windows-based MTAs have overhead from a gratuitous gui and a whole bunch of processes that aren't really necessary on a dedicated MTA. And you can *NOT* modify/re-compile the "Windows kernel". - instead of a sysadmin configuring a potentially complex filter, the average end-user has to configure it. Imagine your Aunt Ethel... - logging in to a shell. - parsing email headers to determine the originating IP address. - running whois to get more info about the spammer. - based on the output from whois, deciding which CIDR to block. - editting the filter config file with vi to implement the block. menu-driven configurators can do basic stuff, but getting the most out of the system requires getting one's hands dirty editing the config file. - since I'm a customer, not an admin, I don't have access to the log files. The ISP emails me a listing of rejects on a monthly basis. -- Walter Dnes An infinite number of monkeys pounding away on keyboards will eventually produce a report showing that Windows is more secure, and has a lower TCO, than linux. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 22 18:52:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA08658 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 18:52:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2N0BKj15304 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 19:11:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2N0BKO15301 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 19:11:20 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA08645 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 18:51:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2N015O14390; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 19:01:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2N00dO14354 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 19:00:39 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA08547 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 18:41:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2MNhHG4009728 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 16:43:17 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303222343.h2MNhHG4009728@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: "HashStamp" == hashcash? (Re: Stamping) References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 16:43:17 -0700 (MST) > From: Scott A Crosby > ... > A shiny new 3ghz system amortized at $1000/year over 3 years amortizes > to $3/day, and is good for 300,000 ghz seconds/day. At a 1ghz*second > of minting cost, the amortized cost per message is 100,000/$1. The > spamvertizing costs are $100 buys a million? Thats $.0001/message, or > ten times the costs to the spammer from minting. Even a minting cost > of 60 ghz*seconds would only increase the cost to $600/million. Worse, > Moore's law will eat into these costs by a factor of 8 over the next 5 > years. > > Thus, I think we'd need on the order of *AT LEAST* 10 ghz*minutes of > hashcash to make spamming unaffordable, and perhaps 100 ghz minutes 5 > years down the line. IMO, would 10 ghz*minutes of CPU to mint just one > stamp makes it impractical to expect a mail gateway to mint hashcash > style stamps? > ... What is the minimumm speed CPU that you will allow to send mail? A 25 MHz 486 is at least 200 and perhaps 500 or 1000 times slower than a 3 GHz P4. A 25 MHz 486 needs several minutes to generate 60 GHz*seconds of hashcash. You might fix the problem for mailing lists by somehow letting one coin work on many copies with some kind of authentication (from crypto to envelope Mail_From) and authorization from whitelisting on. It is unrealistic to hope that users would stand for a mail protocol that limits them 1 one mail message afer several minutes of hard computing. It is insane to expect ISPs to force their customers to get new computers or tolerate such delays. There are reasons why after at least 6 months the hashcash proposals are still only ideas. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 22 19:49:08 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA09408 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 19:49:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2N18D517975 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 20:08:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2N18DO17972 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 20:08:13 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA09401 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 19:48:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2N11OO17060; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 20:01:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2N10YO17023 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 20:00:34 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA09311 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 19:40:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from rmf19 (h00055df0474a.ne.client2.attbi.com[65.96.217.174]) by rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (rwcrmhc53) with SMTP id <20030323004315053005k37le>; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 00:43:15 +0000 From: To: "'Walter Dnes'" , "'ASRG list'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] The "Human-Shield" effect; the need for end-user control Keywords: asrg;filename=20030322-182952-734.mht;x-sender=asrg-admin@ietf.org;List-ID=Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF asrg.ietf.org Message-ID: <002701c2f0d5$30fbe4f0$66e237c0@rmf19> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 In-Reply-To: <20030322232333.GA2564@m1800> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 19:43:12 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit " broadband ISPs in Canada surcharge their customers for bandwidth in excess of a monthly quota". 1 movie at 10 GB is the same as how many spam messages? Given that 100GB will soon be the norm... ... why do people think that spam is equivalent to the end of the world and that we must give up free speech and be complete trackable? The real danger on this list is that it attracts those who want to save us from something and think it is the most important thing. I joined because I believe we can do better with email and that spam is simply a side-effect of simplistic protocols and, for now, I do deal with it on the client side. ISPs may also choose to provide services for their users. But, relax, it's not the end of the world. -----Original Message----- From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Walter Dnes Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2003 18:24 To: ASRG list Subject: [Asrg] The "Human-Shield" effect; the need for end-user control Hello; I've reviewed the past few days' traffic, and haven't seen this item mentioned (maybe I overlooked it). ISPs can block the most obnoxious and egregious spammers *ON AN ISP-WIDE BASIS*, and all their customers are happy. However, outfits like Topica and Shagmail, that run unconfirmed lists are a much more difficult problem. The basic reason is that their lists (or their customers' lists) do contain *SOME* willing subscribers. Let's pick an example number of 10%. Let's also assume random distribution. An ISP wants to block their biggest sources of spam. Block 1 source, and 90% of your customers are happier, because they see less spam. 10% lose emails they want. Oops. Block a second spamsource. 81% of your customers are happier (less spam), 19% lose emails they want. Etc, etc. Keep this up, and you will eventually alienate most of your customers on a piecemeal basis. ISPs don't want to risk this, so they don't block any but the most obnoxious spammers. The big mailers and/or their customers know about this "Human Shield" effect. And they probably have a good idea of the actual "pain threshold" at which ISPs will start blocking over this. Because it's 100% identical content, coming from the same IP address, no ISP-wide filtering algorithm can possibly be 100% accurate. So the spammers can get away with diluting their lists, and bump up the head count for advertising purposes quite a bit without being blocked. Blocking countries which effectively mailbomb your customers carries the additional risk of being called racism in today's politically correct climate, in addition to alienating the usual small number of your customers who might have friends/family/business contacts in South Korea, Nigeria, China, and Taiwan. The obvious solution to this is to give end-users the final say on a per-user basis. This is usually done after-the-fact. It has drawbacks which all stem from the fact that the entire email has to be received... - broadband ISPs in Canada surcharge their customers for bandwidth in excess of a monthly quota. I'm not into P2P, so I never get near my quota, however, for anyone who is already at or above their quota, receiving the body of the spam email costs real money. - files have to be stored somewhere. This means more and/or bigger hard drives. The resulting higher costs are ultimately passed on to the consumer. - filtering on DNSbls is difficult, and filtering on the user's choice of DNSbls even more so - filtering on lack of "in-addr.arpa" rDNS, a very good spamsign, is also difficult End-user-control at the SMTP stage is actually possible, but it's a relatively new thing. I'm a customer of a small ISP that runs a modified qmail, which parses a filter configuration file in the user's home directory just after the RCPT: stage of the SMTP transaction. If the filter indicates the email should be rejected, qmail sends a 550 reject before the DATA: stage begins. 43 spams in 10 days from South Korea in Korean character set that I can't read (and my computer can't display) at the beginning of November 2002 is now just a bad memory. Ditto for the sob-stories allegedly from Mrs. Miriam Booga, widow of the late dictator of Nigeria, General Ooga Booga. Thanks to the zz.countries.nerd.dk zone, South Korea, Nigeria, China, and Taiwan have disappeared from my email universe. Blocking the 200.0.0.0/8 CIDR blocks the latest spammer attack route of open proxies and/or willing hosts in South America. The USA has its share of spams coming from it. Between... - Osirusoft which also offers other zones like Spamaus.org's SBL zone - open-proxy zones - dynamic IP zones - a few CIDRs that I've hard-coded in - blocking MTAs with no rDNS ..the torrent of US-originated spam has dropped to a trickle. In addition to me being a happy customer, the ISP has not alienated any of its other customers by blocking email addressed to them. And the ISP would obviously have less liklihood of being hit by frivolous lawsuits like Cyberpromo (Sanford Wallace) demanding that ISP-wide filters be taken down at AOL. There are a few drawbacks... - this will obviously *NOT* work with multi-hop MTAs that have the external-facing machine blindly accept all email and relay it to a second machine that does the final delivery. - spammers are persistent. If you block them at your primary MX, they'll try secondaries. Some spammers try secondary MX *BEFORE* trying the primary. Either the backups are identically configured, or else you have to run with only one MX. - there are questions about scalability when it comes to spawning a process that does multiple DNSbl lookups for each incoming email. This is less of a problem on *nix-based systems, where unnecessary processes can be shut down by sysadmins; even excluded in a custom-compiled kernel if necessary. Windows-based MTAs have overhead from a gratuitous gui and a whole bunch of processes that aren't really necessary on a dedicated MTA. And you can *NOT* modify/re-compile the "Windows kernel". - instead of a sysadmin configuring a potentially complex filter, the average end-user has to configure it. Imagine your Aunt Ethel... - logging in to a shell. - parsing email headers to determine the originating IP address. - running whois to get more info about the spammer. - based on the output from whois, deciding which CIDR to block. - editting the filter config file with vi to implement the block. menu-driven configurators can do basic stuff, but getting the most out of the system requires getting one's hands dirty editing the config file. - since I'm a customer, not an admin, I don't have access to the log files. The ISP emails me a listing of rejects on a monthly basis. -- Walter Dnes An infinite number of monkeys pounding away on keyboards will eventually produce a report showing that Windows is more secure, and has a lower TCO, than linux. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 22 20:05:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA09598 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 20:05:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2N1Obi18318 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 20:24:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2N1ObO18315 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 20:24:37 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA09592 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 20:05:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2N1G6O18148; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 20:16:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2N1FGO18128 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 20:15:16 -0500 Received: from cs.rice.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA09474 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 19:55:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with SMTP id 95EE44ABC0; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 18:57:58 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5406F4AB34; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 18:57:58 -0600 (CST) Received: from cs.rice.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (cs.rice.edu [127.0.0.1:10024]) (amavisd-new) with ESMTP id 10600-04; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 18:57:56 -0600 (CST) Received: from inky (bert.cs.rice.edu [128.42.3.146]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E3424A9EC; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 18:57:56 -0600 (CST) Received: by inky (Postfix, from userid 14314) id 070E5F3628; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 18:57:25 -0600 (CST) To: Matt Sergeant Cc: asrg@ietf.org References: From: Scott A Crosby Organization: Rice University In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lines: 45 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Scanned: by amavis-20021227p2 X-DCC--Metrics: cs.rice.edu 1066; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 Subject: [Asrg] Re: Sender pays vs Forgeries Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 22 Mar 2003 18:57:25 -0600 On Thu, 20 Mar 2003 17:11:00 +0000, Matt Sergeant writes: > I've not seen any of the "Sender pays" (camram, money or otherwise) or > "Whitelist" people address this issue... > > > Assumptions: > > 1. The vast majority of spam is sent with invalid return addresses (be > they forged or since-closed freemail accounts). > > 2. A large proportion (approaching or in excess of 50%) of all email > is spam. 3. Internet bandwidth is a valuable resource that needs to be conserved. > Conclusions: > > 1. First time contact "bounces", whether to ask for payment, or to ask > for a computation, or to ask for "proof of human", get sent to an > invalid address. > > 2. Someone (most likely your ISP or email provider) has to deal with > the resulting bounce from the receiving domain. > > 3. A sender pays system doubles the number of junk emails traveling > through the internet. This would seem to be unimportant unless it uses assumptions A#3 above, which could be argued to be not exactly accurate. > 4. This can only be solved by somehow solving the problem of falsified > return addresses. I do not see how this follows from C#3, even assuming A#3 above. > > 5. Solve (4) and you're half way there (perhaps all the way there?) to > solving the spam problem, and you don't need sender pays. > > > Anyone in the sender pays camp want to address these points? Scott _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 22 20:09:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA09713 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 20:09:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2N1SXU18487 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 20:28:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2N1SUO18484 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 20:28:30 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA09691 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 20:08:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2N1J2O18206; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 20:19:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2N1I1O18186 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 20:18:01 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA09508 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 19:58:24 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2MN7vbn000456; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 15:07:57 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2MN7v9h000452; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 15:07:57 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: Walter Dnes cc: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] The "Human-Shield" effect; the need for end-user control In-Reply-To: <20030322232333.GA2564@m1800> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 15:07:57 -0800 (PST) I'v thought about all this before. I think it might be worth our time to define standard "mail-filter configuration" protocol. I imagine this being as something that would be located on some central database server and it would have "user configuration" update queries and "mail server check" read-only queries. All inbound mail servers (MX records) for domain would need to be able to interconnect to this database and parse filtering rules that they support. To make it easy for them to know where to connect to, best would be to define new SRV DNS record for mail filtering server, then if backup mx server supports it, it would lookup dns zone, pickup up one of such SRV records (more then one record/servers could exist for backup purposes, but all would have the same configuration, synchronization should be built as additional feature into protocol). For client side they could have special program just for filtering configuration, it could be built into mail client or could be web-based, but all would be able to access same configuraiton database. Also when users moves from one isp to another, he could retain his settings, which is very usefull. Also as far as saying protocol, it would not necessarily be new protocol, but could be based on LDAP with defined scheme. But we would need to evaluate several protocols and create list of requirements like this is being done at CRISP working group working on new whois protocol. What do you think of the above idea? I know there are lot of people on the list that represent anti-spam filtering software solutions, do you think you could work together to create standard for this? On Sat, 22 Mar 2003, Walter Dnes wrote: > Hello; > > I've reviewed the past few days' traffic, and haven't seen this item > mentioned (maybe I overlooked it). ISPs can block the most obnoxious > and egregious spammers *ON AN ISP-WIDE BASIS*, and all their customers > are happy. However, outfits like Topica and Shagmail, that run > unconfirmed lists are a much more difficult problem. The basic reason > is that their lists (or their customers' lists) do contain *SOME* > willing subscribers. Let's pick an example number of 10%. Let's also > assume random distribution. > > An ISP wants to block their biggest sources of spam. Block 1 source, > and 90% of your customers are happier, because they see less spam. 10% > lose emails they want. Oops. Block a second spamsource. 81% of your > customers are happier (less spam), 19% lose emails they want. Etc, etc. > Keep this up, and you will eventually alienate most of your customers on > a piecemeal basis. ISPs don't want to risk this, so they don't block > any but the most obnoxious spammers. The big mailers and/or their > customers know about this "Human Shield" effect. And they probably > have a good idea of the actual "pain threshold" at which ISPs will start > blocking over this. Because it's 100% identical content, coming from > the same IP address, no ISP-wide filtering algorithm can possibly be > 100% accurate. So the spammers can get away with diluting their lists, > and bump up the head count for advertising purposes quite a bit without > being blocked. Blocking countries which effectively mailbomb your > customers carries the additional risk of being called racism in today's > politically correct climate, in addition to alienating the usual small > number of your customers who might have friends/family/business contacts > in South Korea, Nigeria, China, and Taiwan. > > The obvious solution to this is to give end-users the final say on a > per-user basis. This is usually done after-the-fact. It has drawbacks > which all stem from the fact that the entire email has to be received... > > - broadband ISPs in Canada surcharge their customers for bandwidth in > excess of a monthly quota. I'm not into P2P, so I never get near my > quota, however, for anyone who is already at or above their quota, > receiving the body of the spam email costs real money. > > - files have to be stored somewhere. This means more and/or bigger > hard drives. The resulting higher costs are ultimately passed on to > the consumer. > > - filtering on DNSbls is difficult, and filtering on the user's choice > of DNSbls even more so > > - filtering on lack of "in-addr.arpa" rDNS, a very good spamsign, is > also difficult > > End-user-control at the SMTP stage is actually possible, but it's a > relatively new thing. I'm a customer of a small ISP that runs a > modified qmail, which parses a filter configuration file in the user's > home directory just after the RCPT: stage of the SMTP transaction. If > the filter indicates the email should be rejected, qmail sends a 550 > reject before the DATA: stage begins. > > 43 spams in 10 days from South Korea in Korean character set that I > can't read (and my computer can't display) at the beginning of November > 2002 is now just a bad memory. Ditto for the sob-stories allegedly > from Mrs. Miriam Booga, widow of the late dictator of Nigeria, General > Ooga Booga. Thanks to the zz.countries.nerd.dk zone, South Korea, > Nigeria, China, and Taiwan have disappeared from my email universe. > Blocking the 200.0.0.0/8 CIDR blocks the latest spammer attack route of > open proxies and/or willing hosts in South America. > > The USA has its share of spams coming from it. Between... > - Osirusoft which also offers other zones like Spamaus.org's SBL zone > - open-proxy zones > - dynamic IP zones > - a few CIDRs that I've hard-coded in > - blocking MTAs with no rDNS > ..the torrent of US-originated spam has dropped to a trickle. > > In addition to me being a happy customer, the ISP has not alienated > any of its other customers by blocking email addressed to them. And > the ISP would obviously have less liklihood of being hit by frivolous > lawsuits like Cyberpromo (Sanford Wallace) demanding that ISP-wide > filters be taken down at AOL. > > There are a few drawbacks... > - this will obviously *NOT* work with multi-hop MTAs that have the > external-facing machine blindly accept all email and relay it to a > second machine that does the final delivery. > - spammers are persistent. If you block them at your primary MX, > they'll try secondaries. Some spammers try secondary MX *BEFORE* > trying the primary. Either the backups are identically configured, > or else you have to run with only one MX. > - there are questions about scalability when it comes to spawning a > process that does multiple DNSbl lookups for each incoming email. > This is less of a problem on *nix-based systems, where unnecessary > processes can be shut down by sysadmins; even excluded in a > custom-compiled kernel if necessary. Windows-based MTAs have > overhead from a gratuitous gui and a whole bunch of processes that > aren't really necessary on a dedicated MTA. And you can *NOT* > modify/re-compile the "Windows kernel". > - instead of a sysadmin configuring a potentially complex filter, the > average end-user has to configure it. Imagine your Aunt Ethel... > - logging in to a shell. > - parsing email headers to determine the originating IP address. > - running whois to get more info about the spammer. > - based on the output from whois, deciding which CIDR to block. > - editting the filter config file with vi to implement the block. > menu-driven configurators can do basic stuff, but getting the most > out of the system requires getting one's hands dirty editing the > config file. > - since I'm a customer, not an admin, I don't have access to the log > files. The ISP emails me a listing of rejects on a monthly basis. > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 22 20:22:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA09875 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 20:22:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2N1fhm19584 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 20:41:43 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2N1fhO19581 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 20:41:43 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA09869 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 20:22:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2N1Z1O18665; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 20:35:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2N1XPO18623 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 20:33:25 -0500 Received: from penguin.postmodern.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA09791 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 20:13:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from postmodern.com (heathrow.postmodern.com [216.240.39.14]) by penguin.postmodern.com (8.12.8/mcb-20021115-1) with ESMTP id h2N1Iise011718 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 17:18:44 -0800 Subject: Re: [Asrg] If You Don't Fix It, The Politicians Will Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) From: "Michael C. Berch" To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <000f01c2f0b8$6ba7c140$5880bbd0@kit> Message-Id: <048FB616-5CCD-11D7-8AD0-003065F94B0A@postmodern.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 17:16:04 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Saturday, March 22, 2003, at 01:17 PM, Jed Margolin wrote: > I am dismayed at the report that the IETF session was not productive. > > You should consider the following: > > 1. The Internet has become an important part of the Civilized World's > infrastructure. > > 2. The Internet is threatened by the increasing volume of spam. > > 3. If the world's Internet Experts (that's you) cannot figure out how > to fix > it, the Politicians *will*. Not necessarily at all. One of the reasons for the seeming disarray and lack of consensus is that this may not, in fact, be the type of problem that is tractable by bodies like the IETF (and its associated groups like IRTF->ASRG and so forth). Some problems are best solved by creating standards and protocols. Some problems are best solved by the market. Some problems are best solved by a combination of the two, -- Michael C. Berch mcb@postmodern.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 22 20:38:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA10266 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 20:38:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2N1vlp20183 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 20:57:47 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2N1vkO20180 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 20:57:46 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA10261 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 20:38:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2N1m8O19706; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 20:48:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2N1l1O19680 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 20:47:01 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA09904 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 20:27:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (zcard307.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h2N1Te215907 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 20:29:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDFCLD3Q; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 20:29:41 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (acart4va.ca.nortel.com [47.129.10.14]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBGGK6; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 20:29:40 -0500 Message-ID: <3E7D0EC9.2060407@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: Bounces, was Re: [Asrg] Sender pays vs Forgeries References: <200303201508.11078@grx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 20:32:57 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Tony Finch wrote: > (2) prevents you from having more than one manager for a list that > doesn't have automated bounce handling. I think you mean more than one recipient for a list which has no bounce handling whatsoever. We don't want those either. > Neither of these checks prevents spammers. No "check prevents spammers". But they do block a heck of a lot of spam. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 22 20:49:25 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA10470 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 20:49:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2N28Uu21318 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 21:08:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2N28UO21315 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 21:08:30 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA10467 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 20:48:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2N1w2O20208; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 20:58:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2N1vWO20174 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 20:57:32 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc02.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA10258 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 20:37:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from video.attbi.com (12-235-20-211.client.attbi.com[12.235.20.211]) by sccrmhc02.attbi.com (sccrmhc02) with SMTP id <2003032301401300200jbk9ie>; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 01:40:13 +0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030322174029.049f04d0@mail.attbi.com> X-Sender: schear@mail.attbi.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: "Damien Morton" , "'Kee Hinckley'" , "'Scott A Crosby'" From: Steve Schear Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: "HashStamp" == hashcash? (Re: Stamping) Cc: , In-Reply-To: <000601c2f09d$3dd312d0$6401a8c0@damien> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 17:43:17 -0800 At 01:02 PM 3/22/2003 -0500, Damien Morton wrote: >I wonder if the problems of mailing lists are sufficient reason not to >implement a reasonable spam preventative. > >I know the members of this list have a valid concern about the needs of >mailing lists, but I would suggest that the vast majority of email users >do not share those concerns. > >At any rate, I tend to think that mailing lists are better handled using >NNTP. While I think NNTP still has place, the consolidation of Usenet SPs has allowed them to become a future choke point against unpopular or illegal speech (on the Internet everything is illegal all the time somewhere). steve _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 22 20:58:06 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA10608 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 20:58:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2N2HC921517 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 21:17:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2N2HBO21514 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 21:17:12 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA10599 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 20:57:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2N262O20413; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 21:06:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2N25CO20385 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 21:05:12 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc03.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA10410 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 20:45:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from video.attbi.com (12-235-20-211.client.attbi.com[12.235.20.211]) by sccrmhc03.attbi.com (sccrmhc03) with SMTP id <20030323014753003004i664e>; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 01:47:53 +0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030322174344.04924578@mail.attbi.com> X-Sender: schear@mail.attbi.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: Kee Hinckley From: Steve Schear Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Requirements for anti-spam systems-Draft 1 Cc: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 17:50:57 -0800 At 01:22 PM 3/22/2003 -0500, you wrote: >At 11:55 AM -0600 3/22/03, Scott A Crosby wrote: >>This had better be a wish list; if a solution must satisfy all of >>these requirements, I'm packing up and going home. > >That's standard practice for a requirements list. First you wish >everything you could possibly want. Then you start to compromise. Ditto >on architectures. I find that from a practical stand point this may be backwards. First, you set down in writing and get written buy-in from the parties in authority (assuming there are any) what the proposed system/product will NOT DO and once set you don't allow this to change for at least the first release (assuming there are several release possible or planned). Doing otherwise invites constant feature/mission creep. After many years of successful and unsuccessful project developments I've learned to walk away if I can't get this first item resolved. steve _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 22 20:58:24 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA10621 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 20:58:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2N2HUI21535 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 21:17:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2N2HUO21532 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 21:17:30 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA10603 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 20:57:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2N23GO20331; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 21:03:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2N22uO20309 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 21:02:56 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA10337 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 20:43:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2177118; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 20:45:39 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: william@elan.net From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] The "Human-Shield" effect; the need for end-user control Cc: Walter Dnes , ASRG list Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 20:34:54 -0500 At 3:07 PM -0800 3/22/03, william@elan.net wrote: >Also as far as saying protocol, it would not necessarily be new protocol, >but could be based on LDAP with defined scheme. But we would need to >evaluate several protocols and create list of requirements like this is >being done at CRISP working group working on new whois protocol. > >What do you think of the above idea? I know there are lot of people on >the list that represent anti-spam filtering software solutions, do you >think you could work together to create standard for this? There are some issues. Your filter server's capabilities may not be the same as mine, for instance. But in general, the idea of a common mechanism for expressing your filter desires (what countries, what languages, what's the white list, what's the blacklist, what IP's or RBLs...) is a good idea. We have already done some preliminary work in this area with our product. While you could standardize the database<->MTA communication layer, I suspect that's going to be pretty custom from product to product. However it definitely makes sense to have a standard mechanism for getting filter information from the MUA. And (although I shudder to hear myself say so), some type of XML specification would probably make a lot of sense here. It has the flexibility such that you could work with different filter products, but still have a common front-end for the settings. The back-end filter can provide a capability list. The MUA or filter client would let you specify the values--providing custom interfaces for the ones it understood, if necessary, and generic interfaces for the rest. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 22 21:04:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA10768 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 21:04:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2N2Nnd21695 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 21:23:49 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2N2NnO21692 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 21:23:49 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA10745 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 21:04:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2N23NO20347; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 21:03:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2N22vO20313 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 21:02:57 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA10340 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 20:43:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2177116; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 20:45:40 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <002701c2f0d5$30fbe4f0$66e237c0@rmf19> References: <002701c2f0d5$30fbe4f0$66e237c0@rmf19> To: From: Kee Hinckley Subject: RE: [Asrg] The "Human-Shield" effect; the need for end-user control Cc: "'Walter Dnes'" , "'ASRG list'" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 20:44:03 -0500 At 7:43 PM -0500 3/22/03, wrote: >" broadband ISPs in Canada surcharge their customers for bandwidth in >excess of a monthly quota". > >1 movie at 10 GB is the same as how many spam messages? Given that 100GB >will soon be the norm... > >... why do people think that spam is equivalent to the end of the world >and that we must give up free speech and be complete trackable? Because we don't live in a fantasy world where 100GB is the norm. In urban areas, in developed countries, you *might* continue to see the increase in bandwidth that you are talking about. But I know a lot of people who's internet connections in the past 10 years have increased by a stunning 2x. (28.8 to 56). And that's in the U.S.. Please think globally. >But, relax, it's not the end of the world. My daughter has a fifth grade classmate who spends 15-20 minutes during lunch break cleaning the spam out of her in-box--every day. And she's not the only one doing it. Do you think those email accounts are going to be useable by the time they graduate from high school? Nobody is looking to make everyone completely trackable. What we are aiming for is making people *accountable*. I believe it is fully possible to make a system whereby people are accountable for the email they send (by domain, or by email address, or internet connection) without having that email linked (any more than it already is--which is pretty tight, all things considered) to a physical individual. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 22 21:11:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA10898 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 21:11:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2N2UZd21878 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 21:30:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2N2UZO21875 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 21:30:35 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA10874 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 21:10:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2N2E4O21423; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 21:14:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2N2DtO21405 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 21:13:55 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA10522 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 20:54:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from video.attbi.com (12-235-20-211.client.attbi.com[12.235.20.211]) by rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (rwcrmhc51) with SMTP id <20030323015636051003hbu7e>; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 01:56:36 +0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030322175412.049333e8@mail.attbi.com> X-Sender: schear@mail.attbi.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: Vernon Schryver , asrg@ietf.org From: Steve Schear Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: "HashStamp" == hashcash? (Re: Stamping) In-Reply-To: <200303222343.h2MNhHG4009728@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 17:59:41 -0800 At 04:43 PM 3/22/2003 -0700, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > From: Scott A Crosby > > Thus, I think we'd need on the order of *AT LEAST* 10 ghz*minutes of > > hashcash to make spamming unaffordable, and perhaps 100 ghz minutes 5 > > years down the line. IMO, would 10 ghz*minutes of CPU to mint just one > > stamp makes it impractical to expect a mail gateway to mint hashcash > > style stamps? > > ... > >What is the minimumm speed CPU that you will allow to send mail? A >25 MHz 486 is at least 200 and perhaps 500 or 1000 times slower than >a 3 GHz P4. A 25 MHz 486 needs several minutes to generate 60 >GHz*seconds of hashcash. You might fix the problem for mailing lists >by somehow letting one coin work on many copies with some kind of >authentication (from crypto to envelope Mail_From) and authorization >from whitelisting on. It is unrealistic to hope that users would >stand for a mail protocol that limits them 1 one mail message afer >several minutes of hard computing. It is insane to expect ISPs to >force their customers to get new computers or tolerate such delays. You're still, I think foolishly, focused on an ISP-oriented solution. Sender-pays makes them most sense when the client SW is capable, if not singularly empowered, to enforce the payment mechanism at the receiving point. >There are reasons why after at least 6 months the hashcash proposals >are still only ideas. The reason is mostly that there are lots of arm chair generals but fewer competent programmers. steve _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 22 23:10:47 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA12432 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 23:10:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2N4TtE27590 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 23:29:55 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2N4TtO27587 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 23:29:55 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA12407 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 23:10:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2N48UO27216; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 23:08:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2N47SO27186 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 23:07:28 -0500 Received: from srv1.fecyk.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id WAA12077 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 22:47:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from gordshome (wnpgmb11dc1-res-166-235.mts.net [142.161.166.235]) by srv1.fecyk.ca (SMTPRCV 0.48) with SMTP id ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 21:50:07 -0600 From: "Gordon Fecyk - Home" To: Subject: [No Cyber-Nonsense Thanks] RE: [Asrg] This research group will fail Message-ID: <000101c2f0ef$a0fefa70$0100a8c0@fecyk.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4920.2300 In-Reply-To: <20030319173329.GA3058@danisch.de> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 21:52:29 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Spam is a business with growing revenue. The small business > is sending spam. The big business is selling anti-spam-solutions. > Obviously those, who's business is either one of these, try to prevent > a simple and effective solution. > > The situation is similar to the virus/worm threat: Some parties make > huge revenues with selling anti-virus-solutions. It would be their > sudden death if application software and operating systems became > virus proof. Some of the anti-virus-software manufacturers are > suspected to viruses themselves in order to keep their business > alive. Companies in the Anti-Virus industry are so cut-throat that they can't afford to spend valuable research dollars actually *writing* viruses. McAffe got in major deep doo-doo when they tried something like that: Wether McAfee actually wrote a virus or not isn't relevant. The relevance comes from Symantec outright accusing McAfee of doing so. And Symantec isn't any better: As many of the same companies produce anti-spam software, I don't believe they can afford to do anything stupid, like sell, produce, develop or even sponsor spamming in the name of selling more anti-spam software. They would pounce on each other so hard you'd hear it from Tuktaiuktuk, never mind anywhere on the Internet. Besides, I'm not having delusions that we can come up with anti-spam solutions that would eliminate something from these companies. I for one am interested in solving a particular problem. Others are interested in solving other particular problems, and I wish them all good luck. -- PGP key (0x0AFA039E): What's a PGP Key? See GOD BLESS AMER, er, THE INTERNET. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 22 23:36:24 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA12778 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 23:36:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2N4tWP29022 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 23:55:32 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2N4tWO29019 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 23:55:32 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA12775 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 23:35:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2N4a5O27831; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 23:36:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2N4Z4O27805 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 23:35:04 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA12493 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 23:15:24 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2N2Oxbn002495 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 18:24:59 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2N2OxwK002491 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 18:24:59 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] The "Human-Shield" effect; the need for end-user control In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 18:24:59 -0800 (PST) No, I was thinking of of more complex scenario then just standartized xml filter list. While I agree that current spam filters implementations often use different methods for representing and getting rule set, I do not think we're at the point yet that we can not create a standard distribution mechanism and having central database server can often be easy (it may not have to be a requirement, i.e. one can only implement MUA->server filter update mechanism but large company/network with many incoming mail server would really benefit from cental server and if we standard way to represent rules, going futher to distributing them is not really such hard work, many implementations for such distributions already exist, its just a metter of choosing right one) And I was thinking futher along the line of creating standard header lines on what filter has been used (for client MUA to know in standard format) and in order to allow for distributed filtering systems and removing necessity of applying same filter twice. > At 3:07 PM -0800 3/22/03, william@elan.net wrote: > >Also as far as saying protocol, it would not necessarily be new protocol, > >but could be based on LDAP with defined scheme. But we would need to > >evaluate several protocols and create list of requirements like this is > >being done at CRISP working group working on new whois protocol. > > > >What do you think of the above idea? I know there are lot of people on > >the list that represent anti-spam filtering software solutions, do you > >think you could work together to create standard for this? > > There are some issues. Your filter server's capabilities may not be > the same as mine, for instance. But in general, the idea of a common > mechanism for expressing your filter desires (what countries, what > languages, what's the white list, what's the blacklist, what IP's or > RBLs...) is a good idea. We have already done some preliminary work > in this area with our product. > > While you could standardize the database<->MTA communication layer, I > suspect that's going to be pretty custom from product to product. > However it definitely makes sense to have a standard mechanism for > getting filter information from the MUA. And (although I shudder to > hear myself say so), some type of XML specification would probably > make a lot of sense here. It has the flexibility such that you could > work with different filter products, but still have a common > front-end for the settings. The back-end filter can provide a > capability list. The MUA or filter client would let you specify the > values--providing custom interfaces for the ones it understood, if > necessary, and generic interfaces for the rest. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 01:57:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA14829 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 01:57:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2N7Gve13956 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 02:16:57 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2N7GuO13953 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 02:16:56 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA14817 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 01:57:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2N76SO06054; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 02:06:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2N75CO04841 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 02:05:12 -0500 Received: from cs.rice.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA14687 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 01:45:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with SMTP id E233C4AA19; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 00:47:46 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A13C94AAA0; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 00:47:46 -0600 (CST) Received: from cs.rice.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (cs.rice.edu [127.0.0.1:10024]) (amavisd-new) with ESMTP id 24528-10; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 00:47:44 -0600 (CST) Received: from inky (bert.cs.rice.edu [128.42.3.146]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A987F4AA19; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 00:47:44 -0600 (CST) Received: by inky (Postfix, from userid 14314) id 55580F3628; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 00:47:14 -0600 (CST) To: Vernon Schryver Cc: asrg@ietf.org References: <200303222343.h2MNhHG4009728@calcite.rhyolite.com> From: Scott A Crosby Organization: Rice University In-Reply-To: <200303222343.h2MNhHG4009728@calcite.rhyolite.com> Message-ID: Lines: 47 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Scanned: by amavis-20021227p2 X-DCC--Metrics: cs.rice.edu 1067; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 Subject: [Asrg] Re: "HashStamp" == hashcash? (Re: Stamping) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 23 Mar 2003 00:47:14 -0600 On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 16:43:17 -0700 (MST), Vernon Schryver writes: > > From: Scott A Crosby > > > ... > > A shiny new 3ghz system amortized at $1000/year over 3 years amortizes > > to $3/day, and is good for 300,000 ghz seconds/day. At a 1ghz*second > > of minting cost, the amortized cost per message is 100,000/$1. The > > spamvertizing costs are $100 buys a million? Thats $.0001/message, or > > ten times the costs to the spammer from minting. Even a minting cost > > of 60 ghz*seconds would only increase the cost to $600/million. Worse, > > Moore's law will eat into these costs by a factor of 8 over the next 5 > > years. > > > > Thus, I think we'd need on the order of *AT LEAST* 10 ghz*minutes of > > hashcash to make spamming unaffordable, and perhaps 100 ghz minutes 5 > > years down the line. IMO, would 10 ghz*minutes of CPU to mint just one > > stamp makes it impractical to expect a mail gateway to mint hashcash > > style stamps? > > ... > > What is the minimumm speed CPU that you will allow to send mail? A > 25 MHz 486 is at least 200 and perhaps 500 or 1000 times slower than > a 3 GHz P4. A 25 MHz 486 needs several minutes to generate 60 About 7 hours to compute a partial collision stamp. But, if the sender already has a valid stamp (previously sent to them by the recipient), they may use it with no computations. Recipients can compute nonce-stamps at zero cost. Thus the 600ghz*seconds of CPU would only be spent on new senders. In any case, unless the cost is at least 60ghz seconds, and preferably 600ghz seconds, it is insufficient to make spam signifigantly more expensive. > GHz*seconds of hashcash. You might fix the problem for mailing lists > by somehow letting one coin work on many copies with some kind of > authentication (from crypto to envelope Mail_From) and authorization > from whitelisting on. It is unrealistic to hope that users would > stand for a mail protocol that limits them 1 one mail message afer > several minutes of hard computing. It is insane to expect ISPs to > force their customers to get new computers or tolerate such delays. Please reread the proposal, it has none of these properties. Scott _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 03:09:10 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA27374 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 03:09:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2N8SN117737 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 03:28:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2N8SNO17734 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 03:28:23 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA27368 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 03:08:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2N8FMO17413; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 03:15:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2N8EOO17386 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 03:14:24 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA27191 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 02:54:39 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2N64Kbn004716; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 22:04:20 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2N64JHD004712; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 22:04:19 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: Gordon Fecyk - Home cc: "Asrg Auth Senders List (E-mail)" , "Anti-Spam Research Group of IETF (E-mail)" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Update to DS Protocol draft In-Reply-To: <000901c2f0ab$363a75f0$0100a8c0@fecyk.ca> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 22:04:19 -0800 (PST) Some notes on your proposal: I. ASRG can not send documents protocols to IETF for "protocols", they can only be or something that may become "informational" RFC (Note: this is major difference between IRTF and IETF as was explained to me) So your draft would have to go as individual submission especially since asrg is not yet at the point of submitting any kind of documents. II. What you're proposing is just like SRV RMX record. But srv records are more advanced. Your point that DNS does not support it yet is not appropriate - you expect sites to update software to support DS draft but not update their dns software... I means if domain has to put this record in, it might as well update dns software, not that complex and if somebody is going to use the records, they'd have to update mail software, so I do not see problem updating dns software. But really this is not a main issue with the proposal... III. As I already mentioned multiple times before this is typical "RMX/Mail-From" style proposal which has the following problems: 1.You only authenticate MAIL FROM header but if "From:" is forged, that is what user will see on their MUA, not MAIL FROM. 2.Breaks mailing lists (all have to be whitelisted - see: https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/currest/msg00762.html You do have a section in the draft regarding mailing lists. But this section is not correct. Correct would be to say that those usind DS records MUST NOT send email to mailing list UNLESS mailing list has been WHITELISTED ON THE SERVER. There just no other way to deal with mailing lists (not if it supports DS records or not, does not matter). 3.Breaks majority of forwarding configurations. Again you have to whitelist servers that may forward email to your server. Here the situation is little worth, because spammers often put the use the same domains in their from (ok, used to do it 2 years ago, now using free mail services like yahoo or hotmail is more common) 4.Roaming users (like me on IETF conference) can not send email directly and have to authentication with their "home" mail server. Actually this is the list of my problems... I would really prefer to separete SUBMIT and server<->server SMTP and require authentication on SUBMIT. On Sat, 22 Mar 2003, Gordon Fecyk - Home wrote: > > > As I haven't yet submitted it to the IETF, the version number hasn't > changed. > > The big question I was asked two weeks ago was: "What selfish reason do I > have for implementing this protocol?" Well, I've now provided several. > > I've also added notes on mail forwarding, which is still going to be > affected. Mailing lists seem unaffected - every list I'm subscribed to > either has "[$LIST]-request@" as the envelope sender or some other envelope > sender for tracking delivery failures. > > Finally I've added a note about RFC 2821 section 7.1. That section says how > efforts like mine remove otherwise useful functionality. I've tried to > address that. > > -- > PGP key (0x0AFA039E): > What's a PGP Key? See > GOD BLESS AMER, er, THE INTERNET. > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 03:35:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA27637 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 03:35:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2N8ssS18931 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 03:54:54 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2N8srO18928 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 03:54:53 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA27629 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 03:35:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2N8g7O18728; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 03:42:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2N8ffO18711 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 03:41:41 -0500 Received: from mail.asianet.co.th (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA27556 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 03:21:55 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200303230821.DAA27556@ietf.org> Received: from virscan1.asianet.co.th (HELO mx.asianet.co.th) ([203.144.222.197]) (envelope-sender ) by mail1.asianet.co.th (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 23 Mar 2003 15:24:35 +0700 Received: from ppp-203.144.203.40.revip.asianet.co.th (HELO localhost) ([203.144.203.40]) (envelope-sender ) by mx2.asianet.co.th (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 23 Mar 2003 15:14:31 +0700 From: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" To: "ASRG list" Reply-To: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" Priority: Normal X-Mailer: PMMail 1.96a For OS/2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: RE: [Asrg] The "Human-Shield" effect; the need for end-user control Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:24:05 +0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 19:43:12 -0500, asrg@bobf.frankston.com wrote: >... why do people think that spam is equivalent to the end of the world >and that we must give up free speech and be complete trackable? Reality check: it is not the end of the world but it is darn expensive and inconvenient. Spam has nothing to do with free speech. It is behavior, not speech, that is involved. Please, let us keep that in mind in this discussion. Traceability is important to preserving order in a community, because it is a method society has developed to attach consequences to behavior. A system of traceability for the purpose of suppressing antisocial behavior on the internet is completely compatible with a standard menu of protections for free speech and public debate, just as it is in the society at large. There is no conflict here. Jeffrey Race _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 03:57:22 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA27836 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 03:57:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2N9Gbi20518 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 04:16:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2N9GbO20515 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 04:16:37 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA27831 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 03:56:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2N958O19519; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 04:05:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2N94EO19498 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 04:04:14 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA27761 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 03:44:28 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2N6s7bn005216; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 22:54:07 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2N6s7kP005212; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 22:54:07 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: Scott A Crosby cc: Kee Hinckley , , Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: "HashStamp" == hashcash? (Re: Stamping) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 22:54:07 -0800 (PST) I think there maybe problem with proposal in terms of making easy DoS attack on any mailing list server! On 22 Mar 2003, Scott A Crosby wrote: > On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 11:44:48 -0500, Kee Hinckley writes: > > > Wait a second. Most of my incoming email comes from mailing > > lists. And in that case, if I read your proposal correctly, I'd have > > to provide them with the stamps. Said stamps take 10 minutes each to > > generate. I currently *average* 1800 incoming messages a week. (I > > love Eudora's "Statistics" window.) > > I have two types of stamps. One type is partial hash collision > stamps. The other is just random nonces. When you need some, you just > find some random numbers and send them to the mailing list manager, or > attached to outgoing messagges. You remember these nonces as valid > and 'forget them' as they are used. Storage is say, 3 months worth of > nonces outstanding, or about 25000 nonces, 500kb to store. > > Scott > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 04:59:47 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA28494 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 04:59:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2NAJ3e27698 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 05:19:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NAJ3O27695 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 05:19:03 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA28491 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 04:59:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NA9KO27570; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 05:09:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NA8CO27546 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 05:08:12 -0500 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA28346 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 04:48:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 18x27m-0005Gd-00; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 09:50:42 +0000 In-Reply-To: <200303222005.h2MK5umh016211@calcite.rhyolite.com> Subject: Re: RE: [Asrg] My Opinion regarding ietf asrg session (it went badly! ) To: "Vernon Schryver" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.4.12] Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 09:50:42 +0000 > >If certs were required to send mail, then we'd have big ISPs distributing >CDROMs labelled "4000 free hours" and automatically issuing certs >along with user names and passwords. There would be no change from >the current situation, except that the commercial CAs would have >another revenue stream. > If Certs were required to send mail AND were only issued under strict terms and conditions AND revocation for T&C violation was properly managed. Then you'd have a CA that was actually earning its income. I think these certificates would probably cost considerable more than personal certs do now. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 05:23:25 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA28846 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 05:23:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2NAgew28891 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 05:42:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NAgeO28888 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 05:42:40 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA28818 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 05:22:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NAW6O27873; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 05:32:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NAVoO27856 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 05:31:50 -0500 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA28576 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 05:12:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 18x2Ue-0006qn-00; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 10:14:20 +0000 In-Reply-To: <000a01c2f0b4$d4f68360$66e237c0@rmf19> Subject: Re: RE: [Asrg] ISPs To: From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.4.12] Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 10:14:20 +0000 > This is a strong response because the IAP/ISP distinction is fundamental > to understanding the Internet. TCP/IP is a confusing term, it's the > TCP,UDP (et al) layer vs the IP layer. That distinction essentially > defines the Internet. The distinction is universal and clear. > Yes, I read a book once as well. However, let's consider frankston.com I guess that you consider AT&T broadband as your IAP ? and you don't rely on them for other services outside "access". However, you're not an autonomous system - you're leasing one of AT&Ts IPs - you don't have an allocation of your own. I think I'm right(?) Now, many people choose to hold the entity allocated an IP range responsible for abuse originating in that range. This seems perfectly logical to me, given that there's no way to tell from the outside where the division of IAP / ISP responsibilities falls. Accordingly, AT&T seem have a right (based on protecting their assets and good name) as well as a responsibility to the Internet community, to take reasonable steps to ensure that you don't pump out loads of sh*t labelled with one of their IPs. While these positions are widely held, the distinction you make can have little practical application. Of course it's an entirely different situation if you're an AS > > If my IAP dares look inside my packets I will yell and scream about It's probably better just to vote with your feet (or credit card - that's the language they understand). -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 05:35:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA29408 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 05:35:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2NAsXN29221 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 05:54:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NAsWO29218 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 05:54:32 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA29392 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 05:34:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NAh5O28923; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 05:43:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NAgKO28865 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 05:42:20 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id FAA28790 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 05:22:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 3481 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2003 10:21:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.2.100.178?) (10.2.100.178) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 22 Mar 2003 10:21:43 -0000 From: Matt Sergeant X-X-Sender: matt@localhost.localdomain To: Kee Hinckley cc: "william@elan.net" , Walter Dnes , ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] The "Human-Shield" effect; the need for end-user control In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 10:42:01 +0000 (GMT) On Sat, 22 Mar 2003, Kee Hinckley wrote: > At 3:07 PM -0800 3/22/03, william@elan.net wrote: > >Also as far as saying protocol, it would not necessarily be new protocol, > >but could be based on LDAP with defined scheme. But we would need to > >evaluate several protocols and create list of requirements like this is > >being done at CRISP working group working on new whois protocol. > > > >What do you think of the above idea? I know there are lot of people on > >the list that represent anti-spam filtering software solutions, do you > >think you could work together to create standard for this? > > There are some issues. Your filter server's capabilities may not be > the same as mine, for instance. But in general, the idea of a common > mechanism for expressing your filter desires (what countries, what > languages, what's the white list, what's the blacklist, what IP's or > RBLs...) is a good idea. We have already done some preliminary work > in this area with our product. As have the IETF. See SEIVE. Matt. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 06:20:02 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA00055 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 06:20:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2NBdJo31662 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 06:39:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NBdJO31659 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 06:39:19 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA00034 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 06:19:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NBQEO30640; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 06:26:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NBPCO30615 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 06:25:12 -0500 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA29800 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 06:05:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 18x3KG-0002Fl-00; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 11:07:40 +0000 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Asrg] The "Human-Shield" effect; the need for end-user control To: From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.4.12] Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 11:07:40 +0000 > I'v thought about all this before. I think it might be worth our time to > define standard "mail-filter configuration" protocol. I imagine this > being > as something that would be located on some central database server and > it would have "user configuration" update queries and "mail server check" > read-only queries. > Yes, perhaps. There was a (short) thread on "What would consent look like?" started on Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:45:34 +0000 Which might be relevant here. :-) -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 06:42:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA00316 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 06:42:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2NC22X32213 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 07:02:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NC22O32210 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 07:02:02 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA00311 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 06:42:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NBn4O31829; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 06:49:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NBmqO31801 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 06:48:52 -0500 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA00150 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 06:29:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 18x3hA-00042d-00; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 11:31:20 +0000 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Asrg] The "Human-Shield" effect; the need for end-user control To: "Kee Hinckley" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.4.12] Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 11:31:20 +0000 > > There are some issues. Your filter server's capabilities may not be > the same as mine, for instance. But in general, the idea of a common > mechanism for expressing your filter desires (what countries, what > languages, what's the white list, what's the blacklist, what IP's or > RBLs...) is a good idea. We have already done some preliminary work > in this area with our product. > > While you could standardize the database<->MTA communication layer, I > suspect that's going to be pretty custom from product to product. > However it definitely makes sense to have a standard mechanism for > getting filter information from the MUA. And (although I shudder to > hear myself say so), some type of XML specification would probably > make a lot of sense here. It has the flexibility such that you could > work with different filter products, This is why we need some kind of consent-expression framework (which I'm still trying to come up with a rough draft of) I like the idea of (optionally signed) XML (shudder also). Filter Configuration is just Consent Expression turned on it's head - kind of Also needed - a classification of message classification methods, so that the end user can mane (and constrain the employment of) generic or (specific/proprietary) mechanisms. You also need a way if passing parameters - I guess - e.g. probablities/scores I'm interested in this so that I can build in to my webmail system a UI to the filtering system which I can distribute better than the current system which has to dump application specific filter files into the right place in my MTA filesystem (uggh). But obviously more general applications would work. I'd expect consent to be available from a per-domain service such as "consent.merseymail.com" or "merseymail.com:consent" and be cacheable (this requires some TTL field). It's likely such a system would support legislation which requires proof of consent in advance. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 06:48:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA00395 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 06:48:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2NC7n600654 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 07:07:49 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NC7nO00651 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 07:07:49 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA00369 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 06:48:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NBv2O32046; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 06:57:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NBuMO32024 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 06:56:22 -0500 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA00280 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 06:36:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 18x3oP-0004T6-00; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 11:38:49 +0000 In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030322174344.04924578@mail.attbi.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Requirements for anti-spam systems-Draft 1 To: "Steve Schear" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.4.12] Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 11:38:49 +0000 > >That's standard practice for a requirements list. First you wish > >everything you could possibly want. Then you start to compromise. Ditto > >on architectures. > > > I find that from a practical stand point this may be backwards. First, > you > set down in writing and get written buy-in from the parties in authority > (assuming there are any) what the proposed system/product will NOT DO and Doesn't that make for a rather long list? 1. Doesn't fly to moon. 2. Won't make toast 3. Probibited from kicking cat etc.... -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 06:51:06 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA00450 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 06:51:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2NCANi00775 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 07:10:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NCANO00771 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 07:10:23 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA00444 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 06:50:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NC14O32191; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 07:01:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NC0sO32166 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 07:00:54 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA00307 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 06:41:05 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2N9oobn006971; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 01:50:50 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2N9oo4q006967; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 01:50:50 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: Jon Kyme cc: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] The "Human-Shield" effect; the need for end-user control In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 01:50:50 -0800 (PST) Clear Consent is when end-user said he wants to receive email from you (whitelisting of email address or domain). Clear No Consent is when user specifically said he does not want to receive email from you (blacklisting). Specifying of other mail filters are consent by user to use specific technology to filter out email. Anything that does not get stopped by the filter goes into final step which specifyies user's preference - either presumed consent or presumed denial. Denial may also be replaced by request for authorization which maybe request to "buy" or calculate a stamp, go to specific webpage and look at the picture (or hear a sound) and aythorize there, send email to some other address, etc, etc. And when user provided these settings for filtering this is alot better then presumed consent filtering by isp based on its own preferences and its opinion on what consent is. On Sun, 23 Mar 2003, Jon Kyme wrote: > > I'v thought about all this before. I think it might be worth our time to > > define standard "mail-filter configuration" protocol. I imagine this > > being > > as something that would be located on some central database server and > > it would have "user configuration" update queries and "mail server check" > > read-only queries. > > > > > Yes, perhaps. > There was a (short) thread on > "What would consent look like?" > started on > Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:45:34 +0000 > > Which might be relevant here. > :-) > > > > > -- > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 07:04:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA00667 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 07:04:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2NCODC01139 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 07:24:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NCODO01136 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 07:24:13 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA00657 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 07:04:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NCC7O00836; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 07:12:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NCBiO00814 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 07:11:44 -0500 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA00469 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 06:51:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 18x43D-0005XD-00; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 11:54:07 +0000 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Asrg] The "Human-Shield" effect; the need for end-user control To: "Matt Sergeant" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.4.12] Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 11:54:07 +0000 > > the idea of a common > > mechanism for expressing your filter desires (what countries, what > > languages, what's the white list, what's the blacklist, what IP's or > > RBLs...) is a good idea. We have already done some preliminary work > > in this area with our product. > > As have the IETF. See SEIVE. > No. sieve is a filter language. I don't believe it's a general mechanism for configuring disparate "filter engines". -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 07:05:24 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA00694 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 07:05:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2NCOgK01163 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 07:24:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NCOgO01160 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 07:24:42 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA00664 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 07:04:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NCG1O00922; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 07:16:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NCFPO00890 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 07:15:25 -0500 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA00495 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 06:55:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 18x46r-0005pp-00; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 11:57:53 +0000 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Asrg] The "Human-Shield" effect; the need for end-user control To: From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.4.12] Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 11:57:53 +0000 > > And when user provided these settings for filtering this is alot better > then presumed consent filtering by isp based on its own preferences and > its opinion on what consent is. > Yes absolutely, that's why you need a consent expression framework. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 08:31:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA01556 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 08:31:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2NDp4r05173 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 08:51:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NDp4O05170 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 08:51:04 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA01547 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 08:31:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NDeGO04853; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 08:40:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NDdJO04804 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 08:39:19 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id IAA01368 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 08:19:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 14188 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2003 13:18:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.2.100.178?) (10.2.100.178) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 22 Mar 2003 13:18:38 -0000 From: Matt Sergeant X-X-Sender: matt@localhost.localdomain To: Jon Kyme cc: Matt Sergeant , ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] The "Human-Shield" effect; the need for end-user control In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:38:59 +0000 (GMT) On Sun, 23 Mar 2003, Jon Kyme wrote: > > > the idea of a common > > > mechanism for expressing your filter desires (what countries, what > > > languages, what's the white list, what's the blacklist, what IP's or > > > RBLs...) is a good idea. We have already done some preliminary work > > > in this area with our product. > > > > As have the IETF. See SEIVE. > > > > No. sieve is a filter language. I don't believe it's a general mechanism > for configuring disparate > "filter engines". Yes, I realise that, but I was thinking of it as a starting point - it defines a common ground in the filter space, so it may be worth re-using its syntax. Matt. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 09:15:08 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA02227 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 09:15:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2NEYTW06977 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 09:34:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NEYTO06973 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 09:34:29 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA02215 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 09:14:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NEN8O06769; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 09:23:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NEMmO06754 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 09:22:48 -0500 Received: from fl-webmail01.durocom.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA02091 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 09:02:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from dlampert ([65.35.47.235]) by fl-webmail01.durocom.com with ESMTP id <20030323140514.BNEW17104.fl-webmail01@dlampert> for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 09:05:14 -0500 From: "Dave Lampert" To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Eye for an eye: DDoS against spammers Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 09:05:11 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Though I'm not an advocate of "eye for an eye" mentality, it may just work with spammers. For example, a spammer sends out 1 million emails of which only a fraction are received by real and active accounts, read, and either determined to be spam by a content filter (not ideal) or manually designated as spam (unwanted and unsolicited) by the recipient. Let's say 10000 of these spam reportings come back from users. Most spam messages have a call to action to visit a URL or call a phone number. URL DDoS: If, say, 10000 reportings share the same URL (see #3 below), then those users each receive back word (see #4 below) to institute a distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack against the URL they were originally given. Each user hits the site, say, 77777 times so that the site gets over 777 million hits. Phone DDoS: If, say, 10000 reportings share the same phone number, then users in the local area (in the U.S., local calls are free) who have modems institute a DDoS by dialing up the number 77 times and playing an audio message describing why the DDoS is occurring. This number is smaller, since it doesn't take 77777 times per user to cause DDoS on phones. Issues with the idea: 1. Is it legal for this to occur in all or many countries? For example, would it be considered legal harassment for a user to have her computer call a number several times if the number were provided as discussed? 2. How would you stop someone framing someone else? If an unscrupulous company wants to hurt their competitor, they could send out spam on behalf of that competitor, with links or phone numbers back to their competitor. The retribution ratios above (77777x for URL and 77x for phone) should be chosen to compensate for true business that might be earned by the mailing. Therefore, the competitor would both gain and lose equally by the actions of its unscrupulous foe. That's why I prefer user designation of spam rather than content filters, since otherwise spam emails could be crafted to make the competitor lose much more than gain. Also, before doing a phone DDoS, at least a few users should call to verify that the company that answers the phone number actually purveys the spammed goods or services. 3. How do you compare URLs? Obviously, many URLs have path or query-string values that make each unique, and even the subdomain may be generated (i.e. werowobirwub..com). Therefore, I think that each user should make a handful of nslookups on their local DNS to get the IP of the targeted machine, and get a list in case there are multiple A records (several IP addresses for a single domain). However, the DDoS hit goes back to the full URL, so that if spammers are operating from shared servers, the service operators will know who to kick off their system. 4. Instructions to institute a DDoS attack need to be authentic. When users send a spam reporting to their local I4I (eye for an eye DDoS system) server, they include a message encrypted using that user's public key. The encrypted message is returned to the user with the DDoS instruction, and the user only considers it authentic if they can decrypt the included message with their private key. 5. What are the rules for I4I (eye for an eye DDoS system) servers? First, there's not just one global server; there are many local ones just like DNS. An I4I server needs to support enough users (or work with other I4I servers to have enough combined users) to adequately tally up spam from individual sources. A tuned number of spam messages would need to come within a tuned timeframe (i.e. 24 hours) from a particular source (same URL IP - #3 above, or same phone) before the contributing users are instructed to attack. The attack is proportional to the spam received (77777x or 77x). What other issues can you think of? Feedback? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 09:27:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA02327 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 09:27:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2NEl0108056 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 09:47:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NEl0O08051 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 09:47:00 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA02313 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 09:27:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NEc9O07845; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 09:38:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NEbHO07524 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 09:37:17 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA02252 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 09:17:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (h005018086b3b.ne.client2.attbi.com[66.31.45.164]) by rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (rwcrmhc52) with SMTP id <2003032314194205200j46j0e>; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 14:19:42 +0000 Subject: Re: Bounces, was Re: [Asrg] Sender pays vs Forgeries Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) From: mathew To: asrg@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <8iFAmrDocDD@3247.org> Message-Id: <7FE5F872-5D3A-11D7-AD5C-000393CAA6AA@pobox.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 09:19:46 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The way to solve the bounce problem, pre-emptively if possible, is to standardize the format of bounce messages so that they can only contain an error code and the e-mail address of the bounce. They'd then be turned into a description by the client. Frankly, that's how they should have worked originally, for internationalization reasons... mathew _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 09:35:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA02400 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 09:35:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2NEsuB08271 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 09:54:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NEsuO08268 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 09:54:56 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA02390 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 09:35:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NEgBO07961; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 09:42:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NEfoO07947 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 09:41:50 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA02285 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 09:21:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (h005018086b3b.ne.client2.attbi.com[66.31.45.164]) by rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (rwcrmhc52) with SMTP id <2003032314241505200j4f12e>; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 14:24:16 +0000 Subject: Re: [Asrg] Misunderstandings ... Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) From: mathew To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <00a201c2ef46$10704ea0$66e237c0@rmf19> Message-Id: <232C80D1-5D3B-11D7-AD5C-000393CAA6AA@pobox.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 09:24:20 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thursday, Mar 20, 2003, at 20:06 US/Eastern, Ye Olde Curmdudgeon wrote: > The Caller-ID for phone calls is buggy since it doesn't tell me who is > calling, just which phone they happen to be using. Actually, caller ID as sold to residential customers is no better than a From: line. There are autodialer products on sale that will set the caller ID readout to be whatever the telemarketer wants; see RISKS digest recently. Not many telemarketers bother to use them, presumably because not enough people screen on the basis of caller ID for it to be worth the outlay. It'll be interesting to see if the "do not call" list signed into law results in telemarketers setting up fake caller ID info and calling anyway. mathew _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 09:46:16 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA02512 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 09:46:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2NF5cK08498 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 10:05:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NF5cO08495 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 10:05:38 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA02509 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 09:45:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NEo5O08211; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 09:50:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NEndO08188 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 09:49:39 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA02370 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 09:29:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (h005018086b3b.ne.client2.attbi.com[66.31.45.164]) by rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (rwcrmhc53) with SMTP id <20030323143204053005i9r0e>; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 14:32:05 +0000 Subject: Re: [Asrg] Quotation Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) From: mathew To: asrg@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <20030321043212.GA21403@danisch.de> Message-Id: <3A6BDE2C-5D3C-11D7-AD5C-000393CAA6AA@pobox.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 09:32:09 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thursday, Mar 20, 2003, at 23:32 US/Eastern, Hadmut Danisch wrote: >> The 1,000,000 email addresses that we provide each week are >> general, >> non-targeted addresses, and are about 90% USA-based. These are not >> opt-in addresses, but we have removed many of the flamers and >> trouble-makers from the lists. We run them all through our >> commercial >> grade verification programs to ensure deliverability. > > Lovely. Let's become "trouble-makers". For a while, I would complain about every single spam. I'd track down the owner of the web site being advertised, and complain to their ISP. It worked quite well--at a time when other people I knew with well-known public e-mail addresses were getting 20-30 spams a day, I was getting 2-3. I noticed that the spam I got was the real dregs, from folk with room temperature IQ. They'd send HTML as the body of a text/plain e-mail message, filled with spelling mistakes, advertising chest enlargement creams and other products only a really gullible moron would buy. So it seemed that by complaining, I filtered out the even-remotely-smart spammers. However, over the last year or so, complaining simply stopped working as a strategy. There are too many spammers now who don't care how much trouble they cause, and too many morons. So now I get 60-80 pieces of spam a day, almost all so inept that SpamAssassin has no trouble filtering them out. I've yet to get a single false-positive, in fact. mathew _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 10:10:27 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA03598 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 10:10:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2NFTnD09789 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 10:29:49 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NFTnO09786 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 10:29:49 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA03552 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 10:09:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NFI9O09538; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 10:18:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NFH5O09501 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 10:17:05 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA02567 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 09:57:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (h005018086b3b.ne.client2.attbi.com[66.31.45.164]) by rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (rwcrmhc52) with SMTP id <2003032314593005200j5ptke>; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 14:59:30 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) From: mathew To: asrg@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <0FC32A40-5D40-11D7-AD5C-000393CAA6AA@pobox.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Prank phone calls (was Re: Stamping) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 09:59:35 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Friday, Mar 21, 2003, at 16:27 US/Eastern, wayne wrote: > Prank phone calls are illegal. They are? Can you explain how Comedy Central manages to avoid getting prosecuted for "Crank Yankers"? mathew _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 10:15:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04063 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 10:15:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2NFYwe09903 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 10:34:58 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NFYwO09900 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 10:34:58 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04015 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 10:15:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NFN3O09659; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 10:23:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NFMpO09635 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 10:22:51 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA02730 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 10:02:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (h005018086b3b.ne.client2.attbi.com[66.31.45.164]) by rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (rwcrmhc53) with SMTP id <20030323150516053005icm0e>; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:05:16 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) From: mathew To: asrg@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Re: [OffTopic - NNTP] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 10:05:20 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Saturday, Mar 22, 2003, at 13:50 US/Eastern, Kee Hinckley wrote: > At 1:02 PM -0500 3/22/03, Damien Morton wrote: >> At any rate, I tend to think that mailing lists are better handled >> using >> NNTP. > > There are plent of reasons not to use NNTP for mailing lists. Privacy, > spam control and member control come immediately to mind. You know that authentication via NNTP is possible, right? I agree with Damien Morton. Almost all mailing lists would be better as newsgroups. If NNTP was the accepted way to do group discussions, you'd soon see yahoogroups and other discussion forum services offering NNTP. (Not sure why they don't already.) mathew _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 10:31:57 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04413 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 10:31:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2NFpKg11153 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 10:51:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NFpJO11148 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 10:51:19 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04405 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 10:31:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NFW4O09864; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 10:32:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NFVMO09836 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 10:31:22 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA03700 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 10:11:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (h005018086b3b.ne.client2.attbi.com[66.31.45.164]) by rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (rwcrmhc52) with SMTP id <2003032315134705200j5ae3e>; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:13:47 +0000 Subject: Re: [Asrg] Update to DS Protocol draft Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) From: mathew To: asrg@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <0E64FA0F-5D42-11D7-AD5C-000393CAA6AA@pobox.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 10:13:52 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sunday, Mar 23, 2003, at 01:04 US/Eastern, william@elan.net wrote: > III. As I already mentioned multiple times before this is typical > "RMX/Mail-From" style proposal which has the following problems: [deleted] Also, I don't see how this helps at all on a net where there are hundreds of thousands of open relays, all of which we assume would have valid designated-sender records and hence be allowed to relay spam to you. mathew _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 10:50:23 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04847 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 10:50:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2NG9lZ12520 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 11:09:47 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NG9lO12517 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 11:09:47 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04844 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 10:49:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NFwTO11313; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 10:58:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NFviO11287 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 10:57:44 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04603 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 10:37:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18x2mE-0000V4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 05:32:30 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] rDNS revisited In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:02:33 EST." <039601c2efc3$49603c20$1174fea9@aix.cc> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 05:32:30 -0500 "M Wild" wrote: > Alrighty then...are there flaws with using rDNS? Yes there are, many of > which various posters have covered. I am not claiming that it is the end > all/be all solution it just worked on *MY* mail servers. spam ... > on my test account went from 180 messages per day to *TWO* I don't think > anyone can argue that those numbers show that the test is effective. ... for *you*. It's anecodotal, and may not apply for others. This is one of the problems I have with many of the solutions. The proponents have tried their proposals, and seen a benefit. It then takes great effort to convince them that everyone else may NOT see a benefit. I don't mean to shoot down any proposals, or to deny your experience, but please understand that it may not be other peoples experience. We will need research, statistics, and analysis to determine which solutions work, and what part of the problem space they cover. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 11:27:18 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04415 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 10:31:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2NFpKv11167 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 10:51:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NFpKO11152 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 10:51:20 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04407 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 10:31:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NFZ4O09936; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 10:35:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NFY4O09889 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 10:34:04 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA03934 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 10:14:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2NFGMiu023660 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 08:16:22 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303231516.h2NFGMiu023660@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: "HashStamp" == hashcash? (Re: Stamping) References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030322175412.049333e8@mail.attbi.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 08:16:22 -0700 (MST) > To: Vernon Schryver , asrg@ietf.org > > > Thus, I think we'd need on the order of *AT LEAST* 10 ghz*minutes of > ... > >What is the minimumm speed CPU that you will allow to send mail? A > >25 MHz 486 is at least 200 and perhaps 500 or 1000 times slower than > >a 3 GHz P4. A 25 MHz 486 needs several minutes to generate 60 > >GHz*seconds of hashcash. You might fix the problem for mailing lists > ... > You're still, I think foolishly, focused on an ISP-oriented > solution. Sender-pays makes them most sense when the client SW is capable, > if not singularly empowered, to enforce the payment mechanism at the > receiving point. Ok, but what about the main question? What is the minimum speed CPU that you will allow to send mail? Do you expect everyone from now on to buy equal speed CPUs? How else do you ensure that the spammers don't have CPUs that are 10,000 times faster than spam targets? > >There are reasons why after at least 6 months the hashcash proposals > >are still only ideas. > > The reason is mostly that there are lots of arm chair generals but fewer > competent programmers. I can't disagree; standards committees, netnews groups, and bars are always filled with non-players eager to tell the players how to play. However, a willingess to admit and deal with fundamental design problems such as the span of real CPU speeds is part of being a competent programmer. At the end of the day, competent programmers are those who have programmed competently. How is your sender-pays implementation working? How much of your incoming mail is sender-paid, and how much is simply whitelisted? (If I'm confused about which solution you have implemented, please forgive me and say how it is working.) Only about 1% of the spam sent my way gets through my filters, but I must admit that the DCC is applied to only the leavings of my static filters. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 11:38:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA05385 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 11:38:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2NGveV14421 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 11:57:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NGvdO14418 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 11:57:39 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA05379 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 11:37:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NGkXO14195; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 11:46:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NGjAO14165 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 11:45:10 -0500 Received: from plaidworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA05252 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 11:25:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.8/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h2NGRIZQ015811; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 08:27:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: [OffTopic - NNTP] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: asrg@ietf.org To: mathew From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <5158210C-5D4C-11D7-A9F5-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 08:27:19 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sunday, March 23, 2003, at 07:05 AM, mathew wrote: > You know that authentication via NNTP is possible, right? Of course, managing that authentication is something else. A while back, I was asked to investigate building a gateway between our corporate mail server and our corporate usenet system. With some 1x,000 internal mailing lists, about 75% of them private and restricted and most of those containing confidential data. We abandoned it after realizing that managing the authentication of the system would require a full time admin (the mail list side is effectively self-administered; we found migrating that self-administration out to an NNTP extension problematic. YMMV). You also run into a huge problem with private data on NNTP -- once a user authenticates to read it, they also have the ability to move it to their server where you've lost control of it for authentication purposes. This is also somewhat of a problem with e-mail, of course, but a lesser one. there's a huge difference here in potential calamity between someone forwarding email to his friends and someone attaching to a private newsgroup on a corporate server with his personal NNTP server and not realizing it's set up so that private newsgroup will accidentally propogate into the main public NNTP feeds. The impact of a leak via e-mail is almost always more restricted adn easier to resolve. That shows one key problem with this idea: it assumes "mailing list" == "public discussion lists like this forum", and that's not true. Within an organization, most mailing lists are private, which makes an NNTP implementation difficult and security of the data problematic. Many of those lists also extend outside of the organization, which makes them impossible. and cross-organizational mail lists (on a simplistic level, any mail list that has at least one subscriber that isn't part of your mail server) you can't do it. so a significant percentage of the mail lists that exist can't use the solution. For those that possibly can, you create administrative and security issues to deal with. Will your corporate info-sec folks actually let you stuff corporate confidential data into private newsgroups on a server that gateways to the outside world (for the rest of usenet's groups)? I know mine would have a cow if that data got anywhere near a machine that could be touched by the outside world. And they should. > I agree with Damien Morton. Almost all mailing lists would be better > as newsgroups. you think so. So far, I've seen 2 or 3 others on this list make the same assertion. That agrees with what I know from experience: back in 1998, I *did* make all of my public mailling lists available via an NNTP interface. While the main list server had a unique subscriber base of > 10,000 -- about a dozen used the NNTP interface. The "pro-NNTP" people on this list seem to back up those kind of numbers. A very small group of people strongly prefer NNTP over other distribution technologies; they tend (based on my experience listening to them try to convince me to do the NNTP thing again every few months) to feel strongly it's the best thing since sliced bread; their overall enthusiasm is quite high; their numbers are tiny. And for the most part, they tend to be people who've been on the internet for a fairly long time, and are somewhat set in their ways -- their habits trained in a day when e-mail clients weren't as featured, and NNTP/Usenet was more central to the internet experience. > > If NNTP was the accepted way to do group discussions, which it's not, for many good reasons. > you'd soon see yahoogroups and other discussion forum services > offering NNTP. (Not sure why they don't already.) > Because NNTP is a fading, mature protocol. authentication administration is a pain. you might as well ask why we don't store files on a gopher server any more, either. Most folks don't care, don't want to use a separate client tool, and don't see any advantage to it, and it doesn't really save bandwidth under most circumstances, and many lists can't be wedged into the NNTP reality, so you create user confusion because now two things that they think are the same are done via different tools in different ways, and they don't understand why. Since, because of the private list problem, you can't move all mail lists off to NNTP anyway, it doesn't solve he problem, it just creates complexity and confusion. -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 12:04:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA05558 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 12:04:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2NHOKm15993 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 12:24:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NHOKO15990 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 12:24:20 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA05555 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 12:04:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NHATO15673; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 12:10:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NH6DO14722 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 12:06:13 -0500 Received: from srv1.fecyk.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA05422 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 11:46:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from gordshome (wnpgmb11dc1-res-164-188.mts.net [142.161.164.188]) by srv1.fecyk.ca (SMTPRCV 0.48) with SMTP id ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 10:48:35 -0600 From: "Gordon Fecyk - Home" To: "Anti-Spam Research Group of IETF \(E-mail\)" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Update to DS Protocol draft Message-ID: <000101c2f15c$605d2ec0$0100a8c0@fecyk.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4920.2300 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 10:50:56 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I. ASRG can not send documents protocols to IETF for > "protocols", they > can only be or something that may become "informational" RFC Semantics. Whatever. I'll submit it as a private draft. > II. What you're proposing is just like SRV RMX record. Actually, no. From what I've read on RMX it's not IP based. It's too easy to falsify anything else. > Your point that DNS does not support it yet is not > appropriate - you expect sites to update software to support > DS draft but not update their dns software... > I means if domain has to put this record in, it might as well > update dns software, not that complex Tell that to a Microsoft house[1]. Especially a M$ house not upgrading to Win2003 Server because they don't trust it. > III. As I already mentioned multiple times before this is typical > "RMX/Mail-From" style proposal which has the following problems: > 1.You only authenticate MAIL FROM header but if "From:" is > forged, that > is what user will see on their MUA, not MAIL FROM. I'm not interested in the body of the message. Yes, it's easy to falsify the headers or the envelope. I'm saying these forgeries will be easier to track for sites using DS. I'm also not deluded into thinking this will solve all mail forgeries. I'm only interested in accountability, and this improves accountability dramatically for little cost - updating the MTA only and adding a few DNS records. > 2.Breaks mailing lists (all have to be whitelisted - see: > > https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/currest > /msg00762.html All mailing lists I subscribe to have either $listname-request@list.host or a complicated return envelope for tracking bounces. And I subscribe to majordomo, listserv, yahoogroups and EMWAC IMS based lists. I'll show you some log entries from my mail server: [22/Mar/2003:11:19:37] 209.228.33.247 c007.snv.cp.net blst-errors.300002469.805908187.844622903.008.15118.0@boing.topica.com mmajor@pan-am.ca [22/Mar/2003:22:32:04] 209.228.33.246 c007.snv.cp.net sentto-113989-4623-1048393919-mmajor=Astronomi-con.com@returns.groups.yahoo. com mmajor@pan-am.ca [22/Mar/2003:22:03:33] 209.119.0.109 cherry.ease.lsoft.com owner-SPAM-L@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM gordonf@FECYK.CA [23/Mar/2003:00:51:33] 132.151.1.19 www1.ietf.org asrg-admin@ietf.org gordonf@pan-am.ca (repeated several times) [23/Mar/2003:06:33:12] 65.198.151.222 web8.gemini.dice.com jobs@jobmail.dice.com gordonf@fecyk.ca [23/Mar/2003:08:35:50] 207.195.213.10 poet.minstrel.com owner-nordskogen@poet.minstrel.com gordonf@fecyk.ca You're telling me that these will break under DS protocol and will have to be whitelisted? They all have return-paths pointing back to something other than the original sender, usually the list owner or sometimes a bounce processor. These would not be blocked under DS. Mailing lists that don't do that are broken already. > 3.Breaks majority of forwarding configurations. Again you have to > whitelist servers that may forward email to your server. Here the > situation is little worth, because spammers often put the > use the same > domains in their from (ok, used to do it 2 years ago, now > using free > mail services like yahoo or hotmail is more common) Now these would require changes to MTA software and I freely admitted that. > 4.Roaming users (like me on IETF conference) can not send > email directly > and have to authentication with their "home" mail server. SMTP AUTH, POPAUTH, etc take care of this. It's actually my point - you should use the resources you're authorized to use. I can roam, hell I've even had to sit on someone's Charter connection, then Earthlink, then some local ISP during my last road trip, and I could still send mail through my own server. [1] And you're deluded if you say that anyone running MS server software is not worthy/asking for trouble/a waste of time/etc. Fact is, it's out there and there isn't thing-one we can do about it. -- PGP key (0x0AFA039E): What's a PGP Key? See GOD BLESS AMER, er, THE INTERNET. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 12:07:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA05580 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 12:07:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2NHQTr16044 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 12:26:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NHQTO16041 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 12:26:29 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA05572 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 12:06:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NHAiO15689; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 12:10:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NH88O15608 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 12:08:08 -0500 Received: from srv1.fecyk.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA05436 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 11:48:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from gordshome (wnpgmb11dc1-res-164-188.mts.net [142.161.164.188]) by srv1.fecyk.ca (SMTPRCV 0.48) with SMTP id ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 10:50:31 -0600 From: "Gordon Fecyk - Home" To: Subject: RE: [Asrg] Update to DS Protocol draft Message-ID: <000201c2f15c$a5d80c40$0100a8c0@fecyk.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <0E64FA0F-5D42-11D7-AD5C-000393CAA6AA@pobox.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4920.2300 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 10:52:53 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Also, I don't see how this helps at all on a net where there are > hundreds of thousands of open relays, all of which we assume > would have > valid designated-sender records and hence be allowed to relay spam to > you. I cover this as a Security Consideration in the draft. Let's see, a site running an open relay participating in DS Protocol. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Sites choosing to use DS are likely well aware of the spam problem and have already secured their systems against relay theft. -- PGP key (0x0AFA039E): What's a PGP Key? See GOD BLESS AMER, er, THE INTERNET. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 12:41:13 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA05963 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 12:41:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2NI0cx17471 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:00:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NI0bO17468 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:00:37 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA05952 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 12:40:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NHoBO17237; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 12:50:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NHnFO17211 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 12:49:15 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA05848 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 12:29:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from video.attbi.com (12-235-20-211.client.attbi.com[12.235.20.211]) by rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (rwcrmhc52) with SMTP id <2003032317313705200j5iebe>; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:31:37 +0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030323093230.047e6570@mail.attbi.com> X-Sender: schear@mail.attbi.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: "Jon Kyme" From: Steve Schear Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Requirements for anti-spam systems-Draft 1 Cc: "ASRG" In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030322174344.04924578@mail.attbi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 09:34:45 -0800 At 11:38 AM 3/23/2003 +0000, Jon Kyme wrote: > > >That's standard practice for a requirements list. First you wish > > >everything you could possibly want. Then you start to compromise. Ditto > > >on architectures. > > > > > > I find that from a practical stand point this may be backwards. First, > > you > > set down in writing and get written buy-in from the parties in authority > > (assuming there are any) what the proposed system/product will NOT DO and > >Doesn't that make for a rather long list? >1. Doesn't fly to moon. >2. Won't make toast >3. Probibited from kicking cat Hehe, yes it could. Still, its amazing what quick progress can be made when prohibitions within the "universe" of reasonable system/product features are clearly delineated early. steve _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 13:35:25 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06456 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:35:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2NIspp20248 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:54:51 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NIspO20245 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:54:51 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06450 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:34:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NIiLO19848; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:44:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NIhlO19769 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:43:47 -0500 Received: from maillist.grax.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06305 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:23:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (grax_web1 [127.0.0.1]) by maillist.grax.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3C952C5D5; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 08:25:59 -0600 (CST) From: David Walker Reply-To: asrg@ietf.org Organization: Vorteon, LLC To: mathew , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [MLIST] Re: [Asrg] Update to DS Protocol draft User-Agent: KMail/1.5 References: <0E64FA0F-5D42-11D7-AD5C-000393CAA6AA@pobox.com> In-Reply-To: <0E64FA0F-5D42-11D7-AD5C-000393CAA6AA@pobox.com> X-Hockey: Colorado Avalanche MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200303231228.50959@grx> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 12:28:50 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Assuming the DS idea is similar to my idea (outlined at http://www.vorteon.com/papers/spam_reduction_through_dns.html ), this would prevent any open relay from delivering messages to my mail server where the real admin of the from domain had their DNS properly configured. i.e open relay = 10.3.3.3 MAIL FROM domain = aol.com my mail server will check with the DNS server at aol.com and discover that the open relay at 10.3.3.3 is not a valid aol.com server and will not allow mail delivery. This is a tremendous help as it limits the ability of a spammer to abuse an open relay with false message headers. They could, of course, still abuse the open relay using the domain names that it is a legitimate server for. On Sunday 23 March 2003 09:13 am, mathew wrote: > On Sunday, Mar 23, 2003, at 01:04 US/Eastern, william@elan.net wrote: > > III. As I already mentioned multiple times before this is typical > > "RMX/Mail-From" style proposal which has the following problems: > > [deleted] > > Also, I don't see how this helps at all on a net where there are > hundreds of thousands of open relays, all of which we assume would have > valid designated-sender records and hence be allowed to relay spam to > you. > > > mathew > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 13:38:13 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06626 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:38:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2NIvdK20362 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:57:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NIvdO20359 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:57:39 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06609 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:37:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NInDO20085; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:49:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NIi7O19817 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:44:07 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06328 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:24:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2179015; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:26:29 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: "Dave Lampert" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Eye for an eye: DDoS against spammers Cc: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:08:01 -0500 At 9:05 AM -0500 3/23/03, Dave Lampert wrote: >Though I'm not an advocate of "eye for an eye" mentality, it may just work >with spammers. Ah yes. I've had many people try to take my eye out as a result of spam. Mail bomb's, threats to my family. But my favorite response was this one: >>Gather evil into your briars >>Reflect negativity back to its sender >>all ill will or any blight >>Snatch from the air and send it back in flight >>Seek out the one who did this deed >>That it return to them thrice >>by magick's creed >>Hence more contact made by he >>spew his negativity back times three. >> >>So Mote It Be >URL DDoS: If, say, 10000 reportings share the same URL (see #3 below), then And if the spammer includes more than one URL--one of which is to a site which they don't like? >Phone DDoS: If, say, 10000 reportings share the same phone number, then I know people to whom this has happened. It works this way. 1. ISP gets spammer in trouble. 2. Spammer sends spam using ISP owner's home phone number as the contact. 3. ISP owner changes home phone number. You are talking about vigilante justice. Its a *very* bad idea. >1. Is it legal for this to occur in all or many countries? For example, >would it be considered legal harassment for a user to have her computer call >a number several times if the number were provided as discussed? Yes, it would be harassment. Yes you could get in serious trouble. >2. How would you stop someone framing someone else? If an unscrupulous >company wants to hurt their competitor, they could send out spam on behalf You don't. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 13:38:16 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06640 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:38:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2NIvgi20380 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:57:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NIvfO20377 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:57:41 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06613 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:37:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NInFO20117; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:49:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NIi9O19825 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:44:09 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06332 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:24:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2179017; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:26:31 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: mathew From: Kee Hinckley Subject: [Asrg] Re: [OffTopic - NNTP] Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:16:31 -0500 At 10:05 AM -0500 3/23/03, mathew wrote: >On Saturday, Mar 22, 2003, at 13:50 US/Eastern, Kee Hinckley wrote: >>At 1:02 PM -0500 3/22/03, Damien Morton wrote: >>>At any rate, I tend to think that mailing lists are better handled using >>>NNTP. >> >>There are plent of reasons not to use NNTP for mailing lists. >>Privacy, spam control and member control come immediately to mind. > >You know that authentication via NNTP is possible, right? Ah. I understand. You're talking about the owner of the mailing list running an NNTP server, as opposed to actually using Usenet. Okay, that makes more sense. Yes, I wish that were more common. Of course it seriously increases the cost of running a list. You need to have an always up machine with some amount of fixed storage. And we need better newsreaders that make it easier to download new messages for off-line reading. >If NNTP was the accepted way to do group discussions, you'd soon see >yahoogroups and other discussion forum services offering NNTP. (Not >sure why they don't already.) I have never understood the resistance to using newsgroups. Yet customers choose web boards (which I despise) over them every time. I think it's just a question of what people are used to. The came to the internet via the web and then discovered email (or vice versa). Now you want to introduce a third piece of software, and they've already got something that manages to do solve the problem so-so. They don't want to learn something new that is custom designed to deal with this problem, but isn't (general rule of thumb) an order of magnitude better. I think there's a lesson there for people who want to replace email with something better. Inertia is a real powerful force. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 13:38:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06658 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:38:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2NIvsr20399 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:57:54 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NIvsO20396 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:57:54 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06621 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:37:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NInIO20150; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:49:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NIiBO19837 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:44:11 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06339 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:24:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2179019; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:26:34 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <0E64FA0F-5D42-11D7-AD5C-000393CAA6AA@pobox.com> References: <0E64FA0F-5D42-11D7-AD5C-000393CAA6AA@pobox.com> To: mathew From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Update to DS Protocol draft Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:24:09 -0500 At 10:13 AM -0500 3/23/03, mathew wrote: >On Sunday, Mar 23, 2003, at 01:04 US/Eastern, william@elan.net wrote: >>III. As I already mentioned multiple times before this is typical >>"RMX/Mail-From" style proposal which has the following problems: >[deleted] > >Also, I don't see how this helps at all on a net where there are >hundreds of thousands of open relays, all of which we assume would >have valid designated-sender records and hence be allowed to relay >spam to you. It means that the spammer would have to use the relay's domain in the envelope from. And that makes identify the problematic relay that much easier. Of course that assumes that someone who is running an open relay would have bothered to update their DNS to support this. Not likely. Remember. None of these non-architectural solutions are going to solve the entire problem. I think what we should be thinking of is a jigsaw puzzle. Can we put enough pieces in place that the entire picture is clear--even if there are a few holes. Okay, that was a lousy metaphor. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 13:38:51 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06671 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:38:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2NIwHK20430 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:58:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NIwHO20427 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:58:17 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06654 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:38:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NInHO20133; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:49:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NIiAO19833 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:44:10 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06337 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:24:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2179018; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:26:33 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: william@elan.net From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Update to DS Protocol draft Cc: Gordon Fecyk - Home , "Asrg Auth Senders List (E-mail)" , "Anti-Spam Research Group of IETF (E-mail)" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:21:22 -0500 At 10:04 PM -0800 3/22/03, william@elan.net wrote: >II. What you're proposing is just like SRV RMX record. But srv records are >more advanced. Your point that DNS does not support it yet is not >appropriate - you expect sites to update software to support DS draft but >not update their dns software... I means if domain has to put this record >in, it might as well update dns software, not that complex and if somebody There's a big difference between adding new entries in your DNS database and updating your DNS software. I'd do the first in a second. The latter requires that I a) wait until my DNS vendor supports it and b) am convinced that I need the new feature and want to take the risk of new software. >is going to use the records, they'd have to update mail software, so I do >not see problem updating dns software. But really this is not a main issue >with the proposal... Again. As I understand the proposal, it's the difference between adding a plugin that is very similar to existing DNS checking plugins, vs. new libraries and protocols. Big difference. People are real reluctant to add new protocols and new software. They are much more willing to use something hacked on top of an existing system. When we are making proposals that involve changes to millions of computer systems--we have to take this into account. Even if it means doing things the "wrong" way. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 13:39:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06693 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:39:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2NIx3H20459 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:59:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NIx3O20456 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:59:03 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06687 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:39:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NInBO20053; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:49:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NIi5O19809 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:44:05 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06323 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:24:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2178987; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:26:27 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: william@elan.net From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] The "Human-Shield" effect; the need for end-user control Cc: Jon Kyme , ASRG Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 12:56:36 -0500 At 1:50 AM -0800 3/23/03, william@elan.net wrote: >Clear Consent is when end-user said he wants to receive email from you >(whitelisting of email address or domain). Clear No Consent is when user >specifically said he does not want to receive email from you (blacklisting). >Specifying of other mail filters are consent by user to use specific >technology to filter out email. I think that defining consent in terms of filters is very confusing and inaccurate. If I consent to receive a newsletter about books from Example, and they start sending me a newsletter about Toys, then they haven't listened to my request. That has absolutely nothing to do with whether I've whitelisted newsletter@example.com. I'm not sure if you are really combining whitelisting with that concept of consent, or just using the same term in a different place, but I think it would be a good idea not to use the term in both places. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 13:40:08 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06724 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:40:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2NIxYa20484 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:59:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NIxYO20481 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:59:34 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06691 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:39:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NIn5O19989; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:49:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NIi1O19793 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:44:01 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06314 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:24:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2179002; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:26:23 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <200303222343.h2MNhHG4009728@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Scott A Crosby From: Kee Hinckley Subject: [Asrg] Re: "HashStamp" == hashcash? (Re: Stamping) Cc: Vernon Schryver , asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 11:23:52 -0500 At 12:47 AM -0600 3/23/03, Scott A Crosby wrote: > > What is the minimumm speed CPU that you will allow to send mail? A >> 25 MHz 486 is at least 200 and perhaps 500 or 1000 times slower than >> a 3 GHz P4. A 25 MHz 486 needs several minutes to generate 60 > >About 7 hours to compute a partial collision stamp. But, if the sender >already has a valid stamp (previously sent to them by the recipient), >they may use it with no computations. Recipients can compute >nonce-stamps at zero cost. Thus the 600ghz*seconds of CPU would only >be spent on new senders. So you're saying that it's okay that people on old machines have to wait seven hours before they can send a message to someone they haven't received a message from? (And yes, I do have friends and family on machines of that speed. And yes, they do send email to people whose address they got over the phone or off the web.) Of course, I suppose it doesn't matter in some sense. Because the odds of anyone writing the hashcash software for their machines is pretty close to nil. They'll just always end up in the junk bin. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 13:43:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06766 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:43:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2NJ2UB20590 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 14:02:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NJ2UO20587 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 14:02:30 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06747 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:42:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NIn6O20005; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:49:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NIi2O19797 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:44:02 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06316 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:24:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2179008; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:26:24 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: william@elan.net From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] The "Human-Shield" effect; the need for end-user control Cc: ASRG list Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 11:33:42 -0500 At 6:24 PM -0800 3/22/03, william@elan.net wrote: >No, I was thinking of of more complex scenario then just standartized xml >filter list. While I agree that current spam filters implementations often >use different methods for representing and getting rule set, I do not I understand. It's just that it's a harder job for filter software to integrate with it, and there's a tendency to not focus on things which make it easier for your clients to switch to a competitor :-). But yes. I think it's possible, and a standard in that area would be good. I would propose however, that if we're going to specify such a thing--let's start on the side of the architecture that everyone else seems to leave until last. Namely--how does it handle authentication and security. Keep in mind that such a protocol would possibly also run over the WAN, as it would provide a way for third-party filtering services to manage your mail filtering, while you control the rules. (Or vice versa--you do the filtering, and the third party keeps your spam filtering rules up-to-date.) >And I was thinking futher along the line of creating standard header lines >on what filter has been used (for client MUA to know in standard format) >and in order to allow for distributed filtering systems and removing >necessity of applying same filter twice. That gets harder. Products like ours and SpamAssassin may apply hundreds of rules, and what is far more important than which rule fires, is how the combination of results is weighted. If you are specific to the point of "we checked for this string" then you have too much data. And if you're general to the level of "we checked for strings" then you haven't really said anything of use to the next filter in the line. (I'm also not a fan of adding lots of new headers--but I think this has problems even before we get to that.) -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 13:43:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06779 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:43:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2NJ2VG20608 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 14:02:31 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NJ2VO20603 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 14:02:31 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06751 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:42:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NInEO20101; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:49:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NIi8O19821 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:44:08 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06330 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:24:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2179016; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:26:30 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <7FE5F872-5D3A-11D7-AD5C-000393CAA6AA@pobox.com> References: <7FE5F872-5D3A-11D7-AD5C-000393CAA6AA@pobox.com> To: mathew From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: Bounces, was Re: [Asrg] Sender pays vs Forgeries Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:09:41 -0500 At 9:19 AM -0500 3/23/03, mathew wrote: >The way to solve the bounce problem, pre-emptively if possible, is >to standardize the format of bounce messages so that they can only >contain an error code and the e-mail address of the bounce. They'd >then be turned into a description by the client. Unfortunately we seem to be making up new reasons for bounces on a daily basis. - insufficient funds in stamp - go to this url and prove you are human - blocked by spam filter ... -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 13:43:06 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06780 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:43:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2NJ2VY20622 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 14:02:31 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NJ2VO20605 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 14:02:31 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06749 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:42:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NIn8O20021; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:49:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NIi3O19801 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:44:03 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06318 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:24:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2179010; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:26:25 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <000901c2f0e4$f85a6a80$66e237c0@rmf19> References: <000901c2f0e4$f85a6a80$66e237c0@rmf19> To: From: Kee Hinckley Subject: RE: [Asrg] The "Human-Shield" effect; the need for end-user control Cc: , "'Walter Dnes'" , "'ASRG list'" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 12:49:56 -0500 At 9:36 PM -0500 3/22/03, wrote: >What I am very worried about is the assumption that you must put what >are nothing more than social polices deeply into the infrastructure of >the protocols. I think that most people here are aware that writing code is another way of creating social and pseudo-legal rules. (If not, they should all go read Lessig's "Code and Ither Laws of Cyberspace" http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465039138/somewherecom and return to this forum when they've finished it.) The reason we are here is that the code that we currently are running has created a society that we are not pleased with. We would like to modify that society, so we are looking for ways to codify a new one. Why do you think that many of the responses on this forum are so virulent? Why do people publicly chastise other's for forcing us to deal with their challenge/response system. Why do I get so angry at sender-pays folks for proposing a system because it does what they want--without thinking about what it does for everyone else, or whether it meets everyone else's needs. We're defining social rules. That's a very emotional process. >Spam filtering is an app. > >If it clogs your dial up lines then buy a screening service. So your belief is that it's not possible to change the social structure without losing necessary benefits. I think most of the people on this list disagree. >So, what is the problem being solved? Too much traffic in the Internet >or better applications at the edge to help you manage your availability >and the flood of information that you are confronted with? The latter is definitely a problem and needs fixing. Please go start a company and solve it. I keep trying to persuade DevonTHINK to merge their software with Qualcomm. Feel free to apply your presure. The former needs to be subdivided. We are seeing too much traffic on the edge. We are not seeing too much traffic, AS MEASURED IN BITS, in the center. But while you may say that bits are just bits, email bits require far more handling than streaming video. We already *do* provide different QoS for email than for video. There is an expectation that the message will get through, or that the sender will be notified if it does not. If we were just talking about bits then spam wouldn't be such a problem. But because email has a higher QoS, the problem of fake email is a serious problem. You can't just throw them on the floor because you can't tell which bounce is real and which is fake. Determining what is real and what is fake requires processing all those bits, do extensive network analysis, and keeping your information up-to-date on a daily basis--it's not cheap. In addition, forgeries have caused serious damage to company reputations. They are seriously damaging the reputation of email as a whole. Spam floods have taken email servers off the air for *weeks*. Never mind the times my systems have crashed because person A was spamming person B using my domain. I've had people threaten to rape my wife because of email forgeries. And Friday I almost lost my internet connection because some heavy weight media company fell for a forgery. If my ISP weren't smart enough to ignore it I would not be talking to you on this list right now. This is not an acceptable society. And telling people to hire some filtering company is *not* a sufficient solution. And that's from someone who *runs* a filtering company. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 13:43:50 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06825 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:43:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2NJ3Gk20657 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 14:03:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NJ3GO20654 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 14:03:16 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06806 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:43:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NInCO20069; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:49:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NIi6O19813 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:44:06 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06326 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:24:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2179013; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:26:28 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: Matt Sergeant From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] The "Human-Shield" effect; the need for end-user control Cc: "william@elan.net" , Walter Dnes , ASRG list Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:00:29 -0500 At 10:42 AM +0000 3/23/03, Matt Sergeant wrote: > > There are some issues. Your filter server's capabilities may not be >> the same as mine, for instance. But in general, the idea of a common >> mechanism for expressing your filter desires (what countries, what >> languages, what's the white list, what's the blacklist, what IP's or >> RBLs...) is a good idea. We have already done some preliminary work >> in this area with our product. > >As have the IETF. See SEIVE. That looks like an attempt to write a programming language for filtering text in email format. That is *way* more specific than simply configuring an existing filter. Has anyone actually implemented it? (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3028.txt?number=3028 for those wondering) -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 13:43:54 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06838 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:43:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2NJ3Ks20673 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 14:03:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NJ3KO20670 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 14:03:20 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06810 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:43:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NIn9O20037; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:49:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NIi4O19805 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:44:04 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06320 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:24:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2179012 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:26:26 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: To: Asrg@ietf.org From: Kee Hinckley Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Subject: [Asrg] A meta-comment on sending mail in this forum Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 12:53:15 -0500 Answer: No it is not a good idea, because it makes the message more difficult to read and the context impossible to determine. You end up having to scroll down, read the original, and then scroll up to read the current. Question: Should one put one's reply before the text to which one is replying. P.S. Nor is it necessary to include the entire text to which you are replying. Just the relevant parts (with attribution) will do fine. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 14:11:01 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07306 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 14:11:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2NJUSh22105 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 14:30:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NJUSO22102 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 14:30:28 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07264 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 14:10:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NJM9O21842; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 14:22:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NJLnO21818 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 14:21:49 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07128 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 14:01:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2NJ46ov020684 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 12:04:06 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303231904.h2NJ46ov020684@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] keeping it accurate Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 12:04:06 -0700 (MST) A recent message contained the following in a context that had something to do with bandwidth: > In urban areas, in developed countries, you *might* continue to > see the increase in bandwidth that you are talking about. But I > know a lot of people who's internet connections in the past 10 > years have increased by a stunning 2x. (28.8 to 56). And that's in > the U.S.. Please think globally. > My daughter has a fifth grade classmate who spends 15-20 minutes > during lunch break cleaning the spam out of her in-box--every day. > And she's not the only one doing it. Do you think those email > accounts are going to be useable by the time they graduate from > high school? 15 minutes at 28.8 kbit/sec is enough to move about 3 MBytes of uncompressed or incompressible data. It's also enough to move more than 1000 modest but not tiny spam of 2 KBytes each or 60 unusually large 50 KByte messages. A lot of spam has far more SMTP headers than its 200 or 300 bytes of body consisting of URLs and hashbusting strings. That student's 15-20 minutes/day spent on has nothing to do with network bandwidth, but human attention and thinking. Years ago I flogged the "postage due" bit about spam. I stopped, because it's broken. It's not whatever you want to call "broadband" this week that invalidated it, but mere 28 kbit/sec modems. The computer costs per user to process spam are trivial and will remain trivial, except in unusual cases. One typical web page of 30-50 KBytes is several times the average size of spam. Only when the cost of bandwidth is so high that the world wide web is too expensive to use are the computer costs of spam significant for an individual user. It is only when you have many users that bandwidth, CPU cycles, and disk space spent on spam are significant. The costs of spam are in those 15-20 minutes blocks of human attention. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 14:58:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08186 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 14:58:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2NKHu524930 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:17:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NKHuO24927 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:17:56 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08149 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 14:57:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NK6JO23854; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:06:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NK5ZO23824 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:05:35 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id OAA08027 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 14:45:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 5097 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2003 19:44:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.2.100.178?) (10.2.100.178) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 22 Mar 2003 19:44:45 -0000 From: Matt Sergeant X-X-Sender: matt@localhost.localdomain To: Kee Hinckley cc: Matt Sergeant , "william@elan.net" , Walter Dnes , ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] The "Human-Shield" effect; the need for end-user control In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 20:05:11 +0000 (GMT) On Sun, 23 Mar 2003, Kee Hinckley wrote: > At 10:42 AM +0000 3/23/03, Matt Sergeant wrote: > > > There are some issues. Your filter server's capabilities may not be > >> the same as mine, for instance. But in general, the idea of a common > >> mechanism for expressing your filter desires (what countries, what > >> languages, what's the white list, what's the blacklist, what IP's or > >> RBLs...) is a good idea. We have already done some preliminary work > >> in this area with our product. > > > >As have the IETF. See SEIVE. > > That looks like an attempt to write a programming language for > filtering text in email format. That is *way* more specific than > simply configuring an existing filter. Has anyone actually > implemented it? Yes, a few. http://www.cyrusoft.com/sieve/#implementations As I said in another mail, I was thinking of this as something to build on, rather than inventing a new syntax (even a syntax of XML). Matt. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 15:09:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09113 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:09:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2NKT5p25218 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:29:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NKT5O25215 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:29:05 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA08929 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:09:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NKF3O24842; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:15:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NKEhO24822 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:14:43 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id OAA08115 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 14:54:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 5653 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2003 19:53:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.2.100.178?) (10.2.100.178) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 22 Mar 2003 19:53:52 -0000 From: Matt Sergeant X-X-Sender: matt@localhost.localdomain To: Kee Hinckley cc: mathew , "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: [OffTopic - NNTP] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 20:14:19 +0000 (GMT) On Sun, 23 Mar 2003, Kee Hinckley wrote: > >If NNTP was the accepted way to do group discussions, you'd soon see > >yahoogroups and other discussion forum services offering NNTP. (Not > >sure why they don't already.) > > I have never understood the resistance to using newsgroups. Yet > customers choose web boards (which I despise) over them every time. Ease of administration. I actually found it easier to write my own Perl NNTP server than it was to setup INN and get it to do what I wanted. Matt. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 15:09:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09123 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:09:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2NKT6J25234 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:29:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NKT6O25231 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:29:06 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA08931 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:09:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NKH3O24906; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:17:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NKGoO24883 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:16:50 -0500 Received: from cs.rice.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08128 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 14:56:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with SMTP id 45E4E4AB64; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:59:09 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0823D4AB66; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:59:09 -0600 (CST) Received: from cs.rice.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (cs.rice.edu [127.0.0.1:10024]) (amavisd-new) with ESMTP id 25629-10; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:59:07 -0600 (CST) Received: from inky (bert.cs.rice.edu [128.42.3.146]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 094084AB64; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:58:57 -0600 (CST) Received: by inky (Postfix, from userid 14314) id B904CF3628; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:58:31 -0600 (CST) To: Kee Hinckley Cc: Vernon Schryver , asrg@ietf.org References: <200303222343.h2MNhHG4009728@calcite.rhyolite.com> From: Scott A Crosby Organization: Rice University In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lines: 38 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Scanned: by amavis-20021227p2 X-DCC--Metrics: cs.rice.edu 1066; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 Subject: [Asrg] Re: "HashStamp" == hashcash? (Re: Stamping) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 23 Mar 2003 13:58:31 -0600 On Sun, 23 Mar 2003 11:23:52 -0500, Kee Hinckley writes: > At 12:47 AM -0600 3/23/03, Scott A Crosby wrote: > > > What is the minimumm speed CPU that you will allow to send mail? A > >> 25 MHz 486 is at least 200 and perhaps 500 or 1000 times slower than > >> a 3 GHz P4. A 25 MHz 486 needs several minutes to generate 60 > > > >About 7 hours to compute a partial collision stamp. But, if the sender > >already has a valid stamp (previously sent to them by the recipient), > >they may use it with no computations. Recipients can compute > >nonce-stamps at zero cost. Thus the 600ghz*seconds of CPU would only > >be spent on new senders. > > So you're saying that it's okay that people on old machines have to > wait seven hours before they can send a message to someone they > haven't received a message from? Correct. Unless they can use out-of-band means to obtain a nonce-stamp in other ways such as a phone call, solving a CAPTCHA on a website, a auto-reply robot, that sort of thing. As the back of the envelope calculation I did earlier showed, its about $1 for 100,000 ghz*seconds. 10ghz*seconds wouldn't seem to be enough to stop a spammer, yet would already cost a 25ghz system at least 7 minutes. > Of course, I suppose it doesn't matter in some sense. Because the > odds of anyone writing the hashcash software for their machines is > pretty close to nil. They'll just always end up in the junk bin. Perhaps.. If there was an easy solution, its likely someone would be using it by now. And with alternative techniques to obtain a stamp (as above, it may be incrementally deployable.) Is anyone collecting system proposals, with their plusses, minuses, and practicality listed? Scott _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 15:14:01 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09563 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:14:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2NKXTQ25363 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:33:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NKXTO25360 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:33:29 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09506 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:13:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NKL2O25026; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:21:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NKKVO25007 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:20:31 -0500 Received: from chiark.greenend.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA08273 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:00:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from fanf by chiark.greenend.org.uk with local (Exim 3.12 #1) id 18xBgA-0004AT-00 (Debian); Sun, 23 Mar 2003 20:02:50 +0000 To: nazgul@somewhere.com From: Tony Finch Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] The "Human-Shield" effect; the need for end-user control In-Reply-To: References: Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 20:02:50 +0000 Kee Hinckley wrote: >At 10:42 AM +0000 3/23/03, Matt Sergeant wrote: >> >>As have the IETF. See SEIVE. > >Has anyone actually implemented it? http://www.google.com/search?btnI&query=sieve -> http://www.cyrusoft.com/sieve/#implementations Tony. -- f.a.n.finch http://dotat.at/ THE WASH TO NORTH FORELAND: SOUTHEAST 3 OR 4 VEERING SOUTHWEST 3 OR 4. MAINLY FAIR; SOME MIST PATCHES; SMALL RISK OF A SHOWER MONDAY . MODERATE BUT POOR IN MIST. SLIGHT. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 15:16:09 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09819 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:16:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2NKZbs25467 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:35:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NKZbO25464 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:35:37 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09740 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:15:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NKQ6O25120; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:26:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NKPdO25106 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:25:39 -0500 Received: from cs.rice.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA08572 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:05:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with SMTP id 952994AB66; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 14:07:58 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56D2A4AB64; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 14:07:58 -0600 (CST) Received: from cs.rice.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (cs.rice.edu [127.0.0.1:10024]) (amavisd-new) with ESMTP id 26121-07; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 14:07:56 -0600 (CST) Received: from inky (bert.cs.rice.edu [128.42.3.146]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EDCB4AB5E; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 14:07:56 -0600 (CST) Received: by inky (Postfix, from userid 14314) id C526FF3628; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 14:07:25 -0600 (CST) To: Vernon Schryver Cc: asrg@ietf.org References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030322175412.049333e8@mail.attbi.com> <200303231516.h2NFGMiu023660@calcite.rhyolite.com> From: Scott A Crosby Organization: Rice University In-Reply-To: <200303231516.h2NFGMiu023660@calcite.rhyolite.com> Message-ID: Lines: 42 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Scanned: by amavis-20021227p2 X-DCC--Metrics: cs.rice.edu 1066; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 Subject: [Asrg] Re: "HashStamp" == hashcash? (Re: Stamping) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 23 Mar 2003 14:07:25 -0600 On Sun, 23 Mar 2003 08:16:22 -0700 (MST), Vernon Schryver writes: > > To: Vernon Schryver , asrg@ietf.org > > > if not singularly empowered, to enforce the payment mechanism at > > the receiving point. > > Ok, but what about the main question? What is the minimum speed CPU > that you will allow to send mail? Do you expect everyone from now on \epsilon. A hashcash scheme with an 'out' that allows random nonces does not incur the full cost is still practical and requires little to no CPU time. > to buy equal speed CPUs? How else do you ensure that the spammers > don't have CPUs that are 10,000 times faster than spam targets? This is unlikely. Current CPU's are 3ghz, who runs a 300khz CPU anymore? Even a Commodore 64 or an Apple ][ is faster! I remember recently reading about a primitive, different from partial hash collision, that is limited by memory bandwidth, not CPU speed. Memory bandwidth varies much less that CPU performance. I have not looked at it, but it may help deal with this issue. > > The reason is mostly that there are lots of arm chair generals but fewer > > competent programmers. > > I can't disagree; standards committees, netnews groups, and bars are > always filled with non-players eager to tell the players how to play. > However, a willingess to admit and deal with fundamental design problems > such as the span of real CPU speeds is part of being a competent A competent programmer also tries to keep their numbers accurate within two orders of magnitude. Fast CPU's are 3ghz. The origional XT (way before my time) was 4.77mhz, or only 600x slower. Do there exist many widely deployed systems email systems that are <25mhz? Thats only 120x slower than current machines, not the 10,000x as claimed. Scott _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 15:17:50 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09875 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:17:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2NKbIL25961 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:37:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NKbIO25950 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:37:18 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09869 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:17:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NKT3O25207; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:29:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NKSJO25177 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:28:19 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA08853 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:08:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2179702; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:10:40 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200303231904.h2NJ46ov020684@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <200303231904.h2NJ46ov020684@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Vernon Schryver From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] keeping it accurate Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:01:22 -0500 At 12:04 PM -0700 3/23/03, Vernon Schryver wrote: >A recent message contained the following in a context that had something >to do with bandwidth: You're right, I was addressing two different issues in those two different paragraphs. However I believe that spam volume is a problem at the edge. Where the edge includes both small mail servers and individuals. Remember too that bandwidth == user's time for a dial-up. That's time they sit there waiting for their email to arrive. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 15:27:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA10035 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:27:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2NKkvm26574 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:46:57 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NKkuO26571 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:46:56 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA10028 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:26:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NKY1O25427; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:34:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NKXIO25352 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:33:18 -0500 Received: from zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09489 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:13:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (zcard307.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h2NKFZB23093 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:15:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDFCMD6X; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:15:36 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (acart4v2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.10.6]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBGGQF; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:15:34 -0500 Message-ID: <3E7E16AD.3050503@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: Bounces, was Re: [Asrg] Sender pays vs Forgeries References: <7FE5F872-5D3A-11D7-AD5C-000393CAA6AA@pobox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:18:53 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kee Hinckley wrote: > Unfortunately we seem to be making up new reasons for bounces on a daily > basis. > - insufficient funds in stamp > - go to this url and prove you are human > - blocked by spam filter We really don't need to get that complicated. Just punt to a URL without trying to tell the client what it means. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 15:45:12 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA10589 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:45:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2NL4fq27029 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 16:04:41 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NL4fO27026 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 16:04:41 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA10582 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:44:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NKtAO26768; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:55:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NKsDO26719 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:54:13 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (IDENT:root@giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca [192.139.46.36]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA10164 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:34:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18x7P8-0000im-00 for asrg@irtf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 10:28:58 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@irtf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] My Opinion regarding ietf asrg session (it went badly!) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 20 Mar 2003 21:43:42 PST." <8329761334.20030320214342@brandenburg.com> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 10:28:57 -0500 Dave Crocker wrote: > Somehow, I do not think that filling most of the schedule with > presentations primarily trying to tell us that spam is a problem is > appropriate. Nor do I think that presentations that present invalid > statistics or simplistic suggestions are all that helpfuyl. Since my background is Nuclear Physics, I understand your concerns about the methodology use to gather the statistics which were presented. Yet... the stats were about as good as anything else I've seen on the spam problem. Yes, it was hand-waving, anecdotal and ad-hoc, but until ASRG started, there was no industry forum which could gather global statistics. Even now, it's not clear to me how one would gather (or pay for the gathering) of potentially billions of messages scattered across thousands of domains. We can't instrument the core routers to see what traffic is spam. Without that instrumentation, any statistics will *necessarily* be self-reported, and incomplete. > So, yes, we need to make sure we do not review this as if it were a > working group meeting. However the meeting failed in plenty of other > ways. I was hoping for presentations like "This is a picture of the network. These points are where we see spam coming from. These are the stats for spam at those points. These are the methods by which we can provably stop some percentage of the spam. These are the costs of doing so." Since I've been one of the more vocal people here about spam, I guess I should volunteer to collect some more statistics. I'll put out a call for self-reporting of stats, or a poll, later in the week. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 15:45:13 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA10602 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:45:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2NL4gi27046 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 16:04:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NL4gO27043 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 16:04:42 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA10585 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:44:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NKtIO26788; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:55:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NKspO26746 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:54:51 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA10188 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:34:51 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2NIikbn026282; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 10:44:46 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2NIikhj026278; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 10:44:46 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: mathew cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Update to DS Protocol draft In-Reply-To: <0E64FA0F-5D42-11D7-AD5C-000393CAA6AA@pobox.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 10:44:46 -0800 (PST) That wouldnt matter as system breaks on any relay be it open or close. On Sun, 23 Mar 2003, mathew wrote: > On Sunday, Mar 23, 2003, at 01:04 US/Eastern, william@elan.net wrote: > > III. As I already mentioned multiple times before this is typical > > "RMX/Mail-From" style proposal which has the following problems: > [deleted] > > Also, I don't see how this helps at all on a net where there are > hundreds of thousands of open relays, all of which we assume would have > valid designated-sender records and hence be allowed to relay spam to > you. > > > mathew > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 15:47:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA10631 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:47:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2NL74W27210 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 16:07:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NL74O27207 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 16:07:04 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA10621 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:47:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NKx1O26893; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:59:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NKwkO26875 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:58:46 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA10475 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:38:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18x7TX-0000j0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 10:33:31 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: rant.. Re: [Asrg] My Opinion regarding ietf asrg session (it went badly!) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 21 Mar 2003 23:01:29 MST." <200303220601.h2M61TU6008233@calcite.rhyolite.com> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 10:33:31 -0500 Vernon Schryver wrote: > How can anyone honestly expect research to appear in a group that was > created a matter of weeks before? What would anyone expect in the > circumstances but general talk about how bad spam is and a pep ralley > for the need to work on the problem? The problem has been known for years. Methods of dealing with it have been known for years. It's not naive for people to expect that the meeting would start off with 30 seconds of "everyone knows spam is bad... now let's start talking about what we might do" > At the risk of violating IETF canons, I must observe that some of > the strongest condemnations in the list of whatever happened at > the meeting came from people who have made the some of the less > well founded contributions to the mailing list. From here I can't > tell what happened, but I wonder if sour grape sentiments from some > people about their favorite solutions not being adopted by acclamation > colored other people's perceptions and so reports of the meeting. The people I talked with who thought the meeting was unproductive were not proposing the solutions. The people who were proposing solutions were frustrated that they had little (or no) opportunity to do so. The vast majority of the meeting was an "intro to spam". It was good for the reporters in the crowd, but less so for the technical people. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 16:17:04 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10987 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 16:17:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2NLaYF28541 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 16:36:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NLaXO28538 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 16:36:33 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10974 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 16:16:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NLTMO28390; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 16:29:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NLSDO28367 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 16:28:13 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10881 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 16:08:12 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2NJI9bn026710; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 11:18:09 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2NJI8Kb026706; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 11:18:09 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: mathew cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Misunderstandings ... In-Reply-To: <232C80D1-5D3B-11D7-AD5C-000393CAA6AA@pobox.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 11:18:08 -0800 (PST) > Actually, caller ID as sold to residential customers is no better than > a From: line. There are autodialer products on sale that will set the > caller ID readout to be whatever the telemarketer wants; see RISKS > digest recently. I can attest to that. When I was running dialup ISP with PRIs for incoming calls, I also tried outgoing and could set phone# to anything I wanted. I even setup system to deliver free pages but setting it to call with specific caller-id and then hang-up (so it would be incomplete call but I'd still see numeric page), of course its irrelevent as now numeric pages are free and text pages are fairly inexpensive. > It'll be interesting to see if the "do not call" list signed into law > results in telemarketers setting up fake caller ID info and calling > anyway. There are other ways to find who the caller is even if they do not want to. There are some who setup traps on it and telemarketers will be caught. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 16:24:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA11076 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 16:24:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2NLi6r29530 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 16:44:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NLi6O29527 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 16:44:06 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA11073 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 16:24:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NLb5O28683; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 16:37:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NLaUO28534 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 16:36:30 -0500 Received: from srv1.fecyk.ca (srv1.fecyk.ca [206.45.235.30]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id QAA10970 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 16:16:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from gordshome (wnpgmb11dc1-res-164-188.mts.net [142.161.164.188]) by srv1.fecyk.ca (SMTPRCV 0.48) with SMTP id ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:18:44 -0600 From: "Gordon Fecyk - Home" To: Message-ID: <000001c2f182$1f508b90$0100a8c0@fecyk.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4920.2300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] "How do you justify your job?" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:21:08 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I was hoping for presentations like "This is a picture of the > network. These points are where we see spam coming from. These are > the stats for spam at those points. These are the methods by which we > can provably stop some percentage of the spam. These are the costs of > doing so." > > Since I've been one of the more vocal people here about spam, I > guess I should volunteer to collect some more statistics. I'll put > out a call for self-reporting of stats, or a poll, later in the week. That would be a great start to solving the problem actually. Where are the spam metrics? I'm seeing the anti-spam "industry" is looking much like the anti-virus industry before it could've been called an industry. We know it's a problem but we don't know how much it really costs us. Maybe we need to ask ourselves the same question Rob Rosenberger asked of anti-virus experts: "How do you justify your job?" I'm not suggesting we're not worth what we're being paid (provided we're even being paid). I'm suggesting that our bosses might think that. And the media. -- PGP key (0x0AFA039E): What's a PGP Key? See GOD BLESS AMER, er, THE INTERNET. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 16:35:16 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA11357 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 16:35:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2NLska29889 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 16:54:46 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NLskO29886 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 16:54:46 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA11311 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 16:34:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NLl9O29657; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 16:47:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NLkHO29594 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 16:46:17 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA11100 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 16:26:16 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2NJaDbn026902 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 11:36:13 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2NJaDbK026898 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 11:36:13 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Eye for an eye: DDoS against spammers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 11:36:13 -0800 (PST) > >Phone DDoS: If, say, 10000 reportings share the same phone number, then > > I know people to whom this has happened. It works this way. > 1. ISP gets spammer in trouble. > 2. Spammer sends spam using ISP owner's home phone number as the contact. > 3. ISP owner changes home phone number. Yes, happened to me after I took spammer to court. (He did not show up - default judgement, I did receive the money as cachiers check throghh.. but he had all my contact info...) For 2nd time, I made it so difficult to reliably find who I am without appering or just from my email address. I do get mailbombed time-time but no phone-bombs any more. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 16:36:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA11390 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 16:36:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2NLu8629942 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 16:56:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NLu8O29939 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 16:56:08 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA11384 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 16:36:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NLl4O29618; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 16:47:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NLk8O29578 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 16:46:08 -0500 Received: from newsguy.com (smtp.newsguy.com [129.250.170.69]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA11094 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 16:26:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from tedgavin.speakeasy.net (dsl092-237-232.phl1.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.92.237.232]) by newsguy.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id NAA96462 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:27:50 -0800 (PST) From: Ted Gavin To: asrg@irtf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] My Opinion regarding ietf asrg session (it went badly!) Organization: Harvard's Memory Loss Clinic, est. in 1952, 1967, and for the first time, in 1981. Reply-To: tedgavin@newsguy.com Message-ID: References: <8329761334.20030320214342@brandenburg.com> In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h2NLk8O29579 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 16:27:49 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Sun, 23 Mar 2003 10:28:57 -0500, "Alan DeKok" wrote: > I was hoping for presentations like "This is a picture of the >network. These points are where we see spam coming from. These are >the stats for spam at those points. These are the methods by which we >can provably stop some percentage of the spam. These are the costs of >doing so." > > Since I've been one of the more vocal people here about spam, I >guess I should volunteer to collect some more statistics. I'll put >out a call for self-reporting of stats, or a poll, later in the week. Here's an area where I think SpamCon Foundation can be of help. SpamCon Foundation, one person's observations notwithstanding, is not a "commercial non-profit organization, as opposed to CAUCE". SpamCon and CAUCE do different things by design. In fact, CAUCE and SCF share many participants because of that. On behalf of SpamCon Foundation, we'd be happy to commission a project to develop exactly the type of data ASRG needs to get things going. But to do that, this group is going to have to start developing a list of actual needs. First, can this group agree as to what type of report *would* be helpful in the group fulfilling its mission? Alan, you seem to have started that list. Some more detail behind the desire (such as exactly what stats for spam emanating from certain points) would be nice. - Size? - Content? - Routes/Paths through the network? - Sender/Receipient/Ultimate beneficiaries? What of the other hundreds, if not thousands, of delimiting factors? Ted _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 16:52:06 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA11852 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 16:52:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2NMBat31794 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:11:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NMBaO31791 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:11:36 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA11821 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 16:51:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NM66O30933; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:06:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NM57O30894 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:05:07 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA11736 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 16:45:05 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2NJt3bn027089; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 11:55:03 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2NJt2do027085; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 11:55:03 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: Walter Dnes cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] The "Human-Shield" effect; the need for end-user control In-Reply-To: <20030323181504.GA14124@m1800> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 11:55:02 -0800 (PST) > On Sat, Mar 22, 2003 at 03:07:57PM -0800, william@elan.net wrote > > I'v thought about all this before. I think it might be worth our time > > to define standard "mail-filter configuration" protocol. I imagine > > this being as something that would be located on some central database > > server and it would have "user configuration" update queries and > > "mail server check" read-only queries. > > Why a central database server ? I could understand it if you mean > central for the ISP, but not available to the entire internet. If a > spammer finds out which domains and addresses you've whitelisted, you're > in for a whole bunch of spam. Yes, central to ISP. It would need to have authentication as I already mentioned (authentication may very well be ip check for read-only). Actually this info might be "shared" with authorized outside servers in some way too, but we should be carefull on that and I'd not go so far just now. > > For client side they could have special program just for filtering > > configuration, it could be built into mail client or could be web-based, > > but all would be able to access same configuraiton database. Also when > > users moves from one isp to another, he could retain his settings, which > > is very usefull. > > Let's put the horse before the cart. If we have a standard protocol > for defining filters, that requires that we have a standard list of > filter features available. The set of available features is going to > change over time. And not every ISP is going to implement them. A > "user-friendly menu-driven" configurater will help, but it's going to be > different at different ISPs. Or are you asking instead for consistent > "look-and-feel" for the menus? Don't really care about menus, that up to MUA or filtering client. But some standard menuing choices might be noice. I mean we do have fairly standard list of features in any word processing - like Theasaurus, Insert Table, etc. ---- William Leibzon Elan Communications Inc. william@elan.net _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 17:16:48 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12323 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:16:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2NMaKS32492 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:36:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NMaJO32489 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:36:19 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12319 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:16:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NMVKO32359; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:31:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NMU1O32304 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:30:01 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12121 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:09:58 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2NKJvbn027368; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 12:19:57 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2NKJvri027364; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 12:19:57 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: Kee Hinckley cc: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] The "Human-Shield" effect; the need for end-user control In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 12:19:57 -0800 (PST) > >No, I was thinking of of more complex scenario then just standartized xml > >filter list. While I agree that current spam filters implementations often > >use different methods for representing and getting rule set, I do not > > I understand. It's just that it's a harder job for filter software > to integrate with it, and there's a tendency to not focus on things > which make it easier for your clients to switch to a competitor :-). I was thinking more along the lines of allowing to use multiple products! > But yes. I think it's possible, and a standard in that area would be > good. > > I would propose however, that if we're going to specify such a > thing--let's start on the side of the architecture that everyone else > seems to leave until last. Namely--how does it handle authentication > and security. Keep in mind that such a protocol would possibly also > run over the WAN, as it would provide a way for third-party filtering > services to manage your mail filtering, while you control the rules. > (Or vice versa--you do the filtering, and the third party keeps your > spam filtering rules up-to-date.) Standard user/password authentication for updating central repositatory. Possibly TLS if desired. SHA1 for reporting filtering in headers for confirmation with key at the central server. Or maybe even x.509 to be absolutly sure. And those are just quick thoughts on that. Proper authentication can be done with no problem, we have many examples with other protocols, including SMTP. > >And I was thinking futher along the line of creating standard header lines > >on what filter has been used (for client MUA to know in standard format) > >and in order to allow for distributed filtering systems and removing > >necessity of applying same filter twice. > > That gets harder. Products like ours and SpamAssassin may apply > hundreds of rules, and what is far more important than which rule > fires, is how the combination of results is weighted. Actually spamassasin is quite good at reporting what has been checked as is. I'v no problem with rules being weighted, but I'd like to know what each resulted in. And it really not 100s of rules (not yet...), it maybe 100s in terms of long filter list but actual top-level rules are about dozen. > If you are > specific to the point of "we checked for this string" then you have > too much data. Don't want that. > And if you're general to the level of "we checked for > strings" then you haven't really said anything of use to the next > filter in the line "Checked user-specific whitelists" would be good enough for me. > (I'm also not a fan of adding lots of new > headers--but I think this has problems even before we get to that.) Possibly. But for example mentioned spamassasin already adds headers and so do other filtering products. Each reports in its own way, though. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 17:25:14 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12664 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:25:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2NMijK01054 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:44:45 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NMijO01051 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:44:45 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12656 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:24:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NMe1O00908; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:40:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NMddO00874 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:39:39 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12383 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:19:37 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2NKTZbn027489 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 12:29:35 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2NKTZ4q027485 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 12:29:35 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] The "Human-Shield" effect; the need for end-user control In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 12:29:35 -0800 (PST) I agree. SIEVE filter can be one of filters in the list but not the only one. > That looks like an attempt to write a programming language for > filtering text in email format. That is *way* more specific than > simply configuring an existing filter. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 17:31:50 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12777 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:31:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2NMpMd01217 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:51:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NMpMO01214 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:51:22 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12758 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:31:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NMh4O01011; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:43:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NMgHO00983 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:42:17 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12457 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:22:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2NMOVfJ012275 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:24:31 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303232224.h2NMOVfJ012275@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org References: Subject: [Asrg] Re: "HashStamp" == hashcash? (Re: Stamping) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:24:31 -0700 (MST) > From: Scott A Crosby > ... > \epsilon. A hashcash scheme with an 'out' that allows random nonces > does not incur the full cost is still practical and requires little to > no CPU time. I cannot see how any "out" that requires little or no CPU time for unknown good guys could not be used by unknown bad guys. As I see it, a bad guy can always pretend to be 1,000,000 strangers unless you add some kind of authentication. > > to buy equal speed CPUs? How else do you ensure that the spammers > > don't have CPUs that are 10,000 times faster than spam targets? > > This is unlikely. Current CPU's are 3ghz, who runs a 300khz CPU > anymore? Even a Commodore 64 or an Apple ][ is faster! Do you think that the only influence on CPU speed is raw clock speed? For example, a 25 MHz 386 has a raw clock speed only 100 times less than a 2.5 GHz P4, but easily 1000 times slower. Look at the number of those 40 usec cycles required by 386 CPUs for common instructions. Then look at the effects of instruction caches. > I remember recently reading about a primitive, different from partial > hash collision, that is limited by memory bandwidth, not CPU > speed. Memory bandwidth varies much less that CPU performance. Memory bandwidth varies by by even larger values if you look at real systems instead of netnews cartoons. Main memory bandwidths of cheap systems today only about 6 times faster than they were 10 or 15 years ago, but memory size and caches more than make up the difference. On the other hand, if your CPU burner has a big enough memory footprint to bust GHz caches (including those with various burst fill schemes), you'll need to worry about whether it can even run on old systems. 256 MBytes sounds small today, but inconceivably large for systems of 15 years ago. > ... > A competent programmer also tries to keep their numbers accurate > within two orders of magnitude. Fast CPU's are 3ghz. The origional XT > (way before my time) was 4.77mhz, or only 600x slower. Do there exist > many widely deployed systems email systems that are <25mhz? Thats only > 120x slower than current machines, not the 10,000x as claimed. That is evidence of other than competence, because raw clock speed is merely one component of CPU speed. The original XT was a lot slower than 600X slower than a 3 GHz P4 because it used an 8088 wiht an 8-bit bus (good for 4X hit), many instructions took several cycles (good for another ~4X hit) and there was no I or D cache (good for another hit of 10-1000X on a pure CPU grinder). A 5 MHz 8088 based system was slower than that value of 600*4*4*10 compared to a 3 GHz P4. Moreover, my number of 10,000 include several future years of Moore's Law cycles. I'm "only" claiming a current 1000X span of CPU speeds. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 17:33:07 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12810 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:33:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2NMqdq01260 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:52:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NMqcO01257 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:52:38 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12805 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:32:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NMd3O00862; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:39:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NMcJO00836 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:38:19 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12344 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:18:16 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2NKSFbn027461 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 12:28:15 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2NKSFZJ027457 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 12:28:15 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] The "Human-Shield" effect; the need for end-user control In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 12:28:15 -0800 (PST) I see your point. Yes, possibly consent by whitelisting is not "clear consent" but its best somebody can express in technical terms. I do understand though that even after whitelisting somebody may want to run some extra filters, but I'd expect this to be rare and when they violate your "consent" and send you stock tips instead of anti-spam technology letter, then possibly this would mean end of presumed white-listing consent... At that point you would go and modify your preferences. On Sun, 23 Mar 2003, Kee Hinckley wrote: > At 1:50 AM -0800 3/23/03, william@elan.net wrote: > >Clear Consent is when end-user said he wants to receive email from you > >(whitelisting of email address or domain). Clear No Consent is when user > >specifically said he does not want to receive email from you (blacklisting). > >Specifying of other mail filters are consent by user to use specific > >technology to filter out email. > > I think that defining consent in terms of filters is very confusing > and inaccurate. > > If I consent to receive a newsletter about books from Example, and > they start sending me a newsletter about Toys, then they haven't > listened to my request. That has absolutely nothing to do with > whether I've whitelisted newsletter@example.com. > > I'm not sure if you are really combining whitelisting with that > concept of consent, or just using the same term in a different place, > but I think it would be a good idea not to use the term in both > places. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 17:42:02 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12873 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:42:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2NN1Yx01469 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:01:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NN1YO01466 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:01:34 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12869 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:41:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NMo3O01192; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:50:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NMniO01169 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:49:44 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12718 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:29:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2NMW05m012965 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:32:00 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303232232.h2NMW05m012965@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] keeping it accurate References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:32:00 -0700 (MST) > From: Kee Hinckley > ... > You're right, I was addressing two different issues in those two > different paragraphs. However I believe that spam volume is a > problem at the edge. Where the edge includes both small mail servers > and individuals. Remember too that bandwidth == user's time for a > dial-up. That's time they sit there waiting for their email to > arrive. If you forget the blarney from anti-spam product salesritters and netnews spammer fighters, and actually look at the numbers, you'll see that's wrong. The time peole spend sitting waiting for their spam to arrive is insignificant except in unusual cases. 30 seconds is enough to download a lot of spam, but only 30 seconds is about the training time for a pre-56K modem. The volume of spam is a problem, but only in human attention and not network bits/second, CPU cycles, or disk space, unless you have thousands of users' spam to deal with. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 17:52:52 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12985 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:52:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2NNCNn02474 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:12:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NNCNO02471 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:12:23 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12981 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:52:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NMr1O01294; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:53:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NMqIO01253 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:52:18 -0500 Received: from plaidworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12801 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:32:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.8/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h2NMYIZQ019998; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 14:34:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: Parameters for success? (was Re: [Asrg] Re: [OffTopic - NNTP] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: mathew , asrg@ietf.org To: Kee Hinckley From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <966CAA60-5D7F-11D7-A9F5-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 14:34:19 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sunday, March 23, 2003, at 10:16 AM, Kee Hinckley wrote: > I have never understood the resistance to using newsgroups. Yet > customers choose web boards (which I despise) over them every time. I > think it's just a question of what people are used to. The came to > the internet via the web and then discovered email (or vice versa). > Now you want to introduce a third piece of software, and they've > already got something that manages to do solve the problem so-so. to some degree it's a generational gap (not necessarily by calendar age, but by how long you've been on the internet). you see these all over the place on the ent -- HTML email is another one folks fight over, coerced reply-tos on mail lists is a third, and increasingly, IM vs. email. the new generation of users is more of an IM first, e-mail as backup, where us old pharts tend to live in e-mail and remember fondly the days when NNTP was the primary dinosaur. Which pointed out to me something I think this forum ought to be keeping in mind, the issue of parameters for (and barriers to) success. Whatever the solution(s) that we come up with, there are certain things that can keep any solution from succeeding, so I think perhaps it might be reasonable to think about what those parameters and barriers are. Some of the most obvious things that come to mind for me are: 1) e-mail is easy to use. The more we complicate e-mail to solve this problem, the less chance joe typical user will agree to do it. If you don't make the benefits cleaerly visible to the user and the ease of use reasonable such that my mother and our aunt sally can (and will) accept the solution, it's a non-starter, the way PKI and S/MIME effectively are. Those things exist, but basically, nobody but geeks use it, and even most of them don't, because the hassles outweigh the benefits. (think of this as the 'seat belt' problem. almost everyone agrees we should wear our seat belts while driving. A good percentage of people don't anyway, even though the hassle of wearing one is generally trivial. That's a social issue that has to be dealt with of the solution won't succeed) 2) It has to save a person/company/ISP/organization/etc money, time, hassle. If it doesn't, it won't be implemented by that person/company/ISP/organization/etc. show me the money, basically. "for the good of the net" will get the EFF to install it. will sony? IBM? 3) If it requires implementation support from large organizations or ISPs, any solution that doesn't have buy-in and a hard date forimplementation from AOL is a non-starter. To a lesser degree also true of Yahoo, MSN/Hotmail, Earthlink, wannadoo, and maybe half a dozen of the larger international ISPs. You don't need ALL of those, but without AOL, you might as well go home, and until you get half a dozen of the top 12-15 ISPs or organizations, network providers, etc, you don't have a chance at building critical mass. 4) will it scale through organizations? I've seen a number of suggestions that really come across as if the proposer sees all e-mail environments as variations of THEIR environment. A solution that isn't tied to the individual (which arguably it can't be, since that solves none of the network bandwidth problems) has to scale from my site (a box on the end of a DSL line serving 6 users, 15 mail lists and a couple of hundred messages through those lists a day) to ibm.com or microsoft.com, to MSN, to yahoogroups, to hotmail, to AOL. If the solution can't scale up OR down to fit those needs, it's going to be a hard sell for success. 5) will the senders buy in? If not, isn't it a non-starter again? Not just mail list owners like me, or list sites like yahoogroups, but the large-volume mail senders, whether it's content (cnn.com) or e-marketing? How do you make it work without them? How do you convince them to join in? Other thoughts? I've found myself, as I've been watching stuff sent back and forth and discussed, asking myself things like "how would this affect my systems?" "Does it make my life easier or more of a pain?" "does it save or cost me money?" and the biggie: "How would we ever convince AOL to buy into this?" think about AOL's position right now. Take, oh, e-stamps, or sender pays. how does AOL implement that on its environment? convince it's users to use it? migrate its users off of existing email? How long would that migration take? What if they weren't willing to change or don't upgrade their software? 25 million users, 3-5 billion pieces o' email a day, and users who haven't upgraded their software since they plugged in that windows machine 4 years ago, and won't upgrade any time soon. How do these plans work in THAT environment? And if you don't get AOL bought into it, given their size adn volume, can you make it work without them? I realize it's way early to get into too much detail on implementation issues -- but understanding certain necessary barriers to success will allow us to NOT go building things until we know those barriers are taken care of. If, for instance, it requires server upgrades by AOL or UI changes to the AOL client, for instance, I think it's silly to go beyond a certain level of discussion until someone finds out if AOL (or hotmail, or yahoogroups, or....) are willing to consider it. If they say no, it's better we consider lesser solutions that don't require their cooperation than building a better one that'll fail because we can't convince them to do it... To me, that implies a hierarchy of solutions that can help us set priorities and understand the complexity and level of cooperation needed for success: on the receiving end: 1) individual: build something an individual can download and implement. advantage: easy to do. disadvantage: limited ability to manage bandwidth issues, maintenance and user capability. (example: Apple's Mail.app junk mail filters) 2) site: things an admin can install to benefit the users of their machine. advantage: fewer people need to take the action, can affect network bandwidth issues as well as individual mail boxes. disadvantages: loss of user configurability (perhaps), loss of customization. (example: spamAssassin) 3) organization: things an organization can do to implement solutions. further down the scale of size from site, but effectively the same issue, scaled to multiple mail servers and a larger user population, plus perhaps issues of multiple locations and nationalities, meaning different parts of the system, might be regulated by different legislation. 4) ISP: seller of services and bandwidth to organizations. (for the purposes of what I'm saying, hotmail is a large organization, UUNET is an ISP, SpeakEasy is depending on which services you use, some of both) 5) infrastructure: making changes to the underlying structure of the internet (root name servers, protocols, etc) and the software that runs it. Basic, fundamental changes to how the net operates. (rDNS, new protocols for authentication, etc go here). A) stuff that doesn't cleanly fit in the above, like yahoogroups, large volume senders, e-marketers, and stuff I'm forgetting off the top of my head... The further you move from the individual level, the harder it'll be to convince everyone to implement, but the more chance you have of significant impact on the problems. So I think it's useful to at least casually keep in mind where specific proposals fall, so we can scope things like complexity of implementation and what buy-ins we need to get before we have a realistic chance of success. (I think it also is a good visual reminder of why we need suites of solutions; indvidiual and site solutions to bridge us towards the longer-term, more strategic and structural ones -- and who needs to buy off on those solutions before we can hope for them to work) -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 17:58:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA13124 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:58:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2NNHZg02562 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:17:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NNHZO02559 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:17:35 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA13067 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:57:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NN99O02390; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:09:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NN8wO02376 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:08:58 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12924 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:48:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2NMpDOn014628 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:51:13 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303232251.h2NMpDOn014628@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: rant.. Re: [Asrg] My Opinion regarding ietf asrg session (it went badly!) References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:51:13 -0700 (MST) > From: "Alan DeKok" > ... > The vast majority of the meeting was an "intro to spam". It was > good for the reporters in the crowd, but less so for the technical > people. Meetings are above all about non-technical, human issues. People with legitimate claims to being "technical" know that such meetings are not where research gets done, or is even likely to be first reported. Particularly in the IRTF/IETF world, a lot gets reported first the mailing lists. I stand by my guess about sour grapes from avocates of silver bullets. The common silver bullets have nothing but months (e.g. hashcash) and sometimes years (e.g. authentication and sender-pays money) of non-technical and often technically inaccurate talk supporting them. I've previously proposed that one should be ashamed to offer any solution that requires X% adoption to have X% effectiveness for X>=0.01%. One should also have a very good and obvious reason for adovcating any spam solution that is more than a year old but that has not been implemented. Talk seems to be almost as cheap in the anti-spam world as the spam world. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 18:02:18 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA13327 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:02:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2NNLmM02721 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:21:48 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NNLmO02718 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:21:48 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA13312 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:01:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NNB1O02452; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:11:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NNAVO02438 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:10:31 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12962 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:50:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2180645; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:52:48 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3E7E16AD.3050503@americasm01.nt.com> References: <7FE5F872-5D3A-11D7-AD5C-000393CAA6AA@pobox.com> <3E7E16AD.3050503@americasm01.nt.com> To: "Chris Lewis" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: Bounces, was Re: [Asrg] Sender pays vs Forgeries Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:45:04 -0500 At 3:18 PM -0500 3/23/03, Chris Lewis wrote: >>Unfortunately we seem to be making up new reasons for bounces on a >>daily basis. >>- insufficient funds in stamp >>- go to this url and prove you are human >>- blocked by spam filter > >We really don't need to get that complicated. Just punt to a URL >without trying to tell the client what it means. If that's a URL that goes to something readable by a machine--then perhaps. Otherwise you've given spammers a wonderful tool for getting their message across. I think you'd be better off just limiting the size of a plain-text message. I also think there are serious problems with systems that require that you be on the internet when you are reading your email. And more-so with ones that require web access while you are reading your email. People without always-on internet connections very frequently read mail off-line. Ditto for anyone who reads mail on their laptop. Additionally, I have worked with very large companies who do not allow their users to have outside web access. I just scanned RFC1894, and it seems to be fairly reasonable. We could make recommendations on how a MUA should deal with such a message. I know that some already do handle them specially. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 18:03:11 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA13366 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:03:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2NNMfV02764 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:22:41 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NNMfO02761 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:22:41 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA13344 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:02:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NNA1O02427; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:10:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NN9NO02404 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:09:23 -0500 Received: from dogma.slashnull.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12927 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:49:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.jmason.org (ga183055.reshsg.uci.edu [128.195.183.55]) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NMmQx13048; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 22:48:27 GMT Received: by localhost.jmason.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 019508C6ED; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:50:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from jmason.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF7EC8C6E6; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 14:50:08 -0800 (PST) To: Chuq Von Rospach Cc: Kee Hinckley , mathew , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: Parameters for success? (was Re: [Asrg] Re: [OffTopic - NNTP] In-Reply-To: Message from Chuq Von Rospach of "Sun, 23 Mar 2003 14:34:19 PST." <966CAA60-5D7F-11D7-A9F5-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> From: jm@jmason.org (Justin Mason) X-GPG-Key-Fingerprint: 0A48 2D8B 0B52 A87D 0E8A 6ADD 4137 1B50 6E58 EF0A X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to . Message-Id: <20030323225008.019508C6ED@localhost.jmason.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 14:50:00 -0800 Chuq Von Rospach said: > to some degree it's a generational gap (not necessarily by calendar > age, but by how long you've been on the internet). you see these all > over the place on the ent -- HTML email is another one folks fight > over, coerced reply-tos on mail lists is a third, and increasingly, IM > vs. email. the new generation of users is more of an IM first, e-mail > as backup, where us old pharts tend to live in e-mail and remember > fondly the days when NNTP was the primary dinosaur. Worth noting that a lot of this new generation say they don't use email, precisely *because* the spam load makes it too much work. :( --j. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 18:31:08 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA15362 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:31:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2NNodZ04406 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:50:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NNodO04403 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:50:39 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA15344 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:30:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NNbFO03651; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:37:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NNaMO03178 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:36:22 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA15001 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:16:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18x9vy-0000lJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:11:02 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 23 Mar 2003 16:27:49 EST." Message-Id: Subject: [Asrg] Requirements for gathering statistics Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:11:02 -0500 tedgavin@newsguy.com wrote: > On behalf of SpamCon Foundation, we'd be happy to commission a project > to develop exactly the type of data ASRG needs to get things going. That sounds like an excellent start (and potentially less work for me.) > First, can this group agree as to what type of report *would* be helpful > in the group fulfilling its mission? Alan, you seem to have started that > list. Some more detail behind the desire (such as exactly what stats for > spam emanating from certain points) would be nice. > > - Size? > - Content? > - Routes/Paths through the network? > - Sender/Receipient/Ultimate beneficiaries? The stats I'm most interested in are listed below. Some ISP's may be concerned about releasing "private" information (total traffic, etc), so the questions may have to be normalized as percentages, rather than absolute numbers. Having historical numbers would also be good. e.g. Not just the current numbers, but numbers for a number of previous years. I believe that gathering statistics on spam content or origin will not currently be useful. I would like to focus on simple & easily gathered numbers, which will make the analysis less subject to personal interpretation. Similarly, the work (and amiguity) in analysing network routing of spam & sender/recipients is too difficult to be helpful right now. I would also like to focus the stats on domains reporting more than 10,000 spam messages a day. That will limit the initial size of the survey, and will reduce the noise due to systems at the low-end. Alan DeKok. -------- Questionaire on Spam for Mail System Administrators ---- I) Size of the problem 1. Volume a) Total spam volume (Mb/day) b) total number of spam messages c) total number of "do-nothing" SMTP connections (e.g. connect, EHLO, disconnect) 2. Relative amount of spam a) spam as a percentage of total email (spam messages / total messages) b) spam as a percentage of *non-spam* email (spam messages / accepted messages) 3. Count of IP's a) number of IP's sending spam b) number of IP's sending "valid" email (may overlap with 3a) 4. Costs associated with dealing with spam a) administrative (network support solely due to spam) b) technical (end-user) support c) additional infrastructure/machine costs (costs to end users should be initially avoided, as they're more difficult to quantify) II) Current Solutions which address the problem 1) blacklists a) SMTP conversations blocked due to the blacklist, as a percentage of the total (blocked conversations / total conversations) b) SMTP conversations blocked, as a percentage of non-spam email (blocked conversations / allowed conversations) 2) whitelists a) spam which is in the whitelists, as a percentage of the total number of SMTP conversations b) spam which is in the whiteliests, as a percentage of the non-spam SMTP conversations 3) content filtering a) percentage of non-spam marked as spam (false positive) b) percentage of spam missed by the filter (false negative) c) percentage of spam caught by the filter ----- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 18:31:22 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA15378 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:31:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2NNorb04422 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:50:53 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NNorO04419 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:50:53 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA15350 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:30:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NNf5O04170; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:41:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NNdDO04056 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:39:13 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA15101 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:19:10 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2NLT8bn028090; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:29:08 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2NLT8wr028086; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:29:08 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: Gordon Fecyk - Home cc: "Anti-Spam Research Group of IETF (E-mail)" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Update to DS Protocol draft In-Reply-To: <000101c2f15c$605d2ec0$0100a8c0@fecyk.ca> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:29:08 -0800 (PST) > > I. ASRG can not send documents protocols to IETF for > > "protocols", they > > can only be or something that may become "informational" RFC > > Semantics. Whatever. I'll submit it as a private draft. I agree. I mentioned it for others who were doing drafts. > > II. What you're proposing is just like SRV RMX record. > > Actually, no. From what I've read on RMX it's not IP based. It's too easy > to falsify anything else. RMX is ip based like MailFrom, like several other proposals > > Your point that DNS does not support it yet is not > > appropriate - you expect sites to update software to support > > DS draft but not update their dns software... > > I means if domain has to put this record in, it might as well > > update dns software, not that complex > > Tell that to a Microsoft house[1]. Especially a M$ house not upgrading to > Win2003 Server because they don't trust it. I'v given up on Microsh.t software, especially its dns server portion. I only expect them to provide client support and on last meeting they promised to do so if SRV becomes standard, which RFC2782 is (as opposed to 2052). > > III. As I already mentioned multiple times before this is typical > > "RMX/Mail-From" style proposal which has the following problems: > > 1.You only authenticate MAIL FROM header but if "From:" is > > forged, that > > is what user will see on their MUA, not MAIL FROM. > > I'm not interested in the body of the message. Yes, it's easy to falsify > the headers or the envelope. I'm saying these forgeries will be easier to > track for sites using DS. Again what do you think is seen by more users - "MAIL FROM" header which is kept on the server and only some clients are able to see it or "From:" header which everybody assumed is where email came from. As I said before, all this may do is to have spammers use some obscure domain for MAILFROM which may not have updated their dns and sysadmin there might not care or it might be unused domain. But "From:" will remain pointing to msn, hotmail, yahoo, etc and users will continue to assume it came from there and report it there. The number of mail bombs will not dimish seriously. But what will happen is that seeing all this anti-spam filters will begin to get updated to compare "MAIL-FROM" to "From:" and deny access when they are not the same and this will lead to hotmail situation and necessity to whitelist all mailing lists. > I'm also not deluded into thinking this will solve all mail forgeries. I'm > only interested in accountability, and this improves accountability > dramatically for little cost - updating the MTA only and adding a few DNS > records. > > > 2.Breaks mailing lists (all have to be whitelisted - see: > > > > https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/currest > > /msg00762.html > > All mailing lists I subscribe to have either $listname-request@list.host or > a complicated return envelope for tracking bounces. And I subscribe to > majordomo, listserv, yahoogroups and EMWAC IMS based lists. I'll show you > some log entries from my mail server: > > [22/Mar/2003:11:19:37] 209.228.33.247 > c007.snv.cp.net > blst-errors.300002469.805908187.844622903.008.15118.0@boing.topica.com > mmajor@pan-am.ca > [22/Mar/2003:22:32:04] 209.228.33.246 > c007.snv.cp.net > sentto-113989-4623-1048393919-mmajor=Astronomi-con.com@returns.groups.yahoo. > com mmajor@pan-am.ca > [22/Mar/2003:22:03:33] 209.119.0.109 > cherry.ease.lsoft.com owner-SPAM-L@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM gordonf@FECYK.CA > [23/Mar/2003:00:51:33] 132.151.1.19 > www1.ietf.org asrg-admin@ietf.org gordonf@pan-am.ca > (repeated several times) > [23/Mar/2003:06:33:12] 65.198.151.222 > web8.gemini.dice.com jobs@jobmail.dice.com gordonf@fecyk.ca > [23/Mar/2003:08:35:50] 207.195.213.10 > poet.minstrel.com owner-nordskogen@poet.minstrel.com gordonf@fecyk.ca > > You're telling me that these will break under DS protocol and will have to > be whitelisted? They all have return-paths pointing back to something other > than the original sender, usually the list owner or sometimes a bounce > processor. These would not be blocked under DS. Yes they (see my answer above). Or if they are not, the system will do nothing more then change what is listed at mail-from which might still be forgery. > Mailing lists that don't do that are broken already. How nice of you to not care about compatibility with existing email infrastracture. > > 3.Breaks majority of forwarding configurations. Again you have to > > whitelist servers that may forward email to your server. Here the > > situation is little worth, because spammers often put the > > use the same > > domains in their from (ok, used to do it 2 years ago, now > > using free > > mail services like yahoo or hotmail is more common) > > Now these would require changes to MTA software and I freely admitted that. > > 4.Roaming users (like me on IETF conference) can not send > > email directly > > and have to authentication with their "home" mail server. > > SMTP AUTH, POPAUTH, etc take care of this. It's actually my point - you > should use the resources you're authorized to use. I can roam, hell I've > even had to sit on someone's Charter connection, then Earthlink, then some > local ISP during my last road trip, and I could still send mail through my > own server. > > [1] And you're deluded if you say that anyone running MS server software is > not worthy/asking for trouble/a waste of time/etc. Fact is, it's out there > and there isn't thing-one we can do about it. Well. If people find that if they do not run microsoft software that they can stop spam, this would be the good reason for them to consider switching to something better :) Will work a loot better then any other ways to introduce linux as mainstream os :) But in reality, no I do think about people running microsoft software, should be left out, but somehow I suspect any early adapters of any shemes like this would be the ones who would be willing to update dns and if anythink like this becomes mainstream by that time microsoft will support srv. > -- > PGP key (0x0AFA039E): > What's a PGP Key? See > GOD BLESS AMER, er, THE INTERNET. > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 18:49:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA15663 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:49:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2O09E105693 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 19:09:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2O09EO05690 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 19:09:14 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA15660 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:49:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NNw5O04636; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:58:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2NNvWO04591 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:57:32 -0500 Received: from jal.clueinc.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA15497 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:37:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from jal.clueinc.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jal.clueinc.net (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-2) with ESMTP id h2NNSEgB001424 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:28:14 -0500 Received: (from jal@localhost) by jal.clueinc.net (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-2) id h2NNSDSb001422; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:28:13 -0500 From: Jamie Lawrence To: Vernon Schryver Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: "HashStamp" == hashcash? (Re: Stamping) Message-ID: <20030323232813.GB24529@jal.clueinc.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Organization: clue inc X-URL: http://www.clueinc.net/ User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:28:13 -0500 On Sat, 22 Mar 2003, Vernon Schryver wrote: > There are reasons why after at least 6 months the hashcash proposals > are still only ideas. Hashcach is fundamentally flawed. Cool and interesting, but doomed. Authenticating headers opportunistically can work. Baby steps. -j -- Jamie Lawrence jal@jal.org "What empires lavish abroad, they cannot spend on good republican government at home: on hospitals or roads or schools. A distended military budget only aggravates America's continuing failure to keep its egalitarian promise to itself." - John Quincy Adams _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 18:55:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA15810 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:55:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2O0Ebi05815 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 19:14:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2O0EbO05812 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 19:14:37 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA15807 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:54:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2O052O04815; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 19:05:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2O04JO04788 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 19:04:19 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA15586 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:44:16 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2NLsCbn028382; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:54:12 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2NLsCQC028378; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:54:12 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: Alan DeKok cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Requirements for gathering statistics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:54:12 -0800 (PST) I'm curious what are your ideas on how to do it in more in terms of scientific research. I mean statistics previously given were very "broad". What I see that has to be done is first statistics on how much email goes into what types of mailservers (i.e. statistics on amount of email at larger isps - aol, earthlink, msn) as compared to amount of email at smaller isps as compared to amount of email at free email providers (hotmail, yahoo) as compared to amount of email at enterprise as compared to amount of email at web-hosting companies as compared to email small individual machines (hosted on dls, cable, etc). After we have this statistics (how?) we a certain sample can be chosen for each of the groups and then statistics gathered. Just doing sample at aol or at enterprise will not provide accurate statistics! > -------- Questionaire on Spam for Mail System Administrators ---- > > I) Size of the problem > 1. Volume Add here first - Total number of email messages. Total amount of email received (i.e. traffic statistics on SMTP protocol). > a) Total spam volume (Mb/day) > b) total number of spam messages > c) total number of "do-nothing" SMTP connections > (e.g. connect, EHLO, disconnect) > > 2. Relative amount of spam > a) spam as a percentage of total email (spam messages / total messages) > b) spam as a percentage of *non-spam* email (spam messages / accepted > messages) Would like to all see: size of spam messages / total size of email messages size of regular emails / total size of spam > 3. Count of IP's > a) number of IP's sending spam Please by geographical area. When reverse dns is present - by country (.cn) and by larger isp net (i.e. dsl at verizon, etc) > b) number of IP's sending "valid" email (may overlap with 3a) And its interesting to know how many overlap!!! > 4. Costs associated with dealing with spam > a) administrative (network support solely due to spam Difficult to quantify ... > b) technical (end-user) support > c) additional infrastructure/machine costs > (costs to end users should be initially avoided, as they're more > difficult to quantify) > > II) Current Solutions which address the problem > 1) blacklists > a) SMTP conversations blocked due to the blacklist, as a percentage > of the total > (blocked conversations / total conversations) What kind of blacklists!!! This would be usefull for additional statistics on particular list of respondents especially if we really do it on wide basis. > b) SMTP conversations blocked, as a percentage of non-spam email > (blocked conversations / allowed conversations) > > 2) whitelists > a) spam which is in the whitelists, as a percentage of the total > number of SMTP conversations > b) spam which is in the whiteliests, as a percentage of the > non-spam SMTP conversations > > 3) content filtering > a) percentage of non-spam marked as spam (false positive) This one is really really hard to tell. Most non-spam marked is spam is never seen by readers. So actual percentage that is reported would be very very small. > b) percentage of spam missed by the filter (false negative) > c) percentage of spam caught by the filter > ----- > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 18:57:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA15848 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:57:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2O0HCT05881 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 19:17:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2O0HCO05878 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 19:17:12 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA15840 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:57:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2O08YO05661; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 19:08:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2O07UO05565 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 19:07:30 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA15600 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:47:27 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2NLvPbn028435; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:57:25 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2NLvPfG028431; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:57:25 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: Alan DeKok cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Requirements for gathering statistics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:57:25 -0800 (PST) FY: I meant statistics previous given were not very "broad" and particular to one or couple isps! Stupid of me to forget to add "not"... On Sun, 23 Mar 2003 william@elan.net wrote: > I'm curious what are your ideas on how to do it in more in terms of scientific > research. I mean statistics previously given were very "broad". What I see > that has to be done is first statistics on how much email goes into what > types of mailservers (i.e. statistics on amount of email at larger isps - > aol, earthlink, msn) as compared to amount of email at smaller isps as > compared to amount of email at free email providers (hotmail, yahoo) as > compared to amount of email at enterprise as compared to amount of email > at web-hosting companies as compared to email small individual machines > (hosted on dls, cable, etc). After we have this statistics (how?) we a > certain sample can be chosen for each of the groups and then statistics > gathered. Just doing sample at aol or at enterprise will not provide > accurate statistics! > > > -------- Questionaire on Spam for Mail System Administrators ---- > > > > I) Size of the problem > > 1. Volume > Add here first - Total number of email messages. Total amount of email > received (i.e. traffic statistics on SMTP protocol). > > > a) Total spam volume (Mb/day) > > b) total number of spam messages > > c) total number of "do-nothing" SMTP connections > > (e.g. connect, EHLO, disconnect) > > > > 2. Relative amount of spam > > a) spam as a percentage of total email (spam messages / total messages) > > b) spam as a percentage of *non-spam* email (spam messages / accepted > > messages) > Would like to all see: size of spam messages / total size of email messages > size of regular emails / total size of spam > > > 3. Count of IP's > > a) number of IP's sending spam > Please by geographical area. When reverse dns is present - by country > (.cn) and by larger isp net (i.e. dsl at verizon, etc) > > > b) number of IP's sending "valid" email (may overlap with 3a) > And its interesting to know how many overlap!!! > > > 4. Costs associated with dealing with spam > > a) administrative (network support solely due to spam > Difficult to quantify ... > > b) technical (end-user) support > > c) additional infrastructure/machine costs > > (costs to end users should be initially avoided, as they're more > > difficult to quantify) > > > > II) Current Solutions which address the problem > > 1) blacklists > > a) SMTP conversations blocked due to the blacklist, as a percentage > > of the total > > (blocked conversations / total conversations) > What kind of blacklists!!! > > This would be usefull for additional statistics on particular list of > respondents especially if we really do it on wide basis. > > > b) SMTP conversations blocked, as a percentage of non-spam email > > (blocked conversations / allowed conversations) > > > > 2) whitelists > > a) spam which is in the whitelists, as a percentage of the total > > number of SMTP conversations > > b) spam which is in the whiteliests, as a percentage of the > > non-spam SMTP conversations > > > > 3) content filtering > > a) percentage of non-spam marked as spam (false positive) > This one is really really hard to tell. Most non-spam marked is spam is > never seen by readers. So actual percentage that is reported would be very > very small. > > > b) percentage of spam missed by the filter (false negative) > > c) percentage of spam caught by the filter > > ----- > > _______________________________________________ > > Asrg mailing list > > Asrg@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 20:04:10 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA17009 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 20:04:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2O1Nig08936 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 20:23:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2O1NiO08933 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 20:23:44 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA16996 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 20:03:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2O1AVO08640; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 20:10:31 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2O19sO08608 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 20:09:54 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA16863 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 19:49:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2181391; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 19:52:09 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: william@elan.net From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] The "Human-Shield" effect; the need for end-user control Cc: ASRG list Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:11:07 -0500 At 12:19 PM -0800 3/23/03, william@elan.net wrote: > > That gets harder. Products like ours and SpamAssassin may apply >> hundreds of rules, and what is far more important than which rule >> fires, is how the combination of results is weighted. >Actually spamassasin is quite good at reporting what has been checked as is. >I'v no problem with rules being weighted, but I'd like to know what each >resulted in. And it really not 100s of rules (not yet...), it maybe 100s >in terms of long filter list but actual top-level rules are about dozen. That's SpamAssassin. The point is. How are you going to standardize the names of rules when, virtually by definition, the rules are constantly changing? You said the point was so that the next filter in line wouldn't run something redundantly. I don't see how that works. Filters don't work that way. You give the example of having applied a whitelist--but that's about the easiest example. And I don't see how you can put these all in a headers without ending up with a lot of junk in the headers. > > (I'm also not a fan of adding lots of new > > headers--but I think this has problems even before we get to that.) >Possibly. But for example mentioned spamassasin already adds headers and >so do other filtering products. Each reports in its own way, though. Yes. That doesn't mean we should make the situation worse. I've been real careful to keep our output to one single header--and that's primarily for reporting misfiled messages. Now if you want to have a standard way for filters to report their results--that seems like a good idea. It would certainly make the MUA developer's job easier. I just don't see the point in listing what rules fired. But a way for multiple filters to report their results in a standard way sounds good. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 20:19:16 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA17295 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 20:19:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2O1coj10220 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 20:38:50 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2O1clO10217 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 20:38:47 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA17290 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 20:18:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2O1R4O09039; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 20:27:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2O1MLO08910 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 20:22:21 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA16987 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 20:02:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2181467; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 20:04:34 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: william@elan.net From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Requirements for gathering statistics Cc: Alan DeKok , asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 20:01:10 -0500 At 1:54 PM -0800 3/23/03, william@elan.net wrote: > > 2. Relative amount of spam >> a) spam as a percentage of total email (spam messages / total messages) >> b) spam as a percentage of *non-spam* email (spam messages / accepted >> messages) >Would like to all see: size of spam messages / total size of email messages > size of regular emails / total size of spam I assume that we understand that these numbers are going to be very inaccurate? Because if they were accurate, then presumably we'd know how to identify spam and we wouldn't be having this conversation. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 20:31:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA17473 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 20:31:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2O1p8j10644 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 20:51:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2O1p8O10641 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 20:51:08 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA17460 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 20:31:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2O1gdO10410; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 20:42:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2O1fTO10380 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 20:41:29 -0500 Received: from new.agentzero.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA17353 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 20:21:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.123.194] (h0050e4251179.ne.client2.attbi.com [66.30.24.79]) by new.agentzero.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2O1MVlD003566; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 20:22:32 -0500 Message-Id: <200303240122.h2O1MVlD003566@new.agentzero.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: Kee Hinckley , william@elan.net From: Jim Youll Subject: Re: [Asrg] Requirements for gathering statistics Cc: Alan DeKok , asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 20:23:24 -0500 At 20:01 -0500 3/23/03, Kee Hinckley wrote: >At 1:54 PM -0800 3/23/03, william@elan.net wrote: >> > 2. Relative amount of spam >>> a) spam as a percentage of total email (spam messages / total messages) >>> b) spam as a percentage of *non-spam* email (spam messages / accepted >>> messages) >>Would like to all see: size of spam messages / total size of email messages >> size of regular emails / total size of spam > >I assume that we understand that these numbers are going to be very >inaccurate? Because if they were accurate, then presumably we'd >know how to identify spam and we wouldn't be having this >conversation. discussion reminds me of this... "Criminal laws in this area are constitutionally limited to hard-core pornography. I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced with that shorthand description. ... But I know it when I see it." --Justice Potter Stewart (concurring), Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 198 (1964). w/r/t numbers, I ran a 30-day study of my own Hotmail box last year, with these results... Size(K) Count Legitimate messages 406 46 Spams in inbox 1319 269 Spams in junk mail box 3819 552 Total spam 5138 821 "Spam" included only messages from entities I had never had contact with, not including advertisements (wanted or unwanted) from vendors with whom i'd done business or contacted deliberately. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 21:44:47 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA19036 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 21:44:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2O34NJ14558 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 22:04:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2O34NO14555 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 22:04:23 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA19026 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 21:44:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2O2lPO13988; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 21:47:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2O2kNO13949 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 21:46:23 -0500 Received: from platypuspartners.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA18447 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 21:26:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from pindari.platypuspartners.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by platypuspartners.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2O2R2s4029598 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:27:03 +1100 Received: (from dave@localhost) by pindari.platypuspartners.com (8.12.8/8.12.2/Submit) id h2O2R1aC029595; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:27:01 +1100 Message-Id: <200303240227.h2O2R1aC029595@pindari.platypuspartners.com> From: David Finnie To: scrosby@cs.rice.edu CC: nazgul@somewhere.com, vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com, asrg@ietf.org In-reply-to: (message from Scott A Crosby on 23 Mar 2003 13:58:31 -0600) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: "HashStamp" == hashcash? (Re: Stamping) References: <200303222343.h2MNhHG4009728@calcite.rhyolite.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:27:01 +1100 Scott, I don't know if you've considered this approach - rather than the recipient generating stamps using a computationally expensive method, why doesn't it just generate a unique stamp using a simple method (e.g. a random or sequential number), and then encrypt it using it's private key ? Private key encryption is not overly expensive, but has the attribute that it is infeasible for the sender to "guess" cipher text that would result in a stamp that the recipient consider valid. When the recipient receives a stamp, it simply decrypts it using its public key, and compares it against its database of valid stamps. The "down" side of this is that stamps would be larger - e.g. 512 bits for a 512 bit RSA key pair. However, I think that this increase in traffic would be fairly neglibable considering the size of average emails. Dave _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 21:55:19 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA19414 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 21:55:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2O3EuQ15866 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 22:14:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2O3EuO15863 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 22:14:56 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA19394 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 21:54:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2O2u3O14331; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 21:56:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2O2tAO14294 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 21:55:10 -0500 Received: from platypuspartners.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA18788 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 21:35:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from pindari.platypuspartners.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by platypuspartners.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2O2a0s4029852 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:36:00 +1100 Received: (from dave@localhost) by pindari.platypuspartners.com (8.12.8/8.12.2/Submit) id h2O2a0Lw029849; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:36:00 +1100 Message-Id: <200303240236.h2O2a0Lw029849@pindari.platypuspartners.com> From: David Finnie To: scrosby@cs.rice.edu CC: nazgul@somewhere.com, vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com, asrg@ietf.org In-reply-to: (message from Scott A Crosby on 23 Mar 2003 13:58:31 -0600) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: "HashStamp" == hashcash? (Re: Stamping) References: <200303222343.h2MNhHG4009728@calcite.rhyolite.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:36:00 +1100 Scott, > Is anyone collecting system proposals, with their plusses, minuses, > and practicality listed? I did post a message suggesting a slightly more formal means of tracking and displaying important summary information, such as requirements and proposed solutions. I think that the best place for this is an official web site. I haven't yet seen any responses to my proposal. I think a useful result of this approach would be to reduce the amount of re-hashed ideas, and also to enable list newbies (like myself) to quickly get up to speed on the results of the research group so far. Dave _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 22:27:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA20551 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 22:27:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2O3lBn17739 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 22:47:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2O3lBO17736 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 22:47:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA20542 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 22:27:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2O3a9O16634; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 22:36:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2O3ZtO16620 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 22:35:55 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA20151 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 22:15:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h2O3I5W23271; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 19:18:05 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <20030324031805.GD22286@main.templetons.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Subject: [Asrg] Anybody interested in joining me on a VoIP spam session, Apr 2, San Jose Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 19:18:05 -0800 I'm doing a brief re-bow in to the list (I had to leave due to the immense volume) to see if anybody is interested in speaking on a panel I'm convening April 2 at the Pulver.com "Voice on the net" conference (www.pulver.com/von). This is an interesting conference if you have interest in voice over IP, SIP and H.323 and the like, which are slowly creating a new generation of telephony. However, one of the problems that nobody seems to have thought enough about in the VoIP world is spam. If we build an infrastructure of VoIP phones, with SIP URLs that can be phoned by anybody -- as people hope to do, to replace the PSTN -- then eventually there will be a spam problem. As you might guess, it would be attractive to spammers if they can get an overseas machine to simultaneously phone zillions of IP phones, and play them audio. They will use tricks like using a low-bandwidth codec for the first 20 seconds, and if you don't hang up, switching to a higher bandwidth one to play you their message. And predictive dialing tricks (which get you all those blank phone calls today) will get even worse. They will INVITE 1,000 phones, and only play audio to as many as they have bandwidth to handle, leaving the rest with a blank call. I usually do a session at this conference on privacy and security issues and thought this would be a cool topic to address. I will talk about it, as well as other issues, but don't want to take the whole hour for myself. There are lessons from E-mail that might be brought forward. At the same time, there are principles to preserve, of an open, end-to-end phone network where anybody can call anybody, instead of a super-secured one where only known people can talk to you. And there are combination solutions, where people initiate contact with e-mail and move to voice at the agreement of the recipient. Unlike E-mail, SIP has not yet taken over the world of the phone and it still is subject to improvement wrt this issue. Anyway, interesting problems. If this appeals to you, send me a direct E-mail. Thanks. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 23 23:57:21 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA22068 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 23:57:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2O5H1K23008 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 00:17:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2O5H0O23002 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 00:17:00 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA22061 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 23:56:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2O56HO21857; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 00:06:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2O55VO21821 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 00:05:31 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc02.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA21926 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 23:45:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from video.attbi.com (12-235-20-211.client.attbi.com[12.235.20.211]) by sccrmhc02.attbi.com (sccrmhc02) with SMTP id <2003032404473900200jbl39e>; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 04:47:39 +0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030323202932.0480f670@mail.attbi.com> X-Sender: schear@mail.attbi.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: Vernon Schryver , asrg@ietf.org From: Steve Schear Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: "HashStamp" == hashcash? (Re: Stamping) In-Reply-To: <200303231516.h2NFGMiu023660@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030322175412.049333e8@mail.attbi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_41107469==_.ALT" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 20:50:16 -0800 --=====================_41107469==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 08:16 AM 3/23/2003 -0700, Vernon Schryver wrote: >Steve Schear wrote: > > You're still, I think foolishly, focused on an ISP-oriented > > solution. Sender-pays makes them most sense when the client SW is > capable, > > if not singularly empowered, to enforce the payment mechanism at the > > receiving point. > >Ok, but what about the main question? What is the minimum speed CPU >that you will allow to send mail? Do you expect everyone from now on >to buy equal speed CPUs? "Allow"? Stamps will in all probability be "sized" at 60-600GHz-seconds. Whether someone is willing to tolerate this process delay is one based on CPU speed, patience and importance of the email. >How else do you ensure that the spammers >don't have CPUs that are 10,000 times faster than spam targets? Why would it matter? The hashcash stamp generation process is highly asymmetric. Stamps generated through many GHz-seconds of effort can be speedily authenticated by even cellphone or PDA level machines. Even stamp generators constructed from state-of-the-art ASICs are unlikely to make stamps more economically than a cluster of x86 blades. > > >There are reasons why after at least 6 months the hashcash proposals > > >are still only ideas. > > > > The reason is mostly that there are lots of arm chair generals but fewer > > competent programmers. > >I can't disagree; standards committees, netnews groups, and bars are >always filled with non-players eager to tell the players how to play. >However, a willingess to admit and deal with fundamental design problems >such as the span of real CPU speeds is part of being a competent >programmer. At the end of the day, competent programmers are those >who have programmed competently. How is your sender-pays implementation >working? How much of your incoming mail is sender-paid, and how much >is simply whitelisted? (If I'm confused about which solution you have >implemented, please forgive me and say how it is working.) > >Only about 1% of the spam sent my way gets through my filters, but I >must admit that the DCC is applied to only the leavings of my static >filters. The following is an edited version of cross-posts from "Eric S. Johansson" , Camram's primary developer: One of the systems proposed in camram is to switch from proof of work stamps to signed messages once you have been properly introduced. This some write-ups on this on the camram site but it's kind of obscure because the idea wasn't well thought out when I wrote it. The paper at http://harvee.org/camram/ is somewhat more illustrative but it's not fully documented yet. That is yet another way folks on the cypherpunks lists can help. Work out a system by which message has an embedded public key and the key is considered "good" after some introduction process involving two parties e-mailing each other. Then figure out how to deal with new key introductions if the original key has been lost to accident or deliberate action. It's a hoot. ;-) it is safe to assume that these keys will not have any pass phrases because this is a crypto system totally invisible to end-users. Argue with me on the no pass phrases requirement directly if you wish. the camram protocol can be embedded: at the client, or at the server. I have a mostly working version at the server and could use some help with a few things (see end) one thing folks aren't too aware of is that I have incorporated a Bayesian style filter into the camram environment in order to reduce the number of "postage do" notices. As many folks justifiably point out, if you don't eliminate the need for a "and then the universe changes" step, you won't get out of starting gates. The addition of a filter to discriminate e-mail into three categories (red/yellow/green) allows me to reduce the number of challenge messages to a small fraction what they could be. The feature that implements "and friends fly free" allows you to build your communications map and reduce the need for stamps in either direction. Again, this works at client side or server side. >What I want is >- a Eudora plugin to check for hashcash stamps, send bounce messages, auto >generate my hashcash stamps, and help create and maintain my white list. >- a web site which offers a hashcash stamp generator applet and simple >instructions for Figure out how to make Eudora interface with Python code and we are most of the way there. what we have done: - basic filter sequence consisting of stamp, white list, postage due response, basic template - a stamp generating SMTP proxy prototype. - spam discriminator prototype based on CRM114 - holding area management for spam and maybe spam mail - prototype CGI for holding area operations (discarded because UI sucks eggs) - prototype CGI for browser based stamp generation in response to postage due notice what we need help with: - holding area operations CGI. Must be simple UI allowing non-computer user to correct discriminator mis-recognitions and release improperly filtered messages. - better CGI for browser based stamp generation. - better SMTP proxy for outbound stamp generation (including proper BCC handling) - proxies for pop 3 - Most of the code has been written in Python. We're using Java only for the postage due notice web page. It needs to be rewritten a bit to be only Java 1.1, show only a big fat button that says "send postage" when it is done, and probably some other things which I can't think of right now. any takers? --=====================_41107469==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" At 08:16 AM 3/23/2003 -0700, Vernon Schryver wrote:
Steve Schear <schear@attbi.com> wrote:
> You're still, I think foolishly, focused on an ISP-oriented
> solution.  Sender-pays makes them most sense when the client SW is capable,
> if not singularly empowered, to enforce the payment mechanism at the
> receiving point.

Ok, but what about the main question?  What is the minimum speed CPU
that you will allow to send mail?  Do you expect everyone from now on
to buy equal speed CPUs? 

"Allow"?   Stamps will in all probability be "sized" at 60-600GHz-seconds.  Whether someone is willing to tolerate this process delay is one based on CPU speed, patience and importance of the email.

How else do you ensure that the spammers
don't have CPUs that are 10,000 times faster than spam targets?

Why would it matter?  The hashcash stamp generation process is highly asymmetric.  Stamps generated through many GHz-seconds of effort can be speedily authenticated by even cellphone or PDA level machines.  Even stamp generators constructed from state-of-the-art ASICs are unlikely to make stamps more economically than a cluster of x86 blades. 


> >There are reasons why after at least 6 months the hashcash proposals
> >are still only ideas.
>
> The reason is mostly that there are lots of arm chair generals but fewer
> competent programmers.

I can't disagree; standards committees, netnews groups, and bars are
always filled with non-players eager to tell the players how to play.
However, a willingess to admit and deal with fundamental design problems
such as the span of real CPU speeds is part of being a competent
programmer.  At the end of the day, competent programmers are those
who have programmed competently.  How is your sender-pays implementation
working?  How much of your incoming mail is sender-paid, and how much
is simply whitelisted?  (If I'm confused about which solution you have
implemented, please forgive me and say how it is working.)

Only about 1% of the spam sent my way gets through my filters, but I
must admit that the DCC is applied to only the leavings of my static
filters.

The following is an edited version of cross-posts from "Eric S. Johansson" <esj@harvee.org>, Camram's primary developer:

One of the systems proposed in camram is to switch from proof of work stamps to signed messages once you have been properly introduced. This some write-ups on this on the camram site but it's kind of obscure because the idea wasn't well thought out when I wrote it. The paper at http://harvee.org/camram/ is somewhat more illustrative but it's not fully documented yet. That is yet another way folks on the cypherpunks lists can help. Work out a system by which message has an embedded public key and the key is considered "good" after some introduction process involving two parties e-mailing each other. Then figure out how to deal with new key introductions if the original key has been lost to accident or deliberate action. It's a hoot. ;-)

it is safe to assume that these keys will not have any pass phrases because this is a crypto system totally invisible to end-users. Argue with me on the no pass phrases requirement directly if you wish.

the camram protocol can be embedded: at the client, or at the server. I have a mostly working version at the server and could use some help with a few things (see end)

one thing folks aren't too aware of is that I have incorporated a Bayesian style filter into the camram environment in order to reduce the number of "postage do" notices. As many folks justifiably point out, if you don't eliminate the need for a "and then the universe changes" step, you won't get out of starting gates. The addition of a filter to discriminate e-mail into three categories (red/yellow/green) allows me to reduce the number of challenge messages to a small fraction what they could be. The feature that implements "and friends fly free" allows you to build your communications map and reduce the need for stamps in either direction. Again, this works at client side or server side.

What I want is
- a Eudora plugin to check for hashcash stamps, send bounce messages, auto generate my hashcash stamps, and help create and maintain my white list.
- a web site which offers a hashcash stamp generator applet and simple instructions for

Figure out how to make Eudora interface with Python code and we are most of the way there.

what we have done:
- basic filter sequence consisting of stamp, white list, postage due response, basic template
- a stamp generating SMTP proxy prototype.
- spam discriminator prototype based on CRM114
- holding area management for spam and maybe spam mail
- prototype CGI for holding area operations (discarded because UI sucks eggs)
- prototype CGI for browser based stamp generation in response to postage due notice

what we need help with:
- holding area operations CGI. Must be simple UI allowing non-computer user to correct discriminator mis-recognitions and release improperly filtered messages.
- better CGI for browser based stamp generation.
- better SMTP proxy for outbound stamp generation (including proper BCC handling)
- proxies for pop 3
- Most of the code has been written in Python.  We're using Java only for the postage due notice web page. It needs to be rewritten a bit to be only Java 1.1, show only a big fat button that says "send postage" when it is done, and probably some other things which I can't think of right now.

any takers?
--=====================_41107469==_.ALT-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 24 00:01:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA22172 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 00:01:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2O5LCq23172 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 00:21:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2O5LCO23169 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 00:21:12 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA22165 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 00:01:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2O5A2O22790; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 00:10:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2O59rO22766 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 00:09:53 -0500 Received: from srv1.fecyk.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id XAA21982 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 23:49:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from gordshome (wnpgmb11dc1-res-164-188.mts.net [142.161.164.188]) by srv1.fecyk.ca (SMTPRCV 0.48) with SMTP id ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 22:52:02 -0600 From: "Gordon Fecyk - Home" To: "'Anti-Spam Research Group of IETF \(E-mail\)'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Update to DS Protocol draft Message-ID: <000001c2f1c1$740dd180$0100a8c0@fecyk.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4920.2300 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 22:54:29 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I'v given up on Microsh.t software That's enough. The rest of your missive isn't even worth quoting. *plonk* -- PGP key (0x0AFA039E): What's a PGP Key? See GOD BLESS AMER, er, THE INTERNET. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 24 00:10:00 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA22248 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 00:10:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2O5TeN23404 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 00:29:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2O5TeO23401 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 00:29:40 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA22239 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 00:09:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2O5E3O22873; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 00:14:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2O5DDO22845 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 00:13:13 -0500 Received: from plaidworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA22004 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 23:53:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.8/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h2O4tGZQ024088; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 20:55:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Update to DS Protocol draft Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: "'Anti-Spam Research Group of IETF \(E-mail\)'" To: "Gordon Fecyk - Home" From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <000001c2f1c1$740dd180$0100a8c0@fecyk.ca> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 20:55:14 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sunday, March 23, 2003, at 08:54 PM, Gordon Fecyk - Home wrote: >> I'v given up on Microsh.t software > > That's enough. The rest of your missive isn't even worth quoting. > and what you do personally is up to you. Anything that tries to solve the problem we're here to solve has to consider and support Microsoft, or it's a non-starter. -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 24 00:21:53 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA22432 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 00:21:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2O5fVq24584 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 00:41:31 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2O5fVO24581 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 00:41:31 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA22413 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 00:21:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2O5P5O23310; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 00:25:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2O5OcO23284 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 00:24:38 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA22218 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 00:04:26 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2O3EWbn032469; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 19:14:32 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2O3EWcL032465; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 19:14:32 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: Chuq Von Rospach cc: Gordon Fecyk - Home , "'Anti-Spam Research Group of IETF (E-mail)'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Update to DS Protocol draft In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 19:14:32 -0800 (PST) > On Sunday, March 23, 2003, at 08:54 PM, Gordon Fecyk - Home wrote: > > >> I'v given up on Microsh.t software > > > > That's enough. The rest of your missive isn't even worth quoting. > > > > and what you do personally is up to you. Anything that tries to solve > the problem we're here to solve has to consider and support Microsoft, > or it's a non-starter. I agree (unfortunetly). But the particulars of SRV and Microsoft has been discussed on many many other lists before. Allmost everyone is in agreement that Microsoft will have to support this and every other protocol is being developed with SRVs in mind. Just look at multiple RFCs that already have that in them and even more drafts. As far as various dns-mail-from proposals, I find DSDNSBL the best one as far as dns portion of it. But all these proposals are too easy to circumvent by spammers and are too restrictive for existing email communication, that is the main reason I'd not support them. Nothing to do with SRVs or Microsoft. -- William Leibzon Elan Communications Inc. william@elan.net _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 24 00:48:46 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA22907 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 00:48:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2O68PT26285 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 01:08:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2O68PO26282 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 01:08:25 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA22896 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 00:48:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2O61AO25152; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 01:01:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2O60ZO25119 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 01:00:35 -0500 Received: from cs.rice.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA22736 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 00:40:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with SMTP id 461644AB5E; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 23:42:43 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2381B4AB10; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 23:42:43 -0600 (CST) Received: from cs.rice.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (cs.rice.edu [127.0.0.1:10024]) (amavisd-new) with ESMTP id 23111-10; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 23:42:41 -0600 (CST) Received: from inky (bert.cs.rice.edu [128.42.3.146]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 788154AA69; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 23:42:41 -0600 (CST) Received: by inky (Postfix, from userid 14314) id 2ADB2F3628; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 23:42:11 -0600 (CST) To: Kee Hinckley Cc: asrg@ietf.org References: <200303211221.h2LCLWrH013650@pindari.platypuspartners.com> <20030321194608.A5619380@exeter.ac.uk> <200303212037.h2LKbdv5016004@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> From: Scott A Crosby Organization: Rice University In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lines: 102 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Scanned: by amavis-20021227p2 X-DCC--Metrics: cs.rice.edu 1067; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 Subject: [Asrg] Re: "HashStamp" == hashcash? (Re: Stamping) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 23 Mar 2003 23:42:10 -0600 On Sun, 23 Mar 2003 23:30:12 -0500, Kee Hinckley writes: > At 9:53 PM -0600 3/23/03, Scott A Crosby wrote: > > > Ah. So unsolicited email needs CPU-generated stamps. Solicited just > >> needs a one-time random token. Thanks, that makes sense. > > Fundamentally what you are doing is saying that the pain of sending > only needs to happen once, and from then on you've given tokens that > represent a consent to communicate. I certainly like it better than > the pure hash-cash/sender-pays solutions. And as it represents less > up-front pain, it's more likely to be accepted. Hashcash seems utterly ineffective if its anything less than 60ghz*seconds, and more likely 600ghz*seconds. Secondly, for legitimate bulk-mail senders such as ASRG, that is too high a cost to put on every message. It would also be nice to send mail to my mother without burning 10 minutes of CPU. Ergo, if hashcash is to be used, there *must* be a way to spread around 'cheap' tokens that let those legitimate bulk senders escape. For the most part, everything else is just tentative mechanisms to make it possible to spread around such 'cheap' stamps. Not that I think this mechanism is great, but I don't think many of the others that I've heard about are all that practical or desirable either. > That said, I don't see yet how it could get past the early-adopter > phase. Like the other systems, it offers no real benefits until a > substantial number of people adopt it. I can speculate one way. Remember, I haven't stated any policy as what other means may be available to obtain stamps. I give two required ways to obtain stamps, but others exist. For instance, auto-reply-robots that do a two-way handshake or CAPTCHA website challenges. One could build this as a 'side' mechanism into a auto-reply robot whitelisting mechanism similar to TMDA that IETF seperately standardizes. The robot-replies sucks for older clients, but work. We make the the stamp-missing control message machine-readible to make conforming clients check for other valid stamps (or expend the CPU to create a new stamp). They're also human-readible telling people to reply to the robot and complete the handshake. That way conforming clients are actually a benefit for recipients. Either a sender is sending from a known-good address, or they implement this protocol. They're also more convenient for senders, a sender never sees those bounce messages anymore. Eventually, in 5-10 years we depreciate the white-listing robot and make all stamp-missing bounce messages only machine-readible. Conforming senders interoperate with old recievers, they just attach some extra headers that get ignored. Conforming receivers interoperate with old senders. During initial deployment, they can whitelist based on completing a handshake by replying to the stamp-missing-bounce-message. Or they can obtain nonce stamps from a website, or an included CAPTCHA. There's no authentication, but no worse than current by-sender whitelists. Eventuallly most recievers will become conforming and the stamp-missing bounce messages would not be shown to the users anymore; clients would burn the CPU and resend automatically. Conforming mailing list systems would keep track of whether a client appeared to be running this system based on whether a stamp was attached to the subscription request. Thus switching between a non-conforming mailing list client and a conforming mailing list client might cause one to lose list subscriptions, which isn't TOO bad. This might almost be the best case. If nothing happens. I can imagine large ISP's doing the part of this (putting a auto-reply robot whitelister), and then we'd never get the second half of the protocol. IMHO, that'd be a horrible mess. We might as well try to use such an auto-reply whitelister as a bootstrap mechanism to something better. > The other interesting thing though, that just came to me, is that > there is a whole class of solutions (of which this is one) that change > the nature of email in an interesting way. Currently email is not > really a protocol. It's a one way communication. (Bounces are the > exception that prove the rule.) These solutions change email into > something that is actually a protocol. The act of communicating, at > least initially, involves automated back and forth communication. The > reason I find it interesting is that it introduces a whole new set of > failure modes you need to worry about. Network latency, bounce > messages, message-delayed messages, lost messages, vacation messages, > vacations themselves... All of these things could have interesting > impacts on the system that we've never really had to think about > before. Good point. It seems that almost any consent mechanism must make email become a two-way system. Scott _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 24 01:02:10 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA23174 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 01:02:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2O6Lnu26887 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 01:21:49 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2O6LnO26884 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 01:21:49 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA23163 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 01:01:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2O6DFO26618; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 01:13:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2O6CIO26559 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 01:12:18 -0500 Received: from maillist.grax.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA23014 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 00:52:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (grax_web1 [127.0.0.1]) by maillist.grax.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB3082C5D5 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 19:54:17 -0600 (CST) From: David Walker Reply-To: asrg@ietf.org Organization: Vorteon, LLC To: "'Anti-Spam Research Group of IETF (E-mail)'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Update to DS Protocol draft User-Agent: KMail/1.5 References: In-Reply-To: X-Hockey: Colorado Avalanche MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200303232357.11764@grx> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 23:57:11 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Obviously you're entitled to your opinion but I don't see this as anything more than the slightest bit restrictive for existing communication. It will require domains to set up authenticated ways of sending e-mail when not on your home network which just seems like good sense to me. And if you don't feel like doing that you can just leave it unconfigured and continue to enjoy the same lax measures we enjoy today. As far as being easy to circumvent by spammers, the more you limit what they can use in their fake headers the greater the chances they will have to use real headers. Once they're using real headers sensible blocking and/or legal complaints actually become feasible. Currently open relays is a major problem. This would limit the usefulness of open relays and eventually shift the focus from people who had open relays to people that didn't have their DS configured. > As far as various dns-mail-from proposals, I find DSDNSBL the best one as > far as dns portion of it. But all these proposals are too easy to > circumvent by spammers and are too restrictive for existing email > communication, that is the main reason I'd not support them. Nothing to do > with SRVs or Microsoft. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 24 01:03:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA23211 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 01:03:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2O6NKd26981 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 01:23:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2O6NKO26978 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 01:23:20 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA23206 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 01:03:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2O6H4O26738; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 01:17:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2O6GOO26718 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 01:16:24 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA23108 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 00:56:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2O5wQQA001753 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 22:58:26 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303240558.h2O5wQQA001753@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Update to DS Protocol draft References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 22:58:26 -0700 (MST) > From: Chuq Von Rospach > ... > and what you do personally is up to you. Anything that tries to solve > the problem we're here to solve has to consider and support Microsoft, > or it's a non-starter. That is true only of solutions that require large critical masses. Not all spam defenses are like that. Various blacklists are the canonical example of defenses without significant critical mass requirements. It is worth remembering that anything that blocks all spam from all targets is a non-starter. Some of the net will always be spam-friendly and will demand and require the right to have lots of spam. Spam is always only determined at the mailbox of the target. Speaking of Microsoft, it would be swell if the Bcentral sources of unsolicited bulk email that have been pounding at my mailbox and traps for years and even this week would stop. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 24 03:56:09 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA07864 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 03:56:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2O9Frh15974 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 04:15:53 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2O9FrO15971 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 04:15:53 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA07861 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 03:55:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2O95WO14746; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 04:05:32 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2O94sO14718 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 04:04:54 -0500 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA07663 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 03:44:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 18xNbY-0007CK-00; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 08:46:52 +0000 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Asrg] The "Human-Shield" effect; the need for end-user control To: "Matt Sergeant" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.4.12] Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 08:46:52 +0000 > On Sun, 23 Mar 2003, Kee Hinckley wrote: > > > > At 10:42 AM +0000 3/23/03, Matt Sergeant wrote: > > > > There are some issues. Your filter server's capabilities may not be > > >> the same as mine, for instance. But in general, the idea of a common > > >> mechanism for expressing your filter desires (what countries, what > > >> languages, what's the white list, what's the blacklist, what IP's or > > >> RBLs...) is a good idea. We have already done some preliminary work > > >> in this area with our product. > > > > > >As have the IETF. See SEIVE. > > > > That looks like an attempt to write a programming language for > > filtering text in email format. That is *way* more specific than > > simply configuring an existing filter. Has anyone actually > > implemented it? > > Yes, a few. http://www.cyrusoft.com/sieve/#implementations > > As I said in another mail, I was thinking of this as something to build > on, rather than inventing a new syntax (even a syntax of XML). > I'd be really surprised if one could build on a language which has the intention "...to make it impossible for users to do anything more complex (and dangerous) than write simple mail filters" so as to create a general mechanism for configuring arbitary filter engines. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 24 04:42:02 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA08739 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 04:42:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2OA1lY18320 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 05:01:47 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OA1lO18317 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 05:01:47 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA08734 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 04:41:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2O9rBO17907; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 04:53:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2O9oJO17783 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 04:50:19 -0500 Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id EAA08515 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 04:30:03 -0500 (EST) From: meor@mail.SoftHome.net Received: (qmail 28848 invoked by uid 417); 24 Mar 2003 09:31:24 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 24 Mar 2003 09:31:24 -0000 Received: from Main.mail.SoftHome.net ([24.118.229.120]) (AUTH: LOGIN meor@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 02:31:23 -0700 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030324031752.00b82ec8@mail.SoftHome.net> X-Sender: meor@mail.SoftHome.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: asrg@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Hashstamp-like proposal Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 03:31:25 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit For those of you who have tossed around the idea of a hash-stamp or other type of stamping protocol, I implore you to check out this proposal. I believe it to be very close to a workable solution, if not one, for limiting any type of undesired network communication, but specifically eliminating SPAM E-Mail. I know I've thrown this idea out once before but I only received a few responses from people who completely read the proposal and understood it's workings. A web page has been put up explaining the idea at http://meor.xwarzone.com/overview.htm For those of you that have read it before, a few paragraphs have been added to the beginning of the proposal to more properly introduce the concept and make it easier to follow. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 24 05:07:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA09289 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 05:07:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2OARPc20167 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 05:27:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OARPO20164 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 05:27:25 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA09270 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 05:07:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OAKHO19887; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 05:20:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OAJdO19806 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 05:19:39 -0500 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA09069 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 04:59:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 18xOlw-0000aA-00; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 10:01:40 +0000 In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030324031752.00b82ec8@mail.SoftHome.net> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Hashstamp-like proposal To: From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.4.12] Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 10:01:40 +0000 > For those of you who have tossed around the idea of a hash-stamp or other > type of stamping protocol, I implore you to check out this proposal. I > believe it to be very close to a workable solution, if not one, for > limiting any type of undesired network communication, but specifically > eliminating SPAM E-Mail. I know I've thrown this idea out once before but > I only received a few responses from people who completely read the > proposal and understood it's workings. A web page has been put up > explaining the idea at http://meor.xwarzone.com/overview.htm For those of > you that have read it before, a few paragraphs have been added to the > beginning of the proposal to more properly introduce the concept and make > it easier to follow. > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > DRAWBACKS OF THIS METHOD 1. Requires a new client, server, and protocol in order to be implemented. Is that all? :-) -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 24 06:09:03 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA10323 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 06:09:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2OBSoU24172 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 06:28:50 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OBSoO24169 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 06:28:50 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA10296 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 06:08:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OBICO23718; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 06:18:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OBH3O23669 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 06:17:03 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id FAA10048 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 05:56:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 32620 invoked from network); 23 Mar 2003 10:55:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO startechgroup.co.uk) (10.2.100.157) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 23 Mar 2003 10:55:51 -0000 Subject: Re: [Asrg] keeping it accurate Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: asrg@ietf.org To: Vernon Schryver From: Matt Sergeant In-Reply-To: <200303232232.h2NMW05m012965@calcite.rhyolite.com> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 10:59:17 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sunday, Mar 23, 2003, at 22:32 Europe/London, Vernon Schryver wrote: > The volume of spam is a problem, but only in human attention and not > network bits/second, CPU cycles, or disk space, unless you have > thousands of users' spam to deal with. It has become a problem CPU-wise for us. We run *very* aggressive filters - 4 anti-virus filters, three types of anti-spam filter, and if the customer wants it, a porn filter. It's quite CPU intensive to deal with all the spam. Or put another way, we'd certainly rather not have to ;-) Matt. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 24 06:29:27 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA10593 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 06:29:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2OBnEQ25641 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 06:49:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OBnEO25637 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 06:49:14 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA10590 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 06:28:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OBdEO25309; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 06:39:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OBclO25291 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 06:38:47 -0500 Received: from platypuspartners.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA10485 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 06:18:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from pindari.platypuspartners.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by platypuspartners.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2OBJVs4012891 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 22:19:32 +1100 Received: (from dave@localhost) by pindari.platypuspartners.com (8.12.8/8.12.2/Submit) id h2OBJVhI012888; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 22:19:31 +1100 Message-Id: <200303241119.h2OBJVhI012888@pindari.platypuspartners.com> From: David Finnie To: meor@mail.SoftHome.net CC: asrg@ietf.org In-reply-to: <5.1.0.14.0.20030324031752.00b82ec8@mail.SoftHome.net> (meor@mail.SoftHome.net) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Hashstamp-like proposal References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030324031752.00b82ec8@mail.SoftHome.net> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 22:19:31 +1100 > For those of you who have tossed around the idea of a hash-stamp or other > type of stamping protocol, I implore you to check out this proposal. I > believe it to be very close to a workable solution, if not one, for > limiting any type of undesired network communication, but specifically > eliminating SPAM E-Mail. I know I've thrown this idea out once before but > I only received a few responses from people who completely read the > proposal and understood it's workings. A web page has been put up > explaining the idea at http://meor.xwarzone.com/overview.htm For those of > you that have read it before, a few paragraphs have been added to the > beginning of the proposal to more properly introduce the concept and make > it easier to follow. I see several potential problems with this method - most importantly (see below), that I think it can be circumvented by spammers: - it is patented. Admittedly a free licence is granted for free software, but it is fairly clear that's not the case for "for sale" software. - the last time I checked, DSA is patented. I don't know what the situation is at the moment re. licensing DSA technologies. - it doesn't actually "eliminate" spam - spammers may still choose to wear the cost of computation. From my reading of the protocol, after they succeed in cracking the weak cypher key, the spam message is still delivered. That's different to my definition of "eliminate". - a distribution list could be the way spammers get around this protocol: spammer joins ASRG list, starts collecting names since ASRG mail server is sending messages to us, it includes its public key and a signed piece of info in every message. spammer gathers 1 or more of these signed pieces of info, and send a message to the recipients of the list, using the ASRG mail server's public key and signed piece of info. Since all of us have (of course) included ASRG in our white list, the spammers messages get through with no challenge/computation effort. Have I missed something ? Dave _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 24 09:05:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA18971 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 09:05:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2OEOtR04207 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 09:24:55 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OEOsO04204 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 09:24:54 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA18961 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 09:04:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OEHYO03855; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 09:17:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OEGAO03803 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 09:16:10 -0500 Received: from nber13.nber.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA18443 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 08:55:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from nber13.nber.org (localhost.nber.org [127.0.0.1]) by nber13.nber.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h2ODw9Kr060795 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 08:58:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by nber13.nber.org (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id h2ODw9Qj060794 for asrg@ietf.org.KAV; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 08:58:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from nber5.nber.org (nber5.nber.org [207.113.108.99]) by nber13.nber.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h2ODw8Ks060786 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 08:58:08 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Feenberg To: "'Anti-Spam Research Group of IETF (E-mail)'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Update to DS Protocol draft In-Reply-To: <200303232357.11764@grx> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 08:39:41 -0500 (EST) On Sun, 23 Mar 2003, David Walker wrote: > As far as being easy to circumvent by spammers, the more you limit what they > can use in their fake headers the greater the chances they will have to use > real headers. Once they're using real headers sensible blocking and/or legal > complaints actually become feasible. > This point needs some expansion. Is the purpose of the proposal to allow receipients to block on characteristics other than connection address? To block only the spammers, and allow the legitimate mail to go through? Why doesn't this have dangerous incentive effects, that is, MTA maintainers will lose part of their incentive to block spam at the source because their own legitimate mail will no longer be at risk of being blocked. I can certainly see some ISPs giving up on spam control, and just telling receipients that they should drop forged header mail rather than forward it to abuse@. Daniel Feenberg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 24 09:58:02 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA20681 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 09:58:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2OFHrC08218 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 10:17:53 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OFHrO08215 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 10:17:53 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA20652 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 09:57:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OFB8O07689; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 10:11:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OFANO07651 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 10:10:23 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA20365 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 09:50:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2OEqI4V001961 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 07:52:18 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303241452.h2OEqI4V001961@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] keeping it accurate References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 07:52:18 -0700 (MST) > From: Matt Sergeant > > The volume of spam is a problem, but only in human attention and not > > network bits/second, CPU cycles, or disk space, unless you have > > thousands of users' spam to deal with. > > It has become a problem CPU-wise for us. We run *very* aggressive > filters - 4 anti-virus filters, three types of anti-spam filter, and if > the customer wants it, a porn filter. > > It's quite CPU intensive to deal with all the spam. Or put another way, > we'd certainly rather not have to ;-) It's not entirely clear that resources spent on filtering should be charged to receving spam, but let's assume they should. How many CPU-seconds do you spend for each incoming mail mesage and how man users do you have? If you spend 1000 CPU cycles on every byte of incoming mail, then I suspect you spend less than 0.01 CPU seconds of a GHz CPU per typical less than 5 KByte mail message. However, assume I'm wrong by a factor of 10 and you spend 10,000 cycles/byte. That implies that a cheap GHz server can handle about 800,000 mail messages/day. Unless you have thousands of users, how can you have a problem? In other words, are you disagreeing with me? Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 24 10:35:25 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA23245 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 10:35:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2OFtHh10877 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 10:55:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OFtHO10874 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 10:55:17 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA23211 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 10:34:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OFlVO10556; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 10:47:31 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OFkFO10490 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 10:46:15 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA22956 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 10:25:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc02.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2OFS7qd006653; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 07:28:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 07:28:07 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Vernon Schryver'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: rant.. Re: [Asrg] My Opinion regarding ietf asrg session (it went badly!) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 07:28:05 -0800 > I stand by my guess about sour grapes from avocates of silver bullets. > The common silver bullets have nothing but months (e.g. hashcash) and > sometimes years (e.g. authentication and sender-pays money) of > non-technical and often technically inaccurate talk supporting them. Vernon, you are projecting like mad here. You are the person that has contributed NO ideas and has made spiteful comments about every single scheme apart from your own. Your attacks have been as snide as they are contentless. You don't even have the guts to address specific people or issues, instead you throw up lots of FUD against ill defined approaches. It appears to me that you are the one suffering from sour grapes here. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 24 10:51:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA23715 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 10:51:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2OGBSm12274 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 11:11:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OGBRO12271 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 11:11:27 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA23702 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 10:51:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OG46O11206; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 11:04:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OG32O11166 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 11:03:02 -0500 Received: from maillist.grax.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA23554 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 10:42:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (grax_web1 [127.0.0.1]) by maillist.grax.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB8452C5D5; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 05:44:49 -0600 (CST) From: David Walker Reply-To: asrg@ietf.org Organization: Vorteon, LLC To: Daniel Feenberg , "'Anti-Spam Research Group of IETF (E-mail)'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Update to DS Protocol draft User-Agent: KMail/1.5 References: In-Reply-To: X-Hockey: Colorado Avalanche MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200303240947.45495@grx> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 09:47:45 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit abuse@ where? It takes research and guesswork to determine that. I really don't understand your question. The purpose of the proposal, (as I see it, it isn't my proposal) is to provide a tool I can use to check and see if the mail is being sent from an legitimate, acceptable machine under the control of the the sender's domain. Presumably if someone is trying to send mail FROM my domain from a machine I have disallowed, then they are not a legitimate mail user (a spammer and/or a forger) and should not see their message delivered. There is no reason this proposal would encourage ISPs of spammers to allow spam through. Dropping forged header mail (with an SMTP error code) is just good practice. I think you're confusing MTA maintainers at the forged from site with the MTA maintainers running open relays. With the current design, when someone sent out a mail with a forged @grax.com from address the bounce messages came to me. But I have no control whatsoever on who sends mail "from" my domain until we get this implemented. On Monday 24 March 2003 07:39 am, Daniel Feenberg wrote: > This point needs some expansion. Is the purpose of the proposal to allow > receipients to block on characteristics other than connection address? To > block only the spammers, and allow the legitimate mail to go through? Why > doesn't this have dangerous incentive effects, that is, MTA maintainers > will lose part of their incentive to block spam at the source because > their own legitimate mail will no longer be at risk of being blocked. > > I can certainly see some ISPs giving up on spam control, and just telling > receipients that they should drop forged header mail rather than forward > it to abuse@. > > Daniel Feenberg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 24 10:58:23 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA23892 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 10:58:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2OGIGG12570 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 11:18:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OGIGO12567 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 11:18:16 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA23875 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 10:57:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OGA2O12227; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 11:10:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OGA0O12204 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 11:10:00 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA23685 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 10:49:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc01.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53] (may be forged)) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2OFnUMX012230 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 07:49:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 07:51:55 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: "HashStamp" == hashcash? (Re: Stamping) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 07:51:53 -0800 > > There are reasons why after at least 6 months the hashcash proposals > > are still only ideas. > > Hashcach is fundamentally flawed. Cool and interesting, but doomed. > > Authenticating headers opportunistically can work. Baby steps. Hashcash is essentially an authorization step, the authorization is implicit in spending the time required to send the email. There is a hierarchy of approaches here. Authentication - Simplest, lowest cost Authentication + Whitelists - more maintenance Non-convertible cash schemes - require state maintenance Convertible cash schemes - require settlements Convertible cash schemes are very complex as they require settlements and that is expensive - none of the existing settlement systems in use today can manage trades for less than tens of cents per transaction. Convertible cash schemes also involve a new fraud incentive. The problem I have believing the cash schemes is that the spam senders appear to be willing to spend more to create garbage than many users. Rememberthat 'Authentication' here could involve moving to a pull protocol rather than a push protocol FOR CERTAIN APPLICATIONS. Here NNTP with limited posting rights is a posibility, although its failure to manage spam on Usenet means that many will dismiss it, probably unfairly. Another possibility is RSS. There is only a subset of messaging that can be managed that way unfortunately. Mailing lists, alerts, newsletters, etc. But we are not going to find a silver bullet, we need to address each use independently and accept that there will be need for different approaches. One interesting approach would be to combine RSS with a notification pig via UDP. So the user subscribes to a stream, the stream says something like 'i update every 15 minutes, hour, day, whatever'. The user can poll, or the user can wait for a UDP packet that gives the serial number of the last update, thus allowing updates earlier than the indicator says. This system can be made quite robust, unsolicited packets are simply ignored as there is no point unless there is a subcription. If a user stops downloading the feed for some time the sender can simply delete the user's account and stop sending the udp packets. This type of scheme could operate in parallel as a feature of a traditional mailing list agent. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 24 11:08:06 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24258 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 11:08:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2OGRxa13020 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 11:27:59 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OGRwO13017 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 11:27:58 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24236 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 11:07:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OGILO12587; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 11:18:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OGHqO12514 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 11:17:52 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA23863 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 10:57:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18xPYs-0000tp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 05:52:14 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Requirements for gathering statistics In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 23 Mar 2003 20:01:10 EST." Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 05:52:14 -0500 Kee Hinckley wrote: > I assume that we understand that these numbers are going to be very > inaccurate? Because if they were accurate, then presumably we'd know > how to identify spam and we wouldn't be having this conversation. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. - The numbers will be precise byte or message counts are easy to calculate correctly - The numbers may be accurate they will count exactly the messages which the ISP's believe to be spam, and not any other messages - The criteria for determining *which* messages are spam is vague, imprecise, ill-defined, and subject to personal bias However, by measuring data from from biased systems, we can get a good indication of what those biases may be, how extensive they are, and even discover the shape of the non-biased systems. Pollsters use these methods all the time. They call people, collect precise, accurate data about personal biases. The people may lie, but with enough data, that bias may be accounted for. I'm not saying the numbers will be perfect, or perfectly collected. I'm coming at it from a method used in physics: A small step forward is better than sitting still. What amazes me is the number of people who would rather do nothing than use an imperfect system, and the number of people who fight against something they agree with, because they think it doesn't go far enough. Can we please learn how to walk before we start running? Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 24 11:21:19 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24503 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 11:21:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2OGfCG14173 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 11:41:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OGfBO14170 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 11:41:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24491 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 11:20:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OGR6O12977; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 11:27:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OGQDO12951 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 11:26:13 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24216 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 11:05:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18xPgw-0000uH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 06:00:34 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Requirements for gathering statistics In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:54:12 PST." Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 06:00:34 -0500 william@elan.net wrote: > I'm curious what are your ideas on how to do it in more in terms of > scientific research. By that, I would mean "research conducted according to established scientific methods." > ... After we have this statistics (how?) we a > certain sample can be chosen for each of the groups and then statistics > gathered. Just doing sample at aol or at enterprise will not provide > accurate statistics! You're arguing against a position no one advocated. > > 3. Count of IP's > > a) number of IP's sending spam > Please by geographical area. When reverse dns is present - by country > (.cn) and by larger isp net (i.e. dsl at verizon, etc) I disagree completely. Asking for those statistics will likely mean that many companies will not participate. > > 4. Costs associated with dealing with spam > > a) administrative (network support solely due to spam > Difficult to quantify ... So? They can pick a ballpark number. It's still better than nothing. > > II) Current Solutions which address the problem > > 1) blacklists ... > What kind of blacklists!!! That question should be initially avoided. There is too much emotion involved in the issue. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 24 12:05:12 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25621 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 12:05:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2OHP7G16992 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 12:25:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OHP6O16989 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 12:25:06 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25611 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 12:04:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OHHHO16651; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 12:17:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OHGcO16597 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 12:16:38 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25300 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 11:56:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2OGwWkA007321 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 11:58:32 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20030324170006.14878.91837.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> Message-ID: References: <20030324170006.14878.91837.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Asrg] Statistics Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 11:58:32 -0500 (EST) > From: "Alan DeKok" > Pollsters use these methods all the time. They call people, collect > precise, accurate data about personal biases. The people may lie, but > with enough data, that bias may be accounted for. I'd like to add two more statistics to Alan's list: 1) For each IP address, the number of successful RCPT commands issued by that client. 2) For each IP address, the number of unsuccessful RCPT commands issued by that client. In spite of derogatory comments by some others earlier, I think it would be interesting to see if spammers generally have dirtier lists than non-spammers. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 24 12:13:10 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25746 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 12:13:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2OHX4m17300 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 12:33:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OHX4O17295 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 12:33:04 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25739 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 12:12:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OHP4O16976; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 12:25:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OHOwO16944 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 12:24:58 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA25604 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 12:04:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 22506 invoked from network); 23 Mar 2003 17:03:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.2.100.178?) (10.2.100.178) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 23 Mar 2003 17:03:37 -0000 From: Matt Sergeant X-X-Sender: matt@localhost.localdomain To: Vernon Schryver cc: "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] keeping it accurate In-Reply-To: <200303241452.h2OEqI4V001961@calcite.rhyolite.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 17:24:22 +0000 (GMT) On Mon, 24 Mar 2003, Vernon Schryver wrote: > How many CPU-seconds do you spend for each incoming mail mesage and > how man users do you have? We average about 1 second per email. We process over 10 million emails a day for about 1.2 million users. IIRC our average processor is a 1.2Ghz Pentium. Yes, this is an inordinately long period of time. > In other words, are you disagreeing with me? I'm never sure ;-) Hence I'm not drawing any conclusions, just trying to give the facts as we see them. Matt. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 24 12:20:01 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25916 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 12:20:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2OHdte18308 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 12:39:55 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OHdtO18305 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 12:39:55 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25896 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 12:19:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OHQ2O17046; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 12:26:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OHPaO17012 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 12:25:36 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25619 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 12:05:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.57] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2OH7Sqd026828; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 09:07:28 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 09:07:27 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Alan DeKok'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Requirements for gathering statistics MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 09:07:27 -0800 I think that the discussion of accuracy is misplaced. I don't think we need to measure to n decimal places here. In fact I don't think we need any decimal places. We have two pieces of information that I think most significant: 1 Spam is growing at an exponential rate (10% a month by the most conservative estimates). 2 The spam senders are using countermeasures to bypass filtering. The types of information I think IS interesting is information that gives a handle on the character of the problem. In particular - Proportion that comes from list kiddies (small fry who bought a list) vs garbage creators (major spamhaus) - Rates of growth of spam from different sources. - Whether certain countermeasures have been applied in more than 5% of cases. - Proportion of spam sent through open relays - to 10% or so. I am not interested in the precise figures as they will change. We are dealing with an enemy that will change its behavior in response to our own. Clearly there is an s curve here, there is a limit on the exponential, however 1) I don't know where it is, 2) I have no way of estimating where it might be and 3) I suspect it depends on us comming up with a countermeasure. If no spam sender ever uses forged headers we could cut out a lot of spam simply by whitelisting for the major ISPs known to implement rate limiting. I doubt that such will remain the case for very long. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 24 12:37:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA26469 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 12:37:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2OHvdK19269 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 12:57:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OHvcO19266 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 12:57:38 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA26461 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 12:37:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OHpBO18963; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 12:51:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OHoHO18903 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 12:50:17 -0500 Received: from newsguy.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA26277 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 12:29:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from tedgavin.speakeasy.net (dsl092-237-232.phl1.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.92.237.232] (may be forged)) by newsguy.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id JAA92134 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 09:32:10 -0800 (PST) From: Ted Gavin To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Requirements for gathering statistics Organization: Harvard's Memory Loss Clinic, est. in 1952, 1967, and for the first time, in 1981. Reply-To: tedgavin@newsguy.com Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h2OHoHO18904 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 12:32:10 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 05:52:14 -0500, "Alan DeKok" wrote: >Kee Hinckley wrote: >> I assume that we understand that these numbers are going to be very >> inaccurate? Because if they were accurate, then presumably we'd know >> how to identify spam and we wouldn't be having this conversation. [snip] > I'm not saying the numbers will be perfect, or perfectly collected. >I'm coming at it from a method used in physics: A small step forward >is better than sitting still. > > What amazes me is the number of people who would rather do nothing >than use an imperfect system, and the number of people who fight >against something they agree with, because they think it doesn't go >far enough. > > Can we please learn how to walk before we start running? To that point, if a comprehensive survey is going to be done, my impression is it should be as thorough as possible. ASRG's mission necessarily places a lot on our collective plate. However, I have a responsibility to SpamCon Foundation's donors to not spend their donated funds on wasted or frivolous efforts. So, before we start throwing away dollars (in actual costs, time, resources, or getting a university to do the research project if it becomes large enough), we need to make sure that the effort is worthwhile. This group (ASRG) is part of our constituent population, as are each of the participants here. That being said, this group needs to not only learn how to walk, but at least have both legs working on the same effort. To translate - if it's actual data we're looking for, then we should at least agree, as a group, what data we want. So, I recommend that the Chair determine the sense of the group and state whether a survey of the sort we've been discussing here is germane to this Research Group fulfilling its mission. If so, then perhaps we all might have some discussion as to what data is necessary for the survey to be actually useful to the group is fulfilling its mission. Ted Gavin * tedgavin@newsguy.com * Trustee & Officer, SpamCon Foundation A California Non-Profit Organization Protecting email as a medium of communications and commerce Donations: _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 24 13:18:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27795 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:18:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2OIcOH22584 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:38:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OIcNO22581 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:38:23 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27775 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:17:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OITJO21227; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:29:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OISeO21141 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:28:40 -0500 Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA27393 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:08:15 -0500 (EST) From: meor@mail.SoftHome.net Received: (qmail 31311 invoked by uid 417); 24 Mar 2003 18:10:33 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 24 Mar 2003 18:10:33 -0000 Received: from Main.mail.SoftHome.net ([24.118.229.120]) (AUTH: LOGIN meor@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 11:10:32 -0700 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030324120933.00bd3a48@mail.SoftHome.net> X-Sender: meor@mail.SoftHome.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Hashstamp-like proposal In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030324031752.00b82ec8@mail.SoftHome.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 12:10:35 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >DRAWBACKS OF THIS METHOD > >1. Requires a new client, server, and protocol in order to be implemented. > >Is that all? :-) I see what you're getting at. Unfortunately as far as I know there hasn't been a good solution presented that doesn't either break SMTP or require a consensus among all clients and servers; which in effect is a new protocol. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 24 13:29:19 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA28182 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:29:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2OInEp23012 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:49:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OInDO23009 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:49:13 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA28154 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:28:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OIf8O22750; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:41:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OIe9O22701 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:40:09 -0500 Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA27818 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:19:43 -0500 (EST) From: meor@mail.SoftHome.net Received: (qmail 13577 invoked by uid 417); 24 Mar 2003 18:22:01 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 24 Mar 2003 18:22:01 -0000 Received: from Main.mail.SoftHome.net ([24.118.229.120]) (AUTH: LOGIN meor@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 11:22:01 -0700 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030324121106.00bd0cf0@mail.SoftHome.net> X-Sender: meor@mail.SoftHome.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Hashstamp-like proposal In-Reply-To: <200303241119.h2OBJVhI012888@pindari.platypuspartners.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030324031752.00b82ec8@mail.SoftHome.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20030324031752.00b82ec8@mail.SoftHome.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 12:22:04 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >- the last time I checked, DSA is patented. I don't know what the > situation is at the moment re. licensing DSA technologies. If there is an issue with the DSA licensing scheme, I believe this method could use any digital signing method in order to get the desired effect. >- it doesn't actually "eliminate" spam - spammers may still choose to > wear the cost of computation. From my reading of the protocol, after > they succeed in cracking the weak cypher key, the spam message is > still delivered. That's different to my definition of "eliminate". Well, what this method does, is make it infeasible to make a business out of spamming. When you require connections to identify themselves it becomes very easy to make it very hard for a select group of people to abuse it. For instance if a big company emerged and used the domain spammers.org or certain IPs that were known, E-Mail host operators could easily make it 10 time or 100 times more difficult for a message to be sent from that domain or group of IPs. Knowing that it is so easy for an E-Mail host admin to single them out and ramp up difficulty in sending, spammers would be very weary of investing a large amount of money in getting more processing power. The difficulty alone in solving the computation task makes it impossible for a single CPU or group of them to be effective at spamming. If mail host administrators generally picked a 10-20 second work load for a message to be sent, that would mean 10-20 seconds between each message which would be a huge detrement to spamming. >- a distribution list could be the way spammers get around this protocol: > > spammer joins ASRG list, starts collecting names > > since ASRG mail server is sending messages to us, it includes its > public key and a signed piece of info in every message. > > spammer gathers 1 or more of these signed pieces of info, and send a > message to the recipients of the list, using the ASRG mail server's > public key and signed piece of info. Since all of us have (of > course) included ASRG in our white list, the spammers messages get > through with no challenge/computation effort. > > Have I missed something ? Well, that is a good idea however I think this "problem" would be solved with a good implementation. If the mail host generated a random message and required the client to sign it, there would be no way for a client to know what information it would be required to sign and no way for other clients to use them. Second of all, the signed piece of information isn't distributed. Once identity is verified the information is discarded so the only way for a spammer to gather signed information would be to be a mail host. Aside from the fact that gathering signed information has no benefit. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 24 13:45:02 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA28553 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:45:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2OJ4vK23554 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 14:04:57 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OJ4uO23551 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 14:04:56 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA28544 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:44:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OIr4O23147; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:53:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OIqFO23095 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:52:15 -0500 Received: from aismtp1g.bellsouth.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA28228 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:31:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from 01AL10015010060.ad.bls.com ([90.152.5.135] [90.152.5.135]) by aismtp1g.bellsouth.com with ESMTP; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:34:26 -0500 Received: by 01al10015010060.ad.bls.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:34:08 -0500 Message-Id: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D684@bremocag> From: "Sauer, Damon" To: "'tedgavin@newsguy.com'" Cc: "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Requirements for gathering statistics MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:34:07 -0500 The reasons that I do not release my numbers is that, if I tell all of you how good or how bad my numbers are, I may become a target by a spammer that either a) Wants to take me on as a personal conquest, or b) Accepts my percentage of spam that I let through as "acceptable". I can tell you that most of my trouble comes from my corporate domain name and ISP domain name are only differentiated by .com and .net. Most AOL size spammers don't realize that they are spamming the wrong domain and that their customer base is not here at .com. As a consequence, we have had to install ISP size gateways on a corporate size mail system. I am VERY familiar with the spam problem. I am not sure what statistics gathering is going to accomplish, other than justify the continued use of spam as a marketing tool. Will it help us obtain our goal? I don't think so because it contains no differentiating research and no control sets. Now, I may be willing to send you example spams for some repository to be used in a research setting but I am sure that you get enough of your own ;-) Warmest Regards, Damon -----Original Message----- From: Ted Gavin [mailto:tedgavin@newsguy.com] Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 12:32 PM To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Requirements for gathering statistics On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 05:52:14 -0500, "Alan DeKok" wrote: >Kee Hinckley wrote: >> I assume that we understand that these numbers are going to be very >> inaccurate? Because if they were accurate, then presumably we'd know >> how to identify spam and we wouldn't be having this conversation. [snip] > I'm not saying the numbers will be perfect, or perfectly collected. >I'm coming at it from a method used in physics: A small step forward >is better than sitting still. > > What amazes me is the number of people who would rather do nothing >than use an imperfect system, and the number of people who fight >against something they agree with, because they think it doesn't go >far enough. > > Can we please learn how to walk before we start running? To that point, if a comprehensive survey is going to be done, my impression is it should be as thorough as possible. ASRG's mission necessarily places a lot on our collective plate. However, I have a responsibility to SpamCon Foundation's donors to not spend their donated funds on wasted or frivolous efforts. So, before we start throwing away dollars (in actual costs, time, resources, or getting a university to do the research project if it becomes large enough), we need to make sure that the effort is worthwhile. This group (ASRG) is part of our constituent population, as are each of the participants here. That being said, this group needs to not only learn how to walk, but at least have both legs working on the same effort. To translate - if it's actual data we're looking for, then we should at least agree, as a group, what data we want. So, I recommend that the Chair determine the sense of the group and state whether a survey of the sort we've been discussing here is germane to this Research Group fulfilling its mission. If so, then perhaps we all might have some discussion as to what data is necessary for the survey to be actually useful to the group is fulfilling its mission. Ted Gavin * tedgavin@newsguy.com * Trustee & Officer, SpamCon Foundation A California Non-Profit Organization Protecting email as a medium of communications and commerce Donations: _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg ***** "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers." _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 24 14:10:26 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA29336 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 14:10:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2OJUMB25253 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 14:30:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OJUMO25250 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 14:30:22 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA29317 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 14:09:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OJO6O25015; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 14:24:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OJNBO24980 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 14:23:11 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA29116 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 14:02:45 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2OJ4sCN007084; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 14:04:54 -0500 Message-Id: <200303241904.h2OJ4sCN007084@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.2 03/18/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: Vernon Schryver Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: "HashStamp" == hashcash? (Re: Stamping) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 22 Mar 2003 16:43:17 MST." <200303222343.h2MNhHG4009728@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <200303222343.h2MNhHG4009728@calcite.rhyolite.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_551423346P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 14:04:53 -0500 --==_Exmh_551423346P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 16:43:17 MST, Vernon Schryver said: > What is the minimumm speed CPU that you will allow to send mail? A > 25 MHz 486 is at least 200 and perhaps 500 or 1000 times slower than > a 3 GHz P4. A 25 MHz 486 needs several minutes to generate 60 > GHz*seconds of hashcash. You might fix the problem for mailing lists Now, Linux BogoMips are called that because they're bogus for anything except calibrating kernel spin loops, but anyhow, here's some numbers seen in the last week or so on the linux-kernel list. Note that ALL the boxes are "currently in use"(*). Somebody's linux-based firewall system: model name : 486 bogomips : 12.44 My laptop: model name : Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 Mobile CPU 1.60GHz bogomips : 3145.72 A dual 2.6GHz P4 Xeon (hardly a "large" system by any means) (yes, 4CPU due to Intel's Hyperthreading stuff - actual performance is likely 60% of this): Total of 4 processors activated (20696.26 BogoMIPS). The current high-end Linux code is being extended to support 64-CPU well, I don't have any numbers handy for the high-end NUMA/Summit systems.... So I have to agree that "in the field" there's over a 1,000X factor in relative performance... /Valdis (*) There's a report of a 4.77mz 8086 clocking in at 0.02 BogoMIPS, but I don't classify this box as "current in use". --==_Exmh_551423346P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+f1bVcC3lWbTT17ARAppRAJ94WAidJYmAT+AZYylSnR2FU2zeEQCfcSlF 5O1rpxrto+qCMbrPuMZOfQ0= =EGSE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_551423346P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 24 14:22:09 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA29613 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 14:22:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2OJg5B26497 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 14:42:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OJg4O26494 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 14:42:04 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA29607 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 14:21:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OJbFO25971; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 14:37:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OJanO25541 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 14:36:49 -0500 Received: from aismtp4g.bellsouth.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA29506 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 14:16:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from 01al10015010061.ad.bls.com ([90.152.5.165] [90.152.5.165]) by aismtp4g.bellsouth.com with ESMTP; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 14:21:01 -0500 Received: by 01al10015010061.ad.bls.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:18:41 -0600 Message-Id: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D688@bremocag> From: "Sauer, Damon" To: "'meor@mail.SoftHome.net'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: [RANT][RE: [Asrg] Hashstamp-like proposal MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:18:39 -0600 I think that a new protocol or additions to the SMTP protocol are going to be required, I am not sure how it could be otherwise. There are too many different mail systems out there, running on too many different operating systems, hardware, and MTA's. To just patch sendmail is a good thing, but how many systems are not running sendmail? For all the nay-sayers, I am sorry, if you can give me any example of how this can be accomplished otherwise, I would love to hear it. I am all for changing and/or adding protocols. The question is, how much infrastructure will need to change (cost) or how simple will it be to incorporate into my current code (effort)? My goals are these- 1) Make everything legitimate. When I read all these posts, that is the very first question I ask- Will this make the email I send or receive legit? Then I ask- [Benefit - (Cost + Effort)]= Is it worth it? 2) Start tackling sources and a spam economics. (This I cannot affect until after I know for a fact where they are) 3) Reap benefits of reduced operating costs due to reduced load and take numerous vacations in places like Vegas and Tahiti. Regards, Damon Sauer -----Original Message----- From: meor@mail.SoftHome.net [mailto:meor@mail.SoftHome.net] Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 1:11 PM To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Hashstamp-like proposal >DRAWBACKS OF THIS METHOD > >1. Requires a new client, server, and protocol in order to be implemented. > >Is that all? :-) I see what you're getting at. Unfortunately as far as I know there hasn't been a good solution presented that doesn't either break SMTP or require a consensus among all clients and servers; which in effect is a new protocol. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg ***** "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers." _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 24 14:58:53 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA00628 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 14:58:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2OKIng28749 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 15:18:49 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OKInO28746 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 15:18:49 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA00599 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 14:58:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OKD6O28531; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 15:13:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OKClO28516 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 15:12:47 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA00472 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 14:52:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18xTE8-0000z3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 09:47:04 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Requirements for gathering statistics In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:34:07 EST." <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D684@bremocag> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 09:47:04 -0500 "Sauer, Damon" wrote: > The reasons that I do not release my numbers is that, if I tell all of you > how good or how bad my numbers are, I may become a target by a spammer that > either a) Wants to take me on as a personal conquest, or b) Accepts my > percentage of spam that I let through as "acceptable". I wasn't proposing to make the names public. A trusted source can reasonably be expected to gather the statistics and analyse them, without compromising privacy. > I am VERY familiar with the spam problem. I am not sure what statistics > gathering is going to accomplish, other than justify the continued use of > spam as a marketing tool. That's why the statistics I was asking for were at the MTA end, and were focussed on the scope of the current problem, and the cost and effectiveness of their current solutions. There was NOTHING in what I wrote which could be construed as to measure the effectiveness of spam as a marketing tool. > Will it help us obtain our goal? I don't think so because it > contains no differentiating research and no control sets. My goal in collecting statistics would be to get a quantitative indication of WHERE in the network spam is a problem, and HOW MUCH of a problem it currently is. Without those statistics, we will have NO BASIS for measuring the effectiveness of any solution. Therefore, we will also have no basis for comparing the solutions, or for knowing when we've "solved" the problem. As for "control sets", they're irrelevant to the question of "how bad is the problem". We wouldn't ask 10 ISP's for their input on spam, and then not ask another 10 as a "control set". That methodology is nonsensical. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 24 15:08:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA01433 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 15:08:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2OKSEo29131 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 15:28:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OKSEO29128 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 15:28:14 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA01374 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 15:07:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OKO4O28983; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 15:24:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OKNUO28954 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 15:23:30 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA00830 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 15:03:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18xTOT-0000zK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 09:57:45 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Requirements for gathering statistics In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 24 Mar 2003 09:07:27 PST." Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 09:57:45 -0500 "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" wrote: > We have two pieces of information that I think most significant: > > 1 Spam is growing at an exponential rate (10% a month by the most > conservative estimates). I would like additional data justifying that opinion. While it's true anecdotally for most people, I think we need a larger sample to state it decisively. (This is also known as "Dave Crocker wasn't entirely wrong...") I would like ASRG to be able to say "we looked at the problem, and some thousands of MTA administrators reported X amount of spam. Stastical validy is . Data analysis follows. Therefore, to address these problems, we have potential solutions A, B, and C. The cost of these solutions is predicted to be D, E, and F. The effectiveness of these solutions is predicted to be G, H, and I." > 2 The spam senders are using countermeasures to bypass filtering. Those are difficult to measure. We *know* some spam is caught, so that's an easy number to measure > The types of information I think IS interesting is information that > gives a handle on the character of the problem. In particular > > - Proportion that comes from list kiddies (small fry who bought > a list) vs garbage creators (major spamhaus) I'm not sure how I would tell the two apart, which is why I didn't ask for those statistics. > - Rates of growth of spam from different sources. > > - Whether certain countermeasures have been applied in more than > 5% of cases. > > - Proportion of spam sent through open relays - to 10% or so. That involves asking ISP's to determine which IP's are open relays, which is difficult. The questions to blacklist maintainers would be more likely to get this kind of information. e.g.: - # of IP's determined (somehow) to be open relays - # of MTA's using the blacklist - # of queries to the blacklist - % of queries which return "in the blacklist" > If no spam sender ever uses forged headers we could cut out a lot > of spam simply by whitelisting for the major ISPs known to implement > rate limiting. I doubt that such will remain the case for very long. If spammers rate limited their sending to no more than some small percentage of an ISP's non-spam email traffic, then I would think that most people would say the spam problem is largely solved. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 24 15:19:54 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA02560 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 15:19:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2OKdps30421 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 15:39:51 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OKdoO30417 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 15:39:50 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA02553 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 15:19:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OKVFO29293; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 15:31:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OKU4O29216 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 15:30:04 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA01668 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 15:09:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h2OKBqZ07763; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 12:11:52 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: meor@mail.SoftHome.net Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Hashstamp-like proposal Message-ID: <20030324201151.GB28527@main.templetons.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030324031752.00b82ec8@mail.SoftHome.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030324031752.00b82ec8@mail.SoftHome.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 12:11:52 -0800 On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 03:31:25AM -0600, meor@mail.SoftHome.net wrote: > For those of you who have tossed around the idea of a hash-stamp or other > type of stamping protocol, I implore you to check out this proposal. I > believe it to be very close to a workable solution, if not one, for > limiting any type of undesired network communication, but specifically > eliminating SPAM E-Mail. I know I've thrown this idea out once before but > I only received a few responses from people who completely read the > proposal and understood it's workings. A web page has been put up > explaining the idea at http://meor.xwarzone.com/overview.htm For those of > you that have read it before, a few paragraphs have been added to the > beginning of the proposal to more properly introduce the concept and make > it easier to follow. Doesn't seem to be anything new in this system or anything that solves the major problems of such systems. In fact, it seems to miss out on the goal of being able to pre-stamp a message before you send it to a stranger, rather than needing a challenge/response protocol on top of the test, which has a number of pitfalls. On top of this, this system seems to be expecting some sort of PKI to be in place for authentication. Or if there is no PKI, I presume it's of the "First person to declare a key for address X sets the key" form. While such schemes have their merits, they are not without some significant flaws, including the famous nasty denial of service attack (and now you have people motivated agains the system, unlike mail encryptors, so DoS is a serious worry) and the problem of people who lose their keys. In general, while I was the first person in the community I know of to advocate stamp systems, I now disavow them. A variety of the reasons are outlined at www.templetons.com/brad/spume/estamps.html at the bottom. I do agree that cpu-stamps are superior to money based stamps for a number of reasons, but this system doesn't seem to do enough to take advantage of those superiorities. If you want to do a CPU stamp system and have any chance of its adoption, what you need is the following: When the system decides to reject mail from an unknown due to lack of stamp, the "postage-due" notice should contain a URL to a java applet, the URL containing full parameters to identify the message. The message should be held in a spool. The applet should calculate the response to the hard-problem. Since the JVM is probably slow at this, a problem thought of as a 4 second problem might well be a 40 second problem, however... The applet should do its calculation in the background, in a window that is iconized. It should pause frequently so that it does not saturate the CPU of the user. Thus it might take even minutes to solve the problem. However, when the applet is done, it returns the calculated value to the server from which it was downloaded, and then silently terminates. The user does not have to be aware of this. The server receives the calculation result and forwards it to the mail system that issued the postage-due. The mail system checks the result, and if it is OK, fetches the held mail from the spool and delivers it. If not, it can be deleted or moved to another queue etc. This is the standard of ease of use that a stamp system has to live up to. Simply click on a link and forget about it, and your mail will be delivered. However, even this has flaws: a) It requires a JVM (or other fast portable executable platform. CLR could also be a choice.) b) It can't be done offline And it has many of the other flaws of e-stamp systems. Mailing lists remain a perpetual problem. For one, it would be a violation of the standard to send any challenge to mailing list mail, ie. that which is tagged with a Precendence: bulk header. I believe the best solution must permit a global whitelisting of legitimate mailing list operators, though it can be done through a number of means. In a way, Habeus is a very basic form of that. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 24 15:33:55 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA02872 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 15:33:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2OKrrm30910 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 15:53:53 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OKrnO30907 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 15:53:49 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA02856 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 15:33:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OKhHO30570; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 15:43:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OKgpO30552 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 15:42:51 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA02618 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 15:22:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h2OKOdL08099; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 12:24:39 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: meor@mail.SoftHome.net Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Hashstamp-like proposal Message-ID: <20030324202439.GE28527@main.templetons.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030324031752.00b82ec8@mail.SoftHome.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20030324120933.00bd3a48@mail.SoftHome.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030324120933.00bd3a48@mail.SoftHome.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 12:24:39 -0800 On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 12:10:35PM -0600, meor@mail.SoftHome.net wrote: > > >DRAWBACKS OF THIS METHOD > > > >1. Requires a new client, server, and protocol in order to be implemented. > > > >Is that all? :-) > I see what you're getting at. Unfortunately as far as I know there hasn't > been a good solution presented that doesn't either break SMTP or require a > consensus among all clients and servers; which in effect is a new protocol. Do you mean a good solution involving e-stamps, or in general? e-stamp solutions are normally predicated on having new software at both ends, which is a nearly insumrmountable problem. It would take a very compelling case and design to want to do this, and the switch would need to be gradual. However, there are non-stamp solutions, or solutions which incorporate stamps as simply one possible way to verify accountability for abuse in an E-mail which can make use of them. You need to minimize the number of parties who have to change software. Recipients of mail are, however, highly motivated to install software to rid themselves of spam, and sysadmins of MTAs that receive mail are similarly motivated. However, anything that requires new software for ordinary senders of mail seems a non-starter. Something that requires new software for senders of bulk mail is within the realm of workability, and since bulk mail is where all the issues like, this makes sense as the place of minimum damage. Depending on what volume levels you define as bulk, the number of people hosting large mailing lists is manageable, and they as well are incented to get new software it it is necessary to get their list through. However, even so, we must consider there are very large numbers of small time senders of small bulk mail, namely ordinary individuals who send out things like party invitations, birth announcements and the like to all of their friends and associates. They should not be required to get new software. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 24 16:06:50 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA03717 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:06:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2OLQnS00528 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:26:49 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OLQnO00525 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:26:49 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA03677 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:06:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OLL7O00378; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:21:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OLKFO00306 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:20:15 -0500 Received: from dogma.slashnull.org (dogma.slashnull.org [212.17.35.15]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA03557 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 15:59:46 -0500 (EST) From: jm@jmason.org Received: from localhost.jmason.org (ga183055.reshsg.uci.edu [128.195.183.55]) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OKwlx17433 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 20:58:47 GMT Received: by localhost.jmason.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 073288C6BF; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:00:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from jmason.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C96828C6BE for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:00:22 -0800 (PST) To: asrg@ietf.org Message-Id: <20030324210022.073288C6BF@localhost.jmason.org> Subject: [Asrg] Not again - another challenge/response patent Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:00:17 -0800 This is ridiculous. Yet another bloody challenge-response patent. :( http://about.mailblocks.com/press_0324_2003.html ... The Mailblocks service, available today, uses its patented technology to eliminate spam ... It's a simple challenge-response system. Nothing exciting or innovative involved, as far as I can see. I can't find any patents in the uspto database though. FYI, --j. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 24 16:12:25 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA03912 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:12:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2OLVh600693 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:31:43 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OLVhO00690 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:31:43 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA03864 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:11:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OLM1O00414; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:22:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OLL8O00381 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:21:08 -0500 Received: from joy.songbird.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA03603 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:00:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from bbprime.brandenburg.com (208.184.79.252.songbird.com [208.184.79.252] (may be forged)) by joy.songbird.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OL2Xk22792; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:02:33 -0800 From: Dave Crocker X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.63 Beta/6) Personal Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <16653876430.20030324130236@brandenburg.com> To: "Alan DeKok" CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Requirements for gathering statistics In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:02:36 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alan, I would appreciate your clarifying your comments. My confusion is between survying attitudes vs. surveying behaviors. Survey research is excellent for assessing people's attitudes. In this context, "bias" is about preferences. (Even with this we have remarkable sensitivity to survey question formulation, making valid and meaningful survey construction something of a black art.) Survey research is very nearly useless for assessing people's actual behaviors., past, present or future. This is because people do not track and record the behaviors objectively, so their "self-report" is one of their subjective sense of things. For very simple assessments of very simple behaviors (did you wake up yesterday, or which of two candidates will you vote for today) survey technology can do pretty well. Not for anything more complicated. d/ Monday, March 24, 2003, 2:52:14 AM, you wrote: AD> Kee Hinckley wrote: AD> However, by measuring data from from biased systems, we can get a AD> good indication of what those biases may be, how extensive they are, AD> and even discover the shape of the non-biased systems. AD> Pollsters use these methods all the time. They call people, collect AD> precise, accurate data about personal biases. The people may lie, but AD> with enough data, that bias may be accounted for. Ad/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking Sunnyvale, CA USA , _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 24 17:02:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA05417 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 17:02:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2OMMRt04957 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 17:22:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OMMRO04954 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 17:22:27 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA05395 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 17:01:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OMCVO04542; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 17:12:31 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OMBLO04522 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 17:11:21 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA05070 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:50:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18xV4n-00010j-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 11:45:33 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Requirements for gathering statistics In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:02:36 PST." <16653876430.20030324130236@brandenburg.com> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 11:45:33 -0500 Dave Crocker wrote: > I would appreciate your clarifying your comments. My confusion is > between survying attitudes vs. surveying behaviors. I would say that spam is about personal attitudes and network behaviours. Personal attitudes are difficult to measure. Network behaviour is not. > Survey research is excellent for assessing people's attitudes. In this > context, "bias" is about preferences. (Even with this we have remarkable > sensitivity to survey question formulation, making valid and meaningful > survey construction something of a black art.) > > Survey research is very nearly useless for assessing people's actual > behaviors., past, present or future. This is because people do not track > and record the behaviors objectively, so their "self-report" is one of > their subjective sense of things. I agree, so far as your comments apply to individuals. Individuals do not objectively record their personal behaviours. e.g. How many times did you take a shower last year? That information is not generally recorded, and is subject to personal recollection. Individuals do, however record some kinds of information about their public interactions with others (networking). e.g. What was your credit card bill for last January? If you don't know, odds are you can call the credit card company, and they'll tell you. e.g. How much money did you spend last year on your credit card buying flowers for your wife? That data is readily available. For spam, I was trying to acheive self reporting of behaviours which are currently recorded, or which were easy to record. Measuring how much email an currently MTA gets is trivial. The data exists, and it's easy to summarize. It involves no personal recollection, or personal bias. Deciding *which* emails are spam involves personal bias. But once you've decided upon a flavour you like, it's again easy to measure how you are implementing that bias. Sufficiently large populations will result in a bias which can be modelled, and thus accounted for. > For very simple assessments of very simple behaviors (did you wake up > yesterday, or which of two candidates will you vote for today) survey > technology can do pretty well. Not for anything more complicated. Simple behaviours include: - how many packets were forwarded by your network? - how many packets were dropped? - how many SMTP connections did you receive? These questions are easy to ask, and easy to answer. Collecting such data will allow us to make better statements about how bad the spam problem really is. It should also give us some insight as to why certain behaviours are happening. e.g. 10,000 SYN's from spammers a second is a good explanation for why the ISP has firewalling port 25, and is using a whitelist. The point of the gathering these statistics is to gain confidence in our understanding of the scope of the problem, and of our understanding of the current methods people use to deal with it. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 24 17:11:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA05692 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 17:11:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2OMVaV05383 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 17:31:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OMVaO05380 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 17:31:36 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA05658 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 17:11:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OMR3O05182; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 17:27:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OMQeO05160 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 17:26:40 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA05553 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 17:06:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h2OM8NA10006; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 14:08:23 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: jm@jmason.org Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Not again - another challenge/response patent Message-ID: <20030324220823.GC8705@main.templetons.com> References: <20030324210022.073288C6BF@localhost.jmason.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030324210022.073288C6BF@localhost.jmason.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 14:08:23 -0800 Here is the patent reference. Method and system for filtering electronic messages Abstract The present invention provides a system and method for filtering unsolicited electronic commercial messages. A system and method according to the present invention for screening out unsolicited commercial messages comprises the steps of receiving a message from a sender, sending a challenge back to the sender, receiving a response to the challenge, and determining if the response is a proper response. Inventors: Cobb; Christopher Alan (500 Beale St. Apt.120, San Francisco, CA 94105) Appl. No.: 921950 Filed: August 26, 1997 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=/netahtml/search-adv.htm&r=4&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&p=1&p=1&S1=6,199,102&OS=+6,199,102&RS=6,199,102 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 24 17:15:22 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA05813 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 17:15:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2OMZMw05575 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 17:35:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OMZMO05572 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 17:35:22 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA05771 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 17:14:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OMV8O05354; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 17:31:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OMSRO05236 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 17:28:27 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA05588 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 17:07:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2OMAAZa021419 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 15:10:10 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303242210.h2OMAAZa021419@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] keeping it accurate References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 15:10:10 -0700 (MST) > From: Matt Sergeant > ... > > How many CPU-seconds do you spend for each incoming mail mesage and > > how man users do you have? > > We average about 1 second per email. We process over 10 million emails a > day for about 1.2 million users. IIRC our average processor is a 1.2Ghz > Pentium. > > Yes, this is an inordinately long period of time. It certainly is! Are you user you're not counting other costs in that 1 second? For example, the 3 or more DNS lookups per incoming mail message (not counting DNS blacklists) can be time consuming. On the other hand, from the outside looking in at a bunch of ISPs running SpamAssassin+DCC, SpamAssassin filtering seems to run at ~1 sec/msg. > > In other words, are you disagreeing with me? > > I'm never sure ;-) Hence I'm not drawing any conclusions, just trying to > give the facts as we see them. I don't see any disagreement with my claim that the computer and network costs of spam per user are trivial and trivial in the aggregate until you have thousands of users. Multiplying a trivial cost by 1,200,000 can yield something non-trivial. I think the most interesting number you've offered is the 10 msgs/user/day average. What is the average spam load? For U.S. retail ISPs it seems to be 70-85%. Are your numbers similar to what I can see of other European ISPs? (see http://www.dcc-servers.net/dcc/graphs/comp-rates ) Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 24 17:45:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA06684 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 17:45:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2ON5iL07706 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 18:05:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ON5iO07703 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 18:05:44 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA06646 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 17:45:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OMt7O07299; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 17:55:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2OMs5O07245 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 17:54:05 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id RAA06348 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 17:33:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 9994 invoked from network); 23 Mar 2003 22:32:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.2.100.178?) (10.2.100.178) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 23 Mar 2003 22:32:37 -0000 From: Matt Sergeant X-X-Sender: matt@localhost.localdomain To: Vernon Schryver cc: "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] keeping it accurate In-Reply-To: <200303242210.h2OMAAZa021419@calcite.rhyolite.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 22:53:26 +0000 (GMT) On Mon, 24 Mar 2003, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > From: Matt Sergeant > > > We average about 1 second per email. We process over 10 million emails a > > day for about 1.2 million users. IIRC our average processor is a 1.2Ghz > > Pentium. > > > > Yes, this is an inordinately long period of time. > > It certainly is! Are you user you're not counting other costs in that > 1 second? For example, the 3 or more DNS lookups per incoming mail message > (not counting DNS blacklists) can be time consuming. Right. We don't count those as they vary so wildly as to sometimes skew the stats, and also we do those lookups in the smtp server, whereas scanning takes place in the "backend" (this is qmail-ish). The DNS lookups probably push it up a bit, though we try and keep large local caches where possible. > I think the most interesting number you've offered is the 10 > msgs/user/day average. What is the average spam load? For U.S. > retail ISPs it seems to be 70-85%. Are your numbers similar to > what I can see of other European ISPs? We're an international company, so I can give you a fairly good worldwide view... Spam to overall ratio for December was 1 in 2.13 emails for the US. That's detected spam (we detect about 95% with low enough FP rates to make errors insignificant). For the UK December was 1 in 6.0 emails. Unfortunately this figure gets badly skewed because we generate about 1.2 million emails a day in server-to-server notices (I've whined about why this is a bad idea, so it may get changed eventually), and they end up in the UK pile. For our Asian customers it was 1 in 6.9, though I'm not convinced by that figure - the asian customers may have turned off our heuristics as they're very aggressive against asian emails (or at least they have been in the past). Overall that gave us a December figure of 1 in 4.2 emails detected as spam. I can try and get more up to date figures tomorrow - these are just the spreadsheets I had to hand. And I have a feeling these spreadsheets count total emails as inbound and outbound, and since our customers don't spam that skews things a bit too (or does it? - perhaps you'd like both figures for completeness sake). The only issue is generating these figures is time consuming for our stats guy, and he is in demand a lot from marketing, so I have to subpeona (sp?) his time ;-) Matt. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 24 18:27:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA09588 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 18:27:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2ONlZw11374 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 18:47:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ONlZO11371 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 18:47:35 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA09544 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 18:27:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ONgHO11209; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 18:42:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2ONdSO11102 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 18:39:28 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA09384 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 18:18:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2ONL9kV029531 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:21:09 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303242321.h2ONL9kV029531@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Requirements for gathering statistics References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:21:09 -0700 (MST) > From: "Alan DeKok" > > We have two pieces of information that I think most significant: > > > > 1 Spam is growing at an exponential rate (10% a month by the most > > conservative estimates). > > I would like additional data justifying that opinion. While it's > true anecdotally for most people, I think we need a larger sample to > state it decisively. ... 10%/month is 2.6X per year. Spam is increasing but 2.X/year is "most conservative" only if you also believe "SPEWS blocked all of UUNET." The number of checksums of spam in the DCC network is increasing faster than that. However, I think much of that is due to the appearance of hacks and certain other things and the DCC clients that still have not installed the countermeasures and so are seeing many checksums for a few spews. It's also important to pick durations. In some weeks spam has increased by more than 10%, but it has decreased in other weeks (e.g Thanksgiving and Christmas/New Years) (again, judging from the number of checksums in the DCC network) > I would like ASRG to be able to say "we looked at the problem, and > some thousands of MTA administrators reported X amount of > spam. Stastical validy is . Data analysis follows. Therefore, > to address these problems, we have potential solutions A, B, and C. > The cost of these solutions is predicted to be D, E, and F. The > effectiveness of these solutions is predicted to be G, H, and I." > ... That's going to be hard because so many commentators assume the inevitability of miraculous deployment. Even those who agree that replacing everything is unlikely sometimes slip into claiming that dividing the deployment problem into stages makes it easy. (Counterproofs: IPv6 and DNSSEC) You can't really talk about the quantitative effectiveness of solutions that are as likely to be deployed and work in the real world as spammers getting religion and stopping on their own. ] From: Dave Crocker ] I would appreciate your clarifying your comments. My confusion is ] between survying attitudes vs. surveying behaviors. ] ] Survey research is excellent for assessing people's attitudes ... ] Survey research is very nearly useless for assessing people's actual ] behaviors. ... surveying for measurements of relatively abstract numbers like "total spam" is even more problematic. Finding representative samples is hard, because spam is so idiosyncratic. The numbers at http://www.dcc-servers.net/dcc/graphs/comp-rates show a 2X variation in spam load for some types of oganizations, or at least some particular outfits. Note that the names of those outfits are intentionally unstate. Most organizations seem to be unenthusiastic about publishing such numbers. I like seeing numbers that are based on millions of mail messages, but even they must be viewed as special cases of the global situation. The more common numbers of the "my personal mailbox has seen X" are rarely interesting. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 24 19:18:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA10827 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 19:18:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2P0cdC14787 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 19:38:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2P0cdO14782 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 19:38:39 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA10806 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 19:18:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2P0Y2O13837; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 19:34:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2P0X3O13806 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 19:33:03 -0500 Received: from bass.unixhome.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA10688 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 19:12:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from shark (shark [192.168.1.14]) by bass.unixhome.net (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with SMTP id h2P0EY201379; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 18:14:34 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <005101c2f263$a40c5170$0e01a8c0@shark> From: "David Anderson" To: , References: <20030324210022.073288C6BF@localhost.jmason.org> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Not again - another challenge/response patent MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 18:15:28 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yes, it is ridicules. Why not patent the english language as conversations are like hand shakes? Fortunately, to beat a patent you just need to be different and publish it in the open before it is re-patented. I am no patent lawyer, but once an effective solution gets out in the wild with source, the jeanie will never be back in the bottle. Handshaking via mail I think has promise but with twists to what I have seen so far. Compute a question into a graphic and send it off. The graphic could ask simple questions like spell or type in the word "the" and reply. Reads would have to recognize such graphics and display them. Fonts, colors and thread lines like what is in currency can be added as so to foul up checksums for easy guessing and OCR technologies. Once confirmed, a serial number can be stored by the confirming mailer and server to avoid future prompts, say a 4096 bit key. Why such a large key? Two parts, make it really hard to guess and to make bandwidth impossible for the spammer. Several advantages exist here, one persons spam may be another persons joy. By using a hash with the key and email address of the recipient both can be satisfied. To subscribe to mail lists like these, sendmail relays need a web interface for people to go to add in the senders mail address and if the MX matches the sender, it is allowed through. If not, just hold open the session.... One thing all relays fighting spam need to do is make it rude for the offending parties. I have found firewall blocks, black holing their packets drive them crazy enough to (eventually) remove your people from the list. And the solution needs to be in C/C++. Today's computers are relatively cheap but tossing a million messages a day has to take a few less bytes than 50M to process. It needs to be open source so it doesn't bog down in vendor greed. Now is anyone working on a open source project like this and need some help in design and coding? Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 3:00 PM Subject: [Asrg] Not again - another challenge/response patent > > This is ridiculous. Yet another bloody challenge-response patent. :( > > http://about.mailblocks.com/press_0324_2003.html > > ... The Mailblocks service, available today, uses its patented technology > to eliminate spam ... > > It's a simple challenge-response system. Nothing exciting or innovative > involved, as far as I can see. I can't find any patents in the uspto > database though. FYI, > > --j. > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 24 19:18:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA10831 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 19:18:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2P0cdK14801 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 19:38:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2P0cdO14786 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 19:38:39 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA10805 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 19:18:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2P0WFO13783; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 19:32:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2P0W0O13765 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 19:32:00 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc03.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA10683 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 19:11:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from video.attbi.com (12-235-20-211.client.attbi.com[12.235.20.211]) by sccrmhc03.attbi.com (sccrmhc03) with SMTP id <20030325001346003004jkc6e>; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 00:13:47 +0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030324155116.0482d380@mail.attbi.com> X-Sender: schear@mail.attbi.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: politech@politechbot.com From: Steve Schear Cc: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20030324232728.67BCF84F8@web39t.prvt.nytimes.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [Asrg] FC: Will new "spam reduction" service result in... more spam? Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:16:13 -0800 From NYTimes.com http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/24/technology/24PHIL.html Start-Up Aims to End Spam March 24, 2003 By JOHN MARKOFF >In addition to legislative proposals before Congress and >state legislatures, there are efforts under way within the >direct marketing industry to try to deal with spam. And >last week, the Internet Engineering Taskforce, a committee >of technology experts that sets Internet standards, met in >San Francisco to listen to proposals for technical >solutions to spam. I've been monitoring and contributing to the mail list associated with this IETF function now for about two weeks. Most of the people are looking for a magic bullet to cure spam but I think it will not be that simple. If it were it would have already been done. It seems all the seemingly good long term spam elimination approaches either require notable changes to the Internet's email or other infrastructure, make it difficult for some classes of current email users, or the require the establishment of new services (e.g., financial infrastructure to support real value e-stamps). >The Mailblocks antispam service is based on a so-called >challenge-response mechanism to block bulk mail sent >automatically to e-mail accounts. When a customer receives >a new message from an unknown correspondent, the system >will intercept the message and automatically return to the >sender a digital image of a seven-digit number and a form >to fill out. Once a human being views that number and types >it into the form - demonstrating that he or she is a person >and not an automated mass-mailing machine - the system will >forward the e-mail to the intended recipient. E-gold uses this approach. They call it a Turing number (after the British mathematician, Alan Turing) https://www.e-gold.com/acct/login.html Challenge responses may eliminate spam from bogus addresses but it almost sure to set of an image recognition arms race between other spammers and Turing number technologists as the try to fashion ever more cleaver images that supposedly can be easily read by humans but not machines. There are already programs to "read" earlier (and maybe current versions of E-gold's Turing number images. I would be surprised if these measures proved effective steve _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 24 19:56:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA11858 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 19:56:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2P1Ghm16919 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 20:16:43 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2P1GgO16916 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 20:16:42 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA11818 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 19:56:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2P19HO16697; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 20:09:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2P184O16660 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 20:08:04 -0500 Received: from dm3cn8.bell.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA11648 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 19:47:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from 206.47.0.153 by dm3cn8.bell.ca with ESMTP (Tumbleweed MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v5.0)); Mon, 24 Mar 2003 19:49:48 -0500 X-Server-Uuid: D4A4E604-913A-4A1B-8C07-2866D92AD410 Received: from dm2ctt.bellnexxia.com ([198.235.102.150]) by dm2ctt.bellnexxia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Mon, 24 Mar 2003 19:49:47 -0500 Received: FROM toroondc754.on.bell.ca BY dm2ctt.bellnexxia.com ; Mon Mar 24 19:49:46 2003 -0500 Received: by dm2cp3.on.bell.ca with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 19:49:46 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Curtis, Jonathan" To: "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: [Asrg] Profile of a spammer MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Mar 2003 00:49:47.0516 (UTC) FILETIME=[6F2743C0:01C2F268] X-WSS-ID: 1261782612730-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 19:49:46 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thought I'd take a second and make sure we're all targeting the same enemy. The more we know about the enemy, the more we can protect ourselves. Definition of a Smart Spammer 1. Uses legitimate products to generate revenue and hide behind big corporations (McAfee or Symantec products) 2. Makes use of open relays, that way his real source IP is hidden which randomizes their source IP 3. Uses a common name in the "helo" banner to our SMTP server, such as [mx1.mail.yahoo.com] Also known as spoofing. 4. Randomizes their return email address 5. Uses a web link to entice the target user to their scheme 6. Sends few recipients in each message ( between 6 and 20 ) 7. Is aware of system limitations. 8. Works with other spammers to attack 9. Harvests their own e-mail addresses, confirms valid addresses Then there is the thief spammer 1. Creates a webpage that looks like your billing portal - including your logos and links back to your other legitimate sites. 2. Spams to your users with an email that looks just like your "Update Billing Info" notification 3. User receives message, goes to site and give credit card and banking info. 4. Thief drains their accounts. If you have other finger prints or classifications of what the enemy is, I'd be very interested. Thanks, Jonathan Jonathan Curtis Bell Canada _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 24 19:57:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA11893 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 19:57:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2P1Hjo16994 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 20:17:45 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2P1HjO16991 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 20:17:45 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA11878 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 19:57:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2P1D3O16815; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 20:13:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2P1CbO16778 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 20:12:37 -0500 Received: from ciphertrust.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA11763 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 19:52:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.com with ESMTP ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 19:52:06 -0500 (EST) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 19:43:45 -0500 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)'" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Subject: [Asrg] ASRG work items Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 19:43:38 -0500 Here is the list of work items that have been identified. If there are other items that should be added to the list, please propose them. All conversation on this mailing list must be regarding one of these items. The subject of each email should begin with the number of the appropriate work item. For example, "2.a - Spam Measurement Survey Requirements" or "6 - Proposal for hash-based traceback system". The list volume makes it difficult to follow individual conversations and to filter the noise. This will help eliminate both problems. If anyone has a problem following this convention, please let me know. This is a research group. If you have constructive feedback, please share it. If you just feel like saying that "spam can not be stopped" or "this group will fail because I said so", then you should state those things elsewhere. This mailing list is for the discussion of ideas that make progress towards the goals of these group as stated in the charter. I have the option of changing this research group into a closed research group. If we decide that the noise continues to affect persons making contributions, then we will exercise that option. -----Part 1. Understanding the Problem: 1. Inventory of problems. started by Liudvikas Bukys. I will distribute the latest version. Liudvikas, would you like to resume ownership of this document? 2. Characterization of the problems 2.a. Spam Measurements. This works needs to be focused on immediately. This data will help us understand the current weaknesses in the system and where efforts should be focused. Requirements need to be set and then we have to gather the data. I see two separate paths here: One is based on user survey input. Ted Gavin has volunteered to conduct this. The other data is based on real spam measurements. Once the requirements are gathered, Brightmail, CipherTrust, CloudMark and MessageLabs have each volunteered to contribute information. Any other volunteers? 2.b. Public Trace Data - www.spamarchive.org 2.c. Spam Categorization 2.c.1.where it comes from - there was a thread started by someone on this. Anyone remember the title? This feeds into 7.b. threat model. 2.c.2. different types - Brightmail has a high-level classification. SurfControl might also have something here. Ken S. and Susan G., do either of you have some more granular classifications that you would like to share? Volunteer to lead this effort? -----Part 2. Propose Solutions: 3. Requirements for solutions: Started by Keith Moore. I distributed Draft 1 based on feedback. Keith, would you like to take over moving this forward? 4. Survey of solution 4.a. Taxonomy. Draft three was distributed. There was only one comment. So I assume we are getting close. 4.b. Survey. Summarize set of solutions and place into taxonomy. 4.c Bibliography of spam research related work. Frank de Lange has started this effort. 5. Identification of need for interoperable systems 5.a. Spam Test Message. led by Matt Sergeant 5.b. Opt-out. The idea here is that there should be a standard method of opting-out so that it can be done by a program. There should also be a way to systemically verify compliance. volunteer? 5.c. Filtered Message Status. The point here is that messages are dropped by filters with either no status indication or inconsistent ones. The goal is to agree on a set of acceptable responses. Perhaps this information is already specified in SMTP standards and the community needs to be reminded (best practices?) or perhaps new codes new to be suggested. volunteer? 6. Proposals of new solutions: We have seen a number of proposals including those from : Alejandro, Bala, Hadmut. This solutions and others need to be mentioned in the taxonomy. Other proposals may still be submitted. 7. Best Practices documents 7.a. End-users 7.b. Mail administrators. 7.c. Mass Mailers -----Part 3. Evaluate Solutions: 8. Evaluation of proposals 8.a. create evaluation model. usefulness and cost. We have a start here mentioned in the charter. Vernon also made good suggestion based on deployment needed for effectiveness. This should tie in with requirements. Volunteer? 8.b. threat model and analysis. Volunteer? 8.c. do evaluations. Not ready for this yet. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 24 20:19:10 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA12371 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 20:19:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2P1dDV18565 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 20:39:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2P1dDO18562 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 20:39:13 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA12366 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 20:18:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2P1X9O17571; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 20:33:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2P1WeO17537 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 20:32:40 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA12230 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 20:12:05 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2ONMTbn019327; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 15:22:29 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2ONMTjB019323; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 15:22:29 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: Paul Judge cc: "'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)'" Subject: 5b. Opt-Out - Re: [Asrg] ASRG work items In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 15:22:29 -0800 (PST) I'll take opt-out. I had notes on that and identified 3 automated out-out paths (sorted by type of distribution/access to such lists): 1. Distributed lists which use some type of encryption to allow validation of particular address but not see enter list. Please comment here on all types of encryption methods that are available. 2. Opt-out server. Here a special service/server (maybe more then one) is located somewhere. Anybody wishing to check of address is opt-out or not can connect to that server (with proper authentication if necessary) and check validity of particular email address. 3. Opt-out system as part of each mail server. Here new command is added to mail server which allows to check if email is opted out or not. Separate lists are run by every isp/every email server and are particular only to email addresses handled by mail server. Its assumed that before or during email connection command would be issues to verify opt-out preferences before delivering email. Any other distribution means I missed? On Mon, 24 Mar 2003, Paul Judge wrote: > > > Here is the list of work items that have been identified. If there are other > items that should be added to the list, please propose them. All > conversation on this mailing list must be regarding one of these items. The > subject of each email should begin with the number of the appropriate work > item. For example, "2.a - Spam Measurement Survey Requirements" or "6 - > Proposal for hash-based traceback system". The list volume makes it > difficult to follow individual conversations and to filter the noise. This > will help eliminate both problems. If anyone has a problem following this > convention, please let me know. This is a research group. If you have > constructive feedback, please share it. If you just feel like saying that > "spam can not be stopped" or "this group will fail because I said so", then > you should state those things elsewhere. This mailing list is for the > discussion of ideas that make progress towards the goals of these group as > stated in the charter. I have the option of changing this research group > into a closed research group. If we decide that the noise continues to > affect persons making contributions, then we will exercise that option. > > > > -----Part 1. Understanding the Problem: > > 1. Inventory of problems. started by Liudvikas Bukys. I will distribute the > latest version. Liudvikas, would you like to resume ownership of this > document? > > 2. Characterization of the problems > > 2.a. Spam Measurements. This works needs to be focused on immediately. This > data will help us understand the current weaknesses in the system and where > efforts should be focused. Requirements need to be set and then we have to > gather the data. I see two separate paths here: One is based on user survey > input. Ted Gavin has volunteered to conduct this. The other data is based on > real spam measurements. Once the requirements are gathered, Brightmail, > CipherTrust, CloudMark and MessageLabs have each volunteered to contribute > information. Any other volunteers? > > 2.b. Public Trace Data - www.spamarchive.org > > 2.c. Spam Categorization > > 2.c.1.where it comes from - there was a thread started by someone on this. > Anyone remember the title? This feeds into 7.b. threat model. 2.c.2. > different types - Brightmail has a high-level classification. SurfControl > might also have something here. Ken S. and Susan G., do either of you have > some more granular classifications that you would like to share? Volunteer > to lead this effort? > > -----Part 2. Propose Solutions: > > 3. Requirements for solutions: Started by Keith Moore. I distributed Draft 1 > based on feedback. Keith, would you like to take over moving this forward? > > 4. Survey of solution > > 4.a. Taxonomy. Draft three was distributed. There was only one comment. So I > assume we are getting close. 4.b. Survey. Summarize set of solutions and > place into taxonomy. 4.c Bibliography of spam research related work. Frank > de Lange has started this effort. > > 5. Identification of need for interoperable systems > > 5.a. Spam Test Message. led by Matt Sergeant > > 5.b. Opt-out. The idea here is that there should be a standard method of > opting-out so that it can be done by a program. There should also be a way > to systemically verify compliance. volunteer? > > 5.c. Filtered Message Status. The point here is that messages are dropped by > filters with either no status indication or inconsistent ones. The goal is > to agree on a set of acceptable responses. Perhaps this information is > already specified in SMTP standards and the community needs to be reminded > (best practices?) or perhaps new codes new to be suggested. volunteer? > > 6. Proposals of new solutions: We have seen a number of proposals including > those from : Alejandro, Bala, Hadmut. This solutions and others need to be > mentioned in the taxonomy. Other proposals may still be submitted. > > 7. Best Practices documents > > 7.a. End-users > > 7.b. Mail administrators. > > 7.c. Mass Mailers > > -----Part 3. Evaluate Solutions: > > 8. Evaluation of proposals > > 8.a. create evaluation model. usefulness and cost. We have a start here > mentioned in the charter. Vernon also made good suggestion based on > deployment needed for effectiveness. This should tie in with requirements. > Volunteer? 8.b. threat model and analysis. Volunteer? 8.c. do evaluations. > Not ready for this yet. > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 24 20:27:09 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA12447 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 20:27:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2P1lCd18768 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 20:47:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2P1lAO18765 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 20:47:10 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA12443 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 20:26:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2P1a3O17705; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 20:36:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2P1ZgO17670 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 20:35:42 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA12289 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 20:15:07 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2ONPUbn019379; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 15:25:30 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2ONPUGL019375; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 15:25:30 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: Paul Judge cc: "'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] ASRG work items In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 15:25:30 -0800 (PST) Also this must be added to the list as separate item - Proposal for new topic to be added to list of ASRG work items (discussion topics list) and/or modifications to ASRG work items list. Might want to put this as "item 0". On Mon, 24 Mar 2003, Paul Judge wrote: > > > Here is the list of work items that have been identified. If there are other > items that should be added to the list, please propose them. All > conversation on this mailing list must be regarding one of these items. The > subject of each email should begin with the number of the appropriate work > item. For example, "2.a - Spam Measurement Survey Requirements" or "6 - > Proposal for hash-based traceback system". The list volume makes it > difficult to follow individual conversations and to filter the noise. This > will help eliminate both problems. If anyone has a problem following this > convention, please let me know. This is a research group. If you have > constructive feedback, please share it. If you just feel like saying that > "spam can not be stopped" or "this group will fail because I said so", then > you should state those things elsewhere. This mailing list is for the > discussion of ideas that make progress towards the goals of these group as > stated in the charter. I have the option of changing this research group > into a closed research group. If we decide that the noise continues to > affect persons making contributions, then we will exercise that option. > > > > -----Part 1. Understanding the Problem: > > 1. Inventory of problems. started by Liudvikas Bukys. I will distribute the > latest version. Liudvikas, would you like to resume ownership of this > document? > > 2. Characterization of the problems > > 2.a. Spam Measurements. This works needs to be focused on immediately. This > data will help us understand the current weaknesses in the system and where > efforts should be focused. Requirements need to be set and then we have to > gather the data. I see two separate paths here: One is based on user survey > input. Ted Gavin has volunteered to conduct this. The other data is based on > real spam measurements. Once the requirements are gathered, Brightmail, > CipherTrust, CloudMark and MessageLabs have each volunteered to contribute > information. Any other volunteers? > > 2.b. Public Trace Data - www.spamarchive.org > > 2.c. Spam Categorization > > 2.c.1.where it comes from - there was a thread started by someone on this. > Anyone remember the title? This feeds into 7.b. threat model. 2.c.2. > different types - Brightmail has a high-level classification. SurfControl > might also have something here. Ken S. and Susan G., do either of you have > some more granular classifications that you would like to share? Volunteer > to lead this effort? > > -----Part 2. Propose Solutions: > > 3. Requirements for solutions: Started by Keith Moore. I distributed Draft 1 > based on feedback. Keith, would you like to take over moving this forward? > > 4. Survey of solution > > 4.a. Taxonomy. Draft three was distributed. There was only one comment. So I > assume we are getting close. 4.b. Survey. Summarize set of solutions and > place into taxonomy. 4.c Bibliography of spam research related work. Frank > de Lange has started this effort. > > 5. Identification of need for interoperable systems > > 5.a. Spam Test Message. led by Matt Sergeant > > 5.b. Opt-out. The idea here is that there should be a standard method of > opting-out so that it can be done by a program. There should also be a way > to systemically verify compliance. volunteer? > > 5.c. Filtered Message Status. The point here is that messages are dropped by > filters with either no status indication or inconsistent ones. The goal is > to agree on a set of acceptable responses. Perhaps this information is > already specified in SMTP standards and the community needs to be reminded > (best practices?) or perhaps new codes new to be suggested. volunteer? > > 6. Proposals of new solutions: We have seen a number of proposals including > those from : Alejandro, Bala, Hadmut. This solutions and others need to be > mentioned in the taxonomy. Other proposals may still be submitted. > > 7. Best Practices documents > > 7.a. End-users > > 7.b. Mail administrators. > > 7.c. Mass Mailers > > -----Part 3. Evaluate Solutions: > > 8. Evaluation of proposals > > 8.a. create evaluation model. usefulness and cost. We have a start here > mentioned in the charter. Vernon also made good suggestion based on > deployment needed for effectiveness. This should tie in with requirements. > Volunteer? 8.b. threat model and analysis. Volunteer? 8.c. do evaluations. > Not ready for this yet. > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 24 20:38:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA12827 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 20:38:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2P1wK419268 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 20:58:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2P1wKO19265 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 20:58:20 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA12817 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 20:37:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2P1qZO18996; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 20:52:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2P1pGO18966 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 20:51:16 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA12555 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 20:30:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h2P1Wu713835; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 17:32:56 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: Steve Schear Cc: politech@politechbot.com, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] FC: Will new "spam reduction" service result in... more spam? Message-ID: <20030325013256.GG8705@main.templetons.com> References: <20030324232728.67BCF84F8@web39t.prvt.nytimes.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030324155116.0482d380@mail.attbi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030324155116.0482d380@mail.attbi.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 17:32:56 -0800 On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 04:16:13PM -0800, Steve Schear wrote: > E-gold uses this approach. They call it a Turing number (after the British > mathematician, Alan Turing) > https://www.e-gold.com/acct/login.html Challenge responses may eliminate > spam from bogus addresses but it almost sure to set of an image recognition > arms race between other spammers and Turing number technologists as the try > to fashion ever more cleaver images that supposedly can be easily read by > humans but not machines. There are already programs to "read" earlier (and > maybe current versions of E-gold's Turing number images. I would be > surprised if these measures proved effective Actually, it is an interesting question of what arms races spammers would wish to engage in. From a purely rational standpoint (bear with me on this!) the spammer simply wants to send as many messages to the best prospects per unit of time and bandwidth. This means that if the spammer gets a challenge (or even something as simple as a temporarily unavailable status) they can do one of two things: a) Try to respond to the challenge b) Simply move on to delivering the next message in the list. As long as B is easier than A, the rational thing to do is to just do B. This changes in two cases. If most people start issuing challenges or other such barriers, B is no longer productive, and so you now start the arms race -- but only until you have enough people to send to again. Secondly, if you have some idea as to the "quality" of an address, in terms of probability of making a sale (direct marketers try to measure this all the time) then you are motiviated to do extra work on the higher "quality" targets. Finally, spammers will not be rational, and may wish to get in an arms race for the spite or challenge of it. (There's a lot of spite in both directions in this field.) Nonetheless, I think people overestimate the arms race. I have seen challenge response systems that try to do natural language questions, or embed images only the human eye can see in graphics. I wrote a challenge/response system six years ago that simply asks for any reply at all -- it doesn't put any burden on the other party, and would be easy to defeat with something as simple as an autoresponder. Yet it works, the spammers have not attempted to use this simple defeat. Once they start, I will easily enough move to something else, but it is telling that in six years they have not, even though others have also built a number of challenge/response systems since then. Sometimes spammers have autoresponders for other reasons, but they have been easy for me to eliminate. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 24 20:39:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA12854 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 20:39:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2P1xX919325 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 20:59:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2P1xXO19318 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 20:59:33 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA12851 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 20:38:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2P1u1O19157; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 20:56:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2P1tOO19132 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 20:55:24 -0500 Received: from platypuspartners.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA12768 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 20:34:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from pindari.platypuspartners.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by platypuspartners.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2P1Zps4005610 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 12:35:51 +1100 Received: (from dave@localhost) by pindari.platypuspartners.com (8.12.8/8.12.2/Submit) id h2P1ZouF005607; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 12:35:50 +1100 Message-Id: <200303250135.h2P1ZouF005607@pindari.platypuspartners.com> From: David Finnie To: meor@mail.SoftHome.net CC: asrg@ietf.org In-reply-to: <5.1.0.14.0.20030324121106.00bd0cf0@mail.SoftHome.net> (meor@mail.SoftHome.net) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Hashstamp-like proposal References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030324031752.00b82ec8@mail.SoftHome.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20030324031752.00b82ec8@mail.SoftHome.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20030324121106.00bd0cf0@mail.SoftHome.net> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 12:35:50 +1100 > If there is an issue with the DSA licensing scheme, I believe this method > could use any digital signing method in order to get the desired effect. Agreed. The RSA patent has expired, so I would guess it is a better solution (all other aspects of this solution ignored). > The difficulty alone in solving the computation task makes it impossible > for a single CPU or group of them to be effective at spamming. If mail > host administrators generally picked a 10-20 second work load for a message > to be sent, that would mean 10-20 seconds between each message which would > be a huge detrement to spamming. Yes, I understand the concept. However, I would imagine that even if every single email person in the world adopted this approach, there needs to be a way for users who know each other to distrubute keys to each other. That would certainly be the case for a person signing up to email for the very first time. The obvious way to distribute this is to send an email with their PKI public key attached, and to do this, they would need to resort to the challenge response protocol. So the challenge response protocol could never be too constraining, because people's first experience of email would be attrocious. Given that, I think that spammers who thought they had a very valuable product may still choose wear the CPU costs of going through the challenge response protocol. > Well, that is a good idea however I think this "problem" would be solved > with a good implementation. If the mail host generated a random message > and required the client to sign it, there would be no way for a client to > know what information it would be required to sign and no way for other > clients to use them. I'm a litte confused by what you are saying here. From my reading of http://meor.xwarzone.com/overview.htm, it doesn't mention anything at all about the mail host generating a random message for signing. Here is the quote from the description: "When a sender wishes to send a piece of E-Mail to a mail host, it begins communications to the mail host by sending its public key and a signed piece of information to the mail host for verification. The mail host first checks to see if the public key is on the authorized white list of the end users mailbox. If the public key is authorized by the mailbox, the mail host then verifies the signed piece of information with the public key to see if the information was correctly signed. If it had been correctly signed, the mail host allows the sender to send its message to the mailbox." Note that there are some omissions from this text. Primarily, what is the piece of info that the sender is signing, and how does the sender get it? I was assuming that because this is an unsoliciting email by the sender, it has not (necessarily) had any prior communication with the mail host, and therefore invents its own info to sign. It would also need to send this info along with the signed version of it. Are you saying that when the sender uses a public key/signed info method of connecting that there is some prior communication with the [recipient] mail host whereby the mail host provides the data to sign ? If that's the case, then that is a vital piece of information missing from the protocol description. > Second of all, the signed piece of information isn't distributed. Once > identity is verified the information is discarded so the only way for a > spammer to gather signed information would be to be a mail host. Aside > from the fact that gathering signed information has no benefit. I think this goes back to the method for choosing data to sign. If it is on a per-recipient basis, and decided by the recipient mail host, then yes I agree with you. However, that is not stated in the protocol. David Finnie _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 24 20:40:13 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA12881 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 20:40:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2P20HZ19379 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 21:00:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2P20HO19376 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 21:00:17 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA12873 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 20:39:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2P1u2O19173; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 20:56:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2P1tuO19142 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 20:55:56 -0500 Received: from ciphertrust.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA12794 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 20:35:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.com with ESMTP ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 20:35:26 -0500 (EST) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 20:27:06 -0500 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)'" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Subject: [Asrg] RE: My Opinion regarding ietf asrg session (it went badly!) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 20:27:00 -0500 I usually would not take the time to respond to obviously flawed and erroneous statements. However, for the sake of persons on this list that do not know the details, I will spend just a few minutes stating the truth here. As stated by Vernon Schryver: "I must observe that some of the strongest condemnations in the list of whatever happened at the meeting came from people who have made the some of the less well founded contributions to the mailing list. From here I can't tell what happened, but I wonder if sour grape sentiments from some people about their favorite solutions not being adopted by acclamation colored other people's perceptions and so reports of the meeting." Based on this and other responses, I fear that without some clarity, others will continue to be confused by the few radical, negative opinions that have been voiced. There were over 200 attendees and based on the positive feedback that I have heard, I do not believe that the couple of negative opinions is an accurate reflection of the thoughts of the attendees. William, I am sorry that you are so upset that you were not able to present at the meeting; however, that should not drive you to making clearly false accusations about the meeting. I sent a call for agenda items to the list on March 10th. There were a few volunteers. I spoke with each of them and by March 12th each was able to explain to me what they wished to present. For some reason, you were not able to provide a clear explanation of what you wished to present until 3 days before the meeting on Monday March 17th; in this same email, you stated "I'v[e] not 100% decided if I'll be able to attend". At this point, the agenda was being finalized. Then suddenly two days before the meeting you request a slot on the agenda. Please see my comments inline. > -----Original Message----- > From: william@elan.net [mailto:william@elan.net] > Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 5:13 PM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: [Asrg] My Opinion regarding ietf asrg session (it > went badly!) > Also it can be noted that AT&T presented technology > on which > they have some patents and IETF has very clear guidelines > that this is > dscoraged to say the least and group chairs should when two solutions > exist (one patented, one not) always choose non-patented > solution, same > applies for presentations, this should have been screened and > patent-related presentation made available if nothing else > similar exist. As stated in Vern Paxson's email: "the IRTF does not have an expressed IPR policy, though it appears one needs to be developed. I picture such a policy requiring that, for any technology discussed within RGs that has related IPR, that the presence of the possible IPR be disclosed; but not beyond that. The AT&T presentation would be in compliance with such a policy." > > Also have to be noted that most presentations on the live > meeting were by > persons who did not try to participate at the mailing list > and are completely unknown to us Unknown to whom? There a number of people that you may not know that have a unique understanding of spam. Who is it that you don't know? John Morris? Jon Praed? Philip Hallam-Baker? Balachander Krishnamurthy? > and this is also against > general policies for IETF and IRTF > as first what are supposed to be presented are work done as > part of mailing list efforts (i.e. general work area) usually > by people who are most active on the list and only afterwards > at the very end are there allowed presentations by other > organizations with similar interest or work area (and those > presentations should be carefully chose to minimize > commercial views). As you know, I sent a call for agenda items. Everyone that responded and had something to talk about was accepted. Commercial views were very minimized if not non-existent. There were a number of commercial entities in the room that talked about the problem and not about a product. Again, these may be people that you don't personally know, but they are very familiar with the problem. For example, Scott Banister from IronPort, Dick Hardt from ActiveState, Ken Schneider from BrightMail, Karl Jacob from CloudMark, and me and others from CipherTrust. There was absolutely no mention of these products or any proprietary technology from any of these companies. These are people that are at the meeting to participate in a research group focused on the problem of spam. BTW, you might want to think about the amount of spam that is stopped daily by these companies. Not to promote any of these particular technologies, but my point is that we are quite familiar with the problem and the state-of-the-art and we gather here to move forward with better answers to the problem. > In short, like I said in previous email - the presentations were all > opinions of particular organizations and all commercial (even > spamcon is > really what I call "commercial" non-profit foundation, as > apposed to say > CAUSE) and were not individual submission as is supposed to > be done at > IETF and IRTF. As a result engineers who were attending IETF probably > got negative view of our group and our efforts. These were presentations by individuals. The fact that many of the people that have much to say about spam are affiliated with spam-focused organizations is not a surprise. > The only > thing I can think > of why chair did something like that would have been to get > media exposure, I'm sure media not be research or engineering > centric would not see > serious downsides that I have noticed. Now I'n not against additional > media exposure, but I do not believe we're at the point where this is > really needed, what we need are people serious about working > on technical > solutions and media will provide information about our group > to general > user audience that would only bring more noise. I tapped resources to provide background discussion and different views of the problem as input to our research group work. This included a view from the frontline, a view from mass mailers, a view related to endusers and a view of the relationship between spam legislation and spam technology. Each of these individuals was highly qualified and very informative. There were remarks about the scientific merit of some of the stats in the first talk. However, beyond that the audience was captivated by the information that was being dispersed. As I explained, this was the inaugural meeting of the research group that was started just three weeks ago. I felt that we needed to consume some background information before we dive into the technical details of our work. This session of the meeting including all four of these talks was scheduled for 45 minutes; that is less than 1/3 of the scheduled meeting time. Yes, it went over this time due to lengthy Q&A, speakers overrunning their slots, and the chair not being extremely stringent on time requirements. If you want to point out any of those last three things, those are valid points. However, scheduling 1/3 of an inaugural meeting to focus on background and relevant views of the area is acceptable and necessary. I received many more positive comments after the meeting than I did negative comments from the few people on this list with other ideas about how the meeting should have been run. There were opportunties to bash the agenda when it was sent to the list as well as the official agenda bashing portion of the meeting. No such comments were made at either point. So, I appreciate the fact that some of you have 20/20 hindsight, but I would be more impressed with useful contributions. > > In the future meetings done in connection with IETF (are we > meeting in > Vienna?) if we're going to have so many non-technical discussions, I > would strongly recommend separting into two sessions, one for this > general/media-centric and one for actual engineers to work on > technical > issues that we may have. > > I do hope chair takes my comments seriously! > He really did a bad job today chosing what is to be presented > (i'm sure he > had multiple options), As stated above, there were not as many options as you assumed. Everyone that had a technical solution to discuss (that made this known more than 2 days before the meeting) was allowed to present. > keeping discussions short (so that > there was time > for additional presentations) > or in general being prepared > for this life > meeting (remember agenda is supposed to be reviewed by mail > list and be > announced well before the actual meeting, that is just one example). RFC 2014 states that a draft agenda must be published to the list well in advance of the meeting. Your comment about not being prepared is amusing. This group was chartered the last week in February. Within three weeks, the group was announced, mailing list started, work items identified, iterated through drafts of certain work items, meeting during IETF was requested, granted, and scheduled, agenda planned and confirmed, and meeting held. Personally, I am content with the progress thus far. Understand that the research group is three weeks old. Obviously, we will not solve the problem in the first three weeks. But, we have made some progress and will continue to make good strides. Just as I tried to explain to you this week, RFC 2014 also states that "A Research Group will conduct much of its business via its electronic mail distribution list(s)." The way that we will continue to make progress is from individual contributions. If you are sincerely interested in helping to solve this problem, then please contribute work and ideas rather than simply negative opinions. You sent a note to the group about email address verification on March 12th stating that more detail will be provided in the next couple of days. More detail was never sent. I look forward to seeing some actual contributions from you. Regards, Paul _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 24 21:00:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA13575 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 21:00:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2P2Kfb21373 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 21:20:41 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2P2KfO21370 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 21:20:41 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA13554 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 21:00:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2P2EOO20743; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 21:14:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2P2DmO20631 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 21:13:48 -0500 Received: from joy.songbird.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA13156 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 20:53:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from bbprime.brandenburg.com (208.184.79.252.songbird.com [208.184.79.252] (may be forged)) by joy.songbird.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2P1tAk05404; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 17:55:10 -0800 From: Dave Crocker X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.63 Beta/6) Personal Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <8771432734.20030324175513@brandenburg.com> To: "Jon Kyme" CC: "Vernon Schryver" , "ASRG" Subject: Re: [Asrg] My Opinion regarding ietf asrg session (it went badly! ) In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 17:55:13 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jon, JK> If Certs were required to send mail AND were only issued under strict terms JK> and conditions AND revocation for T&C violation was properly managed. And if everybody were a nice person, we would not have this problem. When offering an "If" please discuss the feasibility of implementing the proposal. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking Sunnyvale, CA USA , _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 24 21:02:06 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA13671 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 21:02:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2P2MAC21447 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 21:22:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2P2MAO21444 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 21:22:10 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA13610 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 21:01:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2P2EHO20727; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 21:14:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2P2DKO20623 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 21:13:20 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA13150 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 20:52:44 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2P03Cbn019846; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:03:12 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2P03Ch0019842; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:03:12 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: Paul Judge cc: "'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] ASRG work items In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:03:12 -0800 (PST) Also I'd like to add additional topic - IPR. I know IRTF currently does not have IPR policy, but I'd like one established just for this research group. I think we can do the following: 1. Whenever somebody mentions technology where they know some patent exist or may possibly apply to the technology, the person should make statement about IPR rights. If this patent has not been mentioned before on list, there should be information either together with IPR statement or at the end of message with either: a. If patent is received: US (or other country), Patent#, possibly link to the patent website b. If patent is pending - Name of person or organization that filed it and date it was filed, possibly application# 2. I would like to see somebody on the list volunteer to maintain list of all patents mentioned (see abobve) and this list provided either regularly to email list or located and updated on rg website. On Mon, 24 Mar 2003, Paul Judge wrote: > > > Here is the list of work items that have been identified. If there are other > items that should be added to the list, please propose them. All > conversation on this mailing list must be regarding one of these items. The > subject of each email should begin with the number of the appropriate work > item. For example, "2.a - Spam Measurement Survey Requirements" or "6 - > Proposal for hash-based traceback system". The list volume makes it > difficult to follow individual conversations and to filter the noise. This > will help eliminate both problems. If anyone has a problem following this > convention, please let me know. This is a research group. If you have > constructive feedback, please share it. If you just feel like saying that > "spam can not be stopped" or "this group will fail because I said so", then > you should state those things elsewhere. This mailing list is for the > discussion of ideas that make progress towards the goals of these group as > stated in the charter. I have the option of changing this research group > into a closed research group. If we decide that the noise continues to > affect persons making contributions, then we will exercise that option. > > > > -----Part 1. Understanding the Problem: > > 1. Inventory of problems. started by Liudvikas Bukys. I will distribute the > latest version. Liudvikas, would you like to resume ownership of this > document? > > 2. Characterization of the problems > > 2.a. Spam Measurements. This works needs to be focused on immediately. This > data will help us understand the current weaknesses in the system and where > efforts should be focused. Requirements need to be set and then we have to > gather the data. I see two separate paths here: One is based on user survey > input. Ted Gavin has volunteered to conduct this. The other data is based on > real spam measurements. Once the requirements are gathered, Brightmail, > CipherTrust, CloudMark and MessageLabs have each volunteered to contribute > information. Any other volunteers? > > 2.b. Public Trace Data - www.spamarchive.org > > 2.c. Spam Categorization > > 2.c.1.where it comes from - there was a thread started by someone on this. > Anyone remember the title? This feeds into 7.b. threat model. 2.c.2. > different types - Brightmail has a high-level classification. SurfControl > might also have something here. Ken S. and Susan G., do either of you have > some more granular classifications that you would like to share? Volunteer > to lead this effort? > > -----Part 2. Propose Solutions: > > 3. Requirements for solutions: Started by Keith Moore. I distributed Draft 1 > based on feedback. Keith, would you like to take over moving this forward? > > 4. Survey of solution > > 4.a. Taxonomy. Draft three was distributed. There was only one comment. So I > assume we are getting close. 4.b. Survey. Summarize set of solutions and > place into taxonomy. 4.c Bibliography of spam research related work. Frank > de Lange has started this effort. > > 5. Identification of need for interoperable systems > > 5.a. Spam Test Message. led by Matt Sergeant > > 5.b. Opt-out. The idea here is that there should be a standard method of > opting-out so that it can be done by a program. There should also be a way > to systemically verify compliance. volunteer? > > 5.c. Filtered Message Status. The point here is that messages are dropped by > filters with either no status indication or inconsistent ones. The goal is > to agree on a set of acceptable responses. Perhaps this information is > already specified in SMTP standards and the community needs to be reminded > (best practices?) or perhaps new codes new to be suggested. volunteer? > > 6. Proposals of new solutions: We have seen a number of proposals including > those from : Alejandro, Bala, Hadmut. This solutions and others need to be > mentioned in the taxonomy. Other proposals may still be submitted. > > 7. Best Practices documents > > 7.a. End-users > > 7.b. Mail administrators. > > 7.c. Mass Mailers > > -----Part 3. Evaluate Solutions: > > 8. Evaluation of proposals > > 8.a. create evaluation model. usefulness and cost. We have a start here > mentioned in the charter. Vernon also made good suggestion based on > deployment needed for effectiveness. This should tie in with requirements. > Volunteer? 8.b. threat model and analysis. Volunteer? 8.c. do evaluations. > Not ready for this yet. > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 24 21:09:02 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA13872 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 21:09:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2P2T6621692 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 21:29:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2P2T6O21689 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 21:29:06 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA13854 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 21:08:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2P2O3O21524; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 21:24:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2P2NgO21507 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 21:23:42 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA13703 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 21:03:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2P25PkA010306 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 21:05:25 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20030325015602.19147.72514.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> Message-ID: References: <20030325015602.19147.72514.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Asrg] Re: Not again - another challenge/response patent (Prior art) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 21:05:25 -0500 (EST) > From: jm@jmason.org > To: asrg@ietf.org > Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:00:17 -0800 > Subject: [Asrg] Not again - another challenge/response patent > This is ridiculous. Yet another bloody challenge-response patent. :( > http://about.mailblocks.com/press_0324_2003.html > From: Brad Templeton > Here is the patent reference. > Francisco, CA 94105) Appl. No.: 921950 Filed: August 26, 1997 I have prior art. I proposed this exact system, to a tee, in 1996: http://groups.google.ca/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=56luge%246on%40bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca Although Google lists the date as 17 November 1996, according to my archive, I posted the article on Sat Nov 16 21:48:50 1996 EST. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 24 22:12:00 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA15575 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 22:12:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2P3W6426452 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 22:32:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2P3W6O26449 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 22:32:06 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA15568 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 22:11:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2P3OKO26060; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 22:24:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2P3NqO26024 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 22:23:52 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA15281 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 22:03:14 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2P1Djbn021028 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 17:13:45 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2P1DjOc021024 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 17:13:45 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: 5c. Message Status - Re: [Asrg] ASRG work items In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 17:13:44 -0800 (PST) Regarding of failure of delivery due to spam, this is currently what systems do: I. Abort during tranmission by giving usually 5xx error message. Often providing comments as part of 5xx error code on that email is not accepted because its suspected to be spam. Topic to work on: a. Check to see what 5xx messages various systems give. b. Identify if we need additional 5xx message just for message not accepted dur to content problems (spam) c. Identify if we need extended error codes for anti-spam filters and if so only one or multiple ones d. Identify if we need to standartize on comments as well (i.e. not accepted because listed in xxxx blacklist with comments used to indicate what blacklist in universally accepted format, etc). II. Return email after it has been scannded by the filter and found to be unacceptable to system/user. 1. These is what included in return email as far as its original: a. Only says that particular email (usually identfied by subject) is not accepted but does not include actual email with it b. Return email and headers but not content of the email. c. Return entire email including content 2. What is included in addition to returned email: a. Return email without any information on why this was done b. Provide information that email was stopped because its spam with various levels or reporting up to indicating what exactly is wrong or what filter was used c. Return not the email but request for authentication (such website address where only human would be able to authenicate) so that sender's email address is added to some kind of whitelist 3. There several addesses used for returning email: a. MAIL-FROM - most use this and this is appropriate b. "From:" - used by some filters that do not see MAIL-FROM or for some reason choose to ignore it c. "Reply-To:". Same as above, but this is rare d. Send email (even returned ones) to domain.com@abuse.net. Not recommended for automated system to do this, but some users configure that anyway. But this is done in part because of in many spam emails "MAIL-FROM" is invalid and automated system does need some valid email address to return to. 4. Topics to work on: a. What possible formats are used for returning email b. Should we standartize format c. If standardize what options as far as what information is included d. Need to discuss regarding return email address in particular due to spammers using invalid mail form and arrive at standards on what email address is to be used for unaccepted spam emails e. For requests for authentication, should we standartize that? Is that possible? How? Please comment on anything above. On Mon, 24 Mar 2003, Paul Judge wrote: > > > Here is the list of work items that have been identified. If there are other > items that should be added to the list, please propose them. All > conversation on this mailing list must be regarding one of these items. The > subject of each email should begin with the number of the appropriate work > item. For example, "2.a - Spam Measurement Survey Requirements" or "6 - > Proposal for hash-based traceback system". The list volume makes it > difficult to follow individual conversations and to filter the noise. This > will help eliminate both problems. If anyone has a problem following this > convention, please let me know. This is a research group. If you have > constructive feedback, please share it. If you just feel like saying that > "spam can not be stopped" or "this group will fail because I said so", then > you should state those things elsewhere. This mailing list is for the > discussion of ideas that make progress towards the goals of these group as > stated in the charter. I have the option of changing this research group > into a closed research group. If we decide that the noise continues to > affect persons making contributions, then we will exercise that option. > > > > -----Part 1. Understanding the Problem: > > 1. Inventory of problems. started by Liudvikas Bukys. I will distribute the > latest version. Liudvikas, would you like to resume ownership of this > document? > > 2. Characterization of the problems > > 2.a. Spam Measurements. This works needs to be focused on immediately. This > data will help us understand the current weaknesses in the system and where > efforts should be focused. Requirements need to be set and then we have to > gather the data. I see two separate paths here: One is based on user survey > input. Ted Gavin has volunteered to conduct this. The other data is based on > real spam measurements. Once the requirements are gathered, Brightmail, > CipherTrust, CloudMark and MessageLabs have each volunteered to contribute > information. Any other volunteers? > > 2.b. Public Trace Data - www.spamarchive.org > > 2.c. Spam Categorization > > 2.c.1.where it comes from - there was a thread started by someone on this. > Anyone remember the title? This feeds into 7.b. threat model. 2.c.2. > different types - Brightmail has a high-level classification. SurfControl > might also have something here. Ken S. and Susan G., do either of you have > some more granular classifications that you would like to share? Volunteer > to lead this effort? > > -----Part 2. Propose Solutions: > > 3. Requirements for solutions: Started by Keith Moore. I distributed Draft 1 > based on feedback. Keith, would you like to take over moving this forward? > > 4. Survey of solution > > 4.a. Taxonomy. Draft three was distributed. There was only one comment. So I > assume we are getting close. 4.b. Survey. Summarize set of solutions and > place into taxonomy. 4.c Bibliography of spam research related work. Frank > de Lange has started this effort. > > 5. Identification of need for interoperable systems > > 5.a. Spam Test Message. led by Matt Sergeant > > 5.b. Opt-out. The idea here is that there should be a standard method of > opting-out so that it can be done by a program. There should also be a way > to systemically verify compliance. volunteer? > > 5.c. Filtered Message Status. The point here is that messages are dropped by > filters with either no status indication or inconsistent ones. The goal is > to agree on a set of acceptable responses. Perhaps this information is > already specified in SMTP standards and the community needs to be reminded > (best practices?) or perhaps new codes new to be suggested. volunteer? > > 6. Proposals of new solutions: We have seen a number of proposals including > those from : Alejandro, Bala, Hadmut. This solutions and others need to be > mentioned in the taxonomy. Other proposals may still be submitted. > > 7. Best Practices documents > > 7.a. End-users > > 7.b. Mail administrators. > > 7.c. Mass Mailers > > -----Part 3. Evaluate Solutions: > > 8. Evaluation of proposals > > 8.a. create evaluation model. usefulness and cost. We have a start here > mentioned in the charter. Vernon also made good suggestion based on > deployment needed for effectiveness. This should tie in with requirements. > Volunteer? 8.b. threat model and analysis. Volunteer? 8.c. do evaluations. > Not ready for this yet. > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 24 22:51:14 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA16645 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 22:51:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2P4BLK29823 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 23:11:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2P4BHO29818 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 23:11:17 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA16639 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 22:50:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2P458O28615; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 23:05:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2P44uO28585 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 23:04:56 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA16472 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 22:44:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2188097; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 22:46:39 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <200303211221.h2LCLWrH013650@pindari.platypuspartners.com> <20030321194608.A5619380@exeter.ac.uk> <200303212037.h2LKbdv5016004@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> To: Scott A Crosby From: Kee Hinckley Subject: [Asrg] Re: "HashStamp" == hashcash? (Re: Stamping) Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 17:47:42 -0500 At 11:42 PM -0600 3/23/03, Scott A Crosby wrote: > > That said, I don't see yet how it could get past the early-adopter >> phase. Like the other systems, it offers no real benefits until a > > substantial number of people adopt it. >One could build this as a 'side' mechanism into a auto-reply robot >whitelisting mechanism similar to TMDA that IETF seperately >standardizes. The robot-replies sucks for older clients, but work. We >make the the stamp-missing control message machine-readible to make >conforming clients check for other valid stamps (or expend the CPU to >create a new stamp). They're also human-readible telling people to >reply to the robot and complete the handshake. Okay. Now you're making a purchase decision. 1. A system that does challenge/response and whitelists responders. 2. A system that does challenge/response and whitelists responders, but also makes it harder for you to send email and requires client changes, but eventually will be more reliable. And no, I don't think I'm a pessimist. I just think that companies make decisions based on short-term economics. But frankly I think that challenge/response is a non-starter. It fails with all automated email systems. Worse, it potentially removes me from mailing lists when it responds (I assume, since it's a delivery notification, it goes to the envelope from?). So that means I have to manually check the queue before I allow it to send the challenge. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 25 00:25:14 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA18826 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 00:25:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2P5jNK03771 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 00:45:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2P5jNO03768 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 00:45:23 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA18823 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 00:24:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2P5eWO03605; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 00:40:32 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2P5bqO03447 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 00:37:52 -0500 Received: from cs.rice.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA18591 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 00:17:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with SMTP id 00D024ABF9 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 23:19:31 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D42D24AB8C for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 23:19:31 -0600 (CST) Received: from cs.rice.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (cs.rice.edu [127.0.0.1:10024]) (amavisd-new) with ESMTP id 11830-07 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 23:19:30 -0600 (CST) Received: from inky (bert.cs.rice.edu [128.42.3.146]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDE564AB7C for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 23:19:29 -0600 (CST) Received: by inky (Postfix, from userid 14314) id 422CBF3628; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 23:18:59 -0600 (CST) Resent-Sender: scrosby@cs.rice.edu Resent-To: asrg@ietf.org Resent-From: Scott Alexander Crosby Resent-Date: 24 Mar 2003 23:18:59 -0600 To: Kee Hinckley References: <200303211221.h2LCLWrH013650@pindari.platypuspartners.com> <20030321194608.A5619380@exeter.ac.uk> <200303212037.h2LKbdv5016004@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> From: Scott A Crosby Organization: Rice University In-Reply-To: Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 58 Resent-Message-Id: <20030325051859.422CBF3628@inky> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavis-20021227p2 X-DCC--Metrics: cs.rice.edu 1066; Body=2 Fuz1=2 Fuz2=2 Subject: [Asrg] Re: "HashStamp" == hashcash? (Re: Stamping) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 24 Mar 2003 23:16:56 -0600 On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 17:47:42 -0500, Kee Hinckley writes: > At 11:42 PM -0600 3/23/03, Scott A Crosby wrote: > > > That said, I don't see yet how it could get past the early-adopter > >> phase. Like the other systems, it offers no real benefits until a > > > substantial number of people adopt it. > > > >One could build this as a 'side' mechanism into a auto-reply robot > >whitelisting mechanism similar to TMDA that IETF seperately > >standardizes. The robot-replies sucks for older clients, but work. We > >make the the stamp-missing control message machine-readible to make > >conforming clients check for other valid stamps (or expend the CPU to > >create a new stamp). They're also human-readible telling people to > >reply to the robot and complete the handshake. > > Okay. Now you're making a purchase decision. > 1. A system that does challenge/response and whitelists responders. > 2. A system that does challenge/response and whitelists responders, > but also makes it harder for you to send email and requires client > changes, but eventually will be more reliable. No, one where conforming clients will *hide* the challenge from the user, do the partial hash collision, and automatically resend the email. Only non-conforming clients would use the 'escape hatch' of the manual challenge-response. > And no, I don't think I'm a pessimist. I just think that companies > make decisions based on short-term economics. > > > But frankly I think that challenge/response is a non-starter. It > fails with all automated email systems. Worse, it potentially removes > me from mailing lists when it responds (I assume, since it's a > delivery notification, it goes to the envelope from?). So that means > I have to manually check the queue before I allow it to send the > challenge. Oh, I agree, but this sort of 'fun' is coming, and I'd rather get some positive usefulness out of it, to use it as a wedge to get a better solution into email clients.... and soon. Look at: http://news.com.com/2010-1071-992911.html?tag=nl Wanna take a bet as to whether AOL/MSN/Earthlink are contemplating the same? Its the perfect hack. Its simple, it sorta works, it has great short-term benefits for those who use it (and strong negatives for those who don't; but those people don't matter). By Richard Gabriel's ''Worse is Better'', I almost expect it to spread like a weed, and then we'll be stuck with it for decades. Scott _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 25 01:58:51 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA20093 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 01:58:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2P7J1a18908 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 02:19:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2P7J0O18905 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 02:19:00 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA19988 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 01:58:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2P7APO13419; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 02:10:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2P79GO12685 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 02:09:16 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA19908 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 01:48:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h2P6okw18615; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 22:50:46 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: william@elan.net Cc: Paul Judge , "'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)'" Subject: Re: 5b. Opt-Out - Re: [Asrg] ASRG work items Message-ID: <20030325065046.GH8705@main.templetons.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 22:50:46 -0800 On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 03:22:29PM -0800, william@elan.net wrote: > I'll take opt-out. I had notes on that and identified 3 automated out-out > paths (sorted by type of distribution/access to such lists): > > 1. Distributed lists which use some type of encryption to allow validation > of particular address but not see enter list. Please comment here on all > types of encryption methods that are available. > > 2. Opt-out server. Here a special service/server (maybe more then one) is > located somewhere. Anybody wishing to check of address is opt-out or not > can connect to that server (with proper authentication if necessary) and > check validity of particular email address. > > 3. Opt-out system as part of each mail server. Here new command is added > to mail server which allows to check if email is opted out or not. > Separate lists are run by every isp/every email server and are particular > only to email addresses handled by mail server. Its assumed that before or > during email connection command would be issues to verify opt-out > preferences before delivering email. > > Any other distribution means I missed? Unfortunately, distributed lists of hashes of e-mails don't work for secrecy. Spammers have lists of millions of email addresses. They can just compare the hashes against them and turn the list of hashes into a list of real addresses. At least for those on the lists. Which is most of us. If you get spam, you're on these lists. If you don't get spam, you don't have much reason to get on the opt-out list. In fact, anything that will "clean" a list of opted-out people is a way to, using the 50 million email address spammer's database, get almost all the list of people who opted out. Now the question is, do you need secrecy of the names? It certainly would be nice, since you should ideally not have to declare your address in public in order to get your privacy! But there is no great solution here. In fact, the only solution I have come up with requires us to all get new E-mail addresses. This would be a pattern, such as a reserved word lower level domain part. Thus william@ns.elan.net (with "ns" in it) would be an address declared to have opted out. That's not very exciting but I am open to other solutions for an opt out list. The other reason it's necessary is that email addresses are not unique. Many people own whole domains and get all mail to *@domain.com. All sendmail users get all mail to username+*@domain.com. All qmail users get all mail to username-*@domain.com. There are many other examples. Also, user%domain.com@otherdomain.com is a valid e-mail for you if otherdomain relays. There are an infinite number of variations. That leaves us with option 3, which can deal with that. Problem is (legit) relaying. This requires every MX server to know the policy of every user it MXs for. I think it sucks, but a reserved word domain is the only solution I have been able to come up with. Thus plus is that while we all have to get new emails if you want such a system, it's pretty easy to guess the new address from the old one. However, in the end, opt-out and opt-in laws are pretty demonstrably fruitless. We have 25 laws already, and leaving aside their highly debatable constitutionality, that they are entirely ineffective does not seem subject to debate any more. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 25 02:33:26 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA02574 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 02:33:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2P7rbg21727 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 02:53:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2P7raO21724 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 02:53:36 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA02563 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 02:32:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2P7pDO21665; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 02:51:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2P7o5O21568 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 02:50:05 -0500 Received: from plaidworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA02436 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 02:29:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.8/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h2P7VdZQ013742 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 23:31:39 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed From: Chuq Von Rospach To: "ASRG" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] a "baby steps" proposal. Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 23:31:39 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In and around today's various crises, I found myself pondering ways to maybe build a solution to part of the spam problem. Without pretending this is a formal proposal, or even fully fleshed out, here is an approach that came to me -- consider it a talking point to get things started. I was thinking of ways to try to slow down or block the issue of stolen domains and forged return addresses, and looked ways to allow domains to "take back" their domains. And came up with, conceptually, a new flavor of the ident server. Okay, you get a piece of email from fluxmonger@yahoo.com. Should you accept it? right now, there's no way to query yahoo and ask, not reasonably. To avoid making changes to existing protocols, instead of modifying DNS for new fields, I thought I'd do it using a well-known host name (which also allows a large site to scale with load balancers or perhaps round robins, while allowing small sites to simply virtual host it to their machine). Call it, say, hostauth.yahoo.com (if mail is from lists.apple.com, say, the authorizer is hostauth.lists.apple.com; through aliasing, it can all be tied to single server or single administration if you want). for sake of simplicity, I'll assign it port 5555. As the site trying to decide on accepting, you can query that server two questions: is "fluxmonger@yahoo.com" authorized to send e-mail from your domain? and "is this IP address authorized to send e-mail for your domain"? Participation is optional; lack of a server means you don't have the information to work with (I assume some users will choose to make lack of a server a deciding action; maybe some day). It allows a site to explicitly deny mail from non-existant/forged accounts. It allows sites to start restricting mail sent from non-local locations (the issue of the remote user using an accessible SMTP host is an issue, as are backup MXes, among things I've thought of). For instance, if you query hostauth.plaidworks.com, it'll tell you that chuqui@plaidworks.com can send email, but bin@plaidworks.com cannot. Neither can fluxmonger@apple.com. Since I send email as plaidworks via my work's SMTP while I'm at work, it'd not only tell you that 64.81.78.180 can send e-mail as plaidworks.com, but so can 17.254.0.152. If you got email from 216.139.12.17, my server would tell you no. the IP ranges are probably tri-state: there will be addresses whitelisted by that server, addresses potentially in the "no opinion state", and addresses blacklisted (things that admin has found to be sources of spam forged with that domain's addresses, or perhaps generated out of rbls). If I were sending mail using my @employers.domain address using y home SMTP server, whether that'd be in the "no opinion" or "blacklist" would be based on the policy of that domain owner, which I think is fair, even if it might inconvenience me at times. Data can be cached for some period of time. Once you know my auth server approves that address and/or IP address, you don't need to query every time you see it; it's safe to assume it's going to stay okay. rejections are more problematic, maybe a shorter cache for them. What's in it for a domain? The ability to better control who's using that domain, especially those trying to use it without permission. The reduced problems with bounces from forged headers, time spent by admins dealing with misdirected abuse mail, etc, etc -- all can help offset the cost of creating and maintaining this auth server. It requires no new protocols, no massive outlays of engineering or "stuff", no massive re-engineering of the universe; it's effectively an RBL built and maintained by a domain, about that domain, advertised via a known host/known port mechanism. On the client side: it can be built into anti-spam tools similar to existing RBLs; adding support isn't a major issue. Decisions on how to use the data can be administered how a domain wants them to be, it's a local decision. A nice side aspect of this is that bogus auth servers can be blacklisted. If you catch one lying to you, the receiving side can simply flag all mail being authed through that server as bogus, so once a server is found to be spam friendly, it gives you a way to deal with all of the spam authed by that server. spammers can work around that, of course, but it's one more thing for them to have to deal with, and the auth server has to be in DNS, so it's harder to hide than using open relays or open proxies. It's another tool to force a spammer to stand still long enough to find where he is, not where his mail is coming from. basically, it's something that's both an ident server (on a domain basis) and an RBL. It'd have a very simple protocol, and should be quite fast. for most sites, a flat file configuration ought to suffice; for larger organizations, it'll be more complex to keep all of the data straight, but it's all engineering, not imagineering). risks/issues: any server that does a yes/no on "is this a good address" risks leaking those good addresses to spammers. the 'accept/reject' decision effectively has to happen where the mail enters your MX relays, or you risk losing that IP address. the legal user part can be done anywhere. For organizations with lots of sub-domains that send mail, it adds some complexity to their DNS administration. I don't consider that a huge issue. to me, at first glance, it seems like it's easily implementable, doesn't require re-engineering (beyond tweaking sendmail.cf or equivalent), and the only significant risk I see is the exposure risk above, but it can be engineered to a tolerable level fairly easily through fallback delays or whatever. If seems to give domains better control (not perfect, better -- the issue of "this is a legal address on our domain, BUT THAT ISN'T HIM isn't resolved at all, unless you can nail it with the IP lookup). Basically, it solves one small problem, without (I think) creating newer ones of any great size. Thoughts? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 25 04:10:04 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA04245 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 04:10:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2P9UHR27838 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 04:30:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2P9UGO27835 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 04:30:16 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA04230 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 04:09:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2P9LNO27469; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 04:21:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2P9JTO27364 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 04:19:29 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA03959 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 03:58:42 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2P79Ibn025367; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 23:09:18 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2P79Hoi025363; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 23:09:18 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: Paul Judge cc: "'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] RE: My Opinion regarding ietf asrg session (it went badly!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 23:09:17 -0800 (PST) > > I usually would not take the time to respond to obviously flawed and > erroneous statements. Well, I do appreciate you finally responding, most of us thought you would not and let it die which might actually have been better for you and for the list. Note though, that I never post "obviously flowed and erroneous" statements. And I also clearly said in the subject and in several other places that this was my opinion and nothing more. > However, for the sake of persons on this list that do > not know the details, I will spend just a few minutes stating the truth > here. As stated by Vernon Schryver: "I must observe that some of the > strongest condemnations in the list of whatever happened at the meeting came > from people who have made the some of the less well founded contributions to > the mailing list. From here I can't tell what happened, but I wonder if > sour grape sentiments from some people about their favorite solutions not > being adopted by acclamation colored other people's perceptions and so > reports of the meeting." Based on this and other responses, I fear that > without some clarity, others will continue to be confused by the few > radical, negative opinions that have been voiced. There were over 200 > attendees and based on the positive feedback that I have heard, I do not > believe that the couple of negative opinions is an accurate reflection of > the thoughts of the attendees. And based on my personal observations and talking to dozen attendies in person and more by email and even more that expressed their opinion on this list, everybody thought the meeting did not go that well. The opinion have been in range fom "very bad" to "some problems", none have said it was "good". So if you put it on scale bad - neutral - good, what I have seen in regards to how meeting happened ranged from bad to neutral but never above that. I believe that the persons who have seen the meeting as good would not be the persons associated with IETF. > William, I am sorry that you are so upset that you were not able to present > at the meeting; however, that should not drive you to making clearly false > accusations about the meeting. While I might have been upset about not being able to make presentation, after seeing what happened I'm now actually quite happy about that fact, since people who I wanted to present it to all left by the time we got to technical presentations. I believe my sentiment is shared even by those who did make a presentation, most would prefer to do be able to do it again and in another format of the meeting! But my opinion about the meeting is irregardless of my presentation and would have been exactly the same (or even worse) if I did make it. It is based on actual presentations that were made and how meeting turned out, not on those that were not made! I'm sorry if you see me as making any accusations especially considering that you say that I'm making "clearly false" accusations, which in my view is "clearly" not the case. (note: clearly and false is left to be defined by the person reading the message for both your email and mine). Everything I said is exactly my view on what happened and I'm not about to take anything back. > I sent a call for agenda items to the list on March 10th. There were a few > volunteers. I spoke with each of them and by March 12th each was able to > explain to me what they wished to present. For some reason, you were not > able to provide a clear explanation of what you wished to present until 3 > days before the meeting on Monday March 17th; The above answer statement in my view is "clearly false" (see defintion on these words above) and also not inline with the facts I've available. As for the facts, I sent you answer that I wish to send a presentation on March 11th. If something I said was not clear enough for you, you obviously had an option to respond to my email or ask for phone# to talk to me, you decided to opt out and not send any answer at all. The only reply (two lines, to provide more details about presentation) from you I received was on March 17th. It read "William, I'm working on putting the agenda together. Can you be more specific about what you would want to cover". The date is listed in my inbox as "Mon, 17 Mar 2003 03:57:41 -0500" There were no other attempts to contact me before 17th and clearly agenda was not even prepared before then. > "I'v[e] not 100% decided if I'll be able to attend". At this point, the > agenda was being finalized. Then suddenly two days before the meeting you > request a slot on the agenda. And the same email also said "I'll decide by tomorrow if I go or not". I was going to think about it and send you additional email but wanted to answer your question on what I'd be presenting since I considered that to be most important and not to be delayed. And indeed by the next day I sent an additional email that said "I'm attending IETF after all, so I'll be at asrg session." Afterwards you claim that you have not received my email (you would have seen it on Tuesday March 18th), but on the same day there were messages in asrg to which I've responded which clearly show that I've made a decision and was attending and as I was indicating in previous email that my answer on if I'm attending or not would be send to you be well known by Tuesday, this also should have been a good indication that you might have missed my email if that is indeed what happened as you claim. In fact you main basis on why my presentation is not included when I finally talked to you in person on Wednesday (and I was waiting to talk to you on Tuesday night, but you did not show up) was that you did not receive that email. I do understand that some people are really busy with email and have lots of them (I for one have > 150,000 emails in my inbox) but the above description puts that fact in doubt. But I might have been content with your answer if all presentations made good and on topic, but I was very concerned when I saw the agenda (finally posted to the list on Wednesday, but that time I already had slides for presentations prepared and sent them to you!) being dominated by commercial-oriented companies, and I'v made my opinion known to you privately when I finally had a chance to talk to you. After the fact and seeing the meeting in realtime I'm sure my concerns were exactly right which made me somehat worried about what system was used to determine what is to be presented - that is what I've indicated in my email to the list. And Paul, do note that all facts regarding my presentation being accepted or not and how are all in my favor and generally not point to me doing anything wrong. I suggest you withdraw from the discussion and just admit that as group chair you made a decision on what presentations would be included based on your view on what presentions should be included in the meeting. As a group chair you have full right to make these decisions and I'm not disputing this. > Please see my comments inline. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: william@elan.net [mailto:william@elan.net] > > Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 5:13 PM > > To: asrg@ietf.org > > Subject: [Asrg] My Opinion regarding ietf asrg session (it > > went badly!) > > > Also it can be noted that AT&T presented technology > > on which > > they have some patents and IETF has very clear guidelines > > that this is > > dscoraged to say the least and group chairs should when two solutions > > exist (one patented, one not) always choose non-patented > > solution, same > > applies for presentations, this should have been screened and > > patent-related presentation made available if nothing else > > similar exist. > > As stated in Vern Paxson's email: "the IRTF does not have an expressed IPR > policy, though it appears one needs to be developed. I picture such a > policy requiring that, for any technology discussed within RGs that has > related IPR, that the presence of the possible IPR be disclosed; but not > beyond that. The AT&T presentation would be in compliance with such a > policy." Clearly my problem was that since I've never worked at IRTF group before, some policies here were not known to me and due to irtf website being undeveloped right now it would have been hard for me to find this and I'v assumed that most that is true for IETF is true for IETF (except that IETF works on standards and clear pre-defined goal on what protocol or similar would be and IRTF "researches the issue" to decided futher steps but can not actually provide any stadards). As to the issues with IPR, I'v already posted separate email today what I think we should do in this regard. And questions about IPR were raised before on the list also before and never got any official response from you or anybody else. > > Also have to be noted that most presentations on the live > > meeting were by > > persons who did not try to participate at the mailing list > > and are completely unknown to us > > Unknown to whom? There a number of people that you may not know that have a > unique understanding of spam. Who is it that you don't know? John Morris? > Jon Praed? Philip Hallam-Baker? Balachander Krishnamurthy? Its kind of funny when you say that since when talking to you day before the presentation I made it clear I actually know most of the mentioned people (I may not remember everyone personally, but I know the organizations) and can imagine what they would present based on presentations done for other events and I was not seriously wrong. As to exactly what I said is that these people are uknown to people on ASRG mail list as they did not participate here. Obviously as the persons listed are experts in spam (which I do not doubt) it would be of most interest for us to have them participate here, but it was not the case and as such it was clearly their choice on how much involvement with this group they want. At least it would have been appropriate for them to introduce themselve to the list before the meeting and the agenda was posted. > > and this is also against > > general policies for IETF and IRTF > > as first what are supposed to be presented are work done as > > part of mailing list efforts (i.e. general work area) usually > > by people who are most active on the list and only afterwards > > at the very end are there allowed presentations by other > > organizations with similar interest or work area (and those > > presentations should be carefully chose to minimize > > commercial views). > > As you know, I sent a call for agenda items. Everyone that responded and had > something to talk about was accepted. I'v no way to confirm that except by your words, but have some facts indicating this is not so. > Commercial views were very minimized if not non-existent. I'v different view of this as from what I saw every organization was presenting what is important to them. The word "commercial" may not be the most approriate here as for example legal presentation is not commercial but basicly nothing presentated was research-group approved, you did presentation of general anti-spam conference that tries to describe how hard situation is and what are the view of various organizations (such as legit mass mailers, legal, goverment, etc). And nothing of this was really "research" just their view on the matter at hand. But all tech presentations were for "commercialized" solutions, i.e. certificates, stamps, etc. often involving patents and so on. I'v personally (again repeat personally) do not like solutions that are like that. > There were a number of commercial entities in the room > that talked about the problem and not about a product. Again, these may be > people that you don't personally know, but they are very familiar with the > problem. For example, Scott Banister from IronPort, Dick Hardt from > ActiveState, Ken Schneider from BrightMail, Karl Jacob from CloudMark, and > me and others from CipherTrust. Most companies mentioned (including yours) make anti-spam solutions based on filtering on the client end and I recorgine your contributions in this area, however the reasons for ASRG is to find end-end solution that would as most agree involve some kind of change in communication system that involves both source and destination and change so that spam is not sent. These solutions might possibly in the future remove need for destination filtering or replace it with something else (though I suspect this will have to be used anyway no matter how well we're able to protect improper communication from happening) and may cause actions solutions that diminish need for such solutions that you currently make. But I seriously do not think this is a problem, as most people involved in anti-spam companies are real really really against spam and the reasons why they got involved in the first place, so it may very well be true that all of you are quite capable of going against your own business if it means eliminating spam! But again as I said, most of these commercial solutions are for anti-spam filtering on client end, and while this is important, it is not main issue of what we're talking on the list and as solutions are often quite similar only one of these "filtering" presentations should be made (this is for the future...) and best by somebody who're somewhat outside and can give overview of not just what one company does but several. However that people in the above companies have such personal views of spam unfortunetly might have caused an counter-effect and seriously prolong the meeting by having everyone engaged in the discussion instead of trying to stay on agenda which did not provide any time for discussions. That you knew these people personally only made things worse as you were not ready to say no to them and stop the discussions. This is probably something to remember for the future - either provide time (5min) for discussion after each presentation of do not allow for any discusssions and be strong on this point. I'd opt for 5 min personally, just add to agenda next time its done. > There was absolutely no mention of these > products or any proprietary technology from any of these companies. These > are people that are at the meeting to participate in a research group > focused on the problem of spam. BTW, you might want to think about the > amount of spam that is stopped daily by these companies. And I might think about that amount of spamming getting through is rising as technologies used by spammers become more complex and filtering on content no longer works all that well. We must focus on technologies that eliminate spam from the source if possible. > Not to promote any > of these particular technologies, but my point is that we are quite familiar > with the problem and the state-of-the-art and we gather here to move forward > with better answers to the problem. > > > > In short, like I said in previous email - the presentations were all > > opinions of particular organizations and all commercial (even > > spamcon is > > really what I call "commercial" non-profit foundation, as > > apposed to say > > CAUSE) and were not individual submission as is supposed to > > be done at > > IETF and IRTF. As a result engineers who were attending IETF probably > > got negative view of our group and our efforts. > > These were presentations by individuals. The fact that many of the people > that have much to say about spam are affiliated with spam-focused > organizations is not a surprise. Most spam-focused companies are really the work of several very dedicated individuals for each organization, I fully recorgnize that. However if you're familiar with IETF you'll undetand what I mean when I say there is a difference between individual presenting something and organizations presenting something and all presentations were clearly organization views be those organizations mass-mailers, legal, etc. > > The only > > thing I can think > > of why chair did something like that would have been to get > > media exposure, I'm sure media not be research or engineering > > centric would not see > > serious downsides that I have noticed. Now I'n not against additional > > media exposure, but I do not believe we're at the point where this is > > really needed, what we need are people serious about working > > on technical > > solutions and media will provide information about our group > > to general > > user audience that would only bring more noise. > > I tapped resources to provide background discussion and different views of > the problem as input to our research group work. This included a view from > the frontline, a view from mass mailers, a view related to endusers and a > view of the relationship between spam legislation and spam technology. Each > of these individuals was highly qualified and very informative. There were > remarks about the scientific merit of some of the stats in the first talk. > However, beyond that the audience was captivated by the information that was > being dispersed. In part because you'v spent serious time promoting this group in the media which caused number of people in the audience for whom this was "facinating" as well as even more people from the media. Anybody who has seen the list of all the media articles about ASRG which you saw kindly collected at http://www.ciphertrust.com/press/news/index.htm would understand what I mean. > As I explained, this was the inaugural meeting of the > research group that was started just three weeks ago. As I mentione below, I think there should not have been life meeting so soon after group start. > I felt that we needed > to consume some background information before we dive into the technical > details of our work. This session of the meeting including all four of these > talks was scheduled for 45 minutes; that is less than 1/3 of the scheduled > meeting time. Yes, it went over this time due to lengthy Q&A, speakers > overrunning their slots, and the chair not being extremely stringent on time > requirements. If you want to point out any of those last three things, those > are valid points. However, scheduling 1/3 of an inaugural meeting to focus > on background and relevant views of the area is acceptable and necessary. Indeed I mentioned all of the above. And 1/3 of the time would be ok, but we saw what happened... I think for next time considering asking IETF to schedule this in two sessions (purely "informational" and purely technical - solutions) and not only that but consider making these sessions on separate days and last session in a day so that we could stay longer. > I received many more positive comments after the meeting than I did negative > comments from the few people on this list with other ideas about how the > meeting should have been run. I'd be surprised if these comments came from people on the mailing list or otherwise engaged in IETF work. > There were opportunties to bash the agenda > when it was sent to the list as well as the official agenda bashing portion > of the meeting. This I disagree with you entirely. Agenda was presented 1 day before the meeting. On IETF groups I'm in agenda was presented week or two before the actual meeting. There was absolutly no opportunity to "bash" the agenda on the meeting or on the list. > No such comments were made at either point. There were made privately to you by several people who were on the list when they saw the agenda. > So, I appreciate > the fact that some of you have 20/20 hindsight, but I would be more > impressed with useful contributions. > > > > > In the future meetings done in connection with IETF (are we > > meeting in > > Vienna?) if we're going to have so many non-technical discussions, I > > would strongly recommend separting into two sessions, one for this > > general/media-centric and one for actual engineers to work on > > technical > > issues that we may have. > > > > I do hope chair takes my comments seriously! > > He really did a bad job today chosing what is to be presented > > (i'm sure he > > had multiple options), > > As stated above, there were not as many options as you assumed. Everyone > that had a technical solution to discuss (that made this known more than 2 > days before the meeting) was allowed to present. You know as well as I do that is not true, in fact in your own email you already admitted as much. And on the list we'v seen many other proposed solutions too, I'v hard time believing nobody was read to prepare a presentation for the meeting. > > keeping discussions short (so that > > there was time > > for additional presentations) > > or in general being prepared > > for this life > > meeting (remember agenda is supposed to be reviewed by mail > > list and be > > announced well before the actual meeting, that is just one example). > > RFC 2014 states that a draft agenda must be published to the list well in > advance of the meeting. So do it this way next time, please! > Your comment about not being prepared is amusing. > This group was chartered the last week in February. Within three weeks, the > group was announced, mailing list started, work items identified, iterated > through drafts of certain work items, meeting during IETF was requested, > granted, and scheduled, agenda planned and confirmed, and meeting held. I completely agree with you that there was not enough time. My option in this case would have been to delay first meeting to the next IETF conference when we were more ready. > Personally, I am content with the progress thus far. Understand that the > research group is three weeks old. Obviously, we will not solve the problem > in the first three weeks. But, we have made some progress and will continue > to make good strides. Just as I tried to explain to you this week, RFC 2014 > also states that "A Research Group will conduct much of its business via its > electronic mail distribution list(s)." The way that we will continue to make > progress is from individual contributions. If you are sincerely interested > in helping to solve this problem, then please contribute work and ideas > rather than simply negative opinions. You sent a note to the group about > email address verification on March 12th stating that more detail will be > provided in the next couple of days. More detail was never sent. Actually if you'v really read my email you'd see that I said that more details on callback would be sent later (not on verification!), my notes on verification were almost fully published (see below) I apologize for not sending notes on callback before and will do so by the end of this week. As for more details on verification, it was in the presentation which I made available. The particular details not mentioned before are to use message tracking protocol for these purposes. I'm now working on the draft (actually more then one) when draft is ready I'll post it. But actual details are already made available and if you have questions how it would work as far as general overview, please feel free to read presentation and previous notes and ask me questions. > I look forward to seeing some actual contributions from you. You will. And so I hope as well to see contributions and solutions from you as well, which beyond the taximony you'v not done and have not actively participated in the list that much. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Trying to continue this debate on the personal scale like this between us is useless - I'm certain we'll not be able to effect each other's opinion about what happened with the first meeting and if it was good or bad and for others if they have been on the meeting they also have their own opinion and those who were not can not properly accertain it just from our words along. I do, however, hope you took critisicim properly, but we'll only know it on the next meeting. And I personally will not remember personal problems for long (I can "heat up" very quickly but just as much it does not stay within me long) and I do not let it to effect my judgement. Plus, I'v a lot more interest in seeing a solution to spam problem then having some personal battle with you or anybody else. So, I'd like us to cool our heads, take step back, relax and be prepared to work for the future. And the most constructive step to this I'v seen today with introduction of "ASRG work items", lets hope others follow it and the list actually becomes productive and not as much "rant" as this email. And do note that I'll not reply to any other email on this thread, I'v said more then enough, especially considering that this was after all my opinion. ---- William Leibzon Elan Communications Inc. william@elan.net _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 25 04:20:16 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA04444 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 04:20:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2P9eTp29070 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 04:40:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2P9eTO29067 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 04:40:29 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA04435 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 04:19:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2P9X5O28008; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 04:33:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2P9WxO27985 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 04:32:59 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA04294 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 04:12:14 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2P7Mqbn025515 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 23:22:52 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2P7MqCH025511 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 23:22:52 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: "'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)'" Subject: Re: 5b. Opt-Out - Re: [Asrg] ASRG work items In-Reply-To: <20030325065046.GH8705@main.templetons.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 23:22:52 -0800 (PST) Ok, I'm going to add "Modification of email address to show opt-out choice" as #4 in my list. And to a degree this system is already widely used when somebody adds "#listname" as part of email address, they show choice to be opt-in to specific mail list but not others and afterwards they filter based on this choice. Regarding #1 (distributed hash list of email address). I'd like somebody who has exact proposal on this issue speak up and explain this in detail, especially cipher algorithms used, why its safe, etc. (did Verisign had some paper, anybody wants to point me?). Then whoever is in opposition and think this will not work, should explain problems and technical issues in proposal. Also regarding #3 where there maybe a problem that all mail servers (even backups mxs) would need to answer if user is opted out or not, the solution to this is to build separate opt-out choice report protocol and have separarte SRV record for it. To be honest this is actually my preferable choice, I thought to make it a part of "filtering configuration" database as public information available from such database where as actual filters to be used would be private information. But I consider this approach to be subpart of #3 and in the future iteration of choices for opt-out will list it as subsection. Also should I mention as separate topic for opt-out an enforcement of opt-out choices? These can include laws in support of opt-out, distributed black lists of those companies that did not honor opt-out, etc. On Mon, 24 Mar 2003, Brad Templeton wrote: > On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 03:22:29PM -0800, william@elan.net wrote: > > I'll take opt-out. I had notes on that and identified 3 automated out-out > > paths (sorted by type of distribution/access to such lists): > > > > 1. Distributed lists which use some type of encryption to allow validation > > of particular address but not see enter list. Please comment here on all > > types of encryption methods that are available. > > > > 2. Opt-out server. Here a special service/server (maybe more then one) is > > located somewhere. Anybody wishing to check of address is opt-out or not > > can connect to that server (with proper authentication if necessary) and > > check validity of particular email address. > > > > 3. Opt-out system as part of each mail server. Here new command is added > > to mail server which allows to check if email is opted out or not. > > Separate lists are run by every isp/every email server and are particular > > only to email addresses handled by mail server. Its assumed that before or > > during email connection command would be issues to verify opt-out > > preferences before delivering email. > > > > Any other distribution means I missed? > > > Unfortunately, distributed lists of hashes of e-mails don't work for secrecy. > Spammers have lists of millions of email addresses. They can just compare > the hashes against them and turn the list of hashes into a list of real > addresses. At least for those on the lists. Which is most of us. If you > get spam, you're on these lists. If you don't get spam, you don't have > much reason to get on the opt-out list. > > In fact, anything that will "clean" a list of opted-out people is a way to, > using the 50 million email address spammer's database, get almost all the > list of people who opted out. > > Now the question is, do you need secrecy of the names? It certainly would > be nice, since you should ideally not have to declare your address in public > in order to get your privacy! But there is no great solution here. > > In fact, the only solution I have come up with requires us to all get new > E-mail addresses. This would be a pattern, such as a reserved word lower > level domain part. Thus william@ns.elan.net (with "ns" in it) would be > an address declared to have opted out. > > That's not very exciting but I am open to other solutions for an opt out list. > > The other reason it's necessary is that email addresses are not unique. > Many people own whole domains and get all mail to *@domain.com. All > sendmail users get all mail to username+*@domain.com. All qmail users > get all mail to username-*@domain.com. There are many other examples. > > Also, user%domain.com@otherdomain.com is a valid e-mail for you if otherdomain > relays. There are an infinite number of variations. > > That leaves us with option 3, which can deal with that. Problem is (legit) > relaying. This requires every MX server to know the policy of every user it > MXs for. > > > I think it sucks, but a reserved word domain is the only solution I have been > able to come up with. Thus plus is that while we all have to get new emails > if you want such a system, it's pretty easy to guess the new address from the > old one. > > > However, in the end, opt-out and opt-in laws are pretty demonstrably fruitless. > We have 25 laws already, and leaving aside their highly debatable > constitutionality, that they are entirely ineffective does not seem subject > to debate any more. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 25 07:49:06 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA07865 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 07:49:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2PD9Nj09164 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 08:09:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PD9NO09161 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 08:09:23 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA07860 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 07:48:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PD5RO08276; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 08:05:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PD4DO08244 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 08:04:13 -0500 Received: from nber13.nber.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA07728 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 07:43:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from nber13.nber.org (localhost.nber.org [127.0.0.1]) by nber13.nber.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h2PCjiwP079424 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 07:45:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by nber13.nber.org (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id h2PCjiJw079423 for asrg@ietf.org.KAV; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 07:45:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from nber5.nber.org (nber5.nber.org [207.113.108.99]) by nber13.nber.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h2PCjiwQ079415; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 07:45:44 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Feenberg To: Chuq Von Rospach cc: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] a "baby steps" proposal. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 07:27:15 -0500 (EST) On Mon, 24 Mar 2003, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > > To avoid making changes to existing protocols, instead of modifying DNS > for new fields, I thought I'd do it using a well-known host name (which > also allows a large site to scale with load balancers or perhaps round > robins, while allowing small sites to simply virtual host it to their > machine). Call it, say, hostauth.yahoo.com (if mail is from > lists.apple.com, say, the authorizer is hostauth.lists.apple.com; > through aliasing, it can all be tied to single server or single > administration if you want). for sake of simplicity, I'll assign it > port 5555. > This moves responsibility for authorizing mail from the connecting host to the owner of the hostname of the connecting host. Currently the host itself must prevent relay, and needs to use SMTP AUTH or POPAUTH for roving users. Under this proposal that would be unecessary because the receiving host would query the authorizer for authorization. Now the authorizer is the one that decides if mail is legitimate or not. What is missing is an argument for why this is better, or is better in combination. Is there a large group of MTAs who would do this but would not do SMTP AUTH? Is SMTP AUTH to hard? But a whole new authorization protocol is not likely to be easier. Are there particular problems with SMTP AUTH that are insoluble? Furthermore, the authoriser has less information than the sending host. It doesn't know the actual sending address, or if the actual sender knows the login id and password for his account, or anything about the message content. I would have guessed that most mail originates from servers that are controlled by the same entity that controls the DNS server of the host name, and that therefore this proposal does not shift responsibility in most cases. However many MTAs are on DSL lines where the ISP has effective control over DNS but the customer controls the machine itself. In these cases I would guess there was much less liklihood of this proposal being effected correctly. Daniel Feenberg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 25 08:09:57 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA08229 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 08:09:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2PDUFm09923 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 08:30:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PDUFO09920 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 08:30:15 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA08223 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 08:09:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PD72O08384; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 08:07:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PD6xO08306 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 08:06:59 -0500 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA07811 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 07:46:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 18xnqw-0002GB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 12:48:30 +0000 Subject: Re: [Asrg] Certs required to send mail ?(Was: My Opinion regarding ietf asrg session (it went badly! )) To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" Reply-To: "Jon Kyme" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.4.12] Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 12:48:30 +0000 > Jon, > JK> If Certs were required to send mail AND were only issued under strict > terms > JK> and conditions AND revocation for T&C violation was properly managed. > > > And if everybody were a nice person, we would not have this problem. > > When offering an "If" please discuss the feasibility of implementing the > proposal. > Dave, I think you may have missed the context of my reply, which was not to make a proposal as such - but to comment on this point made by Vernon Schryver > >If certs were required to send mail, then we'd have big ISPs distributing >CDROMs labelled "4000 free hours" and automatically issuing certs >along with user names and passwords. There would be no change from >the current situation, except that the commercial CAs would have >another revenue stream. > (Which might profitably have been quoted in your response) The feasibility would hang on a CA issuing certs only subject to strict T&C, taking responsibility for revoking in the case of demonstrated violation of that T&C and for client software to correctly consult revocation lists. The technology for this is all well-understood but there doesn't seem to be a body in place offering this facility. But I'm not proposing such a system - that's for others with more expertise in this area. And besides, its a business problem rather than a technical one. This is probably equivalent to the CA maintaining a whitelist. (with some cryptographic overhead :-) ) As has been suggested previously in this group, a trusted whitelist is very close approach to a "good solution". -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 25 08:50:22 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA11577 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 08:50:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2PE9lk13225 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:09:47 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PE9lO13222 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:09:47 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA11465 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 08:48:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PE19O12164; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:01:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PE0vO12130 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:00:57 -0500 Received: from emu.st (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id IAA10412 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 08:40:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 35271 invoked by uid 1015); 25 Mar 2003 13:42:24 -0000 Delivered-To: qmda-intercept-asrg@ietf.org@intercept Comments: QMDA 0.1 - see http://www.geocities.com/mark_delany/qmda.html Received: (qmail 75873 invoked from network); 25 Mar 2003 13:42:24 -0000 Received: from prefix-internal.emu.st (HELO emu.st) (10.100.100.36) by f1-external.emu.st with SMTP; 25 Mar 2003 13:42:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 8507 invoked by uid 1001); 25 Mar 2003 13:42:23 -0000 Message-ID: <20030325134223.8506.qmail@prefix.emu.st> From: "Mark Delany" Mail-Followup-To: "ASRG" To: "ASRG" Subject: Re: [Asrg] a "baby steps" proposal. References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: ; from chuqui@plaidworks.com on Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 11:31:39PM -0800 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 25 Mar 2003 13:42:23 +0000 On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 11:31:39PM -0800, Chuq Von Rospach allegedly wrote: > As the site trying to decide on accepting, you can query that server > two questions: is "fluxmonger@yahoo.com" authorized to send e-mail from > your domain? and "is this IP address authorized to send e-mail for your > domain"? > risks/issues: > > any server that does a yes/no on "is this a good address" risks leaking > those good addresses to spammers. eRBL is a variant on this that I've discussed in other forums. The idea is to reverse the question to be "is this a known bad address". As the owner of the domain, you get to know about bad addresses because you get the bounces. In effect, hostauth becomes a cache of recent bounces to bogus addresses, for some value of recent. The advantage of this approach is that it doesn't leak addresses and cannot be used to list-wash. Using your example, if someone is trying to send mail using bin@plaidworks.com, in very short order you'll start getting bounces to that address because spammer lists are rarely perfect. As soon as you get the bounce and the local delivery/forward fails, the address gets added into your eRBL. A query for any other email address returns NXDOMAIN regardless of whether it's valid or not. Regards. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 25 09:02:15 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA12051 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:02:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2PEMYj13672 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:22:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PEMYO13669 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:22:34 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA12048 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:01:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PEHIO13449; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:17:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PEGWO13417 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:16:32 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA11805 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 08:55:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2189529; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 08:58:01 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: "Alan DeKok" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Requirements for gathering statistics Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 08:37:35 -0500 At 5:52 AM -0500 3/24/03, Alan DeKok wrote: > However, by measuring data from from biased systems, we can get a >good indication of what those biases may be, how extensive they are, >and even discover the shape of the non-biased systems. If an ISP is not filtering for spam, they can't even answer the question, "how much spam do you get". If they are filtering for spam and 20% gets through, they their numbers will be 20% off. How are you--looking at the aggregate information--going to figure that out? > Pollsters use these methods all the time. They call people, collect >precise, accurate data about personal biases. The people may lie, but >with enough data, that bias may be accounted for. This isn't bias. This is missing data. > What amazes me is the number of people who would rather do nothing >than use an imperfect system, and the number of people who fight >against something they agree with, because they think it doesn't go >far enough. I did not say do nothing. I simply pointed out that you should realize that there is going to be a lot of error in some of those numbers. Trust me. If I had meant "do nothing" I would have said "do nothing." -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 25 09:41:16 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA14225 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:41:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2PF1Z416403 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:01:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PF1ZO16399 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:01:35 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA14216 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:40:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PEsFO15954; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:54:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PEroO15900 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:53:50 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA13918 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:32:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2189640 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:35:19 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: To: asrg@ietf.org From: Kee Hinckley Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Subject: [Asrg] Protocols Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:34:54 -0500 A lot of the proposals people have made to this list make a fundamental change to how email works, and I don't mean in the specifics, but at a very high level. Currently the process of sending email from point a to point b does not involve any protocols. Yes, the transport does--but from the MUA to MUA standpoint there is no back and forth protocol. You toss message over wall. Sometime later, someone gets it. This is completely one way. Yes, there are two exceptions to the rule--bounces and return-receipts. And it's probably worth considering that neither of those exceptions work very well. Return-receipt is unreliable due to gateway issues, as well as social ones. And bounces range from no-bounces-but-not-delivered, to did-bounce-but-got-delivered. In both cases the sending MUA seldom has any knowledge of the even that limited protocol. (It could link bounces and return-receipts to the original message, but most do not--the protocols are too unreliable.) When you propose a change to the mail system that *requires* a protocol (either through two supporting MUAs, or one supporting MUA and one annoyed human :-) you are making a very fundamental change to how email works. You have introduced a dramatic new level of complexity. The difference between drop-and-forget and a real protocol with bi-directional communication is huge. Most importantly, it introduces a whole new way for things to fail. I've seen a lot of proposals. But I don't believe I've seen any of them discuss failure modes. TCP may guarantee that you deliver a packet or know you didn't--but email most certainly does not. If you are designing a protocol on top of email, you've got to think about the how things fail. Here are a few to consider--independent of whether we're talking hashcash, sender-pays, challenge/response, or anything else. - initial message isn't delivered - initial message is delivered to wrong person -- intentionally (person left company, new person replies) -- intentionally (I'm on vacation, forwarded my email to secretary) -- unintentionally (something went wrong) -- unintentionally (new person at ISP using old email address) - protocol reply isn't delivered (gets lost somewhere) - protocol reply is delivered late (lost in email) - protocol reply is delivered late (back from six month vacation) - protocol reply is misdelivered (see above misdelivery cases) - protocol reply bounces (no account, mailbox over quota) - protocol reply gets temporary bounce (host unavailable) - protocol reply bounces without body in reply - protocol reply gets on-vacation message - protocol reply is sent return-receipt requested ... When you design two-way communications, you need to deal with failure. You are building on top of a transport that does not reliably tell you when it fails, or how it failed. Right now even trying to figure out when an address has permanently failed so that it can be removed from a mailing list is non-trivial. That is the transport you have to deal with. All the proposals I've seen so far assume that the underlying email system is reliable. It's not. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 25 09:42:14 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA14274 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:42:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2PF2YZ16460 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:02:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PF2XO16457 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:02:34 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA14263 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:41:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PEs7O15937; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:54:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PErnO15896 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:53:49 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA13916 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:32:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2189630; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:35:18 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20030325013256.GG8705@main.templetons.com> References: <20030324232728.67BCF84F8@web39t.prvt.nytimes.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030324155116.0482d380@mail.attbi.com> <20030325013256.GG8705@main.templetons.com> To: Brad Templeton From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] FC: Will new "spam reduction" service result in... more spam? Cc: Steve Schear , politech@politechbot.com, asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:13:46 -0500 At 5:32 PM -0800 3/24/03, Brad Templeton wrote: >I wrote a challenge/response system six years ago that simply asks for any >reply at all -- it doesn't put any burden on the other party, and would be >easy to defeat with something as simple as an autoresponder. Yet it works, >the spammers have not attempted to use this simple defeat. Once they start, If a challenge response system puts messages in the "look at me later" queue if you don't respond, then I don't think spammers will care. (And it's not clear that you'll be that much happier as a user of the system. You will have to scan the queue.) Why is not clear to me is a) how anyone expects your typical user to whitelist commercial addresses and mailing lists in advance and b) how a challenge response system (which had *better* respond to envelope from) avoids getting them removed from said list, or not receiving notification about their purchase or what not. Just consider the following. 1 User sends email to asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe 2 Think quick. What address should you whitelist? asrg@ietf.org? asrg-request@ietf.org? Nope. asrg-admin@ietf.org. And you knew that because...? 3 asrg sends back a confirmation request. Now as it happens, it does this from asrg-admin@ietf.org (envelope) and asrg-request (from). But some mailers use a custom address for this. But let's assume we're dealing with the average user here. They either didn't do anything at all (forgot they had to) or their software whitelisted based on the To: address (asrg-request). 4.1 A challenge gets sent back to the asrg list. The result depends on a combination of how the list software works and how the challenge software constructed its reply. 4.1.1 It's treated as a bounce and the user is not added 4.1.2 It's treated as a confirmation and the user is added 4.1.3 It goes to the admin, who says something I can't repeat and throws it in the trash. 4.2 It makes it through because we whitelisted the right thing. 5 The first list message comes through. If you had whitelisted asrg-admin, you're fine. If you whitelisted asrg-request, we challenge it. If the list software uses a different envelope from each time, you got problems. Now, let's take amazon.com. I've received automated email from payments-messages@amazon.com, orders@amazon.com, auto-confirm@amazon.com, eyes@amazon.com, amazon-news-sender@amazon.com, editer-sender@amazon.com, science-fiction-editor@amazon.com... and they actually send mail from their domain--never mind what happens if they higher m0.net or someone to deliver it. And if you start sending challenges to those--Amazon's going to see them as bounces and dump me. Of course we could just whitelist all of amazon.com. But I rather suspect the spammers might figure that one out. If you want challenge/response to work, the first thing you should do has nothing to do with challenge/response. The first thing is to come up with an RFC for a standard format for challenges so that automated mail systems can recognize that they aren't the same as bounces. And come up with a protocol whereby they can reply and say "Yo! I'm an automated system you idiot." Where you go from there I don't know. However, see my next message on "Protocols". -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 25 09:51:49 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA14708 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:51:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2PFC9Q17858 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:12:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PFC8O17855 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:12:08 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA14699 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:51:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PF43O16622; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:04:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PF3XO16573 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:03:33 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA14304 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:42:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2189651 for Asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:45:02 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: Asrg@ietf.org From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] RE: My Opinion regarding ietf asrg session (it went badly!) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:43:49 -0500 Look guys. Can we can this discussion? I make a general rule of never paying any attention to who I'm replying to--but focusing on what they said. That makes it nice and easy to have two simultaneous conversations with someone on two topics--in one of which I'm violently disagreeing, and the other I'm completely agreeing. Focus on proposals. Not motivations and personalities. This isn't net.singles. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 25 10:16:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA17391 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:16:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2PFarn18796 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:36:53 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PFarO18793 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:36:53 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA17319 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:16:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PFILO18145; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:18:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PFI0O18115 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:18:00 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA14985 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:57:07 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2PExMXd008733; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:59:22 -0500 Message-Id: <200303251459.h2PExMXd008733@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.2 03/18/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: Scott A Crosby Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: "HashStamp" == hashcash? (Re: Stamping) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 24 Mar 2003 23:16:56 CST." References: <200303211221.h2LCLWrH013650@pindari.platypuspartners.com> <20030321194608.A5619380@exeter.ac.uk> <200303212037.h2LKbdv5016004@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_918708378P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:59:21 -0500 --==_Exmh_918708378P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 23:16:56 CST, Scott A Crosby said: > Oh, I agree, but this sort of 'fun' is coming, and I'd rather get some > positive usefulness out of it, to use it as a wedge to get a better > solution into email clients.... and soon. > > Look at: > > http://news.com.com/2010-1071-992911.html?tag=nl > > Wanna take a bet as to whether AOL/MSN/Earthlink are contemplating the > same? Hmm... To quote the article: "Spammers are not yet equipped to handle the kind of challenge-response technology incorporated into Mailblocks--not yet, at least." So is there anything to distinguish this attempt to start a "Gee Kids, be the first on the block to piss off all your friends by making them go to a web page" from all the other ones they've tried? I mean, besides the fact this guy started the highly sucessful and widely imitated WebTV? X-WebTV-Stationery: Standard; BGColor=black; TextColor=black There's somebody at my site I can't send mail to, because his "I don't want mail unless you click the website" program triggered on something I posted to a list, I punted it because it was so stupid.. and didn't notice the "you will only get this notice once" until it was too late. Now let's see... what are the business benefits of (say) AOL doing this? 1) If they're the first to deploy, they risk losing subscribers who get upset because all their friends are annoyed. 2) If their user base is large enough to matter, they will start getting "WTF is this?" support calls when their users send e-mail to each other. 3) It actually makes life worse for their mail system. Let's work it through: a) It's identifiable as spam. AOL is certainly NOT going to quarantine it for a week in hopes the spammer will ID themselves when they can drop it on the floor and get it out of the queue. So if your current spam filter is 95% accurate, then 95% of the time you'd make things worse by deploying it. b) It's not identified as spam because it isn't spam. So now you're annoying the sender the first time, delaying mail, quarantining it, taking on the whitelist database headaches - and it didn't help any. c) It's spam that your filters didn't catch. This is the only place where it actually does any good. But now, rather than being able to dump it into a mailbox and get it out of the queue, you need to quarantine it, and all the queue management hassles that involves... The basic problem here is that for it to work, you have to accept and quarantine the mail. If you're looking to actually make a challenge-response system work, you need some SMTP extension to provide a 4XX reply code so the mail *STAYS AT THE SENDER* until the challenge-response is finished. Unfortunately, (1) this requires an ESMTP extension to do the 4XX pushback and (2) I've not had enough caffeine to figure out how to prevent the obvious livelock on the "You must XYZ to confirm" e-mail (part of why it needs to go in the 4XX not as a reply msg).... --==_Exmh_918708378P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+gG7JcC3lWbTT17ARApbVAJ4nW4kSWQo/TMsRXQDHy8zkYgTO8wCg5uCP EkOiqk6JjI5d8m1QT1MUTVU= =LAus -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_918708378P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 25 10:19:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA17549 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:19:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2PFdPv19725 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:39:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PFdPO19722 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:39:25 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA17527 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:18:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PFO2O18345; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:24:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PFLXO18261 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:21:33 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA15310 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:00:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2189686; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:03:02 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20030325134223.8506.qmail@prefix.emu.st> References: <20030325134223.8506.qmail@prefix.emu.st> To: "Mark Delany" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] a "baby steps" proposal. Cc: "ASRG" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:02:55 -0500 At 1:42 PM +0000 3/25/03, Mark Delany wrote: >eRBL is a variant on this that I've discussed in other forums. The >idea is to reverse the question to be "is this a known bad address". > >As the owner of the domain, you get to know about bad addresses >because you get the bounces. In effect, hostauth becomes a cache of >recent bounces to bogus addresses, for some value of recent. There are an infinitely number of bad addresses and a finite number of good ones. Given that you only know about the bad ones *after* the spammer has used them, and given that they can generate a unique one in every N messages, I don't see this is a big win. I bounced over 40,000 different addresses last year. I have less than 40 good addresses. Extreme yes, but managing good addresses is a lot easier. And of course, it only works if the spammers send to bad addresses that bounce. But if people implement eRBL, then the spammers have an easy way to avoid sending to bad addresses. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 25 10:28:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA17933 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:28:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2PFn4C20112 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:49:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PFn4O20109 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:49:04 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA17891 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:28:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PFb6O18957; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:37:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PFabO18788 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:36:37 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA17284 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:15:44 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2PFI2Xd008918; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:18:02 -0500 Message-Id: <200303251518.h2PFI2Xd008918@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.2 03/18/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: Kee Hinckley Cc: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] a "baby steps" proposal. In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:02:55 EST." References: <20030325134223.8506.qmail@prefix.emu.st> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_964215556P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:18:02 -0500 --==_Exmh_964215556P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:02:55 EST, Kee Hinckley said: > I bounced over 40,000 different addresses last year. I have less > than 40 good addresses. Extreme yes, but managing good addresses is > a lot easier. A good point.. and then you said... > And of course, it only works if the spammers send to bad addresses > that bounce. But if people implement eRBL, then the spammers have an > easy way to avoid sending to bad addresses. You say that like it's a bad thing... ;) Sites go to incredible lengths to keep usernames secret.. and they they get dictionary-attacked, which is probably even worse from the mail system point of view. --==_Exmh_964215556P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+gHMpcC3lWbTT17ARAjqbAJ0XIL+zD77+ku/L8yorRxBgzfU3WgCeJV5E TVwIJhJ6W2cMAbQzoMy+nwU= =9OMK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_964215556P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 25 11:12:03 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA19716 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:12:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2PGWPn23189 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:32:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PGWPO23186 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:32:25 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA19707 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:11:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PGJRO22632; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:19:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PGH8O22486 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:17:08 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA19225 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:56:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2PFwTqx020008 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 08:58:29 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303251558.h2PFwTqx020008@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Certs required to send mail References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 08:58:29 -0700 (MST) > From: "Jon Kyme" > > And if everybody were a nice person, we would not have this problem. > >If certs were required to send mail, then we'd have big ISPs > distributing > >CDROMs labelled "4000 free hours" and automatically issuing certs > >along with user names and passwords. There would be no change from > >the current situation, except that the commercial CAs would have > >another revenue stream. > The feasibility would hang on a CA issuing certs only subject to > strict T&C, taking responsibility for revoking in the case of demonstrated > violation of that T&C and for client software to correctly consult > revocation > lists. The technology for this is all well-understood but there doesn't > seem to be a body in place offering this facility. But I'm not proposing > such a system - that's for others with more expertise in this area. And > besides, > its a business problem rather than a technical one. No, Dave's response was on target. If ISPs would enforce strict T&C, there would be no spam. User names and passwords are required to send spam, and ISPs could terminate accounts for spamming. Expecting ISPs to revoke certs for spam when they now refuse to termiante accounts for spam makes no sense. There is essentailly no spam that is not ultimately the responsibility of an ISP that is trivial for spam targets with minimal technical clues to identify. To send spam, every spammer must identify itself to an ISP. That ISP knows every customer using its sevices so that it can bill its customers, as well as detect bad behavior such as DoS attacks. It takes time and effort to sift RAIDUS or other logs to discover that the IP address 10.2.3.4 that sent spam at 10:01 GMT was in use by port 1234 on server 567 and that Joe Spammer had used a CHAP password to identify himself (or his computer), but no rocket science is needed. Adding certs to user names and passwords does not affect what ISPs can and ought to do to stop spam. Similarly, every spammer's web pages are hosted by an ISP that could enforce T&C's against spam. This applies to open proxies. Essentially all ISPs prohibit running open proxies. Spam whose original ISP is hidden by an open proxy could be stopped by the second ISP enforcing its T&C against open proxies. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 25 11:31:23 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA20456 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:31:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2PGpj124984 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:51:45 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PGpjO24981 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:51:45 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA20419 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:30:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PGa6O23400; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:36:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PGZNO23351 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:35:23 -0500 Received: from ciphertrust.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA19844 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:14:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.com with ESMTP ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:14:21 -0500 (EST) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:06:14 -0500 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'Kee Hinckley'" , "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: 5.c. message status - Failure Modes (was RE: [Asrg] Protocols) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:06:14 -0500 Changing the subject to something more descriptive and to follow the requested format. > -----Original Message----- > From: Kee Hinckley [mailto:nazgul@somewhere.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 9:35 AM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: [Asrg] Protocols > > > A lot of the proposals people have made to this list make a > fundamental change to how email works, and I don't mean in the > specifics, but at a very high level. > > Currently the process of sending email from point a to point b does > not involve any protocols. Yes, the transport does--but from the MUA > to MUA standpoint there is no back and forth protocol. You toss > message over wall. Sometime later, someone gets it. This is > completely one way. Yes, there are two exceptions to the > rule--bounces and return-receipts. And it's probably worth > considering that neither of those exceptions work very well. > Return-receipt is unreliable due to gateway issues, as well as social > ones. And bounces range from no-bounces-but-not-delivered, to > did-bounce-but-got-delivered. In both cases the sending MUA seldom > has any knowledge of the even that limited protocol. (It could link > bounces and return-receipts to the original message, but most do > not--the protocols are too unreliable.) > > When you propose a change to the mail system that *requires* a > protocol (either through two supporting MUAs, or one supporting MUA > and one annoyed human :-) you are making a very fundamental change to > how email works. You have introduced a dramatic new level of > complexity. The difference between drop-and-forget and a real > protocol with bi-directional communication is huge. Most > importantly, it introduces a whole new way for things to fail. > > I've seen a lot of proposals. But I don't believe I've seen any of > them discuss failure modes. TCP may guarantee that you deliver a > packet or know you didn't--but email most certainly does not. If you > are designing a protocol on top of email, you've got to think about > the how things fail. > > Here are a few to consider--independent of whether we're talking > hashcash, sender-pays, challenge/response, or anything else. > > - initial message isn't delivered > - initial message is delivered to wrong person > -- intentionally (person left company, new person replies) > -- intentionally (I'm on vacation, forwarded my email to secretary) > -- unintentionally (something went wrong) > -- unintentionally (new person at ISP using old email address) > - protocol reply isn't delivered (gets lost somewhere) > - protocol reply is delivered late (lost in email) > - protocol reply is delivered late (back from six month vacation) > - protocol reply is misdelivered (see above misdelivery cases) > - protocol reply bounces (no account, mailbox over quota) > - protocol reply gets temporary bounce (host unavailable) > - protocol reply bounces without body in reply > - protocol reply gets on-vacation message > - protocol reply is sent return-receipt requested > ... > > When you design two-way communications, you need to deal with > failure. You are building on top of a transport that does not > reliably tell you when it fails, or how it failed. Right now even > trying to figure out when an address has permanently failed so that > it can be removed from a mailing list is non-trivial. That is the > transport you have to deal with. All the proposals I've seen so far > assume that the underlying email system is reliable. It's not. > -- > Kee Hinckley > http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering > http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology > and Society > > I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so > unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or > that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 25 11:41:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA20881 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:41:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2PH1vw25692 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 12:01:57 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PH1vO25689 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 12:01:57 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA20866 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:41:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PGn4O24886; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:49:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PGmxO24845 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:48:59 -0500 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA20305 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:28:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 18xrJe-0007pq-00; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:30:22 +0000 In-Reply-To: <200303251558.h2PFwTqx020008@calcite.rhyolite.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Certs required to send mail To: "Vernon Schryver" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.4.12] Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:30:22 +0000 > > >> > And if everybody were a nice person, we would not have this problem. > >> >If certs were required to send mail, then we'd have big ISPs >> distributing >> >CDROMs labelled "4000 free hours" and automatically issuing certs >> >along with user names and passwords. There would be no change from >> >the current situation, except that the commercial CAs would have >> >another revenue stream. > >> The feasibility would hang on a CA issuing certs only subject to >> strict T&C, taking responsibility for revoking in the case of >demonstrated >> violation of that T&C and for client software to correctly consult >> revocation >> lists. The technology for this is all well-understood but there doesn't >> seem to be a body in place offering this facility. But I'm not proposing >> such a system - that's for others with more expertise in this area. And >> besides, >> its a business problem rather than a technical one. > >No, Dave's response was on target. If ISPs would enforce strict T&C, >there would be no spam. User names and passwords are required to send >spam, and ISPs could terminate accounts for spamming. Expecting ISPs >to revoke certs for spam when they now refuse to termiante accounts >for spam makes no sense. NO, begging your pardon, you're mistaking me - I commented that a *CA* (not necc. an *ISP*) revoking a Cert would be required to make something like this work. I know that applications have failed to check back up certificate chains for revocation, but if this were done then an ISP would be unlikely to risk their cert by signing spammers certs. Please by all means argue with what I said, but it's most unfair to shoot me down for saying something that I did not in fact say. I'm not sure whether this is feasible at all. I don't claim any special knowledge in this area. > >There is essentailly no spam that is not ultimately the responsibility >of an ISP that is trivial for spam targets with minimal technical >clues to identify. > > >Similarly, every spammer's web pages are hosted by an ISP that could >enforce T&C's against spam. > >This applies to open proxies. Essentially all ISPs prohibit running >open proxies. Spam whose original ISP is hidden by an open proxy >could be stopped by the second ISP enforcing its T&C against open >proxies. Yes absolutely, and there's currently no sanction against rogue ISPs except blacklisting. You implied that the use of certs could have no impact on this issue, I merely pointed out how it *might*. I'm sorry that I didn't make myself clear enough. I hope this helps. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 25 11:48:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA21113 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:48:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2PH8oY27126 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 12:08:50 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PH8oO27123 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 12:08:50 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA21093 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:47:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PGvYO25361; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:57:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PGswO25209 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:54:58 -0500 Received: from plaidworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA20669 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:34:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.8/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h2PGaDZQ020033; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 08:36:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] FC: Will new "spam reduction" service result in... more spam? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: Brad Templeton , Steve Schear , politech@politechbot.com, asrg@ietf.org To: Kee Hinckley From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 08:36:12 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tuesday, March 25, 2003, at 06:13 AM, Kee Hinckley wrote: > > Why is not clear to me is a) how anyone expects your typical user to > whitelist commercial addresses and mailing lists in advance I think there has to be a responsibility here for the commercial sender to help the user figure this out. In fact, it's one of the issues I'm mulling over in revamping system documentation on my lists and other things. we're now seeing enough challenges that we have to find a way to help users figure this out. (FWIW, we don't respond to challenges. We've talked it over and decided if the user hasn't whitelisted us, we shouldn't validate from the outside. we ring the bell, we don't turn the knob. To me, the risks of validating a whitelist and upsetting someone are a lot worse than the risks of someone under a whitelist expecting to get a subscription and no realizing why it's not happening.) We're probably going to add language explaining whitelisting issues to our stuff down the road, since t seems like whitelists are starting to be used fairly widely and I expect that trend to continue. > 1 User sends email to asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe > 2 Think quick. What address should you whitelist? asrg@ietf.org? > asrg-request@ietf.org? Nope. asrg-admin@ietf.org. And you knew that > because...? Because I read the FAQ, and it told me. > And if you start sending challenges to those--Amazon's going to see > them as bounces and dump me. > > Of course we could just whitelist all of amazon.com. But I rather > suspect the spammers might figure that one out. So amazon has to figure out whitelists, too, and help people understand what addresses things will come from. With a foot on both sides of this cashm, I really feel the sender of this mail shouldn't put the burden of responsibility on the user here. They need to help them out. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 25 12:04:19 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA21600 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 12:04:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2PHO8d27866 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 12:24:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PHO6O27862 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 12:24:06 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA21572 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 12:03:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PHE4O27376; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 12:14:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PHCiO27314 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 12:12:44 -0500 Received: from aismtp3g.bls.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA21256 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:51:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from 01al10015010057.ad.bls.com ([90.152.5.141] [90.152.5.141]) by aismtp3g.bls.com with ESMTP; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:57:07 -0500 Received: by 01al10015010057.ad.bls.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:54:09 -0500 Message-Id: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D69A@bremocag> From: "Sauer, Damon" To: "'Alan DeKok'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Requirements for gathering statistics MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:54:07 -0500 "Sauer, Damon" wrote: > The reasons that I do not release my numbers is that, if I tell all of you > how good or how bad my numbers are, I may become a target by a spammer that > either a) Wants to take me on as a personal conquest, or b) Accepts my > percentage of spam that I let through as "acceptable". I wasn't proposing to make the names public. A trusted source can reasonably be expected to gather the statistics and analyse them, without compromising privacy. ---- Ok. Who? My own mother is just barely above suspect. (just kidding, my mom puts me on spam lists all the time.. thanks for the internet greeting card and joke-of-the-day mom!) > I am VERY familiar with the spam problem. I am not sure what statistics > gathering is going to accomplish, other than justify the continued use of > spam as a marketing tool. That's why the statistics I was asking for were at the MTA end, and were focussed on the scope of the current problem, and the cost and effectiveness of their current solutions. There was NOTHING in what I wrote which could be construed as to measure the effectiveness of spam as a marketing tool. ---- Regardless of how the information is "meant" to be used. Any spammer can point at these numbers and say- 50% of our junk is getting through Whoo Hoo!. Don't get me wrong, I understand the intent, but the moment you publish the numbers, every news service in the world is going to pick them up and run with it. Especially if the data is comprehensive. I would like to know how exactly do we plan to compile and distribute the information. > Will it help us obtain our goal? I don't think so because it > contains no differentiating research and no control sets. My goal in collecting statistics would be to get a quantitative indication of WHERE in the network spam is a problem, and HOW MUCH of a problem it currently is. Without those statistics, we will have NO BASIS for measuring the effectiveness of any solution. Therefore, we will also have no basis for comparing the solutions, or for knowing when we've "solved" the problem. As for "control sets", they're irrelevant to the question of "how bad is the problem". We wouldn't ask 10 ISP's for their input on spam, and then not ask another 10 as a "control set". That methodology is nonsensical. ---- I believe that you are not looking at control sets in the correct light. In ANY scientific study you MUST have control sets or the information is invalid. I submit to you that a control set would be anyone that has no anti-spam functionality. So, your numbers would be compared to the control set. i.e. An entire domain with no users that accepts all email (honeypot) would be sufficient I think. Control Set = 100% spam getting through. Filtering Alone = blocks X% Heuristics = blocks Z% and so on.... Now, if you only base your numbers on what anti-spam systems are doing, but you have no idea if the actual flow has diminished, it would make look as if the anti-spam component did a wonderful job that day. Regards, Damon Sauer Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg ***** "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers." _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 25 12:12:50 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA21911 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 12:12:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2PHXDx28304 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 12:33:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PHXDO28301 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 12:33:13 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA21903 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 12:12:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PHOMO27893; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 12:24:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PHN9O27827 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 12:23:09 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA21559 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 12:02:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2PH4UZu010711 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:04:30 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303251704.h2PH4UZu010711@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Certs required to send mail References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:04:30 -0700 (MST) > From: "Jon Kyme" > ... > >No, Dave's response was on target. If ISPs would enforce strict T&C, > >there would be no spam. User names and passwords are required to send > >spam, and ISPs could terminate accounts for spamming. Expecting ISPs > >to revoke certs for spam when they now refuse to termiante accounts > >for spam makes no sense. > > NO, begging your pardon, you're mistaking me - I commented that a *CA* > (not necc. an *ISP*) revoking a Cert would be required to make something > like this work. I know that applications have failed to check back up > certificate chains for revocation, but if this were done then an ISP would > be unlikely to risk their cert by signing spammers certs. > > Please by all means argue with what I said, but it's most unfair to shoot > me down for saying something that I did not in fact say. > > I'm not sure whether this is feasible at all. I don't claim any special > knowledge in this area. > ... > Yes absolutely, and there's currently no sanction against rogue ISPs > except blacklisting. > > You implied that the use of certs could have no impact on this issue, > I merely pointed out how it *might*. I didn't understand that the idea was to have CAs revoke the certs of ISPs when ISPs failed to revoke the certs or terminate the accounts of spammers. However, that is even more implausible than expecting ISPs to start terminating spammers. UUNet won't terminate its small resellers that cater to Ralsky and friends. Why would Verisign revoke UUnet's certs, merely because third parties complain to Verisign about getting spam from UUNet's customers? You must "follow the money" in any proposed solution. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 25 12:46:06 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA22860 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 12:46:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2PI6UD30406 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 13:06:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PI6UO30403 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 13:06:30 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA22852 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 12:45:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PHp9O29786; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 12:51:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PHp0O29751 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 12:51:00 -0500 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA22388 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 12:30:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 18xsHf-000154-00; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:32:23 +0000 In-Reply-To: <200303251704.h2PH4UZu010711@calcite.rhyolite.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Certs required to send mail To: "Vernon Schryver" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.4.12] Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:32:23 +0000 >> >> You implied that the use of certs could have no impact on this issue, >> I merely pointed out how it *might*. > >I didn't understand that the idea was to have CAs revoke the certs of >ISPs when ISPs failed to revoke the certs or terminate the accounts >of spammers. However, that is even more implausible than expecting >ISPs to start terminating spammers. UUNet won't terminate its small >resellers that cater to Ralsky and friends. Why would Verisign revoke >UUnet's certs, merely because third parties complain to Verisign about >getting spam from UUNet's customers? > Well, a better question is why would [ISP name here] buy a certificate from [CA name here] with which to sign it's subscribers mail certs (and risk having it revoked if they don't revoke subscribers) ? A. Because (many users at) Hotmail and AOL don't accept mail without it. (in my fantasy) See? Following the money. Also (as I've said) a "business" rather than a "technical" problem. I'm not qualified to judge the business case for this - you? Anyway signing at the ISP is probably cheaper to deploy. I believe there has been discussion of signing in transport (received headers?) . I don't understand why there's this almost "religious" objection to proposals based on signing - I guess that that shows how little I understand this "culture" . Incidentally, which of "the man"s categories should this thread belong in? Or should it go off list? >You must "follow the money" in any proposed solution. > > >Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com >_______________________________________________ >Asrg mailing list >Asrg@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 25 12:52:59 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA23009 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 12:52:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2PIDNh31480 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 13:13:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PIDNO31477 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 13:13:23 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA22996 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 12:52:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PIA5O31372; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 13:10:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PI8EO31244 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 13:08:14 -0500 Received: from joy.songbird.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA22893 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 12:47:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from bbprime.brandenburg.com (208.184.79.252.songbird.com [208.184.79.252] (may be forged)) by joy.songbird.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PHnHk08623; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:49:17 -0800 From: Dave Crocker X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.63 Beta/6) Personal Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <151128676987.20030325094917@brandenburg.com> To: "Jon Kyme" CC: "Vernon Schryver" , "ASRG" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Certs required to send mail In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:49:17 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jon, Tuesday, March 25, 2003, 9:32:23 AM, you wrote: JK> A. Because (many users at) Hotmail and AOL don't accept mail without it. JK> (in my fantasy) let's assume that getting them to adopt the mechanism would, in fact, make the mechanism useful. have you ever tried to sell anything to either of those two organizations? they are predictably unresponsive. (that's not a criticism of them, merely an observed fact.) and pure logic or predictions of the future are not persuasive arguments. they need to see very, very high likelihood -- read: certainty -- that they will directly and immediately benefit from the change. JK> I don't understand why there's this almost "religious" objection to JK> proposals JK> based on signing it is not religious. it is the result of 10 years of direct experience trying to get large-scale cert-based systems deployed... unsuccessfully. JK> - I guess that that shows how little I understand this JK> "culture" . it's true that some standards groups tend to ignore experience. the ietf commits that sin -- to use a religious reference -- sometimes, but we try not to. d/ >>You must "follow the money" in any proposed solution. >> >> >>Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com >>_______________________________________________ >>Asrg mailing list >>Asrg@ietf.org >>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg >> >> JK> -- JK> _______________________________________________ JK> Asrg mailing list JK> Asrg@ietf.org JK> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking Sunnyvale, CA USA , _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 25 13:16:53 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA23644 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 13:16:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2PIbIE00603 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 13:37:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PIbIO00600 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 13:37:18 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA23636 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 13:16:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PIRUO32132; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 13:27:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PIQxO32109 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 13:26:59 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA23370 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 13:06:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc02.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2PI8Oqd012974 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:08:24 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:08:23 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Certs required to send mail MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:08:23 -0800 > I didn't understand that the idea was to have CAs revoke the certs of > ISPs when ISPs failed to revoke the certs or terminate the accounts > of spammers. However, that is even more implausible than expecting > ISPs to start terminating spammers. UUNet won't terminate its small > resellers that cater to Ralsky and friends. Why would Verisign revoke > UUnet's certs, merely because third parties complain to Verisign about > getting spam from UUNet's customers? VeriSign could only revoke a certificate if either the user had obtained the certificate fraudulently or had broken the terms of the contract. This has happened in a number of cases. In one case two certificates was obtained through fraud and were revoked. In a second case a certificate was legitimately obtained by an individual who constructed a malicious Active-X control. It is not necessary however for the certificate to be revoked or for the CA to provide the revocation data. In one model a third party provides attribute certificates that state 'XYZ is a dirty no good spammer'. In another they simply use OCSP to report status. I'll be sending out a revised version of NoSpam that describes some extended strategies. ObDisclaimer: VeriSign has issued and pending patents that relate to certain implementations of this technology. Observation: We are in the business of selling certificates, actually certificate management infrastructure services and not patent squatting or even patent licensing so don't assume apriori that licensing terms will be unacceptable. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 25 13:20:25 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA23748 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 13:20:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2PIeoI01020 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 13:40:50 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PIeoO01017 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 13:40:50 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA23727 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 13:19:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PIX2O32418; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 13:33:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PIWlO32387 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 13:32:47 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA23519 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 13:11:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2PIE5Cn018204 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:14:05 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303251814.h2PIE5Cn018204@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Certs required to send mail References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:14:05 -0700 (MST) > From: "Jon Kyme" > .. > Well, a better question is why would [ISP name here] buy a certificate > from [CA name here] > with which to sign it's subscribers mail certs (and risk having it revoked > if > they don't revoke subscribers) ? > > A. Because (many users at) Hotmail and AOL don't accept mail without it. > (in my fantasy) > > See? Following the money. Also (as I've said) a "business" rather > than a "technical" problem. I'm not qualified to judge the business case > for this - you? > .. You are qualified to judge the cases that matter to us. You and I might not be able to say much about the revenue stream that Verisign is after, but we can certainly judge the business case for AOL and Hotmail or AOL and Hotmail users refusing mail from [ISP name here] because of a lack of a certificate. We can't know dollar figures, but we can predict the conclusions of the people in charge from what they've already decided in essentially identical cases. If certificates could do as you've proposed, then AOL, Hotmail, and/or their users could just reject by the IP address or domain name of [ISP name here] in envelope, header, or body (e.g. URLs). If there could be any risk to the cert of [ISP name here], then there would be the same risk to it's IP address and domain name. What is the practical difference between the BGP feed of the RBL+ and any certifcate system? Think of an IP address as a certificate. The IP address of the SMTP client is unique and practically unforgable. [ISP name here] risks being cut off by not dealing with its spammers and being listed in the RBL. (The BGP feed of the RBL+ causes listed outfits to disappear from the Internet as seen by subscribers.) Yes, I know the RBL has not ended spam. The reasons are not mysterious and apply to all of the propsed certificate or other authentication schemes. It's discouraging that people are still saying that authentication would fix spam years after common MUAs (e.g. Netscape) can send and check signatures and/or keys and SMTP-AUTH, SUBMIT, and SMTP-TLS are universally available. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 25 13:30:08 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA24315 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 13:30:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2PIoXF01700 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 13:50:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PIoXO01697 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 13:50:33 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA24300 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 13:29:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PIg4O01082; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 13:42:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PIfJO01041 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 13:41:19 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA23746 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 13:20:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18xoGi-0001F0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 08:15:08 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Requirements for gathering statistics In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:54:07 EST." <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D69A@bremocag> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 08:15:08 -0500 "Sauer, Damon" wrote: > Regardless of how the information is "meant" to be used. Any spammer > can point at these numbers and say- 50% of our junk is getting through Homer voice> Whoo Hoo!. Do we really care about the opinions of spammers? > I believe that you are not looking at control sets in the correct > light. In ANY scientific study you MUST have control sets or the information > is invalid. Nonsense. Data collection doesn't require control sets. Data *analysis* may use control sets, but even that depends on how you analyze the data. There is no control set required to analyze the data gathered from asking "how much spam is received by your domain?" > I submit to you that a control set would be anyone that has no > anti-spam functionality. Even that would be just one more data point in the collection, and not necessarily a control set. And that's a pretty bad control set. Why not use the same people for data and control sets? Collect data while they're filtering spam, and then collect data while they're not. Such a methodology is significantly better than what you're proposing. > So, your numbers would be compared to the control set. i.e. An entire > domain with no users that accepts all email (honeypot) would be sufficient I > think. I think I'll stop here. I *completely* disagree with your opinions on data collection and analysis methodology. I'll appeal to authority, and let my background as a published nuclear physicist stand for itself. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 25 13:30:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA24355 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 13:30:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2PIogw01720 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 13:50:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PIogO01717 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 13:50:42 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA24306 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 13:29:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PIa3O32546; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 13:36:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PIZgO32520 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 13:35:42 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA23563 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 13:14:46 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2PIH2V7002417; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 13:17:02 -0500 Message-Id: <200303251817.h2PIH2V7002417@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.2 03/18/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: Jon Kyme Cc: Vernon Schryver , ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] Certs required to send mail In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:32:23 GMT." References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_1053383496P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 13:17:02 -0500 --==_Exmh_1053383496P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:32:23 GMT, Jon Kyme said: > See? Following the money. Also (as I've said) a "business" rather > than a "technical" problem. I'm not qualified to judge the business case > for this - you? I believe Douglas Adams had a nice quote about "how many philosophers had come up with many explanations for mankind's unhappiness, most of which involved the movement of small green pieces of paper - which was odd, as in general it wasn't the small green pieces of paper that were unhappy". AOL and Hotmail aren't gonna do *SQUAT* with certs unless it's clearly demonstrated to them how it will help their small green pieces of paper in *THIS* quarter's SEC filings. Stockholders don't seem to be interested in the long-term prospects, why should upper management? > I don't understand why there's this almost "religious" objection to > proposals > based on signing - I guess that that shows how little I understand this > "culture" . The problem is that even those of us who *believe* in crypto are having a hard time seeing how to jump-start the PKI on the scale needed to stop spam. I sign stuff, and I've advocated that the next release of Sendmail be shipped to by default advertise STARTTLS (generating a self-signed cert with openssl if needed) just to piss the Echelon people off. That doesn't mean I know how we can launch either a PGP or x.509 PKI that's sufficiently large, robust, *AND* trustworthy to be useful as a one-stop fix for spam. The problem is that there's *three* requirements up there, and people want to make it a solution. What we seem to be lacking is a general understanding that any anti-spam solution is going to be "chinese menu - pick one from column A, B, and C". A nice column-B ruleset: If it's signed by a cert that's strong enough to link it to a person or business entity, it's probably not spam. If it isn't signed, see column A and C. A bad column-B ruleset: If it's not signed by a cert, reject/spam/whatever it. See the difference? --==_Exmh_1053383496P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+gJ0ecC3lWbTT17ARAmviAJ0SJPB98caefxXPXIeDkAzcGhOaXgCfUWXb Ql7X1TX4KIZfn9w+NvEu0W8= =+pZv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_1053383496P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 25 14:01:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25587 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 14:01:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2PJLxE03872 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 14:21:59 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PJLxO03869 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 14:21:59 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25581 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 14:01:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PJBBO03444; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 14:11:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PJAMO03402 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 14:10:22 -0500 Received: from joy.songbird.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA25118 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 13:49:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from bbprime.brandenburg.com (208.184.79.252.songbird.com [208.184.79.252] (may be forged)) by joy.songbird.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PIpRk12173; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:51:27 -0800 From: Dave Crocker X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.63 Beta/6) Personal Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <195132406860.20030325105127@brandenburg.com> To: Kee Hinckley CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Protocols In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:51:27 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kee, Tuesday, March 25, 2003, 6:34:54 AM, you wrote: KH> Currently the process of sending email from point a to point b does KH> not involve any protocols. Yes, the transport does--but from the MUA KH> to MUA standpoint there is no back and forth protocol. You toss KH> message over wall. Sometime later, someone gets it. This is KH> completely one way. Ahh. So all those services that use one-way UDP mechanisms are not protocols? A protocol does not require closed-loop communication. A protocol is a set of rules for exchange. Nothing requires that the exchange be 2-way. Anything that involves standardized exchange from an originator to a recipient is a protocol. KH> Yes, there are two exceptions to the KH> rule--bounces and return-receipts. closed-loop issues also include replies. open-jaw (multi-user) scenarios include forwarding and redirection. KH> I've seen a lot of proposals. But I don't believe I've seen any of KH> them discuss failure modes. an extremely point to raise. thank you. adoption sequence (and dependencies) and failure behavior are probably the two most important perspectives to evaluate for any new scheme. it is almost always true that the scenario for steady-state operation with a large-scale set of well-behaved participants is not the challenge. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking Sunnyvale, CA USA , _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 25 14:17:47 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA26442 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 14:17:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2PJcBi05583 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 14:38:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PJcBO05580 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 14:38:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA26394 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 14:17:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PJNaO03954; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 14:23:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PJIoO03708 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 14:18:50 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA25471 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 13:57:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h2PIxtq30802; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:59:55 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: Kee Hinckley Cc: Brad Templeton , Steve Schear , politech@politechbot.com, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] FC: Will new "spam reduction" service result in... more spam? Message-ID: <20030325185955.GB30504@main.templetons.com> References: <20030324232728.67BCF84F8@web39t.prvt.nytimes.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030324155116.0482d380@mail.attbi.com> <20030325013256.GG8705@main.templetons.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:59:55 -0800 On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 09:13:46AM -0500, Kee Hinckley wrote: > At 5:32 PM -0800 3/24/03, Brad Templeton wrote: > If a challenge response system puts messages in the "look at me > later" queue if you don't respond, then I don't think spammers will > care. (And it's not clear that you'll be that much happier as a user > of the system. You will have to scan the queue.) Any challenge/response system has to put the unresponded messages into a queue to look at later. However mine simply mails me a summary at the end of the day of messages not responded to for over 2 days. This summary is just headers and a few lines of body. You pick any messages you want from it and they are delivered. The summary is sorted by spam-score. I could use a fancy spam scorer but a very simple one works pretty well. So on the occasions when somebody does not respond, or mailing list mail comes in, it shows in the summary and always in the top. If I were to improve the UI it would just mean a quick click to correct the mailing list. It works very well, and as noted I have been running it with success for six years, and almost no spam gets through it. I get 240 spam/day delivered to it. I don't find it much of a burden at all to browse the summary once a day. In fact, it's somewhat amusing since I am interested in spam trends. There is a psychological reason for this. As a heavy email user, I read mail all day long, so spam is a constant interruption. When it's once a day, the attitude is very different. It's like my paper mailbox, which also gets lots of junk mail. Once a day I take it in, hold it over the garbage pail, and drop the junk mail and take my real mail. Like most people, I never felt it was enough of an annoyance worth reworking the postal service over. > Why is not clear to me is a) how anyone expects your typical user to > whitelist commercial addresses and mailing lists in advance and b) > how a challenge response system (which had *better* respond to > envelope from) avoids getting them removed from said list, or not > receiving notification about their purchase or what not. No autoresponder should respond to a bulk message at all. No, users will not whitelist their mailing lists, but my system works reasonably well. Of course, there is another alternative which also works well at least in newsgroups, which is to use a filtered address to post to newsgroups and an unfiltered for mail you send out to everything but mailing lists. Mailing lists are a problem. One would like to use the "public" address in mailing them, but it's a pain to configure most lists to take mail from an address other than the one you subscribe under. Because, the irony not being lost, of spam. > > Just consider the following. > > 1 User sends email to asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe > 2 Think quick. What address should you whitelist? asrg@ietf.org? > asrg-request@ietf.org? Nope. asrg-admin@ietf.org. And you knew > that because...? I think this is a hard problem. Some try to solve it but you can't do it entirely by looking at outgoing subscribes. Many people subscribe via the web. Another good thing you can do is notice patterns to spot possible mailing lists you have joined on incoming mail. > 4.1 A challenge gets sent back to the asrg list. The result depends > on a combination of how the list software works and how the challenge > software constructed its reply. No, only broken autoresponders, which should be taken off the list, would challenge list mail with a proper Precedence header. (Oddly, most spammers don't put on proper precedence headers, and if you want to, you can temporarily use that as an indication of non-spam!) You won't convince me a challenge/response system won't work, because I have been using one with great success for 6 years. It's not a matter of opinion. However, they do have flaws, and handling legit mailing lists is one of them -- they are the killer in almost all spam systems. They also have trouble with anonymous mail, which goes into the review queue. However, I would strongly oppose a challenge/response system without a regular summary of the blocked mail. In fact, all spam systems should offer one. They can sort it by spam score, and make it infrequent, but it should always be there. If your mail is to be blocked, you should know it, and there should be a way to detect bugs and errors in the blocking software. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 25 14:49:27 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA28176 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 14:49:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2PK9qH08681 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 15:09:52 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PK9qO08678 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 15:09:52 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA28139 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 14:48:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PJVHO04365; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 14:31:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PJR2O04116 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 14:27:02 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25779 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 14:06:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h2PJ8MP30974; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:08:22 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: Vernon Schryver Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Certs required to send mail Message-ID: <20030325190822.GC30504@main.templetons.com> References: <200303251558.h2PFwTqx020008@calcite.rhyolite.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200303251558.h2PFwTqx020008@calcite.rhyolite.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:08:22 -0800 On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 08:58:29AM -0700, Vernon Schryver wrote: > No, Dave's response was on target. If ISPs would enforce strict T&C, > there would be no spam. User names and passwords are required to send > spam, and ISPs could terminate accounts for spamming. Expecting ISPs > to revoke certs for spam when they now refuse to termiante accounts > for spam makes no sense. One can make this case, but I have always felt the IETF's broader goal was suport of an end-to-end internet. As such, ISPs are just there to route packets, not to enforce policy. Can we attain that 100%? Probably not, but we certainly want to try. The irony of this is amazing. I remember one day on slashdot there were two highly active threads. One was about the value of the end to end principle, and the other was about a UDP for the largest australian ISP which had too many spammers on it. (Blocking all usenet postings from the ISP, even from the innocent users.) All day long most of us decry when ISPs and firewalls take policy steps, trying to ban certain protocols, putting in secret proxies, stopping you from natting, and we tell them they should worry about their core business, which is routing packets quickly and reliably. Then when their downstreams do something we don't like, we blame them for non-enforcement. I'm not saying we might not, in the end, have to give up some of the end to end principle to stop spam. But we should do so kicking and screaming. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 25 15:16:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA00823 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 15:16:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2PKb8010843 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 15:37:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PKb7O10840 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 15:37:07 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA00744 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 15:16:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PKRBO09773; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 15:27:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PKP0O09520 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 15:25:00 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA28950 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 15:03:58 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2PIEmbn003572 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:14:48 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2PIEm0C003568 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:14:48 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: "'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] RE: My Opinion regarding ietf asrg session (it went badly!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:14:48 -0800 (PST) Well considering your responses off list and after rereading my message, I guess I did go too far and apologize for doing so on the list, I'll try to restrain myself next time. But you should understand I was not the first one to start name-calling, there was nothing like that in my original email but it was well present in Paul's and he also provided some information that was factually incorrect about what happened and I had to let it be known, I probably should have just gone with the facts and be done with it, next time I will. Again I apologize for going as far as I did in the 2nd email and this really will be my last email on this subject, I'll now work on more constructive things as far as current list work items go. On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 william@elan.net wrote: > > > > I usually would not take the time to respond to obviously flawed and > > erroneous statements. > > Well, I do appreciate you finally responding, most of us thought you would not > and let it die which might actually have been better for you and for the list. > > Note though, that I never post "obviously flowed and erroneous" statements. > And I also clearly said in the subject and in several other places that > this was my opinion and nothing more. > > > However, for the sake of persons on this list that do > > not know the details, I will spend just a few minutes stating the truth > > here. As stated by Vernon Schryver: "I must observe that some of the > > strongest condemnations in the list of whatever happened at the meeting came > > from people who have made the some of the less well founded contributions to > > the mailing list. From here I can't tell what happened, but I wonder if > > sour grape sentiments from some people about their favorite solutions not > > being adopted by acclamation colored other people's perceptions and so > > reports of the meeting." Based on this and other responses, I fear that > > without some clarity, others will continue to be confused by the few > > radical, negative opinions that have been voiced. There were over 200 > > attendees and based on the positive feedback that I have heard, I do not > > believe that the couple of negative opinions is an accurate reflection of > > the thoughts of the attendees. > > And based on my personal observations and talking to dozen attendies in > person and more by email and even more that expressed their opinion on > this list, everybody thought the meeting did not go that well. The opinion > have been in range fom "very bad" to "some problems", none have said it was > "good". So if you put it on scale bad - neutral - good, what I have seen > in regards to how meeting happened ranged from bad to neutral but never > above that. I believe that the persons who have seen the meeting as good > would not be the persons associated with IETF. > > > William, I am sorry that you are so upset that you were not able to present > > at the meeting; however, that should not drive you to making clearly false > > accusations about the meeting. > > While I might have been upset about not being able to make presentation, > after seeing what happened I'm now actually quite happy about that fact, > since people who I wanted to present it to all left by the time we got to > technical presentations. I believe my sentiment is shared even by those > who did make a presentation, most would prefer to do be able to do it > again and in another format of the meeting! > > But my opinion about the meeting is irregardless of my presentation and > would have been exactly the same (or even worse) if I did make it. It is > based on actual presentations that were made and how meeting turned out, > not on those that were not made! > > I'm sorry if you see me as making any accusations especially considering > that you say that I'm making "clearly false" accusations, which in my view > is "clearly" not the case. (note: clearly and false is left to be defined > by the person reading the message for both your email and mine). Everything I > said is exactly my view on what happened and I'm not about to take > anything back. > > > I sent a call for agenda items to the list on March 10th. There were a few > > volunteers. I spoke with each of them and by March 12th each was able to > > explain to me what they wished to present. For some reason, you were not > > able to provide a clear explanation of what you wished to present until 3 > > days before the meeting on Monday March 17th; > > The above answer statement in my view is "clearly false" (see defintion on > these words above) and also not inline with the facts I've available. > > As for the facts, I sent you answer that I wish to send a presentation on > March 11th. If something I said was not clear enough for you, you > obviously had an option to respond to my email or ask for phone# to talk > to me, you decided to opt out and not send any answer at all. > > The only reply (two lines, to provide more details about presentation) from > you I received was on March 17th. It read "William, I'm working on putting > the agenda together. Can you be more specific about what you would want > to cover". The date is listed in my inbox as "Mon, 17 Mar 2003 03:57:41 -0500" > There were no other attempts to contact me before 17th and clearly agenda > was not even prepared before then. > > > "I'v[e] not 100% decided if I'll be able to attend". At this point, the > > agenda was being finalized. Then suddenly two days before the meeting you > > request a slot on the agenda. > > And the same email also said "I'll decide by tomorrow if I go or not". I > was going to think about it and send you additional email but wanted to > answer your question on what I'd be presenting since I considered that to > be most important and not to be delayed. And indeed by the next day I sent > an additional email that said "I'm attending IETF after all, so I'll be at > asrg session." > > Afterwards you claim that you have not received my email (you would > have seen it on Tuesday March 18th), but on the same day there were > messages in asrg to which I've responded which clearly show that I've > made a decision and was attending and as I was indicating in previous > email that my answer on if I'm attending or not would be send to you > be well known by Tuesday, this also should have been a good indication > that you might have missed my email if that is indeed what happened as > you claim. > > In fact you main basis on why my presentation is not included when I > finally talked to you in person on Wednesday (and I was waiting to talk to > you on Tuesday night, but you did not show up) was that you did not > receive that email. I do understand that some people are really busy with > email and have lots of them (I for one have > 150,000 emails in my inbox) > but the above description puts that fact in doubt. But I might have been > content with your answer if all presentations made good and on topic, but > I was very concerned when I saw the agenda (finally posted to the list on > Wednesday, but that time I already had slides for presentations prepared > and sent them to you!) being dominated by commercial-oriented companies, > and I'v made my opinion known to you privately when I finally had a chance > to talk to you. After the fact and seeing the meeting in realtime > I'm sure my concerns were exactly right which made me somehat worried > about what system was used to determine what is to be presented - that is > what I've indicated in my email to the list. > > And Paul, do note that all facts regarding my presentation being accepted > or not and how are all in my favor and generally not point to me doing > anything wrong. I suggest you withdraw from the discussion and just admit > that as group chair you made a decision on what presentations would be > included based on your view on what presentions should be included > in the meeting. As a group chair you have full right to make these > decisions and I'm not disputing this. > > > Please see my comments inline. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: william@elan.net [mailto:william@elan.net] > > > Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 5:13 PM > > > To: asrg@ietf.org > > > Subject: [Asrg] My Opinion regarding ietf asrg session (it > > > went badly!) > > > > > Also it can be noted that AT&T presented technology > > > on which > > > they have some patents and IETF has very clear guidelines > > > that this is > > > dscoraged to say the least and group chairs should when two solutions > > > exist (one patented, one not) always choose non-patented > > > solution, same > > > applies for presentations, this should have been screened and > > > patent-related presentation made available if nothing else > > > similar exist. > > > > As stated in Vern Paxson's email: "the IRTF does not have an expressed IPR > > policy, though it appears one needs to be developed. I picture such a > > policy requiring that, for any technology discussed within RGs that has > > related IPR, that the presence of the possible IPR be disclosed; but not > > beyond that. The AT&T presentation would be in compliance with such a > > policy." > > Clearly my problem was that since I've never worked at IRTF group before, > some policies here were not known to me and due to irtf website being > undeveloped right now it would have been hard for me to find this and I'v > assumed that most that is true for IETF is true for IETF (except that > IETF works on standards and clear pre-defined goal on what protocol or > similar would be and IRTF "researches the issue" to decided futher steps but > can not actually provide any stadards). > > As to the issues with IPR, I'v already posted separate email today what I > think we should do in this regard. And questions about IPR were raised > before on the list also before and never got any official response from you > or anybody else. > > > > Also have to be noted that most presentations on the live > > > meeting were by > > > persons who did not try to participate at the mailing list > > > and are completely unknown to us > > > > Unknown to whom? There a number of people that you may not know that have a > > unique understanding of spam. Who is it that you don't know? John Morris? > > Jon Praed? Philip Hallam-Baker? Balachander Krishnamurthy? > > Its kind of funny when you say that since when talking to you day before > the presentation I made it clear I actually know most of the mentioned people > (I may not remember everyone personally, but I know the organizations) and > can imagine what they would present based on presentations done for other > events and I was not seriously wrong. > > As to exactly what I said is that these people are uknown to people on > ASRG mail list as they did not participate here. Obviously as the > persons listed are experts in spam (which I do not doubt) it would be of > most interest for us to have them participate here, but it was not the > case and as such it was clearly their choice on how much involvement with > this group they want. At least it would have been appropriate for them to > introduce themselve to the list before the meeting and the agenda was > posted. > > > > and this is also against > > > general policies for IETF and IRTF > > > as first what are supposed to be presented are work done as > > > part of mailing list efforts (i.e. general work area) usually > > > by people who are most active on the list and only afterwards > > > at the very end are there allowed presentations by other > > > organizations with similar interest or work area (and those > > > presentations should be carefully chose to minimize > > > commercial views). > > > > As you know, I sent a call for agenda items. Everyone that responded and had > > something to talk about was accepted. > > I'v no way to confirm that except by your words, but have some facts > indicating this is not so. > > > Commercial views were very minimized if not non-existent. > > I'v different view of this as from what I saw every organization was > presenting what is important to them. The word "commercial" may not be the > most approriate here as for example legal presentation is not commercial > but basicly nothing presentated was research-group approved, you did > presentation of general anti-spam conference that tries to describe how > hard situation is and what are the view of various organizations (such as > legit mass mailers, legal, goverment, etc). And nothing of this was really > "research" just their view on the matter at hand. > > But all tech presentations were for "commercialized" solutions, i.e. > certificates, stamps, etc. often involving patents and so on. I'v personally > (again repeat personally) do not like solutions that are like that. > > > There were a number of commercial entities in the room > > that talked about the problem and not about a product. Again, these may be > > people that you don't personally know, but they are very familiar with the > > problem. For example, Scott Banister from IronPort, Dick Hardt from > > ActiveState, Ken Schneider from BrightMail, Karl Jacob from CloudMark, and > > me and others from CipherTrust. > > Most companies mentioned (including yours) make anti-spam solutions based > on filtering on the client end and I recorgine your contributions in this > area, however the reasons for ASRG is to find end-end solution that would > as most agree involve some kind of change in communication system that > involves both source and destination and change so that spam is not sent. > These solutions might possibly in the future remove need for destination > filtering or replace it with something else (though I suspect this will > have to be used anyway no matter how well we're able to protect improper > communication from happening) and may cause actions solutions that > diminish need for such solutions that you currently make. But I seriously > do not think this is a problem, as most people involved in anti-spam > companies are real really really against spam and the reasons why they got > involved in the first place, so it may very well be true that all of you > are quite capable of going against your own business if it means eliminating > spam! But again as I said, most of these commercial solutions are for > anti-spam filtering on client end, and while this is important, it is not > main issue of what we're talking on the list and as solutions are often > quite similar only one of these "filtering" presentations should be made > (this is for the future...) and best by somebody who're somewhat outside > and can give overview of not just what one company does but several. > > However that people in the above companies have such personal views of > spam unfortunetly might have caused an counter-effect and seriously > prolong the meeting by having everyone engaged in the discussion instead > of trying to stay on agenda which did not provide any time for discussions. > That you knew these people personally only made things worse as you were > not ready to say no to them and stop the discussions. > > This is probably something to remember for the future - either provide > time (5min) for discussion after each presentation of do not allow for any > discusssions and be strong on this point. I'd opt for 5 min personally, > just add to agenda next time its done. > > > There was absolutely no mention of these > > products or any proprietary technology from any of these companies. These > > are people that are at the meeting to participate in a research group > > focused on the problem of spam. BTW, you might want to think about the > > amount of spam that is stopped daily by these companies. > > And I might think about that amount of spamming getting through is rising > as technologies used by spammers become more complex and filtering on > content no longer works all that well. We must focus on technologies that > eliminate spam from the source if possible. > > > Not to promote any > > of these particular technologies, but my point is that we are quite familiar > > with the problem and the state-of-the-art and we gather here to move forward > > with better answers to the problem. > > > > > > > In short, like I said in previous email - the presentations were all > > > opinions of particular organizations and all commercial (even > > > spamcon is > > > really what I call "commercial" non-profit foundation, as > > > apposed to say > > > CAUSE) and were not individual submission as is supposed to > > > be done at > > > IETF and IRTF. As a result engineers who were attending IETF probably > > > got negative view of our group and our efforts. > > > > These were presentations by individuals. The fact that many of the people > > that have much to say about spam are affiliated with spam-focused > > organizations is not a surprise. > > Most spam-focused companies are really the work of several very dedicated > individuals for each organization, I fully recorgnize that. However if > you're familiar with IETF you'll undetand what I mean when I say there is > a difference between individual presenting something and organizations > presenting something and all presentations were clearly organization views > be those organizations mass-mailers, legal, etc. > > > > The only > > > thing I can think > > > of why chair did something like that would have been to get > > > media exposure, I'm sure media not be research or engineering > > > centric would not see > > > serious downsides that I have noticed. Now I'n not against additional > > > media exposure, but I do not believe we're at the point where this is > > > really needed, what we need are people serious about working > > > on technical > > > solutions and media will provide information about our group > > > to general > > > user audience that would only bring more noise. > > > > I tapped resources to provide background discussion and different views of > > the problem as input to our research group work. This included a view from > > the frontline, a view from mass mailers, a view related to endusers and a > > view of the relationship between spam legislation and spam technology. Each > > of these individuals was highly qualified and very informative. There were > > remarks about the scientific merit of some of the stats in the first talk. > > However, beyond that the audience was captivated by the information that was > > being dispersed. > > In part because you'v spent serious time promoting this group in the media > which caused number of people in the audience for whom this was "facinating" > as well as even more people from the media. Anybody who has seen the > list of all the media articles about ASRG which you saw kindly collected at > http://www.ciphertrust.com/press/news/index.htm would understand what I mean. > > > As I explained, this was the inaugural meeting of the > > research group that was started just three weeks ago. > > As I mentione below, I think there should not have been life meeting so > soon after group start. > > > I felt that we needed > > to consume some background information before we dive into the technical > > details of our work. This session of the meeting including all four of these > > talks was scheduled for 45 minutes; that is less than 1/3 of the scheduled > > meeting time. Yes, it went over this time due to lengthy Q&A, speakers > > overrunning their slots, and the chair not being extremely stringent on time > > requirements. If you want to point out any of those last three things, those > > are valid points. However, scheduling 1/3 of an inaugural meeting to focus > > on background and relevant views of the area is acceptable and necessary. > > Indeed I mentioned all of the above. And 1/3 of the time would be ok, but > we saw what happened... I think for next time considering asking IETF to > schedule this in two sessions (purely "informational" and purely technical > - solutions) and not only that but consider making these sessions on > separate days and last session in a day so that we could stay longer. > > > I received many more positive comments after the meeting than I did negative > > comments from the few people on this list with other ideas about how the > > meeting should have been run. > > I'd be surprised if these comments came from people on the mailing list or > otherwise engaged in IETF work. > > > There were opportunties to bash the agenda > > when it was sent to the list as well as the official agenda bashing portion > > of the meeting. > > This I disagree with you entirely. Agenda was presented 1 day before the > meeting. On IETF groups I'm in agenda was presented week or two before the > actual meeting. There was absolutly no opportunity to "bash" the agenda on > the meeting or on the list. > > > No such comments were made at either point. > > There were made privately to you by several people who were on the list > when they saw the agenda. > > > So, I appreciate > > the fact that some of you have 20/20 hindsight, but I would be more > > impressed with useful contributions. > > > > > > > > In the future meetings done in connection with IETF (are we > > > meeting in > > > Vienna?) if we're going to have so many non-technical discussions, I > > > would strongly recommend separting into two sessions, one for this > > > general/media-centric and one for actual engineers to work on > > > technical > > > issues that we may have. > > > > > > I do hope chair takes my comments seriously! > > > He really did a bad job today chosing what is to be presented > > > (i'm sure he > > > had multiple options), > > > > As stated above, there were not as many options as you assumed. Everyone > > that had a technical solution to discuss (that made this known more than 2 > > days before the meeting) was allowed to present. > > You know as well as I do that is not true, in fact in your own email you > already admitted as much. And on the list we'v seen many other proposed > solutions too, I'v hard time believing nobody was read to prepare a > presentation for the meeting. > > > > keeping discussions short (so that > > > there was time > > > for additional presentations) > > > or in general being prepared > > > for this life > > > meeting (remember agenda is supposed to be reviewed by mail > > > list and be > > > announced well before the actual meeting, that is just one example). > > > > RFC 2014 states that a draft agenda must be published to the list well in > > advance of the meeting. > > So do it this way next time, please! > > > Your comment about not being prepared is amusing. > > This group was chartered the last week in February. Within three weeks, the > > group was announced, mailing list started, work items identified, iterated > > through drafts of certain work items, meeting during IETF was requested, > > granted, and scheduled, agenda planned and confirmed, and meeting held. > > I completely agree with you that there was not enough time. My option in > this case would have been to delay first meeting to the next IETF > conference when we were more ready. > > > Personally, I am content with the progress thus far. Understand that the > > research group is three weeks old. Obviously, we will not solve the problem > > in the first three weeks. But, we have made some progress and will continue > > to make good strides. Just as I tried to explain to you this week, RFC 2014 > > also states that "A Research Group will conduct much of its business via its > > electronic mail distribution list(s)." The way that we will continue to make > > progress is from individual contributions. If you are sincerely interested > > in helping to solve this problem, then please contribute work and ideas > > rather than simply negative opinions. You sent a note to the group about > > email address verification on March 12th stating that more detail will be > > provided in the next couple of days. More detail was never sent. > > Actually if you'v really read my email you'd see that I said that more > details on callback would be sent later (not on verification!), my notes > on verification were almost fully published (see below) I apologize for > not sending notes on callback before and will do so by the end of this week. > > As for more details on verification, it was in the presentation which I > made available. The particular details not mentioned before are > to use message tracking protocol for these purposes. I'm now working on > the draft (actually more then one) when draft is ready I'll post it. But > actual details are already made available and if you have questions how > it would work as far as general overview, please feel free to read > presentation and previous notes and ask me questions. > > > I look forward to seeing some actual contributions from you. > > You will. And so I hope as well to see contributions and solutions from > you as well, which beyond the taximony you'v not done and have not actively > participated in the list that much. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Trying to continue this debate on the personal scale like this between us > is useless - I'm certain we'll not be able to effect each other's opinion > about what happened with the first meeting and if it was good or bad and > for others if they have been on the meeting they also have their own > opinion and those who were not can not properly accertain it just from our > words along. I do, however, hope you took critisicim properly, but we'll > only know it on the next meeting. > > And I personally will not remember personal problems for long (I can > "heat up" very quickly but just as much it does not stay within me > long) and I do not let it to effect my judgement. Plus, I'v a lot more > interest in seeing a solution to spam problem then having some personal > battle with you or anybody else. So, I'd like us to cool our heads, take > step back, relax and be prepared to work for the future. > > And the most constructive step to this I'v seen today with introduction of > "ASRG work items", lets hope others follow it and the list actually > becomes productive and not as much "rant" as this email. > > And do note that I'll not reply to any other email on this thread, I'v said > more then enough, especially considering that this was after all my opinion. > > ---- > William Leibzon > Elan Communications Inc. > william@elan.net _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 25 15:34:08 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA02036 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 15:34:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2PKsZC13223 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 15:54:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PKsYO13220 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 15:54:34 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA02025 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 15:33:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PKg6O11969; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 15:42:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PKbMO11124 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 15:37:22 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA00791 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 15:16:24 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2PIR3bn003763; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:27:03 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2PIR3Qh003759; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:27:03 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: Vernon Schryver cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Certs required to send mail In-Reply-To: <200303251558.h2PFwTqx020008@calcite.rhyolite.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:27:03 -0800 (PST) But ISPs do terminate accounts for sending unsolicited emails in any kind of large number. There is a reason why all spammers have switched to China. ISPs that don't terminate spammers make it worth for themselve and can not get peering from other isps (i.e. remember AGIS?). And if they are buying transit, then it becomes responsibility of their upstream to enforce AUP. You can not hope to stop spammer who just signed up today at large isp, but large spammers rely on pemanent connections and try their best to hide who they are and where they are sending emails from, these should be our primary targets for anti-spam propsals (would be nice to have good statistics on how much email really comes from those 150 large spammers, but I suspect getting reliable statistics on this is impossible). > No, Dave's response was on target. If ISPs would enforce strict T&C, > there would be no spam. User names and passwords are required to send > spam, and ISPs could terminate accounts for spamming. Expecting ISPs > to revoke certs for spam when they now refuse to termiante accounts > for spam makes no sense. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 25 15:41:07 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA02469 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 15:41:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2PL1YK13758 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:01:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PL1YO13755 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:01:34 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA02424 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 15:40:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PKXTO10515; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 15:33:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PKV6O10105 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 15:31:06 -0500 Received: from joy.songbird.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA29913 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 15:10:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from bbprime.brandenburg.com (208.184.79.252.songbird.com [208.184.79.252] (may be forged)) by joy.songbird.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PKC7k16745; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 12:12:07 -0800 From: Dave Crocker X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.63 Beta/6) Personal Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <138137246580.20030325121206@brandenburg.com> To: Vernon Schryver CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] keeping it accurate In-Reply-To: <200303232232.h2NMW05m012965@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <200303232232.h2NMW05m012965@calcite.rhyolite.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 12:12:06 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Vernon, Sunday, March 23, 2003, 2:32:00 PM, you wrote: VS> The volume of spam is a problem, but only in human attention and not VS> network bits/second, CPU cycles, or disk space, unless you have VS> thousands of users' spam to deal with. even with spamassassin doing its thing, i find that resulting stream of downloadable mail, over a dialup, to have enough false-negative spam to be a problem. that's strictly subjective, as well as representing only a single user's experience, but it's important to *me*... d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking Sunnyvale, CA USA , _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 25 15:53:03 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA02967 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 15:53:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2PLDUt15409 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:13:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PLDTO15406 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:13:30 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA02953 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 15:52:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PKt3O13286; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 15:55:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PKsHO13215 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 15:54:17 -0500 Received: from aismtp3g.bls.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA02022 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 15:33:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from 01al10015010061.ad.bls.com ([90.152.5.165] [90.152.5.165]) by aismtp3g.bls.com with ESMTP; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 15:38:38 -0500 Received: by 01al10015010061.ad.bls.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 14:35:39 -0600 Message-Id: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D6A7@bremocag> From: "Sauer, Damon" To: "'Alan DeKok'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: [unproductive arguement]RE: [Asrg] Requirements for gathering sta tistics MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 14:35:35 -0600 "Sauer, Damon" wrote: > Regardless of how the information is "meant" to be used. Any spammer > can point at these numbers and say- 50% of our junk is getting through Homer voice> Whoo Hoo!. Do we really care about the opinions of spammers? --- "Keep your friends close but keep your enemies closer." > I believe that you are not looking at control sets in the correct > light. In ANY scientific study you MUST have control sets or the information > is invalid. Nonsense. Data collection doesn't require control sets. Data *analysis* may use control sets, but even that depends on how you analyze the data. There is no control set required to analyze the data gathered from asking "how much spam is received by your domain?" I think I'll stop here. I *completely* disagree with your opinions on data collection and analysis methodology. I'll appeal to authority, and let my background as a published nuclear physicist stand for itself. ---- I believe that here we can agree to disagree.. being a published (anonymously) postmaster, (not sure what nuclear physics has to do with spam, but I am sure that it has its applications) I know that just by being "protected" by anti-spam systems that some spammers just give up. My internal numbers clearly show that 1/3 of all my spam traffic dropped off as soon as "announced" myself as a site protected by certain anti-spam measures. I am talking on the order of hundreds of thousands a day. Gone. I choose to not argue the point further, maybe I am just misunderstanding what you intend to measure with the numbers. I usually tend to start measuring from the beginning of the ruler rather than somewhere in the middle, but then of course, I don't build nuclear power plants and the such. Regards, Damon ***** "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers." _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 25 16:03:25 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA03432 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:03:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2PLNqe16054 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:23:52 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PLNqO16051 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:23:52 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA03426 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:02:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PL8AO15043; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:08:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PL7NO14601 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:07:23 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA02702 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 15:46:24 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2PIvFbn004502; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:57:15 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2PIvEiB004498; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:57:14 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: Dave Crocker cc: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] Certs required to send mail In-Reply-To: <151128676987.20030325094917@brandenburg.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:57:14 -0800 (PST) AOL & Hotmail would be quite responsive if it meant really reducing amount of spam they have to process on their mailservers. After all money means something to those folks and they are spending great deal of it on bandwidth, storage, abuse support costs, etc as far as spam goes. The way I see it, if for example we can stop email from being claimed to have come from hotmail or aol when email did not, they'll adapt such a solution because it means less time spent on processing abuse complaints. If we can actually reduce the amount of spam their mailserver has to process, they'll go for it even more. On Tue, 25 Mar 2003, Dave Crocker wrote: > Jon, > Tuesday, March 25, 2003, 9:32:23 AM, you wrote: > JK> A. Because (many users at) Hotmail and AOL don't accept mail without it. > JK> (in my fantasy) > > let's assume that getting them to adopt the mechanism would, in fact, > make the mechanism useful. > > have you ever tried to sell anything to either of those two > organizations? they are predictably unresponsive. (that's not a > criticism of them, merely an observed fact.) > > and pure logic or predictions of the future are not persuasive > arguments. they need to see very, very high likelihood -- read: > certainty -- that they will directly and immediately benefit from the > change. > > > JK> I don't understand why there's this almost "religious" objection to > JK> proposals > JK> based on signing > > it is not religious. it is the result of 10 years of direct experience > trying to get large-scale cert-based systems deployed... unsuccessfully. > > > JK> - I guess that that shows how little I understand this > JK> "culture" . > > it's true that some standards groups tend to ignore experience. the > ietf commits that sin -- to use a religious reference -- sometimes, but > we try not to. > > d/ > > >>You must "follow the money" in any proposed solution. > >> > >> > >>Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com > >>_______________________________________________ > >>Asrg mailing list > >>Asrg@ietf.org > >>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > >> > >> > > JK> -- > JK> _______________________________________________ > JK> Asrg mailing list > JK> Asrg@ietf.org > JK> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > > d/ > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > Sunnyvale, CA USA , > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 25 16:14:09 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA03937 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:14:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2PLYaW16570 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:34:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PLYaO16567 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:34:36 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA03921 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:13:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PLP4O16118; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:25:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PLOdO16095 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:24:39 -0500 Received: from dogma.slashnull.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA03452 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:03:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.jmason.org (ga183055.reshsg.uci.edu [128.195.183.55]) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PL2hn03856; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 21:02:43 GMT Received: by localhost.jmason.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 144998C704; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:04:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from jmason.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E8B78C703; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 13:04:19 -0800 (PST) To: Kee Hinckley Cc: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: Message from Kee Hinckley of "Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:34:54 EST." From: jm@jmason.org (Justin Mason) X-GPG-Key-Fingerprint: 0A48 2D8B 0B52 A87D 0E8A 6ADD 4137 1B50 6E58 EF0A X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to . Message-Id: <20030325210419.144998C704@localhost.jmason.org> Subject: [Asrg] 5.c. message status - Failure Modes Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 13:04:13 -0800 Kee Hinckley said: > When you propose a change to the mail system that *requires* a > protocol (either through two supporting MUAs, or one supporting MUA > and one annoyed human :-) you are making a very fundamental change to > how email works. You have introduced a dramatic new level of > complexity. The difference between drop-and-forget and a real > protocol with bi-directional communication is huge. Most > importantly, it introduces a whole new way for things to fail. FWIW, I *strongly* agree with this. It totally changes the semantics of mail. > Here are a few to consider--independent of whether we're talking > hashcash, sender-pays, challenge/response, or anything else. > > - initial message isn't delivered > - initial message is delivered to wrong person > -- intentionally (person left company, new person replies) > -- intentionally (I'm on vacation, forwarded my email to secretary) > -- unintentionally (something went wrong) > -- unintentionally (new person at ISP using old email address) > - protocol reply isn't delivered (gets lost somewhere) > - protocol reply is delivered late (lost in email) > - protocol reply is delivered late (back from six month vacation) > - protocol reply is misdelivered (see above misdelivery cases) > - protocol reply bounces (no account, mailbox over quota) > - protocol reply gets temporary bounce (host unavailable) > - protocol reply bounces without body in reply > - protocol reply gets on-vacation message > - protocol reply is sent return-receipt requested I'd add - protocol reply is sent to an address intended only to receive errors (e.g. automated mail generated by notification component of an e-commerce system) --j. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 25 16:34:58 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA04762 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:34:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2PLtQw18192 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:55:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PLtQO18189 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:55:26 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA04741 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:34:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PLlLO17794; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:47:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PLkWO17755 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:46:32 -0500 Received: from aismtp2g.bellsouth.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA04372 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:25:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from 01AL10015010060.ad.bls.com ([90.152.5.135] [90.152.5.135]) by aismtp2g.bellsouth.com with ESMTP; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:27:58 -0500 Received: by 01al10015010060.ad.bls.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:27:53 -0500 Message-Id: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D6A9@bremocag> From: "Sauer, Damon" To: "'Alan DeKok'" , "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Requirements for gathering statistics MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:27:50 -0500 I am trying to turn this back into a productive thread. I think it is important and I don't want to cause it to die because of a disagreement. Believe me, I am *really* trying to understand what it is that we are measuring and for what purpose. Maybe if you break your thoughts down for me, I can understand what it is that we intend to accomplish. As I see it, these measurements are in part, useful as a analysis of the advantage or disadvantage of different types of anti-spam measures. Or are we even planning on breaking up the data in such components? If not, why not? The data is available. Since just *having* anti-spam measures is a way to deter spam, I think that showing these numbers is important. How many spammers give up spamming a host just because they have anti-spam... and why? Any other suggestions on how we can uniquely analyze the data? Regards, Damon -----Original Message----- From: Sauer, Damon Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 3:36 PM To: 'Alan DeKok'; asrg@ietf.org Subject: [unproductive arguement]RE: [Asrg] Requirements for gathering statistics "Sauer, Damon" wrote: > Regardless of how the information is "meant" to be used. Any spammer > can point at these numbers and say- 50% of our junk is getting through Homer voice> Whoo Hoo!. Do we really care about the opinions of spammers? --- "Keep your friends close but keep your enemies closer." > I believe that you are not looking at control sets in the correct > light. In ANY scientific study you MUST have control sets or the information > is invalid. Nonsense. Data collection doesn't require control sets. Data *analysis* may use control sets, but even that depends on how you analyze the data. There is no control set required to analyze the data gathered from asking "how much spam is received by your domain?" I think I'll stop here. I *completely* disagree with your opinions on data collection and analysis methodology. I'll appeal to authority, and let my background as a published nuclear physicist stand for itself. ---- I believe that here we can agree to disagree.. being a published (anonymously) postmaster, (not sure what nuclear physics has to do with spam, but I am sure that it has its applications) I know that just by being "protected" by anti-spam systems that some spammers just give up. My internal numbers clearly show that 1/3 of all my spam traffic dropped off as soon as "announced" myself as a site protected by certain anti-spam measures. I am talking on the order of hundreds of thousands a day. Gone. I choose to not argue the point further, maybe I am just misunderstanding what you intend to measure with the numbers. I usually tend to start measuring from the beginning of the ruler rather than somewhere in the middle, but then of course, I don't build nuclear power plants and the such. Regards, Damon ***** "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers." _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 25 16:42:12 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA05115 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:42:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2PM2ex19051 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:02:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PM2eO19048 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:02:40 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA05111 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:41:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PLv3O18285; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:57:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PLuhO18251 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:56:43 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA04848 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:35:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2191546; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:38:04 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: william@elan.net From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: 5b. Opt-Out - Re: [Asrg] ASRG work items Cc: Paul Judge , "'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)'" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 15:15:14 -0500 At 3:22 PM -0800 3/24/03, william@elan.net wrote: >Any other distribution means I missed? There are psuedo standards (Maybe there's an RFC? I haven't checked. Probably.) such as the one followed by this list: List-Unsubscribe: , I should note that there seems to be some variation in the format of that field (I had to write a parser for it last month). I'm not sure where mail-based opt-out systems fall in what you are putting together. The other two semi-standards are the listname-request@example.com (with subject unsubscribe) and listname-off@example.com. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 25 16:43:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA05186 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:43:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2PM45b19123 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:04:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PM45O19119 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:04:05 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA05163 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:43:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PLr3O18117; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:53:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PLqGO18084 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:52:16 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA04660 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:31:16 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2PJgAbn005374 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:42:10 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2PJgAM0005370 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:42:10 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Requirements for gathering statistics In-Reply-To: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D6A9@bremocag> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:42:10 -0800 (PST) Usefullness of statistics depends directly on how they were gathered. I think what we need is to see exactly what is being proposed as far as how the data will be gathered, I'm not too happy to have this point left to some specific organizations, I'm fine with them conducting surveys but only if we know exactly how they will be do it. On Tue, 25 Mar 2003, Sauer, Damon wrote: > > I am trying to turn this back into a productive thread. I think it is > important and I don't want to cause it to die because of a disagreement. > > Believe me, I am *really* trying to understand what it is that we are > measuring and for what purpose. > Maybe if you break your thoughts down for me, I can understand what it is > that we intend to accomplish. > > As I see it, these measurements are in part, useful as a analysis of the > advantage or disadvantage of different types of anti-spam measures. Or are > we even planning on breaking up the data in such components? If not, why > not? The data is available. > Since just *having* anti-spam measures is a way to deter spam, I think that > showing these numbers is important. > How many spammers give up spamming a host just because they have > anti-spam... and why? > > Any other suggestions on how we can uniquely analyze the data? > > Regards, > Damon > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sauer, Damon > Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 3:36 PM > To: 'Alan DeKok'; asrg@ietf.org > Subject: [unproductive arguement]RE: [Asrg] Requirements for gathering > statistics > > > > > "Sauer, Damon" wrote: > > Regardless of how the information is "meant" to be used. Any spammer > > can point at these numbers and say- 50% of our junk is getting through > > Homer voice> Whoo Hoo!. > > Do we really care about the opinions of spammers? > > --- "Keep your friends close but keep your enemies closer." > > > I believe that you are not looking at control sets in the correct > > light. In ANY scientific study you MUST have control sets or the > information > > is invalid. > > Nonsense. Data collection doesn't require control sets. > > Data *analysis* may use control sets, but even that depends on how > you analyze the data. There is no control set required to analyze the > data gathered from asking "how much spam is received by your domain?" > > I think I'll stop here. I *completely* disagree with your opinions > on data collection and analysis methodology. I'll appeal to > authority, and let my background as a published nuclear physicist > stand for itself. > > ---- I believe that here we can agree to disagree.. being a published > (anonymously) postmaster, (not sure what nuclear physics has to do with > spam, but I am sure that it has its applications) I know that just by being > "protected" by anti-spam systems that some spammers just give up. My > internal numbers clearly show that 1/3 of all my spam traffic dropped off as > soon as "announced" myself as a site protected by certain anti-spam > measures. I am talking on the order of hundreds of thousands a day. Gone. > I choose to not argue the point further, maybe I am just misunderstanding > what you intend to measure with the numbers. I usually tend to start > measuring from the beginning of the ruler rather than somewhere in the > middle, but then of course, I don't build nuclear power plants and the such. > > > Regards, > Damon > > > ***** > "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to > which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or > privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use > of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or > entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received > this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all > computers." > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 25 16:43:50 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA05214 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:43:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2PM4I719149 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:04:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PM4IO19146 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:04:18 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA05179 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:43:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PLv1O18265; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:57:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PLudO18240 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:56:39 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA04842 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:35:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2191543; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:38:00 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: william@elan.net From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: 5c. Message Status - Re: [Asrg] ASRG work items Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 15:08:53 -0500 At 5:13 PM -0800 3/24/03, william@elan.net wrote: > c. Identify if we need extended error codes for anti-spam filters and if > so only one or multiple ones > d. Identify if we need to standartize on comments as well (i.e. not > accepted because listed in xxxx blacklist with comments used to > indicate what blacklist in universally accepted format, etc). I think that some type of extended response would be very valuable. If people are really going to implement challenge/response systems of one kind or another, they need a standard mechanism for instructing a sender. This is going to involve, at minimum, some text followed by a URL (which might be as simple as a mailto: for a "white hole" address that the sender can send to complain about a blacklist). Possibly the text should be split into human readable and machine readable sections. I think this should be specified at both the SMTP and returned-message level. This is the only hope we have of getting mailing lists and automated mail systems to work in an environment with lots of different anti-spam systems. We *really* don't want to go back to the mess that existed 10-15 years ago with zillions of different mail systems providing completely different bounce messages. Been there, done that. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 25 17:01:51 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA05931 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:01:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2PMMKc20909 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:22:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PMMKO20906 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:22:20 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA05890 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:01:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PM97O20215; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:09:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PM68O19260 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:06:08 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA05240 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:45:09 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2PLlOV7014271; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:47:24 -0500 Message-Id: <200303252147.h2PLlOV7014271@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.2 03/18/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: Kee Hinckley Cc: william@elan.net, Paul Judge , "'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)'" Subject: Re: 5b. Opt-Out - Re: [Asrg] ASRG work items In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 25 Mar 2003 15:15:14 EST." References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_1105556676P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:47:23 -0500 --==_Exmh_1105556676P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 15:15:14 EST, Kee Hinckley said: > At 3:22 PM -0800 3/24/03, william@elan.net wrote: > >Any other distribution means I missed? > > There are psuedo standards (Maybe there's an RFC? I haven't checked. > Probably.) such as the one followed by this list: > > List-Unsubscribe: , > 2369 The Use of URLs as Meta-Syntax for Core Mail List Commands and their Transport through Message Header Fields. G. Neufeld, J. Baer. July 1998. (Format: TXT=30853 bytes) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD) 2919 List-Id: A Structured Field and Namespace for the Identification of Mailing Lists. R. Chandhok, G. Wenger. March 2001. (Format: TXT=18480 bytes) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD) --==_Exmh_1105556676P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+gM5rcC3lWbTT17ARAuv4AKCSQ9dMMjGjq/cFH+bn8HotIgCufQCeLwjw RZkP7patbJv0xMLGCCjAdMw= =Y7es -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_1105556676P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 25 17:04:51 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA06158 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:04:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2PMPKO21059 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:25:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PMPHO21054 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:25:17 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA06155 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:04:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PMITO20717; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:18:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PMDoO20445 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:13:50 -0500 Received: from aismtp2g.bellsouth.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA05590 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:52:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from 01al10015010057.ad.bls.com ([90.152.5.141] [90.152.5.141]) by aismtp2g.bellsouth.com with ESMTP; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:55:10 -0500 Received: by 01al10015010057.ad.bls.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:55:05 -0500 Message-Id: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D6AC@bremocag> From: "Sauer, Damon" To: "'jm@jmason.org'" , Kee Hinckley Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] 5.c. message status - Failure Modes MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:55:03 -0500 >> - initial message isn't delivered >> - initial message is delivered to wrong person >> -- intentionally (person left company, new person replies) >> -- intentionally (I'm on vacation, forwarded my email to secretary) >> -- unintentionally (something went wrong) >> -- unintentionally (new person at ISP using old email address) >> - protocol reply isn't delivered (gets lost somewhere) >> - protocol reply is delivered late (lost in email) >> - protocol reply is delivered late (back from six month vacation) >> - protocol reply is misdelivered (see above misdelivery cases) >> - protocol reply bounces (no account, mailbox over quota) >> - protocol reply gets temporary bounce (host unavailable) >> - protocol reply bounces without body in reply >> - protocol reply gets on-vacation message >> - protocol reply is sent return-receipt requested >I'd add > - protocol reply is sent to an address intended only to receive errors > (e.g. automated mail generated by notification component of an > e-commerce system) Adding more: - protocol reply intentionally did not accept your message (We have you blocked) - protocol reply misformated message (technical issue, not following RFC) Regards, Damon ***** "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers." _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 25 17:06:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA06230 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:06:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2PMRBP21144 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:27:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PMRAO21141 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:27:10 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA06207 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:06:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PMG3O20591; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:16:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PMD8O20408 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:13:08 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA05556 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:52:08 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2PK31bn005759 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 12:03:01 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2PK31Bt005755 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 12:03:01 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: "'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)'" Subject: Re: 5b. Opt-Out - Re: [Asrg] ASRG work items In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 12:03:01 -0800 (PST) This is slightly different, for once it applies only to mailinglists and 2nd is that its HOW TO opt out if mailing list you're already on and not a system indicating global opt-in/out choice. But I guess I might need to separate into the section of how to indicate that you want to be opt-out for new senders of commercial email and section on how to actually opt-out when you're already receiving email. Or possibly sections should be for global opt-out and specific opt-out to particular maillist or particular domain. P.S. Yes, there is an RFC 2369 on mailing list headers. On Tue, 25 Mar 2003, Kee Hinckley wrote: > At 3:22 PM -0800 3/24/03, william@elan.net wrote: > >Any other distribution means I missed? > > There are psuedo standards (Maybe there's an RFC? I haven't checked. > Probably.) such as the one followed by this list: > > List-Unsubscribe: , > > > I should note that there seems to be some variation in the format of > that field (I had to write a parser for it last month). > > I'm not sure where mail-based opt-out systems fall in what you are > putting together. > > The other two semi-standards are the listname-request@example.com > (with subject unsubscribe) and listname-off@example.com. > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 25 17:22:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA06981 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:22:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2PMh6W22770 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:43:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PMh6O22767 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:43:06 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA06947 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:22:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PMYDO21585; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:34:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PMLJO20875 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:21:19 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA05846 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:00:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18xrhY-0001IR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:55:04 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Requirements for gathering statistics In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:27:50 EST." <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D6A9@bremocag> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:55:04 -0500 "Sauer, Damon" wrote: > Believe me, I am *really* trying to understand what it is that we are > measuring and for what purpose. We wish to gain confidence in our understanding of the current impact spam has on our networks. Some statistics exist, but as Dave Crocker pointed out in the meeting, they're small samples, self reported, and are insufficient for achieving a high level of confidence. (That's a loose paraphrase.) So we need a survey, with a large number of respondents. The survey needs to determine how much spam the respondents are seeing, and what impact it has on their network. The purpose of any survey should be to collect data which is objective, and requires no subjective judgement on anyone's part. This will make the survey data much more useful, and will give us more confidence in the results of any subsequent data analysis. There is NO need for any "control" in such a survey. We will be asking for statistics about the current traffic on peoples networks. We will NOT be asking people to compare their networks to others. We will NOT be asking about people's opinions about their network traffic. > As I see it, these measurements are in part, useful as a analysis of the > advantage or disadvantage of different types of anti-spam measures. I disagree. We have no way of knowing the effectiveness of anti-spam measures used by the respondents. There is no question we can ask about that effectiveness which will give us a meaningfull answer. The respondents will be using many different anti-spam methods, some home brewed. This makes it nearly impossible to determine what is meant by "anti-spam measure". We will therefore NOT know what the data means, so the data will be useless, and any analysis will be a waste of time. In contrast, we can ask the simple question: "How many emails did you decide were spam?" The answer to such a question is objectivem and it's an easy measurement to make. In addition, a survey with the goal of measuring the effectiveness of anti-spam solutions will be socially contentious. (Or more so...) > Since just *having* anti-spam measures is a way to deter spam, I think that > showing these numbers is important. > How many spammers give up spamming a host just because they have > anti-spam... and why? How do you expect to be able to tell? > Any other suggestions on how we can uniquely analyze the data? Let's not talk about data analysis until such time as we're sure we can gather meaningful data. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 25 17:23:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA07001 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:23:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2PMhYS22802 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:43:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PMhYO22799 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:43:34 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA06978 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:22:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PMY7O21533; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:34:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PMIrO20748 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:18:53 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA05753 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:57:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h2PM08C02088; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 14:00:08 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: william@elan.net Cc: Dave Crocker , ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] Certs required to send mail Message-ID: <20030325220008.GC31702@main.templetons.com> References: <151128676987.20030325094917@brandenburg.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 14:00:08 -0800 If people are endorsing the idea of certificates on ordinary personal mail, does this mean they have rejected the principle that we should tamper as little as possible (and ideally not at all) with individual person to person mail because: a) It is not spam, and b) Any attempt to require new software by all senders of mail is an extremely difficult goal to attain. It seems to me the only way to ever get to a goal like requiring new software for all senders of mail would be highly draconian -- ie. rejecting or bouncing mail from them -- and result in a lot of lost mail. Avoiding lost mail is surely one of our top goals, if not the highest goal, of any e-mail standards group. Yes, even higher than 100% effectivness at stopping spam. So if you are advocating certificates or any form of system where people would say, "Get new sending software or risk your mail being bounced" can you explain why you do so? Is it because you disagree with the principles above? Or is it because you agree with them but have decided after careful examination that systems in line with the principles are impossible? I would be interested to see proof of such an assertion if you have it. In my own examination of spam systems, I have grouped them into a few classes, as far as software is concerned. a) Some require new software only at the recipient. These can most easily be adopted, one user at a time. However, there are limits on what they can do. There are also political problems (blacklisting falls in this category.) (Almost all solutions require some new software at the recipient end but it can be gradually installed in all proposals I have seen.) b) Some also require new software by legitimate bulk mailers. I consider this a difficult, but attainable task, since the numbers of such mailers are (comparatively) few compared to the number of users of all mailing software. c) Some ask for new software at senders, but do not demand it. They have a fallback if the senders don't have the software. The fallbacks range from easy to use to hard, and the risk of lost mail varies accordingly. They don't want the fallback to be too easy because they want pressure on senders to adopt the new protocol, and don't want it to be too hard or too much mail is lost. d) Some ask for new software for spammers (for example labelling requirements) and hope that legal means (such as Lessig's bounty proposal) can force spammers to run this software. Good luck! e) Some demand new software at senders, such as stamp generators, certificates, etc. They plan to, at least eventually, insist on it or refuse mail. f) There has been one case where a software change has been demanded of senders, namely the closing of open relays. Though it has taken several years, most open relays are closed, but not all of them. There was considerable pain. My experience of the history of deploying software suggests you will easily get recipients to install new software if it cuts back on their spam well. Demands on senders are extremely difficult, especially on MUA senders. Changes to MTA senders can happen gradually over the course of perhaps 5 years under extreme pressure, with pain and dropped mail. Do any disagree with these conclusions? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 25 17:47:26 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA08033 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:47:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2PN7u124857 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 18:07:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PN7uO24854 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 18:07:56 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA07966 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:46:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PMwOO23582; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:58:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PMfsO22725 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:41:54 -0500 Received: from aismtp1g.bellsouth.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA06936 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:20:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from 01al10015010061.ad.bls.com ([90.152.5.165] [90.152.5.165]) by aismtp1g.bellsouth.com with ESMTP for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:23:33 -0500 Received: by 01al10015010061.ad.bls.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:23:14 -0600 Message-Id: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D6AD@bremocag> From: "Sauer, Damon" To: asrg@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Subject: [Asrg] Suggestion Categorizing Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:23:09 -0600 I am trying to separate out these suggestions with a little check list of my own.. I am missing something though.. Suggestions? I am posting to maybe help others keep score. Author: Subject(s): Useful Thread Start/End Date: Type Suggestion: (Protocol/ CA/ Filter/ Administrative/ Other) Infrastructure: (Complex/Simple/No change) Software: (New /Patched/ None) Change To RFC Required: (821/ 822/ Other/ None) MTA Change required: (Sending computer/ Receiving/ Both) Client Change required: (Yes/ No) Reliance on systems external to own network other than standard DNS: (Yes/No) Requires more than one protocol: (Yes/No) Requires change to DNS protocol: (Yes/No) Requires specific knowledge other than SMTP/DNS: (Yes/No) Requires pay service: (Yes/ No) Hardware Cost: (More/ Less/ No change) Network Cost: (More/ Less/ No change) Administrative Cost: (More/ Less/ No change) Claims to be "Silver Bullet": (Yes / No) Allows for time to implement: (Yes/ No) Estimated implementation Time: First impression: <-- Bad 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Good --> Tone of responses: <-- Bad 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Good --> Notes: Regards, Damon ***** "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers." _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 25 18:09:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA09646 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 18:09:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2PNTxp26206 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 18:29:59 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PNTxO26203 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 18:29:59 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA09542 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 18:08:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PNJaO25379; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 18:19:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PMwpO23660 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:58:51 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA07434 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:37:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2192010; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:40:10 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: Chuq Von Rospach From: Kee Hinckley Cc: Brad Templeton , Steve Schear , politech@politechbot.com, asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Subject: [Asrg] 6. URL "scheme" for whitelisting Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:21:38 -0500 At 8:36 AM -0800 3/25/03, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: >I think there has to be a responsibility here for the commercial >sender to help the user figure this out. In fact, it's one of the >issues I'm mulling I would go further. I think we should have a standard mechanism (akin to mailto:, but probably using a new scheme name) specifically for whitelisting. If your email client supports whitelisting, it should support a url that you can click on to automatically whitelist an address. (And of course, it had better confirm this with the user, or the spammers will just embed it in an image tag.) Then web sites can easily provide the user with a way to whitelist the necessary address or addresses. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 25 18:38:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA11160 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 18:38:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2PNx1t28306 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 18:59:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PNx0O28301 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 18:59:00 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA11147 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 18:37:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PNk5O27872; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 18:46:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PNjqO27845 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 18:45:52 -0500 Received: from aismtp1g.bellsouth.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA10937 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 18:24:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from 01al10015010061.ad.bls.com ([90.152.5.165] [90.152.5.165]) by aismtp1g.bellsouth.com with ESMTP; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 18:27:29 -0500 Received: by 01al10015010061.ad.bls.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:27:10 -0600 Message-Id: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D6B3@bremocag> From: "Sauer, Damon" To: "'Alan DeKok'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Requirements for gathering statistics MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:27:06 -0600 > I disagree. > In contrast, we can ask the simple question: "How many emails did >you decide were spam?" ----- Semantics, but I like the way you stated it better. I agree. > The answer to such a question is objectivem and it's an easy >measurement to make. ----- Mine would not be an easy answer. > In addition, a survey with the goal of measuring the effectiveness >of anti-spam solutions will be socially contentious. (Or more so...) > > Since just *having* anti-spam measures is a way to deter spam, I think that > showing these numbers is important. > How many spammers give up spamming a host just because they have > anti-spam... and why? > > How do you expect to be able to tell? ---- I don't -just being thoughtful. > Any other suggestions on how we can uniquely analyze the data? > > Let's not talk about data analysis until such time as we're sure we >can gather meaningful data. ---- Putting the cart before the horse here... while it can be done successfully it is not very efficient. Maybe if we state the analysis that we would like to see, I would be much more at ease providing specific data rather than giving up my entire database. And knowing exactly what we are looking for, I may even be able to provide more granular measurements. Regards, Damon ***** "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers." _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 25 18:55:25 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA11903 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 18:55:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2Q0FvC30034 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 19:15:57 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q0FuO30031 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 19:15:56 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA11899 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 18:54:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q01TO28441; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 19:01:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PNsvO28148 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 18:54:57 -0500 Received: from nber13.nber.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA11090 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 18:33:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from nber13.nber.org (localhost.nber.org [127.0.0.1]) by nber13.nber.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h2PNaF1u034502 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 18:36:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by nber13.nber.org (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id h2PNaFck034501 for asrg@ietf.org.KAV; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 18:36:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from nber5.nber.org (nber5.nber.org [207.113.108.99]) by nber13.nber.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h2PNaD1v034484; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 18:36:13 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Feenberg To: Kee Hinckley cc: Chuq Von Rospach , Brad Templeton , Steve Schear , politech@politechbot.com, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. URL "scheme" for whitelisting In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 18:17:43 -0500 (EST) On Tue, 25 Mar 2003, Kee Hinckley wrote: > At 8:36 AM -0800 3/25/03, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > I would go further. I think we should have a standard mechanism > (akin to mailto:, but probably using a new scheme name) specifically > for whitelisting. If your email client supports whitelisting, it > should support a url that you can click on to automatically whitelist > an address. (And of course, it had better confirm this with the > user, or the spammers will just embed it in an image tag.) Then web > sites can easily provide the user with a way to whitelist the > necessary address or addresses. > -- Is there something in this proposal to prevent spammers from using Amazon.com as their return address? Do we assume that mail is securely signed? Or does the whitelist include the IP address of the connecting system? Or if not, would amazon.com eventually get to using a unique from: address for each receipient, that the spammer couldn't guess? If they didn't, they would have troubles communicating with customers, because noone would want to put them in their whitelist. But that means that there can't be any cooperative whitelists, or sharing of whitelists, which is quite a shame. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 25 18:59:03 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA12068 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 18:59:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2Q0JZl30233 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 19:19:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q0JZO30230 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 19:19:35 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA12020 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 18:58:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q0A5O29710; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 19:10:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q085O29504 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 19:08:05 -0500 Received: from smtp.mcn.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA11516 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 18:47:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from [204.189.3.167] (larkam2-39.mcn.org [204.189.3.167]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.mcn.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2PNmuwo025313 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 15:49:07 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: larkam24@mail.mcn.org Message-Id: To: asrg@ietf.org From: matthew richards Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="============_-1163486349==_ma============" Subject: [Asrg] Hotmail caps email (via el reg) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 15:48:40 -0800 --============_-1163486349==_ma============ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" "punters will be barred from sending emails to more than 100 e-mail addresses in a 24-hour period" this is basically what i was proposing in my first post to this list. now if only this feature was built into SMTP spammers would be screwed... well almost. http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/29925.html --============_-1163486349==_ma============ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Hotmail caps email (via el reg)
"punters will be barred from sending emails to more than 100 e-mail addresses in a 24-hour period"

this is basically what i was proposing in my first post to this list. now if only this feature was built into SMTP spammers would be screwed... well almost.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/29925.html
--============_-1163486349==_ma============-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 25 19:37:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA12942 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 19:37:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2Q0wAw32722 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 19:58:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q0wAO32719 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 19:58:10 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA12935 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 19:37:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q0n8O32438; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 19:49:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q0mBO32404 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 19:48:11 -0500 Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA12761 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 19:27:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18xyn6-0005Q4-00; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:29:16 -0800 To: Kee Hinckley cc: william@elan.net, Paul Judge , "'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)'" Subject: Re: 5b. Opt-Out - Re: [Asrg] ASRG work items In-Reply-To: Message from Kee Hinckley of "Tue, 25 Mar 2003 15:15:14 EST." References: X-face: ?^_yw@fA`CEX&}--=*&XqXbF-oePvxaT4(kyt\nwM9]{]N!>b^K}-Mb9 YH%saz^>nq5usBlD"s{(.h'_w|U^3ldUq7wVZz$`u>MB(-4$f\a6Eu8.e=Pf\ X-image-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/kanga.face.tiff X-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Message-ID: <20835.1048638556@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:29:16 -0800 On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 15:15:14 -0500 Kee Hinckley wrote: > At 3:22 PM -0800 3/24/03, william@elan.net wrote: >> Any other distribution means I missed? > There are psuedo standards (Maybe there's an RFC? I haven't > checked. Probably.) such as the one followed by this list: > List-Unsubscribe: , > RFC 2369. -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 25 20:00:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA13361 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 20:00:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2Q1JNZ01827 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 20:19:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q1JNO01824 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 20:19:23 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA13311 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 19:58:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q1GIO01743; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 20:16:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q1FQO01697 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 20:15:26 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA13254 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 19:54:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2192864; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 19:56:44 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: Daniel Feenberg From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. URL "scheme" for whitelisting Cc: Chuq Von Rospach , Brad Templeton , Steve Schear , politech@politechbot.com, asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 19:54:06 -0500 At 6:17 PM -0500 3/25/03, Daniel Feenberg wrote: >On Tue, 25 Mar 2003, Kee Hinckley wrote: > >> At 8:36 AM -0800 3/25/03, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > >> I would go further. I think we should have a standard mechanism > > (akin to mailto:, but probably using a new scheme name) specifically >Is there something in this proposal to prevent spammers from using >Amazon.com as their return address? Do we assume that mail is securely >signed? Or does the whitelist include the IP address of the connecting >system? Independent issue. The direction I see a number of people moving in this group (and the first productive move I've seen so far :-) is to see if we can specify certain standards that would provide a framework for anti-spam software. The goal is (in my mind at least) that even if people try a number of different solutions, at least there will be some degree of interoperability. I'm not proposing any standard for how whitelisting works. Just that there should be a standard mechanism for a mailing list operator to easily provide the necessary information (via a URL) to your whitelisting software. That was as far as I got. You've pointed out that of course there are different ways whitelisting could work. Address, domain, IP address, certificate, unique token all come to mind. Clearly which ones a given vendor provides depends on what they feel like supporting (may the most popular solution win). So what probably makes sense is to define a scheme (in the technical sense--that thing to the left of the colon) and a set of standard arguments, as well as a mechanism for adding items to the standard. Completely off the top of my head: email address (possibly wildcarded--although how you do that without using legal email characters I don't know off hand--need some encoding) IP range special token public key Those all seem like things that a whitelist system might want to know. And if the client does use one of them, it can ignore it. Back to your original question. Won't the spammers just start using Amazon's address if they think a substantial number of people have whitelisted it. Yes. That's a fundamental flaw with whitelists. On the other hand, spammers who do this run far more serious legal risks. But the goal of this proposal wasn't to solve the problem with whitelists. I don't even *like* whitelists :-). The goal is simply to make it easier for recipients and senders to use them. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 25 20:20:00 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA13779 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 20:20:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2Q1eY403399 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 20:40:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q1eYO03396 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 20:40:34 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA13729 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 20:19:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q1YFO02350; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 20:34:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q1XJO02320 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 20:33:19 -0500 Received: from bass.unixhome.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA13536 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 20:12:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from trout (trout-w.unixhome.net [192.168.100.17]) by bass.unixhome.net (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with SMTP id h2Q1E2202503; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 19:14:02 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <005101c2f335$0178b7a0$1164a8c0@trout> From: "Dave Anderson" To: , "Vernon Schryver" Cc: References: Subject: Re: [Asrg] Certs required to send mail MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 19:14:09 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > But ISPs do terminate accounts for sending unsolicited emails in any kind > of large number. There is a reason why all spammers have switched to China. Some do terminate accounts, but I know first hand that some participate either via pink contracts or selling their lists. I had an account once that even my wife didn't know about. I never gave out it's address either, yet I got spam. And an account like abc1200948388dhf@isp.com is not a very guessable account. On another occasion I had an ISP that intevened when I sent a nasty gram to the offending spammer. My ISP, as it turned out was hosting the sammer inside their netblock. But then I also had a large ISP that was very good. The moral hear is that many ISPs are good net-citezens, and others are deceptive trash. > You can not hope to stop spammer who just signed up today at large isp, > but large spammers rely on pemanent connections and try their best to hide > who they are and where they are sending emails from, these should be our > primary targets for anti-spam propsals (would be nice to have good > statistics on how much email really comes from those 150 large spammers, > but I suspect getting reliable statistics on this is impossible). Why couldn't a large ISP stop, or perhaps seriously hinder spam? If they implemented a system where every account could only send 25-100 messages it would seriously discourage spammers. I suspect the more reputable ISPs do this, but many don't. There in is where the problems lye. It is up to the receive, not the sender to verify mail. At home, I just block the China spammers outright, using IPFilter I simply block out the whole IP range and it massively reduces spam. But at work I need to be more selective. Business people do not understand the smut virus infected mail came from the same place as a field rep. Any solution needs to be individualized down to the sender and the receiver. So certs may have a place. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 25 20:20:50 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA13854 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 20:20:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2Q1fOQ03459 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 20:41:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q1fOO03456 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 20:41:24 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA13820 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 20:20:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q1a3O02434; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 20:36:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q1ZCO02404 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 20:35:12 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA13576 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 20:14:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2Q1GKK3004845 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 18:16:20 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303260116.h2Q1GKK3004845@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Certs required to send mail References: <20030325190822.GC30504@main.templetons.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 18:16:20 -0700 (MST) > From: Brad Templeton > ... > One can make this case, but I have always felt the IETF's broader goal was > suport of an end-to-end internet. As such, ISPs are just there to route > packets, not to enforce policy.... That's mistaken. The end-to-end principle says that ISP routers and wires should just pass packets and not be smart, but nothing about enforcing usage policies. Since at least the 1980's (the equivalents of) ISPs have been expected to enforce usage policies. Remember the NSFNet AUP. Perhaps the fact that Steve W. only zapped one or two outfits for violating the AUP and the many gatekeepers at ISPs and customers (including me) used the threat of the AUP to control their users is relevant to the failure by modern ISPs to care. > The irony of this is amazing. I remember one day on slashdot there were > two highly active threads. One was about the value of the end to end > principle, and the other was about a UDP for the largest australian ISP which had > too many spammers on it. (Blocking all usenet postings from the ISP, even > from the innocent users.) Again, that is entirely consistent. The end-to-end principle says nothing about ignoring violations of AUPs. > All day long most of us decry when ISPs and firewalls take policy steps, trying > to ban certain protocols, putting in secret proxies, stopping you from > natting, and we tell them they should worry about their core business, which > is routing packets quickly and reliably. Then when their downstreams > do something we don't like, we blame them for non-enforcement. > > I'm not saying we might not, in the end, have to give up some of the end > to end principle to stop spam. But we should do so kicking and screaming. But you're right that nasty garbage does violate the end-to-end principle. Lazy, slumlord ISPs prefer to violate the end-to-end principle as a cheap hack to enforce AUP restrictions. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 25 20:29:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA14002 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 20:29:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2Q1oBV03755 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 20:50:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q1oBO03752 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 20:50:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA13984 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 20:29:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q1l6O03641; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 20:47:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q1kaO03622 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 20:46:36 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA13932 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 20:25:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2Q1RpfD005686 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 18:27:51 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303260127.h2Q1RpfD005686@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Certs required to send mail References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 18:27:51 -0700 (MST) > From: william@elan.net > But ISPs do terminate accounts for sending unsolicited emails in any kind > of large number. There is a reason why all spammers have switched to China. I wish I thought that was a joke instead of offensive and knowingly false noise like "SPEWS has listed all of UUNET". > ISPs that don't terminate spammers make it worth for themselve and can not > get peering from other isps (i.e. remember AGIS?). And if they are buying > transit, then it becomes responsibility of their upstream to enforce AUP. Who, pray tell, is upstream of UUNET or Sprint? (yes, Sprint is rumored to have started actually terminating spammers) > You can not hope to stop spammer who just signed up today at large isp, > but large spammers rely on pemanent connections and try their best to hide > who they are and where they are sending emails from, ... Since email spam first became a problem, I have not seen a single spammer that was able to hide from anyone with minimal technical clues. They can hide from computer programs (e.g. SpamAssasin and SpamCop) for a while or linger, but that's only because computers are too stupid to know about IP routing and so forth Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 25 21:28:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA15427 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 21:28:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2Q2mdl07477 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 21:48:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q2mcO07474 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 21:48:38 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA15382 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 21:27:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q2heO07271; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 21:43:41 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q2gqO07227 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 21:42:52 -0500 Received: from mail01.stbernard.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA15245 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 21:21:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from salty.rapid.stbernard.com ([192.168.4.61]) by mail01.stbernard.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Tue, 25 Mar 2003 18:24:02 -0800 From: Wes Peters Organization: St. Bernard Software To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Authentication (no longer Re: [Asrg] My Opinion...) User-Agent: KMail/1.5 References: In-Reply-To: X-Habeas-SWE-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-SWE-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-SWE-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-SWE-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-SWE-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-SWE-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-SWE-9: mark in spam to . MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200303251824.02192.wpeters@stbernard.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Mar 2003 02:24:02.0595 (UTC) FILETIME=[C4419730:01C2F33E] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 18:24:02 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thursday 20 March 2003 22:03, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > > None was big help at this point and > > none (except > > verisign, though presentation was still one-sided towards > > S/MIME) tried to > > see what else similar is available that may not be commercial > > and may do > > the same. > > Actually if I had had a little more time it would probably have been > rather clearer that I was proposing a range of authentication > options, starting with the free ones albiet with certain possible > counter-strategies. > > S/MIME is clearly an authentication option and the most flexible for > this particular application (PGP is a close second but there is a > conflict in that the PGP security model is strictly endpoint based > and hence does not immediately map to a service MTA gateway > deployment unless a validation service like XKMS is interjected). > However S/MIME is also the most expensive to deploy - whether you > issue your own certificates or pay a CA since you need a cert for > every end user which is expensive to manage, far more expensive than > an SSL cert. No, you don't. All you need is a promise from the "sumitting" MTA (the MTA that speaks to the senders MUA) that it has used SOME form of authentication to verif the user is who he says he is. This has been the crux of the problem all along, and one of the reasons why I am completely unsympathetic to the cries of the large ISPs that they are being inundated by spam. The spam problem is caused by ISPs who allow mail to enter the network without sender authentication. If all ISPs required sender authentication, we wouldn't have this problem. So here's the simplified version: the submitting MTA "signs" the message in some way verifying that it can and will, at the very least, disable the end user account associated with the sender if that sender abuses the network. This signature is verifiable and has an abuse coordinator associated with it. The final MTA (the MTA that communicates with the recipients MUA) decides if the recipient will receive mail from the verified sender. > The only "authentication" strategy I think is bogus is using the > reverse DNS. Agreed, it's not strong enough to be useful. -- "Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?" Wes Peters Sr. Software Engineer wpeters@stbernard.com St. Bernard Software _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 25 22:13:03 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA16467 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 22:13:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2Q3Xbq09865 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 22:33:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q3XbO09862 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 22:33:37 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA16442 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 22:12:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q3OAO09523; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 22:24:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q3NhO09478 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 22:23:43 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA16285 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 22:02:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc02.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2Q34Hqh026235; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 19:04:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 18:58:24 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Vernon Schryver'" , "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Certs required to send mail MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 18:58:14 -0800 Vernon keeps repeating the lie that I am knowingly misrepresenting spews Spews has never disputed the assertion in question and keeps no public logs of its activity. Therefore our observation that the entire uunet network block our server was in was bloked is currently impossible to prove as a direct result of spews own behavior. So unless vernon wants to admit he is a part of the spews cabal - which would explain a lot, particularly his attitude, I don't see the point in revisiting this point. Yes spews is completely out of control. -----Original Message----- From: Vernon Schryver Sent: Tue Mar 25 18:04:05 2003 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Certs required to send mail > From: william@elan.net > But ISPs do terminate accounts for sending unsolicited emails in any kind > of large number. There is a reason why all spammers have switched to China. I wish I thought that was a joke instead of offensive and knowingly false noise like "SPEWS has listed all of UUNET". > ISPs that don't terminate spammers make it worth for themselve and can not > get peering from other isps (i.e. remember AGIS?). And if they are buying > transit, then it becomes responsibility of their upstream to enforce AUP. Who, pray tell, is upstream of UUNET or Sprint? (yes, Sprint is rumored to have started actually terminating spammers) > You can not hope to stop spammer who just signed up today at large isp, > but large spammers rely on pemanent connections and try their best to hide > who they are and where they are sending emails from, ... Since email spam first became a problem, I have not seen a single spammer that was able to hide from anyone with minimal technical clues. They can hide from computer programs (e.g. SpamAssasin and SpamCop) for a while or linger, but that's only because computers are too stupid to know about IP routing and so forth Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 00:36:25 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA18672 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 00:36:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2Q5u1N17886 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 00:56:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q5u1O17883 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 00:56:01 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA18653 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 00:34:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q5k3O17507; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 00:46:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q5icO17438 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 00:44:38 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA18388 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 00:23:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.57] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2Q5OBqj009627; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 21:25:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 20:23:11 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Brad Templeton'" , william@elan.net Cc: Dave Crocker , ASRG Subject: RE: [Asrg] Certs required to send mail MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 20:23:11 -0800 > > So if you are advocating certificates or any form of system > where people > would say, "Get new sending software or risk your mail being bounced" > can you explain why you do so? Is it because you disagree with the > principles above? Or is it because you agree with them but > have decided > after careful examination that systems in line with the principles are > impossible? I would be interested to see proof of such an > assertion if > you have it. Either or questions of this type are usually unhelpful. We believe that ad-hoc filtering systems are already negatively impacting the reliability of email. As does spam itself if left unchecked, an email does no good if the reader overlooks it as spam. So you filter you loose messages, you don't filter you loose messages. That is a major problem which can only be addressed if there is a reliable method of bypassing the filter which in turn is only acceptable if the method does not create a backdoor for spam. I agree with Brad that deployment is a major issue, one that has to be at the center of any proposal. That is why I believe that the participation of the major client and server software vendors is going to be essential, as well as that of the major ISPs. This is not the only forum that will be necessary to advance a winning strategy. However it can provide considerable assistance in helping direct that strategy, even if the gorillas and elephants appear to be elsewhere. As for the 'end to end' principle, on what basis is it asserted that there are only two ends in this transaction? I see at least four endpoints, the user relationship is quite separate from the relationship between the enterprises that provide connectivity which in turn is separate from the relationship between their employers if it is an enterprise to enterprise transaction. I don't think that the end-to-end model Clarke proposed is the same as the end-to-end ideology that has been created out of it. If we are going to rathole on this topic lets get Clarke in on a con-call or some of us go round and discuss it with him. I really don't beleive that Clarke holds the views being assigned to him here, he always struck me as being eminently pragmatic. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 00:38:54 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA18712 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 00:38:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2Q5xXo18030 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 00:59:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q5xXO18027 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 00:59:33 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA18704 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 00:38:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q5gSO17392; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 00:42:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q5fCO17362 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 00:41:12 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA18339 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 00:19:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2194264; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 00:22:21 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200303251824.02192.wpeters@stbernard.com> References: <200303251824.02192.wpeters@stbernard.com> To: Wes Peters From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: Authentication (no longer Re: [Asrg] My Opinion...) Cc: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 00:13:40 -0500 At 6:24 PM -0800 3/25/03, Wes Peters wrote: >This has been the crux of the problem all along, and one of the reasons >why I am completely unsympathetic to the cries of the large ISPs that >they are being inundated by spam. The spam problem is caused by ISPs >who allow mail to enter the network without sender authentication. If >all ISPs required sender authentication, we wouldn't have this problem. Do we really believe this is true? As far as I've been able to tell, spammer accounts get closed ASAP, as soon as they are reported. Having your account closed within hours of sending spam is just a cost of business for a spammer. That's why ISPs have had to resort to blocking port 25. Another question for the survey I suppose. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 01:03:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA19081 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 01:03:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2Q6OZx19645 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 01:24:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q6OYO19642 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 01:24:35 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA19075 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 01:03:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q6B5O19277; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 01:11:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q6A1O19252 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 01:10:01 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA18899 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 00:48:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2Q5p7Ww004300 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 22:51:07 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303260551.h2Q5p7Ww004300@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: 5c. Message Status - Re: [Asrg] ASRG work items References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 22:51:07 -0700 (MST) > From: Kee Hinckley > ... This is the only hope we have of getting > mailing lists and automated mail systems to work in an environment > with lots of different anti-spam systems. We *really* don't want to > go back to the mess that existed 10-15 years ago with zillions of > different mail systems providing completely different bounce > messages. Been there, done that. Why wouldn't RFC 2919 and RFC 2369 headers be sufficient? Why wouldn't yet more new SMTP gadgets only make things worse? Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 01:29:16 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA19567 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 01:29:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2Q6nuB21539 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 01:49:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q6ntO21536 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 01:49:55 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA19552 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 01:28:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q6iFO21311; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 01:44:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q6hUO21262 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 01:43:30 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA19448 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 01:22:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2Q6OdgO008692 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 23:24:39 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303260624.h2Q6OdgO008692@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: Authentication (no longer Re: [Asrg] My Opinion...) References: <200303251824.02192.wpeters@stbernard.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 23:24:39 -0700 (MST) > From: Wes Peters > ... > No, you don't. All you need is a promise from the "sumitting" MTA (the > MTA that speaks to the senders MUA) that it has used SOME form of > authentication to verif the user is who he says he is. > > This has been the crux of the problem all along, and one of the reasons > why I am completely unsympathetic to the cries of the large ISPs that > they are being inundated by spam. The spam problem is caused by ISPs > who allow mail to enter the network without sender authentication. If > all ISPs required sender authentication, we wouldn't have this problem. > > So here's the simplified version: the submitting MTA "signs" the message > in some way verifying that it can and will, at the very least, disable > the end user account associated with the sender if that sender abuses > the network. This signature is verifiable and has an abuse coordinator > associated with it. > > The final MTA (the MTA that communicates with the recipients MUA) > decides if the recipient will receive mail from the verified sender. > ... That seems to be based on the common but quite mistaken notion that all email involves "submitting" MTAs run by a few big ISPs. In fact SMTP is and should be a point to point protocol as much as the "file sharing" protocols. Many outfits run their own MTAs that talk to "submitting" MTAs. Essentally all big outfits do this, as well as many smaller organizations that don't trust the competence of the big ISPs. Many long time IETF and IRTF contributors as well as the IETF itself are in this boat. All of us authenticate and authorize all of the mail our "submitting" MTAs submit to our MTAs, whether it is spam or not. All of this is irrelevant to the spam problem. ISPs don't need to be involved in signing or authenticating our mail to ensure we are not sending spam. Whether we buy raw IP bandwidth to run our own submitting MTAs or we use the submitting MTAs of our ISPs, our ISPs know who we are and could terminate our accounts if we send spam. The problem is that many ISPs can't be bothered or don't want to lose our business. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 01:32:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA19676 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 01:32:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2Q6rI121704 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 01:53:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q6rIO21701 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 01:53:18 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA19660 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 01:32:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q6l1O21427; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 01:47:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q6kpO21405 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 01:46:51 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA19504 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 01:25:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h2Q6RsD10027; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 22:27:54 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'Brad Templeton'" , william@elan.net, Dave Crocker , ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] Certs required to send mail Message-ID: <20030326062754.GK31702@main.templetons.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 22:27:54 -0800 On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 08:23:11PM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > Either or questions of this type are usually unhelpful. Well, I don't want to cause disruption but from experience in other standards groups with political issues, I now know that it is vitally important to agree on goals before moving to solutions. > > We believe that ad-hoc filtering systems are already negatively > impacting the reliability of email. As does spam itself if left > unchecked, an email does no good if the reader overlooks it as > spam. Indeed this is true. The goal is to get rid of spam, but the goal is also to seriously minimize mail lost, or so I would put forward. We should not create an undependable (or more undependable) mail system in fighting spam, not if there is a way around that. We also wish to maintain end-to-end designs, protect free speech ... there are many other goals which we've had various discussions of. > > So you filter you loose messages, you don't filter you loose > messages. That is a major problem which can only be addressed > if there is a reliable method of bypassing the filter which in > turn is only acceptable if the method does not create a backdoor > for spam. We can control what type of messages will be lost, and how many, and in particular how many will be affected. For example, if we come up with a solution where the only mail lost is mailing list mail, and furthermore mailing lists hosts can take active steps to eliminate that chance, I think that's a decent outcome, certainly compared to others where it is unpredictable what mail will be lost. In fact, predictable loss which can be eliminated may be preferable at slightly higher loss levels than unpredictable loss, because you can at least take steps against the former. With content based filters, for example, your doctor might be blocked mailing you e-mail about that blue erection pill -- I'm afraid to name it in an e-mail for reasons you can all guess :-) -- because spammers often mail about it, but there's no way to predict. This is only one of the goals to be balanced however. Stamps do meet this goal, in that you can assure non-blockage by adding stamps, and so do certificates, but of course they have problems meeting other goals. > As for the 'end to end' principle, on what basis is it asserted > that there are only two ends in this transaction? I see at least > four endpoints, the user relationship is quite separate from the > relationship between the enterprises that provide connectivity > which in turn is separate from the relationship between their > employers if it is an enterprise to enterprise transaction. In a true end to end system, there would be two endpoints. However other realities, primarily intermittently connected endpoints, NATs and underpowered machines have led most people to do E-mail via a 4-point solution. However, that's not true for me. My mailer, mutt, is running on the very same machine with my SMTP server. For me to and from other people like me, E-mail is fully end to end, as it was designed. While we want the ability to use proxies, mailbox servers and relays to get around the limitations above, do we wish to mandate it? That's another question. I am not speaking to anybody's specific views here on end to end designs. And strictly speaking, they are not even a goal, they are a means to some other goals (fostering innovation, flexibility of change, and yes, protection from outside control.) However, the design principle sits as a proxy (ironic, that) for the collection of goals. Nonetheless I am concerned with those who trumpeted behind us when we struck down laws like the CDA and fought other laws which would blame the ISP for the packets sent by their users. (Now if ISPs proxy for their users that can be another story, of course.) Today an Hoster in the USA shut down a Canadian web site which hosted pictures of captured U.S. prisoners because their ISP (Level3) put pressure on them to do so. We seem to want to apply pressure to blame the ISP when we don't like the packets, but want to not have the ISP blamed in other circumstances. Fortunately, spam should not force us into this dilemma. Spam violates the two rules midpoints are allowed to care about in the end to end principle, high unrequested traffic volume. We can say, "Stop that user he's sending too much unwanted traffic" to a midpoint, which is all we need to deal with spam. We should not be able to ask the midpoint to punish a user because of what's in the packets, because that way lies madness. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 01:34:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA19734 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 01:34:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2Q6tEv21822 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 01:55:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q6tEO21819 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 01:55:14 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA19725 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 01:34:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q6n3O21513; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 01:49:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q6mQO21470 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 01:48:26 -0500 Received: from dogma.slashnull.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA19535 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 01:27:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.jmason.org (ga183055.reshsg.uci.edu [128.195.183.55]) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q6QLn04610; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 06:26:21 GMT Received: by localhost.jmason.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 8F1928C6CA; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 01:28:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from jmason.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8976A8C6C5; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 22:28:01 -0800 (PST) To: Kee Hinckley Cc: Wes Peters , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: Authentication (no longer Re: [Asrg] My Opinion...) In-Reply-To: Message from Kee Hinckley of "Wed, 26 Mar 2003 00:13:40 EST." From: jm@jmason.org (Justin Mason) X-GPG-Key-Fingerprint: 0A48 2D8B 0B52 A87D 0E8A 6ADD 4137 1B50 6E58 EF0A X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to . Message-Id: <20030326062801.8F1928C6CA@localhost.jmason.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 22:27:56 -0800 Kee Hinckley said: > At 6:24 PM -0800 3/25/03, Wes Peters wrote: > >This has been the crux of the problem all along, and one of the reasons > >why I am completely unsympathetic to the cries of the large ISPs that > >they are being inundated by spam. The spam problem is caused by ISPs > >who allow mail to enter the network without sender authentication. If > >all ISPs required sender authentication, we wouldn't have this problem. > > Do we really believe this is true? As far as I've been able to tell, > spammer accounts get closed ASAP, as soon as they are reported. > Having your account closed within hours of sending spam is just a > cost of business for a spammer. That's why ISPs have had to resort > to blocking port 25. Also, if all ISPs required sender auth, spammers would masquerade as ISPs. And who provides authorization for all ISPs? --j. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 01:56:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA20147 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 01:56:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2Q7HaA00880 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 02:17:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q7HZO00877 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 02:17:35 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA20142 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 01:56:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q7D8O00469; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 02:13:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q7CeO32643 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 02:12:40 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA20024 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 01:51:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2Q6rfEJ011045 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 23:53:41 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303260653.h2Q6rfEJ011045@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Certs required to send mail References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 23:53:41 -0700 (MST) > From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" > Vernon keeps repeating the lie that I am knowingly misrepresenting spews > > Spews has never disputed the assertion in question and keeps no public logs > of its activity. Therefore our observation that the entire uunet network > block our server was in was bloked is currently impossible to prove as a > direct result of spews own behavior. > > So unless vernon wants to admit he is a part of the spews cabal - which > would explain a lot, particularly his attitude, I don't see the point in > revisiting this point. Yes spews is completely out of control. Yes, I do not beat my wife. I am not associated in any way with SPEWS. I do not use the SPEWS DNS blacklist. I do not approve of SPEWS's policies or procedures. I would not say that SPEWS is "completely out of control," but I wouldn't argue that point with someone honestly trying to make it. I have in public pointed out statements in the SEWS FAQ that I consider false and misleading. As far as I know, I do not know the name of anyone who might be said to be in the SPEWS cabal. As far as I know I have not significantly corresponded with anyone in the SPEWS cabal. I suspect that a year or so ago I received 2 or 3 anonymous messages from the SPEWS principal. Those messages used unauthorized relays and so were objectionable. Phillip Hallam-Baker might not know that, but he does know: - SPEWS does not answer anyone outside the SPEWS cabal. Saying that SPEWS has not denied Phillip Hallam-Baker's claims proves them true is an amazingly clumsy charade. Even if SPEWS did not have a policy consistent silence, a refusal to answer Phillip Hallam-Baker's obvious knowingly false claims would not make those false claims true. - there is no evidence that SPEWS has ever done as Phillip Hallam-Baker has repeatedly claimed and listed all of UUNET. On the contrary, other UUNET customers have said in public that their UUNet IP addresses have not been listed by SPEWS. - SPEWS might have blocked his employer's SMTP servers, but that could have been for any of several reasons, including his employer's long and significant history of sending unsolicited bulk email advertising. That blocking would not imply that the rest of UUNet's vast blocks of IP addresses were blacklisted. As far as I can tell, no statement I have made about Phillip Hallam-Baker and his statements is false. On the other hand, it is clear that he does know that SPEWS has not listed all of UUNET and so forth. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 02:22:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA08250 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 02:22:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2Q7glJ03395 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 02:42:47 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q7gkO03392 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 02:42:46 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA07695 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 02:21:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q7cwO03218; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 02:38:58 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q7bnO03154 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 02:37:49 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA02862 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 02:16:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h2Q7ImY10839; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 23:18:48 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: Justin Mason Cc: Kee Hinckley , Wes Peters , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: Authentication (no longer Re: [Asrg] My Opinion...) Message-ID: <20030326071848.GN31702@main.templetons.com> References: <20030326062801.8F1928C6CA@localhost.jmason.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030326062801.8F1928C6CA@localhost.jmason.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 23:18:48 -0800 On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 10:27:56PM -0800, Justin Mason wrote: > > Kee Hinckley said: > > At 6:24 PM -0800 3/25/03, Wes Peters wrote: > > >This has been the crux of the problem all along, and one of the reasons > > >why I am completely unsympathetic to the cries of the large ISPs that > > >they are being inundated by spam. The spam problem is caused by ISPs > > >who allow mail to enter the network without sender authentication. If > > >all ISPs required sender authentication, we wouldn't have this problem. > > > > Do we really believe this is true? As far as I've been able to tell, > > spammer accounts get closed ASAP, as soon as they are reported. > > Having your account closed within hours of sending spam is just a > > cost of business for a spammer. That's why ISPs have had to resort > > to blocking port 25. > > Also, if all ISPs required sender auth, spammers would masquerade as ISPs. > And who provides authorization for all ISPs? > As was noted (I believe here a few weeks ago) spammers are already resorting to hacking into insecure boxes to send spam. Another recent trick is finding web servers and CGI scripts that can be tricked into sending mail to any address. Such tricks will continue, though it still can be worthwhile to make spammers jump through more and more hoops to thin their numbers. Authentication does present problems for anonymous mail. Anonymous mail is not a problem on the net when it is sent in low volumes (ie. single messages) and should not be interfered with, I would hope. I mean, we had a guy sending literal explosive bombs through the USPS not long ago, and anthrax as well, and while they did put a requirement that you can't send a stamped package over one pound any more, they still haven't gone so far as to remove the ability to send paper mail anonymously. I mean spam is a royal pain, but it's about 5 orders of magnitude less pain than anthrax and letter-bombs. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 03:10:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA17744 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 03:10:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2Q8VbG06376 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 03:31:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q8VaO06373 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 03:31:36 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA17728 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 03:10:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q8POO05878; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 03:25:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q8O7O05796 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 03:24:07 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA17439 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 03:02:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h2Q84P511557; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 00:04:25 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: Vernon Schryver Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Please no flamewars Message-ID: <20030326080425.GQ31702@main.templetons.com> References: <200303260653.h2Q6rfEJ011045@calcite.rhyolite.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200303260653.h2Q6rfEJ011045@calcite.rhyolite.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 00:04:25 -0800 I have to say one of the things I have found positive about this mailing list is the lack of ad hominem flamewars. Unfortunately this is an exception. It doesn't matter who starts these things. It always takes two to tango. If somebody makes an attack on you directly, rather than addressing your arguments with facts and reason, do what I do -- don't reply. We're seasoned folks here. When we see a post sink down to personal insults, trust me, we think less of the insulter than of the insulted. At least until the insulted joins the fray. I know it's hard not to reply some times but it works _amazingly_ well. If you really feel the need to vent, send a private email reply and be done with it. But frankly, when I have given into the temptation to do that, I have rarely gotten satisfaction. If you find yourself ever referring to another member of the group by name person because you want to talk about them rather than refer to their arguments, just walk away. It really works, and no, people don't think you're a wimp for not responding to the bald faced accusations. I at least will think you are strong. Don't answer the ad-hominem attack even with reason, and definitely not in anger. About the only working exception I have seen to this is if you can answer it with comedy to defuse the situation. But comedy is a serious business, best left to professionals, so don't try it at home. On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 11:53:41PM -0700, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" > > > Vernon keeps repeating the lie that I am knowingly misrepresenting spews > > > > So unless vernon wants to admit he is a part of the spews cabal - which > > would explain a lot, particularly his attitude, I don't see the point in > > revisiting this point. Yes spews is completely out of control. > > Yes, I do not beat my wife. > > - SPEWS does not answer anyone outside the SPEWS cabal. Saying that > SPEWS has not denied Phillip Hallam-Baker's claims proves them true > is an amazingly clumsy charade. Even if SPEWS did not have a policy > consistent silence, a refusal to answer Phillip Hallam-Baker's > obvious knowingly false claims would not make those false claims true. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 03:57:52 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA18406 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 03:57:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2Q9IXJ10229 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 04:18:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q9IXO10226 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 04:18:33 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA18386 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 03:57:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q9DSO10035; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 04:13:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q97eO09858 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 04:07:40 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA18202 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 03:46:27 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2Q6vXbn013557 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 22:57:33 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2Q6vWWZ013553 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 22:57:33 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Certs required to send mail In-Reply-To: <005101c2f335$0178b7a0$1164a8c0@trout> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 22:57:32 -0800 (PST) On Tue, 25 Mar 2003, Dave Anderson wrote: > > But ISPs do terminate accounts for sending unsolicited emails in any kind > > of large number. There is a reason why all spammers have switched to > China. > > Some do terminate accounts, but I know first hand that some participate > either via pink contracts or selling their lists. I had an account once > that even my wife didn't know about. I never gave out it's address either, > yet I got spam. And an account like abc1200948388dhf@isp.com is not a very > guessable account. Depending on how isp servers are setup it may have been possible to "hack" into the server and see list usernames. Don't asume they actually "sold" your email address. > On another occasion I had an ISP that intevened when I sent a nasty gram to > the offending spammer. My ISP, as it turned out was hosting the sammer > inside their netblock. > > But then I also had a large ISP that was very good. The moral hear is that > many ISPs are good net-citezens, and others are deceptive trash. Yes there are good and bad isps, but we do work together to get rid of bad guys and try to clean up our ranks even if end-users don't see it. And for example when I see continuing spam from particular isp, I send them note that if they do not stop the abuse, I'll block their entire net from accessing my 32,000 ips. You'd be surprised how well this works, I often receive human response on what had been on or what real situation had been, so continue the behavior and I end up doing what I promised or complaining to their upstreams. I know other isps do similar things and most of good blacklists are run by ISPs. > > You can not hope to stop spammer who just signed up today at large isp, > > but large spammers rely on pemanent connections and try their best to hide > > who they are and where they are sending emails from, these should be our > > primary targets for anti-spam propsals (would be nice to have good > > statistics on how much email really comes from those 150 large spammers, > > but I suspect getting reliable statistics on this is impossible). > > Why couldn't a large ISP stop, or perhaps seriously hinder spam? If they > implemented a system where every account could only send 25-100 messages it > would seriously discourage spammers. Some do, some dont, there are good reasons for either choice. > I suspect the more reputable ISPs do > this, but many don't. There in is where the problems lye. It is up to the > receive, not the sender to verify mail. Perhaps we (ASRG group) should work on that problem and have both be responsible for verifying emails and agree how to do it! Any working solution should involve both source and destination cooperating and ways to distinguish good source from the bad. > At home, I just block the China spammers outright, using IPFilter I simply > block out the whole IP range and it massively reduces spam. But at work I > need to be more selective. Business people do not understand the smut virus > infected mail came from the same place as a field rep. Problem with China is actually more on that they are actively hosting spammer websites despite large number of protests and warnings. This and other actions (in terms of following internet standards) causes many to block china outright on the core routers, but there is also growing concerns that this is all being done on purpose and its "goverment sponsored" (remeber they control pretty much all ip entrances to chinanet) actions and they actually do want china blocked from most of world for political reasons and as a way to suppress access to free press. > Any solution needs to be individualized down to the sender and the receiver. > So certs may have a place. > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 04:19:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA18961 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 04:19:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2Q9dxG12203 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 04:39:59 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q9dxO12198 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 04:39:59 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA18958 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 04:18:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q9aGO11330; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 04:36:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q9ZWO11293 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 04:35:32 -0500 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA18898 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 04:14:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 18y71I-0002a5-00; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 09:16:28 +0000 Subject: Re: [Asrg] Certs required to send mail To: "Vernon Schryver" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.4.12] Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 09:16:28 +0000 >What is the practical difference between the BGP feed of the RBL+ >and any certifcate system? Think of an IP address as a certificate. >The IP address of the SMTP client is unique and practically unforgable. >[ISP name here] risks being cut off by not dealing with its spammers >and being listed in the RBL. >(The BGP feed of the RBL+ causes listed outfits to disappear from >the Internet as seen by subscribers.) > >Yes, I know the RBL has not ended spam. The reasons are not >mysterious and apply to all of the propsed certificate or other >authentication schemes. Of course. I have said that a cert based scheme might be effectively equivalent to a whitelist (-ve blacklist). It might provide a revenue to support the maintainence/verification/reliability/litigation exposure problems inherent in listing-type schemes. > >It's discouraging that people are still saying that authentication >would fix spam years after common MUAs (e.g. Netscape) can send and >check signatures and/or keys and SMTP-AUTH, SUBMIT, and SMTP-TLS are >universally available. > I'm sorry, who said that authentication (on it's own) would "fix spam"? I certainly didn't. I hope I'm not being shot down for something I didn't say (again). As has been said (probably by you): Authentication is not the same as Authorisation. A cert only establishes (if you think about it) the existence of a relationship between 2 entities at some time in the past. The "meaning" of this fact depends on the context it's interpreted in. The observation that a cert-based scheme to establish *credentials* may fail (has failed) doesn't reveal some previously unknown weakness of certs - certs don't have that strength of themselves. It's a weakness of the context in which they're used. It's a non sequitur to assert that the lack of a strength in the cert must result in a lack of that strength in a system employing them. The strength of "accreditation" is a property of an accreditation system, not of the tokens used to express accreditation. I'm not inclined to continue this discussion on this list - I'm sure it's boring most participants -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 04:37:04 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA19396 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 04:37:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2Q9vlk13007 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 04:57:47 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q9vlO13004 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 04:57:47 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA19371 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 04:36:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q9r6O12793; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 04:53:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q9qNO12770 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 04:52:23 -0500 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA19293 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 04:31:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 18y7Hd-0004xM-00; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 09:33:21 +0000 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: RE: [Asrg] Certs required to send mail To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.4.12] Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 09:33:21 +0000 > >VeriSign could only revoke a certificate if either the user had obtained >the certificate fraudulently or had broken the terms of the contract. > >This has happened in a number of cases. Thank you for that clarification. Of course it's not required that CA==verisign :-) Or that certs issued for particular purposes would be under the same contract as certs for other purposes - I guess. One would hope that a CA generating revenue from this business would be prepared to spend some on making the certificates useful and not leave it to 3rd parties to take on the management overhead and exposure to litigation that revocation would no doubt incur. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 04:41:22 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA19491 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 04:41:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2QA24x13307 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 05:02:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QA24O13304 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 05:02:04 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA19484 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 04:40:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q9u1O12914; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 04:56:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q9tGO12879 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 04:55:16 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA19322 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 04:34:02 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2Q7j7bn014033; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 23:45:07 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2Q7j7MN014029; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 23:45:07 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: Vernon Schryver cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Certs required to send mail In-Reply-To: <200303260127.h2Q1RpfD005686@calcite.rhyolite.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 23:45:07 -0800 (PST) Hm, I almost forgot before what kind of group this is. You know at one side (ARIN meetings) I'm considered to much into abuse prevention, here its the opposite, I'm too linient on isps... As far as Sprint, UUNET - I do not believe they have unsolicited emailers on their network (do not confuse issues of sending email and hosting some websites that are sometimes promoted in spam due to bad policies on accepting new agents), if it is so, I know who to contact there, in fact I'll see of these people in less then two weeks on ARIN meeting in Memphis and if there is some position that ASRG has on what ISPs should and should not do, I can deliver it. And the issue of abuse, I suspect will be discussed there quite a bit there and encorage you to see current proposals and discussion at http://www.arin.net/policy/discussion.html But I have to tell you, ISPs (including me) do not view proposal 2003-2 as a good one as ARIN has no role in actual routing operational issues and position on revocations has not been made clear but we can work on at least cleaning up whois records and things to help facilitate communication and made it easy to track problems to get a response. In any case if you have interest in these discussions please participate at ppml mailing list, make your opinions known, etc. But in the future please do not assume that ISPs do not have interest in stopping spam, on the countrary we're the ones who have largest financial losses due to it, losses associated with additional bandwidth, cost of additional equipment, support costs for direct handling of spam into the network abuse prevention out of the net and we're the ones who have most interest in working solution. ISPs are the ones who started blacklists, because of your upstreams many of your are not receiving spam and in most cases they do it out of their own packet and do not charge you anything extra even if it costs us. It would be in the best of this group's interests not to alianate ISPs (especially large ones) but work together to find suitable solution. And of the solutions that are found I'm certain the ones that will be most workable and fastest to implement worldwide are the ones that ISPs can use on their end and not necessarily the ones that require every user to do something. > > But ISPs do terminate accounts for sending unsolicited emails in any kind > > of large number. There is a reason why all spammers have switched to China. > > I wish I thought that was a joke instead of offensive and knowingly > false noise like "SPEWS has listed all of UUNET". > > > > ISPs that don't terminate spammers make it worth for themselve and can not > > get peering from other isps (i.e. remember AGIS?). And if they are buying > > transit, then it becomes responsibility of their upstream to enforce AUP. > > Who, pray tell, is upstream of UUNET or Sprint? > (yes, Sprint is rumored to have started actually terminating spammers) > > > You can not hope to stop spammer who just signed up today at large isp, > > but large spammers rely on pemanent connections and try their best to hide > > who they are and where they are sending emails from, ... > > Since email spam first became a problem, I have not seen a single > spammer that was able to hide from anyone with minimal technical clues. > They can hide from computer programs (e.g. SpamAssasin and SpamCop) > for a while or linger, but that's only because computers are too stupid > to know about IP routing and so forth > > > > Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 04:47:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA19710 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 04:47:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2QA8cb14315 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 05:08:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QA8cO14312 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 05:08:38 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA19673 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 04:47:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QA64O13468; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 05:06:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QA5fO13424 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 05:05:41 -0500 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA19596 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 04:44:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 18y7Ua-0006r6-00; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 09:46:44 +0000 In-Reply-To: <20030325220008.GC31702@main.templetons.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Certs required to send mail [weak joke] To: "Brad Templeton" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.4.12] Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 09:46:44 +0000 > Changes > to MTA senders can happen gradually over the course of perhaps 5 years > under > extreme pressure, with pain and dropped mail. My wife - she's a clinical scientist - pointed out to me (some time ago now) that medico-scientific "advances" are *always* reported in the popular press as bearing fruit in the "next five to ten years". I think we should formally adopt this phraseology - with luck we'll all be in different jobs by then. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 05:00:12 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA20022 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 05:00:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2QAKt115032 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 05:20:55 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QAKtO15029 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 05:20:55 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA19997 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 04:59:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QAB4O14609; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 05:11:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QAAsO14543 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 05:10:54 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA19772 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 04:49:40 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2Q80lbn014216 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 00:00:47 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2Q80lmg014212 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 00:00:47 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: 5c. Message Status - Re: [Asrg] ASRG work items In-Reply-To: <200303260551.h2Q5p7Ww004300@calcite.rhyolite.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 00:00:47 -0800 (PST) I'd like to ask what people feel about making it a part of anti-spam system such that if say somebody is sending same content message to more then 5-10 recepients on your server, then it has to be considered maillist email and has to contain proper maillist headers and opt-out information. Of course, spammers can add all these headers as well but we can make some kind of black/whitelist of good well known mailing lists or even do some kind of stamp-like system to verify the email is sent from good maillist. On Tue, 25 Mar 2003, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > From: Kee Hinckley > > > ... This is the only hope we have of getting > > mailing lists and automated mail systems to work in an environment > > with lots of different anti-spam systems. We *really* don't want to > > go back to the mess that existed 10-15 years ago with zillions of > > different mail systems providing completely different bounce > > messages. Been there, done that. > > Why wouldn't RFC 2919 and RFC 2369 headers be sufficient? > > Why wouldn't yet more new SMTP gadgets only make things worse? > > > Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 05:04:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA20140 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 05:04:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2QAPFZ15228 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 05:25:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QAPEO15225 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 05:25:14 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA20131 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 05:04:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QAH4O14863; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 05:17:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QAGGO14812 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 05:16:16 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA19851 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 04:55:02 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2Q869bn014343; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 00:06:09 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2Q867Sc014339; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 00:06:09 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: Kee Hinckley cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. URL "scheme" for whitelisting In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 00:06:07 -0800 (PST) Standard way to report things is good. URLs are good, but they are added for specific protocols, so do you have a new protocol in mind for whitelisting? On Tue, 25 Mar 2003, Kee Hinckley wrote: > At 8:36 AM -0800 3/25/03, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > >I think there has to be a responsibility here for the commercial > >sender to help the user figure this out. In fact, it's one of the > >issues I'm mulling > > I would go further. I think we should have a standard mechanism > (akin to mailto:, but probably using a new scheme name) specifically > for whitelisting. If your email client supports whitelisting, it > should support a url that you can click on to automatically whitelist > an address. (And of course, it had better confirm this with the > user, or the spammers will just embed it in an image tag.) Then web > sites can easily provide the user with a way to whitelist the > necessary address or addresses. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 07:27:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA22851 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 07:27:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2QCmSV24419 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 07:48:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QCmRO24416 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 07:48:27 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA22841 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 07:27:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QCeYO24194; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 07:40:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QCdiO24120 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 07:39:44 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id HAA22701 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 07:18:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 17862 invoked from network); 25 Mar 2003 12:17:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO startechgroup.co.uk) (10.2.100.157) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 25 Mar 2003 12:17:23 -0000 Subject: Re: 5c. Message Status - Re: [Asrg] ASRG work items Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: asrg@ietf.org To: william@elan.net From: Matt Sergeant In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <60E7A6C8-5F85-11D7-BF91-0003939CB5D8@startechgroup.co.uk> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:20:49 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wednesday, Mar 26, 2003, at 08:00 Europe/London, william@elan.net wrote: > I'd like to ask what people feel about making it a part of anti-spam > system such that if say somebody is sending same content message to > more > then 5-10 recepients on your server, then it has to be considered > maillist email and has to contain proper maillist headers and opt-out > information. I consider it wishful thinking ;-) Try it as a heuristic on an ISP's mail server and you'll soon see why. Matt. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 08:12:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA24759 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 08:12:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2QDXTC27830 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 08:33:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QDXTO27827 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 08:33:29 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA24738 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 08:12:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QDI5O26799; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 08:18:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QDHQO26751 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 08:17:26 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA24341 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 07:56:06 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2QB7Ibn016348 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 03:07:18 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2QB7IGs016344 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 03:07:18 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: "'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)'" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Asrg] 5b. Opt-Out, 2nd version Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 03:07:18 -0800 (PST) Here are my updated notes on Opt-Out: I. Use of Opt-Out 1. How far is opt out applied a. To do global opt-out for all commercial email services b. To do opt-out for some special email-list or particular types of email 2. Timing reference for opting out a. For existing ones that already send you email and participate in the system. b. For future ones that may want to send you email c. For certain period of time (when you're on vacacation) and can not receive as much email I could not yet formulate what is to be said in this section, please help! II. How opt-out is delivered 1. Distributed lists which use some type of encryption to allow validation of particular address but not see enter list. Pros: a. Opt-out lists can be easily cleaned up before the transmission b. Distribution of lists can be controlled by tightly controlled Cons: a. Serious issues that the encryption technology maybe broken later on and as such allow to get clear list of all opted-out email addresses b. Distribution lists can easily go sub-distributed and go beyoned authenticated base and thereafter abused c. Patents relating to the encryption technologies exists d. Concerns about who and how will make opt-out lists and distribute them e. Concerns that opt-out lists will instead be used to verify if email address in spammer database is real 2. Opt-out server. Here special service/server is made available to legit bulk-mailers. Anybody wishing to check if the address is opt-out or not can connect to that server and check Variations: 2a. One unified service is made available by the goverment or icann, etc 2b. A number of special opt-out servers exist in parallel which are used/run by different groups of commercial mailers Pros: a. Opt-out lists can be cleaned up before the transmission begins b. Distribution of lists can be controlled by tightly controlled the authentication means can be well controlled to not allow distribution certain allowed list of entities Cons: a. Special opt-out verification protocol may have to be developed b. Concerns about who and how will run opt-out service c. Concerns that opt-out service will instead be used to verify if email address in spammer database is real 3. Opt-out system maintained together with mail servers on per-domain basis. Variations: 3a. Service made available as part of mail server, new command added to SMTP to check opt-out preference of user on email server 3b. Service made available as part of mail transmission and is more tightly integrated with actually sending email, i.e. email being sent contains some preference for opt-out check and email server can based on that return email back with proper error code Note: to a degree this is what some filters already do ... 3c. Service made available through separate protocol to be run by ISP on per-domain basis. Pros: a. An opt-out is controlled by mail server operator and not any questinable central agency. b. Depending on how system is implemented it maybe a lot harder to actually gather list of valid email addresses (mail server operator may choose to answer opted-out for any email address that does not exist, for example) Cons: a. A new protocol (or extensions to SMTP) need to be developed b. It maybe a lot harder to clean up lists before emailing (maybe this this also good thing?) c. If implemented as in 3a all MX servers (even backups) may need to answer yes on question of opt-out, this created implementation problems and seems unnecessary 4. Modification of Email address to show opt-out choice. Variations: 4a. General opt-out choice recognized by everybody, which may actually be some variation of mail service domain/subdomain 4b. Opt-in choice specific to particular situation or mailing list example - email+list@domain.com Pros: a. Very easy to implement and does not require new technology, 4b is already actively used by many b. Address itself shows optout choice, so spammers can not do email address cleanup for purposes of finding valid address Note: this is also a Con! c. Opt-out choice is controlled by each individual user and not by external entity (be it central agency or mail service provider) Cons: a. This generally requires us to use different email address then what we already do, often even more then one. It does not address issues with existing currently use email addresses (see section I on what we want to do), this is a BIG Con. b. Use of "special" email address may also be taken by spammers as verification that email address is valid! III. Enforcement of Opt-Out Note: #1 and #2 below may well be done in parallel 1. Done by goverment by legislation to have all commercial email marketers participate in some system or abide by specific protocol standards Enforcement is afterwards left to courts Pros: a. There would be clear guidelines for commercial email senders to follow and if they do not they will pay an actual price for it b. Its a lot more likely commercial businesses will follow the law Cons: a. This maybe problematic when considering email as global system and not specific to US or EU laws b. It takes some time for laws to be passed and then be verified in courts to be workable 2. Enforcement is left to ISP/mail server operators through use of filters if email is found to be from commercial email marketer that is known to mail server operator Pros: a. Filtering is already well adapted technology b. When email is found to have violated opt-out choice, stopping future email from the particular marketer is easy and fast (blacklist) but it does require marketers to be well identified Cons: a. Use of filtering means some email will inevitably be filtered b. Filters will never completed stop unwanted email even with opt-out choice, some email marketers may choose not to follow it ------ William Leibzon Elan Communications Inc. william@elan.net _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 08:17:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA24882 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 08:17:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2QDcQW28809 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 08:38:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QDcQO28806 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 08:38:26 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA24859 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 08:17:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QDS4O27474; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 08:28:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QDOAO27228 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 08:24:10 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA24447 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 08:02:50 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2QBE3bn016420; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 03:14:03 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2QBE3ia016416; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 03:14:03 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: Matt Sergeant cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: 5c. Message Status - Re: [Asrg] ASRG work items In-Reply-To: <60E7A6C8-5F85-11D7-BF91-0003939CB5D8@startechgroup.co.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 03:14:03 -0800 (PST) Do you mean that emails by spammers are different between what user they are sent (personalized, etc) to and would not be classifiable as mass mailing? Or did you mean that users do send one email to multitude of their friends and depending on size of isp they may very well be on the same domain? On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Matt Sergeant wrote: > On Wednesday, Mar 26, 2003, at 08:00 Europe/London, william@elan.net > wrote: > > > I'd like to ask what people feel about making it a part of anti-spam > > system such that if say somebody is sending same content message to > > more > > then 5-10 recepients on your server, then it has to be considered > > maillist email and has to contain proper maillist headers and opt-out > > information. > > I consider it wishful thinking ;-) > > Try it as a heuristic on an ISP's mail server and you'll soon see why. > > Matt. > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 08:21:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA24998 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 08:21:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2QDgQK29041 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 08:42:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QDgQO29038 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 08:42:26 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA24987 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 08:21:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QDc3O28769; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 08:38:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QDb7O28127 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 08:37:07 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id IAA24823 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 08:15:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 21336 invoked from network); 25 Mar 2003 13:14:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO startechgroup.co.uk) (10.2.100.157) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 25 Mar 2003 13:14:46 -0000 Subject: Re: 5c. Message Status - Re: [Asrg] ASRG work items Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: asrg@ietf.org To: william@elan.net From: Matt Sergeant In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <6536DBE2-5F8D-11D7-BF91-0003939CB5D8@startechgroup.co.uk> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:18:12 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wednesday, Mar 26, 2003, at 11:14 Europe/London, william@elan.net wrote: > Do you mean that emails by spammers are different between what user > they > are sent (personalized, etc) to and would not be classifiable as mass > mailing? > > Or did you mean that users do send one email to multitude of their > friends and depending on size of isp they may very well be on the same > domain? I meant that lots of people regularly post to multiple recipients and it's not a mailing list. Business mails and personal mails. If you make this a heuristic in a spam detection mechanism it will be next to useless. If you make this a *requirement* in a mail system it will catch almost nothing but false positives. PS: Please try not to top post - I had to completely snip the context in this reply as I couldn't get it to make sense any more. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 09:39:10 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA27594 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 09:39:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2QExxB02236 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 09:59:59 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QExwO02233 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 09:59:58 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA27588 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 09:38:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QEsSO02048; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 09:54:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QEr9O01966 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 09:53:09 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA27430 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 09:31:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc01.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2QEVdMX017427; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 06:31:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 06:34:05 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Brad Templeton'" , Vernon Schryver Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: SPEWS: RE: [Asrg] Please no flamewars MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 06:34:04 -0800 Unfortunately Vernon keeps calling me a liar, I am not. It is much easier to ask people not to engage in flamewars when they are not the party being libelled. Note that I have made no comments about Vernon except to ask if he is a member of the cabal he spends so much time defending and to point out that his ad-hominem attacks are unhelpful. SPEWS really did blacklist us and the entire net that we are on. SPEWS states that it is their policy to blacklist all of an ISPs customers if they do not respond. It is not 'obvious' that they do not do what their web site says they do - blacklist innocent customers of an ISP they dislike in an attempt to gain leverage against the ISP. Nor is it obvious that a blacklist could not be out of control: http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/06/08/orbs/ "MAPS also had a run-in with ORBS. In 1999, MAPS listed ORBS on its Realtime Blackhole List, in response to several complaints about the way that ORBS was supposedly abusing networks. The group removed ORBS and stopped blocking it from its own servers three months later, but not before ORBS threw MAPS into its own black hole. Even Suespammers.org found itself blocked over a dispute with ORBS. Until the day the list died, spam fighters who used Brown's list couldn't access the Suespammers site, a major resource that might have helped them in their war on unsolicited e-mail. " http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/2000-07/msg01235.html http://news.com.com/2100-1023-218552.html?legacy=cnet Unless Vernon posts a denial that he is a member of the spews cabal I will conclude that Vernon is a member and direct any process the lawyers may want to serve in his direction if the spews cabal takes similar action in future. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 11:23:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA02568 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:23:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2QGiL310965 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:44:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QGiLO10962 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:44:21 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA02557 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:22:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QGVEO09404; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:31:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QGRDO09225 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:27:13 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA02034 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:05:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h2QG80Q15719; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:08:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF48C8P; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:08:01 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBG2GB; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:08:01 -0500 Message-ID: <3E81D128.8070204@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brad Templeton CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: Authentication (no longer Re: [Asrg] My Opinion...) References: <20030326062801.8F1928C6CA@localhost.jmason.org> <20030326071848.GN31702@main.templetons.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:11:20 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Brad Templeton wrote: > I mean spam is a royal pain, but it's about 5 orders of magnitude less pain > than anthrax and letter-bombs. We get a lot more than 5 orders of magnitude more spam than we get anthrax or letter bombs. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 11:28:58 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA02700 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:28:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2QGnng11222 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:49:49 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QGnnO11215 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:49:49 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA02683 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:28:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QGdDO10501; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:39:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QGcfO10438 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:38:41 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA02400 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:17:19 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2QESXbn020973; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 06:28:33 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2QESX9a020969; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 06:28:33 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: Chris Lewis cc: Brad Templeton , Subject: Re: Authentication (no longer Re: [Asrg] My Opinion...) In-Reply-To: <3E81D128.8070204@americasm01.nt.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 06:28:33 -0800 (PST) Please stop making comparisons like that in actual values. Whatever the amount of spam I receive its not worth one human life. On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Chris Lewis wrote: > Brad Templeton wrote: > > > I mean spam is a royal pain, but it's about 5 orders of magnitude less pain > > than anthrax and letter-bombs. > > We get a lot more than 5 orders of magnitude more spam than we get > anthrax or letter bombs. > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 11:41:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA03302 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:41:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2QH2LZ12296 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:02:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QH2LO12293 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:02:21 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA03287 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:40:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QGqCO11476; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:52:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QGpVO11417 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:51:31 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA02756 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:30:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2196234; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:32:29 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: william@elan.net From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. URL "scheme" for whitelisting Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:31:59 -0500 At 12:06 AM -0800 3/26/03, william@elan.net wrote: >Standard way to report things is good. URLs are good, but they are added >for specific protocols, so do you have a new protocol in mind for >whitelisting? Not for implementing whitelisting. And not a protocol per-se (leastwise I don't tend to think of mailto: as a protocol--it's more like a single-call API with an optional set of arguments). (Then again, I've already been chastised once off-list for my loose use of the word "protocol" :-). It seems to me that whitelists have two major drawbacks. 1. User doesn't whitelist in advance, or know what *to* whitelist in advance. 2. Spammers can take advantage of them. I have no intention of trying to solve #2. But there seem to be a be a lot different solutions out there that depend on whitelisting. I think that they would benefit from a mechanism whereby a list-maintainer could provide a simple clickable URL that would provide the necessary whitelist information to the whitelisting software. E.g. "whitelist:list@example.com". Presumably a set of optional arguments would be specified that would allow use by more sophisticated whitelisting systems. "whitelist:list@example.com?pgpkey=xxxx&iprange=yyy-xxx". I don't think I'm the right person to do this. To me whitelisting is what someone does when our software has a bug :-). But if nobody else is willing to pick it up then I guess I can try see if I can't come up with a list of information used by current whitelisting systems. Again (since I've received a couple messages about this offlist), I have no interest in discussing pros and cons of different whitelisting systems. I just want to make life easier for someone who maintains a mailing list and is getting sick of the growing number of subscriber bounces. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 11:45:04 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA03488 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:45:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2QH5ts12564 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:05:55 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QH5tO12561 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:05:55 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA03412 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:44:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QGqAO11458; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:52:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QGpSO11412 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:51:28 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA02753 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:30:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2196209; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:32:27 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: william@elan.net From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: 5c. Message Status - Re: [Asrg] ASRG work items Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:20:32 -0500 At 12:00 AM -0800 3/26/03, william@elan.net wrote: >I'd like to ask what people feel about making it a part of anti-spam >system such that if say somebody is sending same content message to more >then 5-10 recepients on your server, then it has to be considered >maillist email and has to contain proper maillist headers and opt-out >information. Well, first of all it doesn't scale. Someone who sends to 5-10 recipients at somewhere.com just exceeded the number of humans with addresses there. Someone who sends to 5-10 AOL users is just in the noise. But more critically. People send mail to everyone in their address book a lot. (And I've got 40,000+ email messages to wormalert@somewhere.com that I can offer as evidence.) Those messages are very likely to exceed that per-server limit. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 11:45:25 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA03507 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:45:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2QH6Hp12604 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:06:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QH6GO12601 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:06:16 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA03482 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:44:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QGq6O11441; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:52:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QGpRO11408 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:51:27 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA02751 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:30:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2196230; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:32:25 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200303260551.h2Q5p7Ww004300@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <200303260551.h2Q5p7Ww004300@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Vernon Schryver From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: 5c. Message Status - Re: [Asrg] ASRG work items Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:16:08 -0500 At 10:51 PM -0700 3/25/03, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > From: Kee Hinckley > >> ... This is the only hope we have of getting >> mailing lists and automated mail systems to work in an environment >> with lots of different anti-spam systems. We *really* don't want to >> go back to the mess that existed 10-15 years ago with zillions of >> different mail systems providing completely different bounce >> messages. Been there, done that. > >Why wouldn't RFC 2919 and RFC 2369 headers be sufficient? We were discussing error codes for why a message was rejected and what to do about. Those are list identification RFCs (which ties in with another simultaneous discussion--but not this one). ??? -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 12:04:26 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA04023 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:04:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2QHPIO14393 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:25:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QHPIO14390 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:25:18 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA04016 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:03:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QHCfO13753; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:12:41 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QH9uO13544 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:09:56 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA03569 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:48:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2QGonFw018500 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 09:50:49 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303261650.h2QGonFw018500@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: SPEWS: RE: [Asrg] Please no flamewars References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 09:50:49 -0700 (MST) > From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" > ... > Unfortunately Vernon keeps calling me a liar, I am not. > > It is much easier to ask people not to engage in flamewars > when they are not the party being libelled. Note that I have > made no comments about Vernon except to ask if he is a > member of the cabal he spends so much time defending and > to point out that his ad-hominem attacks are unhelpful. > ... In Phillip Hallam-Baker also wrote ] Vernon keeps repeating the lie that I am knowingly misrepresenting spews > SPEWS really did blacklist us and the entire net that we > are on. No one has doubted that SPEWS listed CIDR blocks covering some or all of Verisign, despite the lack of supporting evidence such as a SPEWS case number. The claims that SPEWS listed all of UUNET are otherwise. > SPEWS states that it is their policy to blacklist > all of an ISPs customers if they do not respond. I think that is inaccurate but close enough to SPEWS' apparent policy of "collateral damage." In my view that is a major mistake, a change from what SPEWS claimed to be doing at its start, and a less important one of the reasons I do not use SPEWS' list. To pretend to have some relevance to the purpose of this mailing list, please compare SPEWS to a CA that certifies mail as probably not spam. By some accounts, SMTP clients not listed by SPEWS rarely send spam. In effect, SPEWS has issued certs for all of the Internet and revoked them for those outfits that have shown they are likely to send spam or approve of or tolerate sending spam. Checking these certs affects the processing incoming mail by at most a 30% increase in the DNS operations done on all incoming mail. They are an excellent implementation of a not-spam cert, subject only to questions about non-technical policies and procedures. > ... > Nor is it obvious that a blacklist could not be out of > control: > > http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/06/08/orbs/ > "MAPS also had a run-in with ORBS. In 1999, MAPS listed ORBS on its Realtime > Blackhole List, in response to several complaints about the way that ORBS > was supposedly abusing networks. ... I think ORBS was not "out of control" but worse. I think ORBS was a sender of unsolicted bulk email (relay scans) that tried to use what might be called extortion against MAPS and its creditors. SPEWS was reportedly created in part in reaction to features of ORBS. > ... > Unless Vernon posts a denial that he is a member of the > spews cabal I will conclude that Vernon is a member and > direct any process the lawyers may want to serve in his > direction if the spews cabal takes similar action in future. That is called a "cartooney" in some circles and may be sufficient to get Verisign listed by a DNS email blacklist that specializes in "cartooneys." Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 12:06:14 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA04116 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:06:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2QHR6414506 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:27:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QHR6O14503 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:27:06 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA04088 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:05:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QHE2O13875; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:14:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QHDrO13829 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:13:53 -0500 Received: from plaidworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA03709 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:52:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.8/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h2QGsbZQ008343 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 08:54:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SPEWS: RE: [Asrg] Please no flamewars Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) From: Chuq Von Rospach To: asrg@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 08:54:36 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > and > direct any process the lawyers may want to serve in his > direction if the spews cabal takes similar action in future. > The lawyer-threat has appeared. It seems to indicate that any possible productive use of this forum has now ended, and we should all go home now. If I call all of your fascists, will someone declare Godwin's law for me, so we can all go get a latte? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 12:08:26 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA04199 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:08:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2QHTJD14639 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:29:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QHTIO14636 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:29:18 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA04185 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:07:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QHCmO13780; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:12:48 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QHBtO13652 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:11:55 -0500 Received: from plaidworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA03623 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:50:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.8/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h2QGqfZQ008308; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 08:52:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. URL "scheme" for whitelisting Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: william@elan.net, asrg@ietf.org To: Kee Hinckley From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <5ADCDD4C-5FAB-11D7-83EE-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 08:52:39 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wednesday, March 26, 2003, at 08:31 AM, Kee Hinckley wrote: > Again (since I've received a couple messages about this offlist), I > have no interest in discussing pros and cons of different whitelisting > systems. I can say from looking at what we're seeing come back, whether you like whitelists or not is irrelevant. They're here, and they're being adopted in with increasing speed. So coming to grips with them as a service creator is necessary. And personally, I've gone from being "not a fan" of whitelists to believing it's the way to protect role accounts from the growing abuse we're seeing (personal accounts I'm on the fence over, but that's a big shift as it is). I've had (or watched) discussions about how whitelists suck with people who instead come up with increasingly baroque validation schemes for web pages, which, when you boil it down to essenticals, is still a challenge/response system, just moved to a different point in the process, and whcih does nothing to stop mail directly into role accounts. and maybe I'm crazy, but I still have a real person who reads postmaster and abuse, and as someone who hates getting lost in "press 3 to get lost in our phone tree" voicemail systems, I don't want that to change -- when technology bollixes, the last thing you want is another piece of technology making sure nobody can tell you (and being pissed at you because of it). All IMHO, of course. But I think it's beyond time to argue about whitelists, it's time to figure out how to deal with them and get used to responding to them. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 12:09:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA04252 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:09:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2QHUSX14739 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:30:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QHUSO14736 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:30:28 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA04237 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:09:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QHL1O14228; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:21:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QHKCO14204 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:20:12 -0500 Received: from plaidworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA03859 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:58:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.8/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h2QH0vZQ008400; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 09:00:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: 5c. Message Status - Re: [Asrg] ASRG work items Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: william@elan.net, asrg@ietf.org To: Kee Hinckley From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <829D8ACA-5FAC-11D7-83EE-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 09:00:56 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wednesday, March 26, 2003, at 08:20 AM, Kee Hinckley wrote: >> I'd like to ask what people feel about making it a part of anti-spam >> system such that if say somebody is sending same content message to >> more >> then 5-10 recepients on your server, then it has to be considered >> maillist email and has to contain proper maillist headers and opt-out >> information. > > Well, first of all it doesn't scale. Someone who sends to 5-10 > recipients at somewhere.com just exceeded the number of humans with > addresses there. Someone who sends to 5-10 AOL users is just in the > noise. > > But more critically. But more critically, off the top of my head. It breaks all majordomo installations out there. (all of them would have to be updated to either the unreleased Majordomo II, Mailman, Sympa, or something). It also breaks any mail list where an admin has disabled those headers because he doesn't like them (which, if you check out the mailman archives, has been a continuing discussion, mostly because, it seems, eudora for windows doesn't hide those headers, and admins therefore break the mail list software instead of fixing the client. But I'm not bitter) It breaks all of those people who have extended announce lists in their address books. It breaks all people who set up informal lists via sendmail aliases or their equivalent in other MTAs. It breaks 5-6 emails I send a day to a bunch of individuals. Never does it seem to be the same 5-6 individuals. It breaks all sorts of things. Does it solve anything? No. spammers will simply start adding those lines, since there seems to be no intent to see if the lines actually are valid or relevant (and how would you?) In other words, we've re-invented the "Approved: header" in the NNTP/USENET protocol, meaning we haven't really invented anything useful unless the user population agrees to manage it voluntarily or there's some form of cyber-cancel bot to retro-delete the stuff. Sorry, not a good proposal. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 12:33:50 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA04760 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:33:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2QHsgL16424 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:54:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QHsgO16421 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:54:42 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA04727 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:33:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QHXIO14973; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:33:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QHW7O14929 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:32:07 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA04317 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:10:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc02.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2QHD2qd026905; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 09:13:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 09:13:02 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'william@elan.net'" , Chris Lewis Cc: Brad Templeton , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: Authentication (no longer Re: [Asrg] My Opinion...) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 09:12:55 -0800 Lets get away from that particular comparison and instead ask, if the letter post becomes unsafe due to bio-terrorism, what alternative do we have? If there is a repeat attack (the sender is still at large, there is a high likelihood of copy-cats) we may have to work out a strategy that allows important mail, bills etc to be transferred by letter post. The only personal letter post I receive these days is postcards, birthday and Christmas cards. All the rest of my personal communication moved to telephone and email years ago. Devising a mechanism that allows bills to be sent electronically is worth doing for its own sake. People are likely to pay more promptly and there is a much reduced hassle factor. I would like to be able to link outlook to money or quicken so that every time a bill arrives from an authenticated and authorized source I get the relevant notification. If the need arose we could set up alternative mechanisms for the elderly and those without internet to manage thier money via ATMs and telephone links. I can try to get the note I wrote on this as a contingency plan released if there is interest. Phill > Please stop making comparisons like that in actual values. > Whatever the > amount of spam I receive its not worth one human life. > > On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Chris Lewis wrote: > > > Brad Templeton wrote: > > > > > I mean spam is a royal pain, but it's about 5 orders of > magnitude less pain > > > than anthrax and letter-bombs. > > > > We get a lot more than 5 orders of magnitude more spam than we get > > anthrax or letter bombs. > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 12:34:15 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA04779 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:34:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2QHt8516476 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:55:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QHt8O16473 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:55:08 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA04757 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:33:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QHa2O15079; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:36:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QHZUO15040 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:35:30 -0500 Received: from moebius2.Space.Net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA04406 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:14:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 35671 invoked by uid 1013); 26 Mar 2003 17:16:26 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <20030326181626.D29782@Space.Net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i Organization: SpaceNet AG, Muenchen, Germany X-PGP-Fingerprint: 66 F3 75 79 01 D0 B8 5F 1A C7 77 88 4A B6 70 DF Subject: [Asrg] rfc 2822 header Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 18:16:26 +0100 I am new to this list. I have skimmed over the list archive but haven't found it discussed yet. As the charter of this group says: [ ... ] a framework that allows different systems to be plugged in to provide different pieces of the solution [ ... ] I'd like to suggest standardizing RFC 2822 headers to ease the communication between those systems. On our mailserver we use some DNSBLs for blocking and others for tagging, i.e. we insert rfc2822 headers to indicate that the injecting IP was listed with some DNSBL. This headers can be utilized by other software (e.g. spamassassin) to do further processing. When we implemented the tagging we noticed that there is no consensus about those headers, so it is time consuming to modify packages to make use of those headers. Also, adding those headers could free postprocessing software from the burden of parsing Received: header lines to find the IP address of the host that injected the email to the local systems to lookup this IP in the DNSBLs themselves. I'd like to suggest the following header line: RBL-Warning: (fromhost:fromip) base_of_dnsbl; TXT_record_for_fromip_at_dnsbl o if fromhost cannot be determined from reverse lookup "unknown" should be used o ";" TXT_record_for_fromip_at_dnsbl is optional Thus conforming headers would be: RBL-Warning: (200-206-136-145.customer.telesp.net.br:200.206.136.145) proxies.relays.monkeys.com RBL-Warning: (200-206-136-145.customer.telesp.net.br:200.206.136.145) proxies.relays.monkeys.com; BLOCKED: See http://www.monkeys.com/upl/listed-ip-0.cgi?ip=200.206.136.145 RBL-Warning: (unknown:200.252.129.26) sbl.spamhaus.org RBL-Warning: (unknown:200.252.129.26) sbl.spamhaus.org; Listed on SBL - see http://spamhaus.org/SBL/sbl.lasso?query=SBL7781 Thanks for listening, \Maex -- SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0 Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 "The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 12:41:58 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA04995 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:41:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2QI2pC16948 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:02:51 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QI2pO16945 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:02:51 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA04987 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:41:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QHm5O16236; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:48:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QHliO16219 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:47:44 -0500 Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA04636 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:26:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from host217-35-52-188.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([217.35.52.188] helo=gateway) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #24) id 18yEhc-000369-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:28:40 +0000 Message-ID: <004701c2f3bd$16129400$0b01a8c0@gateway> From: "Teo" To: References: <151128676987.20030325094917@brandenburg.com> <20030325220008.GC31702@main.templetons.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Certs required to send mail MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:28:16 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > In my own examination of spam systems, I have grouped them into a few classes, > as far as software is concerned. > a) Some require new software only at the recipient. These can most easily be > adopted, one user at a time. However, there are limits on what they can do. > There are also political problems (blacklisting falls in this category.) > > (Almost all solutions require some new software at the recipient end but it > can be gradually installed in all proposals I have seen.) > > b) Some also require new software by legitimate bulk > mailers. I consider this a difficult, but attainable task, since the numbers > of such mailers are (comparatively) few compared to the number of users of > all mailing software. > > c) Some ask for new software at senders, but do not demand it. They have > a fallback if the senders don't have the software. The fallbacks range from > easy to use to hard, and the risk of lost mail varies accordingly. They > don't want the fallback to be too easy because they want pressure on senders > to adopt the new protocol, and don't want it to be too hard or too much mail > is lost. > > d) Some ask for new software for spammers (for example labelling requirements) > and hope that legal means (such as Lessig's bounty proposal) can force spammers > to run this software. Good luck! > > e) Some demand new software at senders, such as stamp generators, certificates, > etc. They plan to, at least eventually, insist on it or refuse mail. > > f) There has been one case where a software change has been demanded of senders, > namely the closing of open relays. Though it has taken several years, most > open relays are closed, but not all of them. There was considerable pain. > > > My experience of the history of deploying software suggests you will easily > get recipients to install new software if it cuts back on their spam well. > Demands on senders are extremely difficult, especially on MUA senders. Changes > to MTA senders can happen gradually over the course of perhaps 5 years under > extreme pressure, with pain and dropped mail. > > Do any disagree with these conclusions? There is also some work involving "tarpits" done by Marty Lamb at http://www.martiansoftware.com/tarproxy In my opinion this would fall somewhere in the middle of all the options listed above, and it might actually have the greatest chances of success, as it doesn't require the cooperation of anyone in particular. As outlined above, if enough are spread around, pain would start to be felt and sysadmins will sit up and take notice. A short description of the principle, in the words of its author: ********************** start quote "An email message would be fed to the incremental classifier one piece (or token) at a time. After analyzing each piece, the classifier would respond with a classification of the message so far, providing a running probability that the message is spam. Now imagine that your SMTP server has been provided with an incremental classifier. You now have a real-time indicator that a message is likely spam while the spammer is connected. The Idea Now we have moved identification of spam to the time of its receipt. But how can the SMTP server best use this knowledge? I propose that the running probability from the classifier be used to throttle the connection with the offending server. If an incoming message looks like spam [1], the connection could be slowed dramatically, consuming the spammer's resources and wasting their time [2]. This would transform the server into a sort of dynamic tarpit, in which the spamminess of the incoming message affects the viscosity of the tar [3]. As the spam probability goes up, the socket speed goes down [4]. If enough of these dynamic tarpits were in place (or just a handful were placed in the right places), the spammers' mail software would bog down, reducing the rate at which they can send messages, in turn reducing the fees they can charge their customers. If these tarpits were ubiquitous, they could completely change the economics of spam, creating a scarcity of bandwidth experienced only by spammers."***************************** end of quote Regards Teo _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 12:49:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA05234 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:49:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2QIAab18089 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:10:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QIAaO18086 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:10:36 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA05229 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:49:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QI13O16874; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:01:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QI0QO16825 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:00:26 -0500 Received: from mail01.stbernard.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA04909 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:39:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from salty.rapid.stbernard.com ([192.168.4.61]) by mail01.stbernard.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Wed, 26 Mar 2003 09:41:22 -0800 From: Wes Peters Organization: St. Bernard Software To: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: Authentication (no longer Re: [Asrg] My Opinion...) User-Agent: KMail/1.5 Cc: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , asrg@ietf.org References: <200303251824.02192.wpeters@stbernard.com> In-Reply-To: X-Habeas-SWE-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-SWE-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-SWE-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-SWE-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-SWE-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-SWE-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-SWE-9: mark in spam to . MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200303260941.22141.wpeters@stbernard.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Mar 2003 17:41:22.0377 (UTC) FILETIME=[EA85D390:01C2F3BE] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 09:41:22 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tuesday 25 March 2003 21:13, Kee Hinckley wrote: > At 6:24 PM -0800 3/25/03, Wes Peters wrote: > >This has been the crux of the problem all along, and one of the > > reasons why I am completely unsympathetic to the cries of the large > > ISPs that they are being inundated by spam. The spam problem is > > caused by ISPs who allow mail to enter the network without sender > > authentication. If all ISPs required sender authentication, we > > wouldn't have this problem. > > Do we really believe this is true? As far as I've been able to tell, > spammer accounts get closed ASAP, as soon as they are reported. I'm certain this is true for most ISPs. I'm not certain at all it's true of the 2 or 3 biggest national ISPs in the USA, especially those who service thousands of new cable/dsl accounts per day. > Having your account closed within hours of sending spam is just a > cost of business for a spammer. That's why ISPs have had to resort > to blocking port 25. We've recently been regaled with a description of the network architecture of a top tier national ISP in the USA that not only doesn't block port 25 outbound, it actually traps port 25 outbound to any IP address to their own SMTP servers. This same ISP is touting their efforts at blocking a billion incoming spams per day to anyone who will listen, not mentioning that it actually assists in sending outbound spam and does nothing to block spam between its own subscribers. > Another question for the survey I suppose. Yup, I guess so. -- "Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?" Wes Peters Sr. Software Engineer wpeters@stbernard.com St. Bernard Software _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 12:59:51 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA05577 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:59:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2QIKj419244 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:20:45 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QIKiO19241 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:20:44 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA05551 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:59:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QHwGO16662; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:58:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QHucO16535 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:56:38 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA04797 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:35:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2QHaS5D023747 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 10:36:28 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303261736.h2QHaS5D023747@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: 5c. Message Status - Re: [Asrg] ASRG work items References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 10:36:28 -0700 (MST) > From: Kee Hinckley > ... > >Why wouldn't RFC 2919 and RFC 2369 headers be sufficient? > > We were discussing error codes for why a message was rejected and > what to do about. Those are list identification RFCs (which ties in > with another simultaneous discussion--but not this one). > > ??? Oh, I was confused. I think spending time on bounce formats is a bigger waste of time than "internationalizing" error messages from programs. In practice, computer error messages are always opaque cybercrud to everyone except the priesthood. "ABEND 12345" may be a bad joke, but not as bad as the jokes that claim to communicate computer problems to people who are not experts. No matter what you put in mail rejection messages, 99% of their recipients will have no clue what is intended. However, I also know that I'm be in the minority on all variations of this issue. Besides, even I agree that as long as newly formalized bounces can be implemented, they're no worse than a minor distraction and might even do a little good. That leads to the purpose and future of this mailing list and group. IRTF groups do not appear, deliver a solution in a few weeks, and disappear. Research is not a short term effort. If it is successful, this list will endure for years like the end-to-end list, with varyng relevance and effects. The best that can be hoped is that it will collect good ideas and support their developement or at least publication, like ECN in end2end. There will always be other sorts of contributions like IPv8 advocacy and notes from people who confuse TCP with TP0. I think the immediate official goals have significantly been met: - Paul has produced a taxonomy I'm not sure how important it will be but it was necesary. The many anti-spam product developers will not use it very precisely. We are in competition with each other and spammers, and so will keep some things more or less secret. - I think communicating consent is hopeless and even a bad idea. Advertisers will never entirely honor anything but "tell me more." The only person who can be trusted to honor consent is the end user. However, there might be something that could be done in a few months. Other things that should be done include: - words and definitions for common concepts such as mismatches between reverse DNS name and envelope sender (Please not "forged") - common practices such as ways that bulk mail should be identified for white-listing. - ideas for SMTP headers indicating filter results. I've doubts that all of the many mail filter/markers can agree, but maybe something is possible. - improved mechanisms for opting-out of spam. - provide a focus for IETF/IRTF attention to spam. A problem is tha some of the work this list might do might belong in one of the IETF WGs. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 13:05:18 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA05768 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:05:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2QIQBM19408 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:26:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QIQBO19405 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:26:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA05730; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:04:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QII9O18423; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:18:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QIH6O18332 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:17:06 -0500 Received: from aloha.osafoundation.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA05396 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:55:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.0.158] ([63.90.156.153]) by aloha.osafoundation.org (8.12.8/8.12.7) with ESMTP id h2QHvqbY011501 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:58:00 -0600 From: Kaitlin Duck Sherwood To: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Open Source Applications Foundation Message-Id: <1048701463.4348.235.camel@puddle> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-1) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.29 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] email pull (was RE: Authentication ) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 26 Mar 2003 09:57:43 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 2003-03-26 at 09:12, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > Devising a mechanism that allows bills to be sent electronically > is worth doing for its own sake. People are likely to pay > more promptly and there is a much reduced hassle factor. > I would like to be able to link outlook to money or quicken > so that every time a bill arrives from an authenticated > and authorized source I get the relevant notification. Certs and signatures are one way to authenticate; Richard Bliss came up with another technique that doesn't have issues of key revocation and recovery. It does require something be built in to clients, which is a serious drawback but might be feasible given enough time. Q: Okay, what's the idea? A: Add something RSS-like to email clients, where the client occasionally (and infrequently) polls "subscribed" sites for new content and drops any new content into the normal mail stream (so that you could filter it into folders). For example, suppose I want to subscribe to the Floss Recycling newsletter. The Floss Recycling Web site gives instructions on the subscription address and when the newsletter comes out (e.g. "Mondays at 3 PM PST). I set up my email client to poll every Monday at 4 AM and to drop the newsletter into my FlossRecycling folder. Q: Why don't you just go to the Floss Recycling web site every Tuesday morning? A: I could do that, but I'd rather have my software remember for me and put it somewhere where I can easily see that I need to read it *and* where I can save it for easy future reference. Q: So what's one benefit of this? A: Proof of delivery. Say Bank of Fred wants to start sending me my mortgage bill electronically. If they send it by email, they have no idea if it actually gets to me. I could not pay my bill and claim, "well, you never sent me a statement!" even if I got it. If Bank of Fred sets up a personalized pull feed for me instead, then their server will have a record of when my client fetched the bill. (Yes, it needs to be secure, but passwords and SASL might be good enough. It's not clear that crooks have a strong incentive to see my mortgage bill.) Q: Any other benefits? A: Well, it puts the unsub control firmly in the hands of the user -- I don't have to hope that Bank of Fred will in fact unsub me. It also eliminates the problem of wanted messages getting false positive'd out of my sight. Q: So how on earth would this reduce spam? A: One of the biggest problems that content analyzers (e.g. SpamAssassin, spambayes) have is that legitimate commercial newsletters can look an awful lot like spam. If we can reroute all of the legit mass mailers to this RSS-esque scheme, then the content analyzers can be much more aggressive. Q: Is RSS your clear and obvious choice for this? A: Absolutely not. My "expertise" in RSS is the product of only a few hours wandering around the Web looking at various Web sites. I feel like RSS is off in this parallel universe that I really don't know anything about. In particular, it was not obvious to me how the RSS client would figure out what was new since last checked and what was not. RSS does have a big attraction because using it might get rid of a chicken-and-egg problem. There's enough content out there that uses RSS that just the current RSS activity would add competitive advantage to an RSS-enabled client. That might make it easier to convince the client manufacturers to add RSS capability. (Again, I'm pretty clueless about RSS. I might be completely off-base here, and would be very interested in hearing if that's true.) Q: Why do you think that you can convince any client vendors to do this? A: I have *cough* some influence on the email portion of Chandler, the Open Source Application's PIM. If RSS is a reasonable vehicle for the Bliss Technique, then I would like to stuff RSS capability into Chandler. (No promises on *when*, however -- there are a lot of things to put into Chandler. The more people clamor for a feature, however, the more likely it will go in.) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 13:30:06 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06371 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:30:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2QIp1I21197 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:51:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QIp1O21194 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:51:01 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06364; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:29:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QImEO21005; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:48:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QIldO20974 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:47:39 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06244 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:26:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h2QISWI22203; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 10:28:32 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: william@elan.net Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: 5c. Message Status - Re: [Asrg] ASRG work items Message-ID: <20030326182832.GB21852@main.templetons.com> References: <200303260551.h2Q5p7Ww004300@calcite.rhyolite.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 10:28:32 -0800 On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 12:00:47AM -0800, william@elan.net wrote: > > I'd like to ask what people feel about making it a part of anti-spam > system such that if say somebody is sending same content message to more > then 5-10 recepients on your server, then it has to be considered > maillist email and has to contain proper maillist headers and opt-out > information. > > Of course, spammers can add all these headers as well but we can make some > kind of black/whitelist of good well known mailing lists or even do some > kind of stamp-like system to verify the email is sent from good maillist. This is a reasonable step, but spammers are already quite adept at altering the content of their emails to individualize them sufficiently to avoid such tests, as we know. There is at best an arms race at that. I do agree that bulk mail should be tagged as bulk mail, and the email specs already specify the Precedence header though I would have named it differently. It is risky however to reject untagged mail with just 5-10 recipients since there are literally millions of "personal" mailing lists with dozens to hundreds of recipients, that are often sent by ordinary users not using a mailing list system. Such mail may not be tagged in such cases. We could start enforcing that tagging restriction more carefully, which would behoove MUAs and MTAs to notice when a user is doing a mailing to his address book to announce his new baby, and putting on the Precedence: bulk tag. Long ago I even proposed the tag should be extended, so that it would get attributes such as the relationship of recipient to sender (stranger/known/subscriber/customer) and the number of entries in the mailing. But spammers of course would not tag. If the government were to make a law asking the IETF to come up with a tagging system, that's the sort of one I would propose: Precedence: junk; relation=stranger; count=50000 Would be how you tag a spam Precedence: bulk; relation=known; count=150 Would be how you tag a baby announcement Precedence: bulk; relation=customer; count=10000 Would be how you tag a mailing to customers. And do on. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 13:36:08 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06533 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:36:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2QIv2E21549 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:57:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QIv2O21546 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:57:02 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06523; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:35:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QIqvO21283; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:52:57 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QImkO21030 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:48:46 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA06270 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:27:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 7926 invoked from network); 25 Mar 2003 18:26:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO startechgroup.co.uk) (10.2.100.157) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 25 Mar 2003 18:26:17 -0000 Subject: Re: [Asrg] email pull (was RE: Authentication ) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: asrg@ietf.org To: Kaitlin Duck Sherwood From: Matt Sergeant In-Reply-To: <1048701463.4348.235.camel@puddle> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 18:29:45 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wednesday, Mar 26, 2003, at 17:57 Europe/London, Kaitlin Duck Sherwood wrote: > On Wed, 2003-03-26 at 09:12, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >> Devising a mechanism that allows bills to be sent electronically >> is worth doing for its own sake. People are likely to pay >> more promptly and there is a much reduced hassle factor. >> I would like to be able to link outlook to money or quicken >> so that every time a bill arrives from an authenticated >> and authorized source I get the relevant notification. > > Certs and signatures are one way to authenticate; Richard Bliss came up > with another technique that doesn't have issues of key revocation and > recovery. It does require something be built in to clients, which is a > serious drawback but might be feasible given enough time. > > Q: Okay, what's the idea? > A: Add something RSS-like to email clients, where the client > occasionally (and infrequently) polls "subscribed" sites for new > content > and drops any new content into the normal mail stream (so that you > could > filter it into folders). Hopefully Richard Bliss might not mind the credit for this idea going elsewhere... http://www.newsgator.com/ (and that's probably not the first implementation - just a very nice looking one). I think it's an excellent idea, but not something we can force on list sources. It's also worth noting that it's only for one-way communication, so it doesn't help mailing lists. But I think it's still got a great deal of merit. Matt. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 13:36:20 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06548 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:36:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2QIvFT21567 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:57:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QIvFO21564 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:57:15 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06528; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:35:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QIt2O21468; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:55:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QIswO21430 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:54:58 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06483 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:33:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2196688; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:35:54 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200303261736.h2QHaS5D023747@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <200303261736.h2QHaS5D023747@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Vernon Schryver From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: 5c. Message Status - Re: [Asrg] ASRG work items Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:34:22 -0500 At 10:36 AM -0700 3/26/03, Vernon Schryver wrote: >Oh, I was confused. I think spending time on bounce formats is a >bigger waste of time than "internationalizing" error messages from >programs. In practice, computer error messages are always opaque >cybercrud to everyone except the priesthood. "ABEND 12345" may be a I would take this as a *reason* to standardize them. Given that they are getting even more confusing. The point isn't to standardize them for humans--but for computers. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 13:50:47 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07068 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:50:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2QJBgF23279 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:11:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QJBgO23274 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:11:42 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07038; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:50:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QJ1ZO21919; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:01:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QJ0fO21810 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:00:41 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06673 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:39:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h2QIfWA22396; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 10:41:32 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: Teo Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Certs required to send mail Message-ID: <20030326184132.GF21852@main.templetons.com> References: <151128676987.20030325094917@brandenburg.com> <20030325220008.GC31702@main.templetons.com> <004701c2f3bd$16129400$0b01a8c0@gateway> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <004701c2f3bd$16129400$0b01a8c0@gateway> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 10:41:32 -0800 Tarpits are an interesting idea, but of course they have a risk. As we know all spam detectors have false positives, and we must be very sure we don't tarpit a legitimate mailer. In one case, when we at the EFF sent out our newsletter including some notes about spam, SpamAssassin tagged it as spam. This would have put us in a tarpit if it used similar algorithms to SpamAssassin. However, this can work if you can make an easy system for legitimate mailing lists to whitelist themselves to be immune from any tarpitting. I would recommend a wide variety of means of whitelisting, ranging from the basic of getting your IP on a list, to certificates, to magic-tags etc. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 14:01:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07508 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:01:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2QJMQa23905 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:22:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QJMQO23898 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:22:26 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07488; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:01:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QJE6O23421; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:14:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QJC4O23294 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:12:04 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07063 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:50:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h2QIqqj22816; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 10:52:52 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: william@elan.net Cc: Chris Lewis , Brad Templeton , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: Authentication (no longer Re: [Asrg] My Opinion...) Message-ID: <20030326185252.GI21852@main.templetons.com> References: <3E81D128.8070204@americasm01.nt.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 10:52:52 -0800 On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 06:28:33AM -0800, william@elan.net wrote: > Please stop making comparisons like that in actual values. Whatever the > amount of spam I receive its not worth one human life. I agree. Actually, that was my point. We have not put in a certificate requirement or other autentication on postal mail, even though it can kill you, so that diminishes the case that spam makes it worth requiring authentication to send e-mail. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 14:11:58 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07904 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:11:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2QJWrb24417 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:32:53 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QJWrO24414 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:32:53 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07900; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:11:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QJP7O24095; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:25:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QJO5O24058 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:24:05 -0500 Received: from mail-out2.apple.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07599 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:02:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailgate2.apple.com (A17-129-100-225.apple.com [17.129.100.225]) by mail-out2.apple.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2QJ50sJ018955 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:05:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from scv3.apple.com (scv3.apple.com) by mailgate2.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:04:58 -0800 Received: from plaidworks.com (vg0602e-dhcp175.apple.com [17.216.21.175]) by scv3.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h2QJ4wd20467; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:04:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: 5c. Message Status - Re: [Asrg] ASRG work items Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: william@elan.net, asrg@ietf.org To: Brad Templeton From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <20030326182832.GB21852@main.templetons.com> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:04:58 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wednesday, March 26, 2003, at 10:28 AM, Brad Templeton wrote: > > > Precedence: bulk; relation=customer; count=10000 > > Would be how you tag a mailing to customers. > the e-marketers would have an issue with disclosing sizes of mailings. That'd be hard to fly. Besides, what about personalized stuff? Less and less of the legitimate e-marketing stuff is bulk any more, so a good argument for count=1 exists, even if it's going out to 10,000 individuals, or 100,000. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 14:18:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08152 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:18:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2QJdZ725591 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:39:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QJdYO25588 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:39:34 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08136; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:18:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QJU3O24295; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:30:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QJR4O24159 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:27:04 -0500 Received: from chiark.greenend.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07707 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:05:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from fanf by chiark.greenend.org.uk with local (Exim 3.12 #1) id 18yGFj-0005UO-00 (Debian); Wed, 26 Mar 2003 19:07:59 +0000 To: nazgul@somewhere.com From: Tony Finch Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: 5c. Message Status - Re: [Asrg] ASRG work items In-Reply-To: References: <200303261736.h2QHaS5D023747@calcite.rhyolite.com> <200303261736.h2QHaS5D023747@calcite.rhyolite.com> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 19:07:59 +0000 Kee Hinckley wrote: >At 10:36 AM -0700 3/26/03, Vernon Schryver wrote: >>Oh, I was confused. I think spending time on bounce formats is a >>bigger waste of time than "internationalizing" error messages from >>programs. In practice, computer error messages are always opaque >>cybercrud to everyone except the priesthood. "ABEND 12345" may be a > >I would take this as a *reason* to standardize them. Given that they >are getting even more confusing. The point isn't to standardize them >for humans--but for computers. What's wrong with these? 3461 Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) Service Extension for Delivery Status Notifications (DSNs). K. Moore. January 2003. (Format: TXT=76076 bytes) (Obsoletes RFC1891) (Status: DRAFT STANDARD) 3462 The Multipart/Report Content Type for the Reporting of Mail System Administrative Messages. G. Vaudreuil. January 2003. (Format: TXT=12186 bytes) (Obsoletes RFC1892) (Status: DRAFT STANDARD) 3463 Enhanced Mail System Status Codes. G. Vaudreuil. January 2003. (Format: TXT=31832 bytes) (Obsoletes RFC1893) (Status: DRAFT STANDARD) 3464 An Extensible Message Format for Delivery Status Notifications. K. Moore, G. Vaudreuil. January 2003. (Format: TXT=83060 bytes) (Obsoletes RFC1894) (Status: DRAFT STANDARD) Tony. -- f.a.n.finch http://dotat.at/ NORTH FORELAND TO SELSEY BILL: EAST TO NORTHEAST 3 OR 4 LOCALLY 5. HAZY WITH MIST PATCHES, AND A RISK OF FOG PATCHES. MODERATE OR POOR WITH A RISK OF FOG PATCHES. SLIGHT. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 14:20:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08278 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:20:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2QJfbe25719 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:41:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QJfbO25716 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:41:37 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08243; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:20:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QJU5O24311; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:30:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QJTRO24250 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:29:27 -0500 Received: from mail-out2.apple.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07788 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:08:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailgate2.apple.com (A17-129-100-225.apple.com [17.129.100.225]) by mail-out2.apple.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2QJALsJ020742 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:10:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from scv2.apple.com (scv2.apple.com) by mailgate2.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:10:19 -0800 Received: from plaidworks.com (vg0602e-dhcp175.apple.com [17.216.21.175]) by scv2.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h2QJAIH22700; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:10:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: 5c. Message Status - Re: [Asrg] ASRG work items Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: Vernon Schryver , asrg@ietf.org To: Kee Hinckley From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <95528D6E-5FBE-11D7-83EE-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:10:18 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wednesday, March 26, 2003, at 10:34 AM, Kee Hinckley wrote: > I would take this as a *reason* to standardize them. Given that they > are getting even more confusing. The point isn't to standardize them > for humans--but for computers. > Exactly. The system I built, though, is getting ~99.6% accuracy in auto-processing now, so it can be done with a few hacks. What's left is mostly places that are going out of their way to try to "help" (Adobe and LLNL both have very helpful 'they aren't here any more' messages that are useless for auto-processing) and people building their own scripts badly, and a couple of systems like First Class (grr) that still seem to think the entire e-mail universe is a local network running phonenet or something. First Class is probably half of my un-automated bounces, but I'm working on figuring out ways to outsmart their stupid mailer short of unsubscribing entire domains in disgust (since First Class also tends to bounce stuff to the sender, not the envelope, and we've talked to Centrinity about it and they don't see this as a problem, when one of them pops up on our list server sites, that domain DOES get blacklisted until it gets fixed, preferably with real server software...) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 14:33:15 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08903 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:33:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2QJsBV26382 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:54:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QJsAO26379 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:54:10 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08886; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:32:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QJh4O25817; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:43:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QJgTO25769 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:42:29 -0500 Received: from mail-out2.apple.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08296 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:21:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailgate2.apple.com (A17-129-100-225.apple.com [17.129.100.225]) by mail-out2.apple.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2QJNNsJ024148 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:23:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from scv3.apple.com (scv3.apple.com) by mailgate2.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:23:19 -0800 Received: from plaidworks.com (vg0602e-dhcp175.apple.com [17.216.21.175]) by scv3.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h2QJNJd29101; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:23:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] email pull (was RE: Authentication ) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: Kaitlin Duck Sherwood , asrg@ietf.org To: Matt Sergeant From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <6662ECE6-5FC0-11D7-83EE-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:23:18 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wednesday, March 26, 2003, at 10:29 AM, Matt Sergeant wrote: >> Q: Okay, what's the idea? >> A: Add something RSS-like to email clients, where the client >> occasionally (and infrequently) polls "subscribed" sites for new >> content > Hopefully Richard Bliss might not mind the credit for this idea going > elsewhere... http://www.newsgator.com/ (and that's probably not the > first implementation - just a very nice looking one). It's not. Credit for RSS stuff probably circles back to Dave Winer, among others. But the blogs have taken RSS onto their own, and a bunch of folks are doing interesting things with RSS and that enables people to do nice things with RSS aggregators. it's just starting to peek over the horizon for most folks, but it's been building for a year or more. Fascinating stuff. It helps mitigate one of my biggest gripes about the high volume discussion list, as well as enable people to keep an eye on what I call "2nd tier" lists -- the interruption of e-mail being a push technology, and the reality that most e-mail lists don't warrant being pushed into people's eyeballs. With RSS, people can choose to pull things on their schedule. Ultimately, I hope/expect the two technologies to merge to allow people to manage their information streams to their preferences. > I think it's an excellent idea, but not something we can force on list > sources. It's also worth noting that it's only for one-way > communication, so it doesn't help mailing lists. Oh, sure it does. A bunch of us on the mailman dev lists hashed out this stuff months ago, and one of us (out of the foxhole, Lawrence) actually went an implemented a system that seems really pretty good. With Mailman as your email core, and web archives (based around MHonarc) and RSS, you have a nice distribution setup. He then grafted TDMA onto the front end, effectively whitelisting all of his mail lists. So on the return mail, you can either subscribe, or you can go through a challenge/response to get your message posted. either way, no spam, no moderator intervention, and users don't have to go through the hassle of subscribing to post occasionally, especially if they read it via RSS or web. It was one of the things that started changing my mindset on whitelists, seeing how they could really enable open but secure communication channels without the increasingly bizarre "anti spam" restrictions us mail-list geeks have been coming up with to try to keep the spammers at bay. Using TDMA basically kills any chance of forged header mail getting through, so suddenly, your armed camp of a mail list doesn't need all that barbed wire any more. there was some talk of adding these features to Mailman down the road, but it's still in talk stage. But he's got it up and running, and it works, and one of these days, I plan on going down that same path. It really shows what whitelists can do once you get over the "how dare you ask ME for ID?" mental state -- and yes, it took me a while to get over it, too... But once I did, I realized whitelists could make various aspects of life much easier on all side, especially compared to fuzzy gif schemes and all that other stuff. Lawrence, want to explain your stuff in more detail and point people at where they can find out more? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 14:40:47 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09157 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:40:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2QK1hZ26837 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:01:43 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QK1hO26834 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:01:43 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09121; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:40:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QJrHO26334; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:53:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QJpYO26208 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:51:34 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08733 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:30:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h2QJWQD23664; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:32:26 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: william@elan.net Cc: "'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] 5b. Opt-Out, 2nd version Message-ID: <20030326193226.GL21852@main.templetons.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:32:26 -0800 On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 03:07:18AM -0800, william@elan.net wrote: > a. Serious issues that the encryption technology maybe broken > later on and as such allow to get clear list of all opted-out > email addresses Alas, there is no maybe about it. Spammer's List of 50 million E-mail addresses | cleaning service | diff Will get you effectively all the email addresses that have gone on the opt-out list. I mean, if you aren't on the spammer's lists, you have minimal reasons to go on the opt-out list so it is effectively complete. (Though corporate sites can put their entire population on the list with safety, but in that case why not just list the domain rather than the individuals.) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 14:41:00 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09202 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:41:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2QK1ur26864 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:01:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QK1uO26861 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:01:56 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09140; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:40:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QJs1O26365; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:54:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QJrMO26336 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:53:22 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08873 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:31:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2QJYF4T007032 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:34:15 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303261934.h2QJYF4T007032@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org References: Subject: [Asrg] Re: 5c. Message Status Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:34:15 -0700 (MST) > From: Kee Hinckley > >Oh, I was confused. I think spending time on bounce formats is a > >bigger waste of time than "internationalizing" error messages from > >programs. In practice, computer error messages are always opaque > >cybercrud to everyone except the priesthood. "ABEND 12345" may be a > > I would take this as a *reason* to standardize them. Given that they > are getting even more confusing. The point isn't to standardize them > for humans--but for computers. I think standardized error messages for computers has worse problems. Consider the example of SMTP response coes. There are only 3 results answers that computers can deal with, "it worked," "it failed but might work if you try again later," and "it failed--go away." In practice the other literally millions of status codes and extended status values are wasted bandwidth for humans and computers. Maybe I'm wrong and you can make something more, such as a super 5yz that says "not only forget this message and this target address, but never again send a SYN to this IP address or any related TLD." Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 14:42:49 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09291 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:42:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2QK3j026999 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:03:45 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QK3jO26996 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:03:45 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09269; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:42:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QJu3O26477; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:56:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QJtiO26456 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:55:44 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08934 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:34:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc01.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2QJY6MX004260; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:34:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:36:33 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Brad Templeton'" , Teo Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Certs required to send mail MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:36:29 -0800 What I have not seen an answer to is my point that bulk mailer software is already designed to drop connections that are too slow and so the only effect tarpits is likely to have is on the most naive spam senders and friendly fire on the innocent. Another problem is that any hackback system can be abused by hackers. We saw this in network security, attackers simply co-opted the hack back systems to attack the targets of their choice. How many tarpits are set up to be proof against a subversion attack? Do they authenticate the information they use for targetting? What happens if someone poisons the distribution of the RBL? Phill > Tarpits are an interesting idea, but of course they have a > risk. As we > know all spam detectors have false positives, and we must be very sure > we don't tarpit a legitimate mailer. In one case, when we > at the EFF sent > out our newsletter including some notes about spam, > SpamAssassin tagged it > as spam. This would have put us in a tarpit if it used > similar algorithms > to SpamAssassin. > > However, this can work if you can make an easy system for > legitimate mailing > lists to whitelist themselves to be immune from any > tarpitting. I would > recommend a wide variety of means of whitelisting, ranging > from the basic > of getting your IP on a list, to certificates, to magic-tags etc. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 14:46:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09503 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:46:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2QK7eB28001 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:07:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QK7eO27990 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:07:40 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09473; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:46:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QK22O26892; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:02:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QK1hO26850 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:01:43 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09122 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:40:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h2QJgY523857; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:42:34 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: Chuq Von Rospach Cc: Brad Templeton , william@elan.net, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: 5c. Message Status - Re: [Asrg] ASRG work items Message-ID: <20030326194234.GM21852@main.templetons.com> References: <20030326182832.GB21852@main.templetons.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:42:34 -0800 On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 11:04:58AM -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > > On Wednesday, March 26, 2003, at 10:28 AM, Brad Templeton wrote: > > > > > > Precedence: bulk; relation=customer; count=10000 > > > >Would be how you tag a mailing to customers. > > > > the e-marketers would have an issue with disclosing sizes of mailings. > That'd be hard to fly. Besides, what about personalized stuff? Less and > less of the legitimate e-marketing stuff is bulk any more, so a good > argument for count=1 exists, even if it's going out to 10,000 > individuals, or 100,000. Sorry, I drafted these plans many years ago so I didn't give a complete description on them. I actually am not supporting tagging at this time, simply suggesting that if you are going to do it, these are possible ways to do it. (What a nice guy I am :-) My 5 year old essay, which I need to revise because I no longer endorse all of it is at... http://www.templetons.com/brad/spume/tag.html However, the key point is that when I use the term "bulk" in dealing with spam I normally use it from a human sense, not a technical sense of "identical messages." What matters in the definition of bulk is did a human being command a mass mailing. Even if each message is different in some way, personalized to the customer, it is still a mass mailing. It is a more interesting question if, "Ok, sales staff, I want you to all write personal thank-you letters to all of your customers, and don't cut and paste text in any of them" is a mass mailing or not. Fortuantely it's rare enough (and inherently low volume enough) that I am not worried about including it in definitions. However, "Have the computer send a mailing to all customers with recommendations based on their past purchases" is a mass mailing, even though each message is different. It's not a spam, though, because these are customers. But "Grab a database from Experian with demographic data on each person, and customize a message to them based on what is known about them in the databases" is a mass mailing and it is a spam. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 14:47:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09545 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:47:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2QK8Tb28073 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:08:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QK8TO28070 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:08:29 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09521; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:47:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QK64O27119; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:06:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QK5kO27083 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:05:46 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09344 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:44:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.57] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2QJkdqd023686; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:46:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:46:40 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Kaitlin Duck Sherwood'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] email pull (was RE: Authentication ) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:46:39 -0800 > Q: Okay, what's the idea? > A: Add something RSS-like to email clients, where the client > occasionally (and infrequently) polls "subscribed" sites for > new content > and drops any new content into the normal mail stream (so > that you could > filter it into folders). I think that this is a very good idea and have been advocating its use. In particular it would address a lot of the bulk sender issues. On caveat here is that the mechanism should be limited to prevent it being subverted by viruses. I think that any such mechanism should either have no javascript/macro capability or if it does have that ability it should be off by default and allow the user to require that the source is cryptographically authenticated. I prefer no active code. > Q: So what's one benefit of this? > A: Proof of delivery. Say Bank of Fred wants to start sending me my > mortgage bill electronically. If they send it by email, they have no > idea if it actually gets to me. I could not pay my bill and claim, > "well, you never sent me a statement!" even if I got it. Again on point, and you can secure the download via SSL without the need for a client certificate. > In particular, it was not obvious to me how the RSS client > would figure > out what was new since last checked and what was not. Those are things we can fix. > Q: Why do you think that you can convince any client vendors > to do this? > A: I have *cough* some influence on the email portion of Chandler, the > Open Source Application's PIM. That is good enough for proof of concept. I don't see why the other application vendors would not be interested. We also need someone to hack majordomo or whatever your favourite mailing list software is to generate the RSS data. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 14:47:48 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09560 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:47:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2QK8i528095 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:08:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QK8iO28092 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:08:44 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09541; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:47:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QK14O26810; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:01:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QK0AO26735 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:00:10 -0500 Received: from mail-out2.apple.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09107 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:38:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailgate2.apple.com (A17-129-100-225.apple.com [17.129.100.225]) by mail-out2.apple.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2QJf3sJ029200 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:41:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from scv3.apple.com (scv3.apple.com) by mailgate2.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:40:59 -0800 Received: from plaidworks.com (vg0602e-dhcp175.apple.com [17.216.21.175]) by scv3.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h2QJexd07968; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:40:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 5c. Message Status Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: asrg@ietf.org To: Vernon Schryver From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <200303261934.h2QJYF4T007032@calcite.rhyolite.com> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:40:58 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wednesday, March 26, 2003, at 11:34 AM, Vernon Schryver wrote: > I think standardized error messages for computers has worse problems. > Consider the example of SMTP response coes. There are only 3 results > answers that computers can deal with, "it worked," "it failed but > might work if you try again later," and "it failed--go away." In > practice the other literally millions of status codes and extended > status values are wasted bandwidth for humans and computers. > Not true. for humans, it's very useful. At least in theory, they can get on the phone or send e-mail to a site to say "do you know that your mail is returning with xxxxx" -- and some of us still, in fact, do that when we can. for computers, it's less useful but not useless. If anything, I'd like to see the standardization for "hard bounce", "soft bounce", "processing bounce" to be improved, because we do try to read the tea leaves and handle soft bounces (over quota, for instance) differently than hard bounces (user unknown), because a soft bounce implies mail might stop bouncing sometime in the future, while hard bounce implies game over (even though we find hard bounces to actually be soft, and soft bounces to actually be hard). And anything that's a "processing bounce" (disk full, as opposed to over quota, although many sites misrepresent these) ought to be considered very temporary, so they ought to be a third category, but for practicality, should be considered at least soft bounces. And yes, there are different processing regimens for soft and hard bounces, so it matters... _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 14:58:21 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10154 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:58:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2QKJHK28887 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:19:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QKJHO28884 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:19:17 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10069; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:57:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QKHCO28709; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:17:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QKGPO28601 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:16:25 -0500 Received: from mail-out1.apple.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09785 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:54:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailgate1.apple.com (A17-128-100-225.apple.com [17.128.100.225]) by mail-out1.apple.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2QJvIOr007216 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:57:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from scv3.apple.com (scv3.apple.com) by mailgate1.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:56:44 -0800 Received: from plaidworks.com (vg0602e-dhcp175.apple.com [17.216.21.175]) by scv3.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h2QJupd15633; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:56:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: 5c. Message Status - Re: [Asrg] ASRG work items Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: william@elan.net, asrg@ietf.org To: Brad Templeton From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <20030326194234.GM21852@main.templetons.com> Message-Id: <159B9C16-5FC5-11D7-83EE-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:56:50 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wednesday, March 26, 2003, at 11:42 AM, Brad Templeton wrote: > It is a more interesting question if, "Ok, sales staff, I want you to > all > write personal thank-you letters to all of your customers, and don't > cut > and paste text in any of them" is a mass mailing or not. Fortuantely > it's > rare enough (and inherently low volume enough) that I am not worried > about > including it in definitions. > > However, "Have the computer send a mailing to all customers with > recommendations > based on their past purchases" is a mass mailing, even though each > message > is different. It's not a spam, though, because these are customers. > Is it? Even if only 20% of the message content is common? I'm not talking about adding "Dear [[ first name ]] [[ last name ]]" to the top and calling it personalized; that's really not. Where this stuff is headed is in that direction, too. from bulk (50,000 pieces of email, all alike -- the e-newsletter model) to mass (50,000 pieces of email, personally addressed but quite similar, sort of like the e-newsletter with an auto-pen (smirk)), to, well, something. Not sure what term to give it, but it's 50,000 individual emails that work from some template but which are customized to the specifics of the customer. To throw an analogy to the wolves, the difference is, well, McDonalds (bulk), Subway (mass), and your local italian restaurant (where personal email is your home kitchen). It's still turning out volume cooking, but... _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 15:07:03 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA10911 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:07:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2QKS0629482 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:28:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QKS0O29479 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:28:00 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA10816; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:06:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QKJ6O28876; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:19:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QKI6O28804 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:18:06 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09988 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:56:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18yCFS-0001hY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 09:51:26 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Requirements for gathering statistics In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 25 Mar 2003 08:37:35 EST." Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 09:51:25 -0500 Kee Hinckley wrote: > If an ISP is not filtering for spam, they can't even answer the > question, "how much spam do you get". Which is why I proposed asking the question "how many emails did you mark as spam." My original post did not make say that, but I tried to clarify my position in the discussion which followed. > If they are filtering for spam > and 20% gets through, they their numbers will be 20% off. How are > you--looking at the aggregate information--going to figure that out? You don't. You can't. You have no way of knowing how accurate their marking system is. But you DO know that they've marked some number of messages. > I did not say do nothing. I simply pointed out that you should > realize that there is going to be a lot of error in some of those > numbers. Not exactly. The questions which are asked should be such that any answers will contain little measurement error. They may contain system errors, but since we have no way of quantifying them, there's little we can do to deal with them. However, over large populations, we can assume that the systematic errors follow some standard distribution (e.g. gaussian). We can then correct for their effects. The important thing is that we can reduce unknown systematic errors from 1000's of domains to a *model* of systematic errors with a few well understood parameters (distribution, mean, variance) Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 15:17:59 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12149 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:17:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2QKcu530641 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:38:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QKcuO30638 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:38:56 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12126; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:17:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QKV6O29608; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:31:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QKULO29565 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:30:21 -0500 Received: from zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11170 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:08:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (zcard307.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h2QKBDe07721 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:11:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDFC4QSQ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:11:13 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBG2NQ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:11:13 -0500 Message-ID: <3E820A28.1050908@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: Authentication (no longer Re: [Asrg] My Opinion...) References: <3E81D128.8070204@americasm01.nt.com> <20030326185252.GI21852@main.templetons.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:14:32 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Brad Templeton wrote: > On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 06:28:33AM -0800, william@elan.net wrote: >>Please stop making comparisons like that in actual values. Whatever the >>amount of spam I receive its not worth one human life. > I agree. Actually, that was my point. But you've both missed mine. Spam costs everyone in real dollars, and indirectly jobs, and the growth of the Internet. If you're going to make analogies, you need to compare the whole thing. Both from the "damage per incident" and the "frequency of incidents" perspectives. > We have not put in a certificate > requirement or other autentication on postal mail, But we certainly have for riding on airplanes, haven't we? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 15:22:21 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12392 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:22:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2QKhIs31043 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:43:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QKhHO31040 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:43:17 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12353; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:21:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QKf5O30896; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:41:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QKepO30824 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:40:51 -0500 Received: from zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12201 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:19:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h2QKLhb05238 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:21:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDF48KD3; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:21:43 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBG2NW; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:21:43 -0500 Message-ID: <3E820C9E.1090500@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: SPEWS: RE: [Asrg] Please no flamewars References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:25:02 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > Unfortunately Vernon keeps calling me a liar, I am not. Did he call you a liar, or simply mistaken? Tho, if the mistakes are repeated often enough after the mistakes are pointed out, there's little difference. > SPEWS really did blacklist us and the entire net that we > are on. SPEWS states that it is their policy to blacklist > all of an ISPs customers if they do not respond. Incorrect. It is their policy to escalate blacklists, up to and including the entire ISP. It just hadn't gotten that far yet. > Nor is it obvious that a blacklist could not be out of > control: Anything can be out of control. ORBS was clearly rogue. No sane person would have ever used it once any of that came to light. As it did. > Unless Vernon posts a denial that he is a member of the > spews cabal I will conclude that Vernon is a member Splorf. You'll like antispews.org and operation "Sherman Tank". Regular coffee for me thanks. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 15:23:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12461 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:23:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2QKip331097 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:44:51 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QKipO31094 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:44:51 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12448; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:23:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QKh2O31030; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:43:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QKgwO30999 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:42:58 -0500 Received: from idiom.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12335 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:21:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from descartes.responsible.com (wall.cataphora.com [216.240.48.14]) by idiom.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with SMTP id h2QKNoO9067151 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:23:50 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from russell-2asrg44all-@zoemail.com) Message-ID: <3E820BCA.944BE3A@zoemail.com> From: Russell Brand Reply-To: russell-2asrg44all-@zoemail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.5 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ASRG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Volunteering to work on the evaluation critera Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:21:30 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'd like to volunteer to gather, collate, and organize the proposed evaluation criteria. It seems that I can best do this by (1) to the extent practical, gather up the proposed criteria that have been discussed already (2) put those into a document and distribute that to the list. (3) request that people on the list send to me a list of criteria that I have left out (4) that I publish and updated list (5) request that people send to me any thoughts, arguments, explanation as to why any of the various proposed criteria might be MUST vs SHOULD vs NICE TO HAVE vs irrelevant (6) that I publish an annotated list which include the argumentation on all points where there is discussion and the consensus answer where one exists. My email address is Russell-2asrg44all-@ZoEmail.com please put EVALUATION CRITERIA in the header Here is my first pass at enumeration of criteria. *draft* Proposed Evaluation Criteria for Anti Spam Solutions $Revision: 1.3 $ $Date: 2003-03-26 12:19:28-08 $ Russell L. Brand brand@responsible.com Russell-2asrg44all-@ZoEmail.com *draft* 1.0 Introduction ================ This is an unordered simple listing of possible criteria for ASRG to evaluate anti-spam solutions. I am actively soliciting both additional criteria and also argumentation/analysis as to which criteria are appropriate and important and which are not. 2.0 Current List of Criteria ============================ 2.1 Inexpensive --------------- [2.1.1] not computational/storage expensive for the (legitimate) sender [2.1.2] not computational/storage expensive for the recipient [2.1.3] not computational/storage expensive for relay [2.1.4] does not (greatly) increase the communications requirements [2.1.5] does not (greatly) increase the message size [2.1.6] makes the bad guys bare the cost rather than the legitimate users 2.2 Unencumbered ---------------- [2.2.1] no undisclosed pending "submarine" patents [2.2.2] no patents [2.2.3] no patents that won't be readily licensed to all [2.2.4] no patents that are so ludicrous as to be readily ignored. 2.3 easy to use --------------- [2.3.1] easy for the sender to use for ongoing communication [2.3.2] easy for the sender to use for a first contact situation [2.3.3] easy for the recipient to use for ongoing communication [2.3.4] easy for the recipient to use for a first contact situation [2.3.5] easy to use for mailing lists [2.3.6] easy to use for carbon copies [2.3.7] easy to remember email addresses [2.3.8] not needing to change email addresses to start using the system [2.3.9] ability to have only one email addresses if desired [2.3.10] ability to have an infinite number of (eg: a pattern of) of email addresses if desired [2.3.11] not making it harder than it is now to change email addresses [2.3.12] not requiring users and companies to get new domain names 2.4 easy to deploy ------------------ [2.4.1] can be deployed incrementally [2.4.2] easy to add on to existing software [2.4.3] doesn't rely on infrastructure that doesn't exist / won't be adopted 2.5 interoperable ----------------- [2.5.1] will work with webmail [2.5.2] will work with offline readers (pop3/imap4) [2.5.3] will work with direct delivery [2.5.4] will work with direct relays [2.5.5] will work with other anti-spam systems [2.5.6] will exchange mail between people using this system and people not using this system [2.5.7] practical to use on all operating systems [2.5.8] will work with existing email software packages 2.6 highly effective -------------------- [2.6.1] blocks all undesired email [2.6.1] blocks all undesired commercial email 2.7 persistantly effective -------------------------- [2.7.1] isn't just a step in an arms race [2.7.2] will work for a long time [2.7.3] will provably work for forever 2.8 doesn't interfere with the delivery of legitimate mail ---------------------------------------------------------- [2.8.1] legitimate mail is not delayed [2.8.2] legitimate mail is not lost [2.8.3] legitimate bounce messages are not lost [2.8.4] legitimate individual mail [2.8.5] legitimate bulk mail 2.9 single solution ------------------- [2.9.1] one solution that will work for all people [2.9.1] one solution that will work for all the different types of problems 2.10 technical rather than legislative -------------------------------------- [2.10.1] can be made to work without relying on any legislation [2.10.2] can be made to work without relying on any new legislation [2.10.3] doesn't interfere with current enforcement actions [2.10.4] the technical solutions provides additional help to legal enforcement 2.11 opt-in ----------- [2.11.1] supports an opt-in bulk mail system [2.11.2] supports a way to opt out of an opt-in bulk mail system that one has opt into 2.12 explainability ------------------- [2.12.1] easy to explain what it does 2.13 implementability --------------------- [2.13.1] is possible to implement [2.13.2] is easy to implement [2.13.3] has already been implemented [2.13.4] a reference implementation is available [2.13.5] two distinct implementations have been done [2.13.6] a GPL version exists 2.14 other platforms -------------------- [2.14.1] works for instant messengers [2.14.2] works for receive-only alphanumeric pagers [2.14.3] works for two-way alphanumeric pagers [2.14.4] works for SMS / phone text messenging 2.15 Accountability and Anonymity --------------------------------- [2.15.1] trace all mail to sending person [2.15.2] trace all mail to sending organization [2.15.3] trace all mail to sending organization but not person [2.15.4] prevents forged mail sending organization (but permits unspecified sending organizations) [2.15.5] prevents forged mail sending individual (but permits unspecified sending undividuals) [2.15.6] allow anonymous remailers to continue working. ## end _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 15:27:16 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12736 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:27:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2QKmBm31402 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:48:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QKmBO31399 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:48:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12719; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:26:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QKg2O30970; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:42:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QKfEO30920 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:41:14 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12242 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:19:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h2QKM5F24817; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:22:05 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: Chuq Von Rospach Cc: Brad Templeton , william@elan.net, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: 5c. Message Status - Re: [Asrg] ASRG work items Message-ID: <20030326202204.GP21852@main.templetons.com> References: <20030326194234.GM21852@main.templetons.com> <159B9C16-5FC5-11D7-83EE-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <159B9C16-5FC5-11D7-83EE-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:22:04 -0800 On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 11:56:50AM -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > Is it? Even if only 20% of the message content is common? Yup. When it comes to definitions and rules, computers don't break rules. Only humans break rules. Computers simply execute commands. So what matters in all rule making when it comes to definitions for humans is action by humans. If a human orders 50,000 mails sent, that's a mass mailing. I personally feel that attempts to fine tune the defintion get pretty murky after that. You don't want to have to answer questions like a threshold of difference among the messages, or what percentage of the text was the same from message to message. You want to use only objective facts where you can. This particular objective fact may be one that requires human analysis in some cases, but the goal of the analysis is an objective fact, not an opinion. As such it's better. I recommend all definitions try to stay as close to factual judgements as possible. That's why in past threads I advocated not attempting to judge the quality of the relationship the recipient has to the sender, just making a basic judgement of whether the recipient has had voluntary communication in the past to the sender. He either has or he hasn't, I think. And, as it turns out, pure volume is something computers can detect, and it is the root cause of spam. "Did this user send out mail to 50,000 destinations" is a factual question which, for example, their ISP could answer, or a pooled MX server for many large sites could answer without ambiguity. Without having to look at the contents of the message. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 15:40:16 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA13449 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:40:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2QL1BX32325 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:01:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QL1BO32322 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:01:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA13372; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:39:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QKuFO31902; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:56:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QKtGO31864 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:55:16 -0500 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA13099 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:33:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 18yHcy-0000hL-00; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:36:04 +0000 In-Reply-To: <200303261736.h2QHaS5D023747@calcite.rhyolite.com> Subject: Re: 5c. Message Status - Re: [Asrg] ASRG work items To: "Vernon Schryver" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.4.13] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 193.195.0.101 Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:36:04 +0000 > - I think communicating consent is hopeless and even a bad idea. > Advertisers will never entirely honor anything but "tell me more." > The only person who can be trusted to honor consent is the end user. > However, there might be something that could be done in a few months. Oh. That's that then. No, hang on, I can think of a number of entities who might *consult* my consent - including (in a particular order): My organisation, my ISP, a legitimate mass mailer, the courts. And why (I know I shouldn't bite) a "bad idea"? There's probably too much in the way of "voice from the mount" assertions on this list. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 15:46:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA13634 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:46:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2QL71932582 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:07:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QL71O32571 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:07:01 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA13613; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:45:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QL11O32250; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:01:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QL0MO32120 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:00:22 -0500 Received: from mail-out1.apple.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA13223 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:38:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailgate1.apple.com (A17-128-100-225.apple.com [17.128.100.225]) by mail-out1.apple.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2QKfDOr021427 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:41:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from scv3.apple.com (scv3.apple.com) by mailgate1.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:41:05 -0800 Received: from plaidworks.com (vg0602e-dhcp175.apple.com [17.216.21.175]) by scv3.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h2QKfCd02698; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:41:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: 5c. Message Status - Re: [Asrg] ASRG work items Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: william@elan.net, asrg@ietf.org To: Brad Templeton From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <20030326202204.GP21852@main.templetons.com> Message-Id: <47E3C183-5FCB-11D7-83EE-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:41:11 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wednesday, March 26, 2003, at 12:22 PM, Brad Templeton wrote: > On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 11:56:50AM -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: >> Is it? Even if only 20% of the message content is common? > > Yup. When it comes to definitions and rules, computers don't break > rules. > Only humans break rules. Computers simply execute commands. okay, we'll agree to disagree. > after that. You don't want to have to answer questions like a > threshold of > difference among the messages, or what percentage of the text was the > same > from message to message. because it's hard to determine via a program, even if it's important. > And, as it turns out, pure volume is something computers can detect, > and it > is the root cause of spam. It's easy to detect, even if it's the wrong thing. I disagree that volume is the root cause of spam. consent and the issues surrounding it are. Volume is an issue because spam is easy to send and because the large amount we're getting creates a high level of frustration -- but you're focussing on volume because it's easy to count, not because it's the right measure for the job. IMHO, of course. There are lots of legitimate large volume mailings out there, and lots of low volume spam setups, too. Just because someone sends out 10,000 copies of "Jesus tells you to stop the war" doesn't mean it's more legitimate than 1,000,000 copies of your favorite hair restoration e-mail.... _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 15:56:10 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA14135 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:56:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2QLH6o01751 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:17:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QLH6O01748 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:17:06 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA14123; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:55:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QLDAO01318; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:13:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QLAbO01055 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:10:37 -0500 Received: from mail-out1.apple.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA13763 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:49:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailgate2.apple.com (A17-129-100-225.apple.com [17.129.100.225]) by mail-out1.apple.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2QKpTOr023708 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:51:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from scv2.apple.com (scv2.apple.com) by mailgate2.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:51:28 -0800 Received: from plaidworks.com (vg0602e-dhcp175.apple.com [17.216.21.175]) by scv2.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h2QKpSH10731; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:51:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: 5c. Message Status - Re: [Asrg] ASRG work items Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: "Vernon Schryver" , "ASRG" To: "Jon Kyme" From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:51:28 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wednesday, March 26, 2003, at 12:36 PM, Jon Kyme wrote: >> - I think communicating consent is hopeless and even a bad idea. >> Advertisers will never entirely honor anything but "tell me more." This is bogus. It's like saying because there are hackers out there, all programmers can't be trusted. Let's use an even wider brush for the painting, and simply go for the entire human race in one swath. Smart advertisers have figured out that stuffing messages down user's throats when they don't want them makes them a lot more likely to buy your products (yeah, right). Please don't assume that since some sites (like real) are deceptive in how they do their consent management and others are outright frauds that everyone's like that. that simply polarizes a discussion into camps that fight when cooperation is in fact needed. > There's probably too much in the way of "voice from the mount" > assertions on this list. > "She is a witch! May we burn her?" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 15:57:25 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA14201 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:57:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2QLILR01786 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:18:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QLIKO01783 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:18:20 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA14167; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:56:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QLF3O01505; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:15:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QLEsO01465 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:14:54 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA13934 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:53:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.57] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2QKtkqd004555; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:55:46 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:55:47 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Chuq Von Rospach'" , Brad Templeton Cc: william@elan.net, asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: 5c. Message Status - Re: [Asrg] ASRG work items MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:55:45 -0800 This is why I like the definition of what we want to eliminate to be 'unwanted messages that are sent indiscriminately'. The weasel word here being indiscriminately, there are a few messages that could be sent indiscriminately that could be mostly wanted. For example on 9/11 someone could have sent a broadcast to all RIM pagers in the US with emergency information, I doubt it would have been unwanted in many cases. The word indiscriminate is of course subjective, just like the term spam. However a salesperson that sends messages to 10,000 existing customers can hardly be considered indiscriminate, nor is a salesperson who sends targetted messages to 100 sales prospects, nor is a message with a CFP for an anti-spam conference sent to this list. However sending the message to every IETF list, or to 10,000 sales prospects etc. is indiscriminate. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 16:01:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA14462 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:01:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2QLMRk02226 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:22:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QLMQO02223 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:22:26 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA14424; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:00:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QLK5O01998; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:20:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QLJmO01892 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:19:48 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA14258 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:58:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.57] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2QL0eqd005282 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:00:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:00:41 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: Authentication (no longer Re: [Asrg] My Opinion...) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:00:40 -0800 > >>Please stop making comparisons like that in actual values. > Whatever the > >>amount of spam I receive its not worth one human life. Let us see, if I spend ten minutes daily on spam, over a lifetime that is a lot of time, if everyone on the Internet does likewise that is a huge number of wasted lifetimes. OK trite point but once you do anything on a large scale there start to be major consequences. The Nigerian 419 gangs have murdered several people and kidnapped many more, we have had extortions, theft, fraud, suicides and more. At this point, yes the spam issue IS more severe in terms of the damage being done regardless of the scale you choose to use. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 16:06:02 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA14645 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:06:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2QLQwC02434 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:26:58 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QLQwO02431 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:26:58 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA14638; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:05:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QLO3O02307; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:24:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QLNdO02272 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:23:39 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA14479 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:02:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.57] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2QL4Vqd005873; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:04:31 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:04:32 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Brad Templeton'" , william@elan.net Cc: "'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 5b. Opt-Out, 2nd version MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:04:31 -0800 > On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 03:07:18AM -0800, william@elan.net wrote: > > a. Serious issues that the encryption technology > maybe broken > > later on and as such allow to get clear list of all > opted-out > > email addresses > > Alas, there is no maybe about it. > > Spammer's List of 50 million E-mail addresses | cleaning > service | diff > > Will get you effectively all the email addresses that have gone on > the opt-out list. I mean, if you aren't on the spammer's > lists, you have > minimal reasons to go on the opt-out list so it is > effectively complete. > (Though corporate sites can put their entire population > on the list > with safety, but in that case why not just list the > domain rather than > the individuals.) We could add to the list addresses that are not actually valid - like the striker addresses for example. This would mean that the results of the diff would be a mixture of good and bad emails. If anything the result of a check would be more likely to give a bad email than a good one. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 16:35:54 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA16166 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:35:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2QLupG05098 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:56:51 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QLupO05095 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:56:51 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA16143; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:35:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QLsPO04919; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:54:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QLrgO04853 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:53:42 -0500 Received: from mail-out2.apple.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA15957 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:32:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailgate1.apple.com (A17-128-100-225.apple.com [17.128.100.225]) by mail-out2.apple.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2QLYWsJ028283 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:34:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from scv1.apple.com (scv1.apple.com) by mailgate1.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:34:19 -0800 Received: from plaidworks.com (vg0602e-dhcp175.apple.com [17.216.21.175]) by scv1.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h2QLYQt03160; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:34:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: 5c. Message Status - Re: [Asrg] ASRG work items Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: Brad Templeton , william@elan.net, asrg@ietf.org To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:34:26 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wednesday, March 26, 2003, at 12:55 PM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > The word indiscriminate is of course subjective, just like the term > spam. > However a salesperson that sends messages to 10,000 existing customers > can > hardly be considered indiscriminate, nor is a salesperson who sends > targetted messages to 100 sales prospects, nor is a message with a CFP > for > an anti-spam conference sent to this list. > but I tend to go further: you can be discriminate here, but still not have consent. This is a rewrite of something I just sent to Brad privately that might illuminate what I mean. To preface it, I'll note I think people abuse the word spam horribly, to the point where it almost has no meaning any more, so any attempt to "stop spam" is going to fail because nobody can agree how to define it. going down the rabbit hole of defining this stuff, I make a hard delineation between: 1) spam, which in my mind are those idiots that send stuff fraudulently with forged return addresses and all that other stuff. 2) legitimate marketing stuff, where the real issue is a consent issue, not a fraud issue. for (1), the root cause is the easy ability to forge spam and the difficulty of stopping people. Since I see this kind of crap as 90% of the overall problem (or more), finding ways to lock them out of the universe is my top priority. 2) where you have real companies doing stupid things, gets lumped in with 1, but is really a different problem, and has nothing to do with cheap costs or whatever. It has to do with marketing people who ought to be kneecapped for being more worried about how many messages got sent and not about how many sales were generated... In both cases, volume is an accelerator to the process, not a cause. I think the issues of "solving spam" and "dealing with e-marketing consent issues" are skew. One is shutting down fraudulent operations, the other is regulating legitimate businesses who's practices might or might not be up to snuff. But they tend to get lumped together, and that adds complexity to the the problem and confuses the issues, and we end up going round and round and accomplishing nothing. They're separate issues, needing separate solutions. I realize there's a segment that thinks all e-marketing is by definition spam, but the moderate position understands it's not. And no, I'm not excusing badly build e-marketing systems, not at all. but the amount of hassle they cause is nothing compared to the spam that's fraudulently stuffed down out throats every day. And the solutions are different. but IMHO, you could fix every freaking e-marketer to have perfect systems with perfect consent that updates based on telepathy two days before the end-user thinks of unsubscribing -- and the typical user wouldn't notice because of all the noise and pain caused by the fraud spammers. Worse, the e-marketing stuff keeps getting dumped onto the same bonfire by the "burn witches! more witches!" crowd, which basically derails the process from allowing anyone to focus on solving the first, major problem. I'd like to suggest that we focus on the first, big problem: the group of mass mailers that are overtly avoiding allowing users to define consent through various fraudulent means. Until that issue is solved, nothing else matters. If folks want to start a sub-group to hash out issues of consent and try to work with the legitimate e-mailers to build a standard, great, but even if that gets resolved to everyone's satisfaction, it won't matter if we all wake up to 45 messages every morning with pretty pictures of zebras in them. I keep thinking this group sidetracks itself by being unable to really define the problems it's trying to solve (instead, looking for *a* problem and defining *a* solution), and not setting priorities among them. In all honesty, if we could cut those 45 messages with zebras to 20 messages with little bluu pills, this group would still be considered massive heroes, but there doesn't seem to be any interest or motivation towards fixing a chunk of the problem, and instead we turn around and chase our tails. Don't think for a second I think this group's been useless, by the way. There are lots of useful things being done and lots of good mixing and sharing and considering. But I'm not seeing it moved to the next step, and the group itself seems to be somewhat passive about moving itself. And I think that's why the frustration level on the group is building, because we're tail chasing now, and nobody's defined which rabbit gets chased first... And the reality is, there are a lot of rabbits and a lot of holes, and we need to be careful lest we step in a hole and break our ankle -- but right now, I feel like we're sitting in the kennel chasing each other. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 16:36:19 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA16183 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:36:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2QLvG705129 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:57:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QLvGO05126 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:57:16 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA16158; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:35:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QLt3O04962; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:55:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QLsqO04932 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:54:52 -0500 Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA16018 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:33:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from host217-35-52-188.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([217.35.52.188] helo=gateway) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #24) id 18yIYh-0007DB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 21:35:44 +0000 Message-ID: <00d901c2f3df$9903e0e0$0b01a8c0@gateway> From: "Teo" To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] 4b Survey of solutions and place in taxonomy of solutions Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 21:35:18 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Taxonomy: I think that if IPv6 was operational it will fulfill the requirements of 1. b) ii) Tracking and 2. b) iii) (2) How was it sent - delivery path info I am not sure what the chances of IPv6 are of ever making it into the real net, however for completeness reasons we should include its as part of a solution that will make the job of tracing spammers much easier. Also it will make blacklisting / watching address blocks possible because of the hierarchical nature of IPv6 address allocation. There might be something in the proposed 1to1 mapping between geographical areas and address blocks allocation. Spammers will not be able to hide anymore, or make the job of hiding hardware intensive, therefore more costly, thus changing the business model, hopefully crossing the line into making it non profitable. Teo _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 16:37:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA16226 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:37:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2QLw2f05168 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:58:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QLw1O05165 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:58:01 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA16204; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:36:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QLu2O05067; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:56:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QLtIO04984 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:55:18 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA16056 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:33:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2197103; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:36:11 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: RE: [Asrg] 5b. Opt-Out, 2nd version Cc: "'Brad Templeton'" , william@elan.net, "'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)'" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:33:57 -0500 At 1:04 PM -0800 3/26/03, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >We could add to the list addresses that are not actually valid - like >the striker addresses for example. How would you validate them? And if you don't, why wouldn't some helpful person do a dictionary attack on the opt-out list in order to remove everyone. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 16:37:14 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA16242 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:37:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2QLwBg05186 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:58:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QLwBO05183 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:58:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA16213; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:36:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QLu1O05042; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:56:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QLtHO04978 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:55:17 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA16053 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:33:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2197100; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:36:10 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: "Alan DeKok" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Requirements for gathering statistics Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:21:56 -0500 At 9:51 AM -0500 3/26/03, Alan DeKok wrote: > > I did not say do nothing. I simply pointed out that you should >> realize that there is going to be a lot of error in some of those >> numbers. > > Not exactly. The questions which are asked should be such that any >answers will contain little measurement error. They may contain >system errors, but since we have no way of quantifying them, there's >little we can do to deal with them. I guess that when asking how much spam they have, we should also be sure to ask how they are measuring that. Assuming we have some false negative/false positive data on some tools, so that should enable us to adjust the results accordingly. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 16:41:22 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA16601 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:41:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2QM2JY06148 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:02:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QM2JO06145 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:02:19 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA16590; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:40:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QLxGO05269; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:59:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QLubO05089 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:56:37 -0500 Received: from dogma.slashnull.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA16130 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:35:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.jmason.org (ga183055.reshsg.uci.edu [128.195.183.55]) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QLYDn18868; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 21:34:14 GMT Received: by localhost.jmason.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id EE45B8C64E; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:35:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from jmason.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E89528C5FC; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:35:56 -0800 (PST) To: Kaitlin Duck Sherwood Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] email pull (was RE: Authentication ) In-Reply-To: Message from Kaitlin Duck Sherwood of "26 Mar 2003 09:57:43 PST." <1048701463.4348.235.camel@puddle> From: jm@jmason.org (Justin Mason) X-GPG-Key-Fingerprint: 0A48 2D8B 0B52 A87D 0E8A 6ADD 4137 1B50 6E58 EF0A X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to . Message-Id: <20030326213556.EE45B8C64E@localhost.jmason.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:35:51 -0800 Kaitlin Duck Sherwood said: > Q: Okay, what's the idea? > A: Add something RSS-like to email clients, where the client > occasionally (and infrequently) polls "subscribed" sites for new content > and drops any new content into the normal mail stream (so that you could > filter it into folders). > > For example, suppose I want to subscribe to the Floss Recycling > newsletter. The Floss Recycling Web site gives instructions on the > subscription address and when the newsletter comes out (e.g. "Mondays at > 3 PM PST). I set up my email client to poll every Monday at 4 AM and to > drop the newsletter into my FlossRecycling folder. Kaitlin, As a datapoint: I receive RSS gated through my mail already (I use Aaron Swartz' rss2mail script as my blog-reading app, basically), so I can vouch that this is a good way to receive "newsletters". ;) Also, I put up a MailMan-to-RSS gateway at http://taint.org/mmrss/ a year and a bit ago; I hear MM are now looking into producing RSS directly from their archiver, which is great news. Summary: I'm well interested in this stuff, and I think it could fly (if the bulk mailers can be convinced). --j. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 16:56:55 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA17234 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:56:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2QMHrj07667 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:17:53 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QMHrO07664 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:17:53 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA17201; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:56:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QMAKO07293; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:10:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QM5JO06300 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:05:19 -0500 Received: from dogma.slashnull.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA16665 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:43:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.jmason.org (ga183055.reshsg.uci.edu [128.195.183.55]) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QLgsn19289; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 21:42:55 GMT Received: by localhost.jmason.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 169BF8C64E; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:44:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from jmason.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 104538C5FC; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:44:37 -0800 (PST) To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'Brad Templeton'" , Teo , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Certs required to send mail In-Reply-To: Message from "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" of "Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:36:29 PST." From: jm@jmason.org (Justin Mason) X-GPG-Key-Fingerprint: 0A48 2D8B 0B52 A87D 0E8A 6ADD 4137 1B50 6E58 EF0A X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to . Message-Id: <20030326214438.169BF8C64E@localhost.jmason.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:44:32 -0800 Hallam-Baker, Phillip said: > How many tarpits are set up to be proof against a subversion attack? > Do they authenticate the information they use for targetting? > What happens if someone poisons the distribution of the RBL? There's some incorrect use of terminology here; a "tarpit" simply answers queries slowly, affecting only the TCP connection from the SMTP client. There's no "hackback", there's no RBL use, there's nothing there to subvert in order to cause attacks on third-party targets. Running an SMTP transaction very very slowly will not cause any damage, except possibly to cause resource limitation issues if the SMTP client machine is operating a huge number of connections simultaneously -- ie. a spammer (or a very large bulk mailer, conceivably). "Honeypots" may be a different matter, though. --j. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 17:04:50 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA17559 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:04:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2QMPmX08186 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:25:48 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QMPmO08183 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:25:48 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA17505; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:04:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QMK5O07840; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:20:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QMD7O07459 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:13:07 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA16995 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:51:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.57] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2QLrwqd012944; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:53:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:53:58 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Kee Hinckley'" , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'Brad Templeton'" , william@elan.net, "'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 5b. Opt-Out, 2nd version MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:53:55 -0800 Validate them??? Like folk might not want to be on the opt-out list??? Wouldn't *.com, *.edu ... be likely a correct first guess :-) There are plenty of ISPs complaining that they are getting tons of spam sent to non-existent addresses. It is not a bad idea to have a way to exclude them. I guess someone could inherit an email address and complain that they are not getting the spam they wanted... Phill > -----Original Message----- > From: Kee Hinckley [mailto:nazgul@somewhere.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 4:34 PM > To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip > Cc: 'Brad Templeton'; william@elan.net; 'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)' > Subject: RE: [Asrg] 5b. Opt-Out, 2nd version > > > At 1:04 PM -0800 3/26/03, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > >We could add to the list addresses that are not actually valid - like > >the striker addresses for example. > > How would you validate them? And if you don't, why wouldn't some > helpful person do a dictionary attack on the opt-out list in order to > remove everyone. > > > -- > Kee Hinckley > http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering > http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology > and Society > > I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so > unwilling to accept > responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so > eager to regulate > everyone else's. > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 17:05:58 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA17615 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:05:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2QMQuD08281 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:26:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QMQuO08278 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:26:56 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA17605; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:05:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QMKIO07876; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:20:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QMEMO07477 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:14:22 -0500 Received: from mail-out2.apple.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA17025 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:52:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailgate2.apple.com (A17-129-100-225.apple.com [17.129.100.225]) by mail-out2.apple.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2QLtDsJ003836 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:55:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from scv3.apple.com (scv3.apple.com) by mailgate2.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:55:06 -0800 Received: from plaidworks.com (vg0602e-dhcp175.apple.com [17.216.21.175]) by scv3.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h2QLt6d04236; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:55:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] email pull (was RE: Authentication ) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: asrg@ietf.org, Kaitlin Duck Sherwood To: jm@jmason.org (Justin Mason) From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <20030326213556.EE45B8C64E@localhost.jmason.org> Message-Id: <9B431F70-5FD5-11D7-83EE-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:55:06 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Justin, I owe you a couple of beers. You just paid for my time spent in this list... (grin. seriously). that script's something I was looking for to adapt for my stuff. On Wednesday, March 26, 2003, at 01:35 PM, Justin Mason wrote: > Also, I put up a MailMan-to-RSS gateway at http://taint.org/mmrss/ a > year > and a bit ago; I hear MM are now looking into producing RSS directly > from > their archiver, which is great news. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 17:06:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA17650 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:06:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2QMReg08313 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:27:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QMReO08310 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:27:40 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA17631; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:06:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QMN8O08014; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:23:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QMFkO07563 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:15:46 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id QAA17083 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:54:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 20548 invoked from network); 25 Mar 2003 21:53:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.2.100.178?) (10.2.100.178) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 25 Mar 2003 21:53:12 -0000 From: Matt Sergeant X-X-Sender: matt@localhost.localdomain To: Chuq Von Rospach cc: Matt Sergeant , Kaitlin Duck Sherwood , "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] email pull (was RE: Authentication ) In-Reply-To: <6662ECE6-5FC0-11D7-83EE-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 22:14:41 +0000 (GMT) On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > > On Wednesday, March 26, 2003, at 10:29 AM, Matt Sergeant wrote: > > >> Q: Okay, what's the idea? > >> A: Add something RSS-like to email clients, where the client > >> occasionally (and infrequently) polls "subscribed" sites for new > >> content > > > Hopefully Richard Bliss might not mind the credit for this idea going > > elsewhere... http://www.newsgator.com/ (and that's probably not the > > first implementation - just a very nice looking one). > > It's not. Credit for RSS stuff probably circles back to Dave Winer, > among others. Dave likes to *ahem* steal credit for RSS, but it was actually Netscape who came up with RSS. But this is a digression. I meant the idea of using RSS for email pull, not the credit for RSS itself. Not that this matters one iota. > But the blogs have taken RSS onto their own, and a bunch > of folks are doing interesting things with RSS and that enables people > to do nice things with RSS aggregators. it's just starting to peek over > the horizon for most folks, but it's been building for a year or more. > Fascinating stuff. 4 years ;-) But yes, the applications of RSS are quite extensive. > > I think it's an excellent idea, but not something we can force on list > > sources. It's also worth noting that it's only for one-way > > communication, so it doesn't help mailing lists. > > Oh, sure it does. A bunch of us on the mailman dev lists hashed out > this stuff months ago, and one of us (out of the foxhole, Lawrence) > actually went an implemented a system that seems really pretty good. > With Mailman as your email core, and web archives (based around > MHonarc) and RSS, you have a nice distribution setup. He then grafted > TDMA onto the front end, effectively whitelisting all of his mail > lists. So on the return mail, you can either subscribe, or you can go > through a challenge/response to get your message posted. Neat. Sounds a lot like the work I did on O'Reilly's WebBoard to add RSS distribution back in 2000 (just in case anyone decides to patent this: I still have the cvs archives). That meant you could get access to the discussion groups via NNTP, email, Web browser, or some alternate interface by pulling RSS files. Shame O'Reilly decided to close their software division before we finished it ;-) I'd very much like to see this mailman extension finished. Matt. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 17:06:55 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA17666 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:06:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2QMRqd08334 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:27:52 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QMRqO08331 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:27:52 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA17646; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:06:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QMQ6O08241; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:26:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QMKiO07899 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:20:44 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA17324 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:59:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h2QM1VJ26821; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:01:31 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <20030326220131.GD21852@main.templetons.com> References: <20030326214438.169BF8C64E@localhost.jmason.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030326214438.169BF8C64E@localhost.jmason.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Subject: [Asrg] The "problem" from an engineering standpoint Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:01:31 -0800 While I know the spam definition question, though in the long term unavoidable, is a quagmire, let me redirect to something that might not be so intractable. That is, "what is the problem we're here to fix from an engineering perspective?" Some in the anti-spam community have written like they think the problem is they got a mail they didn't like or didn't ask for, and this is what must be solved. Let me express why I think we're here and see if people agree. 1) Unwanted E-mail volume is sufficient to put a major burden on servers and pipes. Goal: Reduce the volume so it is a tiny fraction of desired traffic and thus no longer worthy of engineering notice. 2) Unwanted E-mail volume is sufficent to reduce the signal/noise ratio in user E-mail boxes, making them of lower utility to their users. For some users (mostly outside USA), noticeable costs are also incurred. Goal: Reduce that volume to minor nuisance level, so that users are not averse to using E-mail because of it. A S/N of 100 to 1 would certainly do this, for example. 3) Users are afraid to reveal their E-mail address in public, mostly because of problem #2. Goal: Eliminate that fear. May be done by eliminating problem 2, but there are also other ways to go after this problem. 4) Service providers suffer undue cost handling complaints about mail which originated from their networks, or didn't originate there but appeared to originate there. Goal: Reduce complaint volume to manageable levels. So while I have done nothing to rigidly define spam, I hope I have stated why we are here, why people think there is a need to fight it, for engineering reasons. Is this a better place to start? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 17:26:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA18261 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:26:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2QMlcW10020 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:47:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QMlcO10017 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:47:38 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA18247; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:26:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QMhAO09850; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:43:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QMgWO09821 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:42:32 -0500 Received: from mail-out2.apple.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA18170 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:21:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailgate2.apple.com (A17-129-100-225.apple.com [17.129.100.225]) by mail-out2.apple.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2QMNNsJ013796 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:23:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from scv2.apple.com (scv2.apple.com) by mailgate2.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:23:20 -0800 Received: from plaidworks.com (vg0602e-dhcp175.apple.com [17.216.21.175]) by scv2.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h2QMNKH27103; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:23:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] email pull (was RE: Authentication ) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: Kaitlin Duck Sherwood , "asrg@ietf.org" To: Matt Sergeant From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <8C6C8E81-5FD9-11D7-83EE-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:23:19 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wednesday, March 26, 2003, at 02:14 PM, Matt Sergeant wrote: >> It's not. Credit for RSS stuff probably circles back to Dave Winer, >> among others. > > Dave likes to *ahem* steal credit for RSS, but it was actually Netscape > who came up with RSS. But this is a digression. I meant the idea of > using > RSS for email pull, not the credit for RSS itself. Not that this > matters > one iota. I'd point out the "among others", but point taken. RSS has been around longer, but I think integrating it into Manila was one thing that gave it momentum. > 4 years ;-) But yes, the applications of RSS are quite extensive. I've only been really watching RSS and CDF and stuff for 18 months, and I first discovered it about 2 years ago. What went on before, I haven't really researched yet... > Neat. Sounds a lot like the work I did on O'Reilly's WebBoard to add > RSS > distribution back in 2000 (just in case anyone decides to patent this: > I > still have the cvs archives). damn. (grin) > That meant you could get access to the > discussion groups via NNTP, email, Web browser, or some alternate > interface by pulling RSS files. Shame O'Reilly decided to close their > software division before we finished it ;-) > which basically mimics what I did for the Apple lists in 1998, minus the RSS. and when I realized that of the many users only 12 were using the NNTP interface, I stopped supporting it. Some of them are still pissed at me, but from a time perspective, the cost per user was too high. Now, I'm looking at redoing all my archives in a nice, self-configuring way, adding RSS feeds to them, and than cloaking email addresses out of them for safety sake. And then after lunch, deal with the posting side of it.. (grin) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 17:48:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA19394 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:48:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2QN93L11845 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 18:09:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QN93O11842 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 18:09:03 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA19383; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:47:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QN4QO10832; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 18:04:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QN3wO10778 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 18:03:58 -0500 Received: from ciphertrust.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA19020 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:42:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.com with ESMTP ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:28:56 -0500 (EST) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:21:15 -0500 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'russell-2asrg44all-@zoemail.com'" , "'ASRG'" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Subject: [Asrg] 8.a. [Asrg]RE: Volunteering to work on the evaluation critera Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:21:14 -0500 (Changed title to identify the work item. Please include this in all responses.) Thanks, Russell. Actually, evaluation criteria should be highly based on the requirements that are set forth. It is probably most useful to nail down req's first. No one has volunteered for sheparding that document. Would you like to instead focus on this same set of tasks for the requirements document that has been started? > -----Original Message----- > From: Russell Brand [mailto:russell-2asrg44all-@zoemail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 3:22 PM > To: ASRG > Subject: [Asrg] Volunteering to work on the evaluation critera > > > I'd like to volunteer to gather, collate, and organize the > proposed evaluation criteria. It seems that I can best do this by > > (1) to the extent practical, gather up the proposed criteria that > have been discussed already > > (2) put those into a document and distribute that to the list. > > (3) request that people on the list send to me a list of criteria > that I have left out > > (4) that I publish and updated list > > (5) request that people send to me any thoughts, arguments, > explanation as to why any of the various proposed criteria > might be MUST vs SHOULD vs NICE TO HAVE vs irrelevant > > (6) that I publish an annotated list which include the > argumentation on all points where there is discussion and the > consensus answer where one exists. > > My email address is > > Russell-2asrg44all-@ZoEmail.com > > please put > > EVALUATION CRITERIA > > in the header > > Here is my first pass at enumeration of criteria. > > > > *draft* > > Proposed Evaluation Criteria for Anti Spam Solutions > > > $Revision: 1.3 $ > $Date: 2003-03-26 12:19:28-08 $ > > > Russell L. Brand > brand@responsible.com > Russell-2asrg44all-@ZoEmail.com > > > *draft* > > > 1.0 Introduction > ================ > > This is an unordered simple listing of possible criteria for > ASRG to evaluate anti-spam solutions. > > I am actively soliciting both additional criteria and also > argumentation/analysis as to which criteria are appropriate > and important and which are not. > > 2.0 Current List of Criteria > ============================ > > 2.1 Inexpensive > --------------- > > [2.1.1] not computational/storage expensive for the > (legitimate) sender > > [2.1.2] not computational/storage expensive for the recipient > > [2.1.3] not computational/storage expensive for relay > > [2.1.4] does not (greatly) increase the communications requirements > > [2.1.5] does not (greatly) increase the message size > > [2.1.6] makes the bad guys bare the cost rather than the > legitimate users > > 2.2 Unencumbered > ---------------- > > [2.2.1] no undisclosed pending "submarine" patents > > [2.2.2] no patents > > [2.2.3] no patents that won't be readily licensed to all > > [2.2.4] no patents that are so ludicrous as to be readily ignored. > > > 2.3 easy to use > --------------- > > [2.3.1] easy for the sender to use for ongoing communication > > [2.3.2] easy for the sender to use for a first contact situation > > [2.3.3] easy for the recipient to use for ongoing communication > > [2.3.4] easy for the recipient to use for a first contact situation > > [2.3.5] easy to use for mailing lists > > [2.3.6] easy to use for carbon copies > > [2.3.7] easy to remember email addresses > > [2.3.8] not needing to change email addresses to start using > the system > > [2.3.9] ability to have only one email addresses if desired > > [2.3.10] ability to have an infinite number of (eg: a pattern > of) of email addresses if desired > > [2.3.11] not making it harder than it is now to change email addresses > > [2.3.12] not requiring users and companies to get new domain names > > 2.4 easy to deploy > ------------------ > > [2.4.1] can be deployed incrementally > > [2.4.2] easy to add on to existing software > > [2.4.3] doesn't rely on infrastructure that doesn't exist / > won't be adopted > > 2.5 interoperable > ----------------- > > [2.5.1] will work with webmail > > [2.5.2] will work with offline readers (pop3/imap4) > > [2.5.3] will work with direct delivery > > [2.5.4] will work with direct relays > > [2.5.5] will work with other anti-spam systems > > [2.5.6] will exchange mail between people using this system > and people not using this system > > [2.5.7] practical to use on all operating systems > > [2.5.8] will work with existing email software packages > > 2.6 highly effective > -------------------- > > [2.6.1] blocks all undesired email > > [2.6.1] blocks all undesired commercial email > > > 2.7 persistantly effective > -------------------------- > > [2.7.1] isn't just a step in an arms race > > [2.7.2] will work for a long time > > [2.7.3] will provably work for forever > > > 2.8 doesn't interfere with the delivery of legitimate mail > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > [2.8.1] legitimate mail is not delayed > > [2.8.2] legitimate mail is not lost > > [2.8.3] legitimate bounce messages are not lost > > [2.8.4] legitimate individual mail > > [2.8.5] legitimate bulk mail > > > 2.9 single solution > ------------------- > > [2.9.1] one solution that will work for all people > > [2.9.1] one solution that will work for all the different > types of problems > > > 2.10 technical rather than legislative > -------------------------------------- > > [2.10.1] can be made to work without relying on any legislation > > [2.10.2] can be made to work without relying on any new legislation > > [2.10.3] doesn't interfere with current enforcement actions > > [2.10.4] the technical solutions provides additional help to > legal enforcement > > 2.11 opt-in > ----------- > > [2.11.1] supports an opt-in bulk mail system > > [2.11.2] supports a way to opt out of an opt-in bulk mail > system that one has opt into > > > 2.12 explainability > ------------------- > > [2.12.1] easy to explain what it does > > 2.13 implementability > --------------------- > > [2.13.1] is possible to implement > > [2.13.2] is easy to implement > > [2.13.3] has already been implemented > > [2.13.4] a reference implementation is available > > [2.13.5] two distinct implementations have been done > > [2.13.6] a GPL version exists > > 2.14 other platforms > -------------------- > > [2.14.1] works for instant messengers > > [2.14.2] works for receive-only alphanumeric pagers > > [2.14.3] works for two-way alphanumeric pagers > > [2.14.4] works for SMS / phone text messenging > > > 2.15 Accountability and Anonymity > --------------------------------- > > [2.15.1] trace all mail to sending person > > [2.15.2] trace all mail to sending organization > > [2.15.3] trace all mail to sending organization but not person > > [2.15.4] prevents forged mail sending organization (but > permits unspecified sending organizations) > > > [2.15.5] prevents forged mail sending individual (but permits > unspecified sending undividuals) > > [2.15.6] allow anonymous remailers to continue working. > > > ## end > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 18:02:24 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA19967 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 18:02:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2QNNNl12422 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 18:23:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QNNNO12419 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 18:23:23 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA19927; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 18:01:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QNM6O12355; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 18:22:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QNIAO12180 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 18:18:10 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA19797 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:56:40 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2QL82bn027958; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:08:02 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2QL829B027954; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:08:02 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: Kee Hinckley cc: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , "'Brad Templeton'" , "'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 5b. Opt-Out, 2nd version In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:08:02 -0800 (PST) > >We could add to the list addresses that are not actually valid - like > >the striker addresses for example. I think this is called "poison pill" and different pills can be inserted into lists that are distributed to different parties. Then if unwanted email appears on this email, that can be used as verification that they decryppted entire opt-out list. > How would you validate them? And if you don't, why wouldn't some > helpful person do a dictionary attack on the opt-out list in order to > remove everyone. Similar "poison pill" system can also work for central server that provides authentication to get opt-out list. In this case you invent some easily guessable email addresses but not actually use it in any email. If somebody querries for it and gets opt-out no answer but then there are unsolicited emails coming to it, you know who did something wrong. ---- William Leibzon Elan Communications Inc. william@elan.net _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 18:22:00 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA22131 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 18:22:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2QNh0N14001 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 18:43:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QNh0O13997 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 18:43:00 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA22061; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 18:21:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QNd5O13768; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 18:39:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2QNc0O13720 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 18:38:00 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA21873 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 18:16:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from art.lextek.com (12-254-130-29.client.attbi.com[12.254.130.29]) by rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (rwcrmhc52) with SMTP id <2003032623185005200j45pge>; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 23:18:50 +0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030326160252.0312da28@mail.lextek.com> X-Sender: PollardA@mail.lextek.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Art Pollard Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [Asrg] Basic Proposals So Far ... Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:18:46 -0700 I don't follow this mailing list perhaps as close as I ought to but I thought I would make a basic list of ideas. Some things seem to be a variation of these but these are some of the basic ideas that I've seen so far. These are: 1) Leave the message on the server and let the client retrieve the message allowing for unforgeable addresses. Also allowing for post-sending cancelation by a sysadmin. 2) Have the client check with the sending server to see if the server actually sent it. 3) Charge for sending e-mail 4) A Turing Test. (i.e., the e-mail client sends a message back to the sender asking some sort of question that only a person could answer.) I personally like this one. It is fast and easy. 5) Black hole lists or ways to manage them. 6) Digital certificates that say you are who you say you are. 1, 2, 3, and 4 all would only need to be performed the first time a new contact is initiated. (i.e., so for example with #3, you would be charged $0.01 per new person you contacted via e-mail each time after that you would be added to a whitelist and it would pass through at no charge.) As has been mentioned various security schemes such as SSL, digital signatures, etc. can be added to any/all the above for additional security. -Art -- Art Pollard http://www.lextek.com/ Suppliers of High Performance Text Retrieval Engines. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 20:04:26 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA25932 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:04:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2R1PS520455 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:25:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R1PSO20452 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:25:28 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA25878; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:03:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R1HUO20117; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:17:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R1GrO20090 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:16:53 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA25406 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 19:55:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc02.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2R0veqd010411; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:57:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:57:40 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'william@elan.net'" , "'Kee Hinckley'" Cc: "'Brad Templeton'" , "'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 5b. Opt-Out, 2nd version MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:57:35 -0800 Hang on a second here, I don't think anyone in the crypto world I'd seriously worried about an atack which woud allow an attacker to find an eficient inverse function for sha1 and I they did we would be sooo screwed every other way it would not be funny. I was thinking we would add boogus email addresses that have already found their way to the lists... -----Original Message----- From: william@elan.net Sent: Wed Mar 26 14:59:08 2003 To: Kee Hinckley Cc: Hallam-Baker, Phillip; 'Brad Templeton'; 'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)' Subject: RE: [Asrg] 5b. Opt-Out, 2nd version > >We could add to the list addresses that are not actually valid - like > >the striker addresses for example. I think this is called "poison pill" and different pills can be inserted into lists that are distributed to different parties. Then if unwanted email appears on this email, that can be used as verification that they decryppted entire opt-out list. > How would you validate them? And if you don't, why wouldn't some > helpful person do a dictionary attack on the opt-out list in order to > remove everyone. Similar "poison pill" system can also work for central server that provides authentication to get opt-out list. In this case you invent some easily guessable email addresses but not actually use it in any email. If somebody querries for it and gets opt-out no answer but then there are unsolicited emails coming to it, you know who did something wrong. ---- William Leibzon Elan Communications Inc. william@elan.net _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 20:12:16 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA26268 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:12:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2R1XIV20729 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:33:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R1XIO20726 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:33:18 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA26260; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:11:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R1V5O20648; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:31:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R1UVO20612 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:30:31 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA26042 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:08:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h2R1BCM31161; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:11:12 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'william@elan.net'" , "'Kee Hinckley'" , "'Brad Templeton'" , "'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] 5b. Opt-Out, 2nd version Message-ID: <20030327011112.GE29146@main.templetons.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:11:12 -0800 On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 04:57:35PM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > Hang on a second here, I don't think anyone in the crypto world I'd > seriously worried about an atack which woud allow an attacker to find an > eficient inverse function for sha1 and I they did we would be sooo screwed > every other way it would not be funny. > > I was thinking we would add boogus email addresses that have already found > their way to the lists... The privacy goals are twofold. We would like to avoid having to declare publicly your desire to opt-out, though frankly this is not that much of a killer. Secondly, we would want to avoid spammers deliberately spamming all the people who opted out because they can get a list of all of them. The seeding idea is interesting. It doesn't solve the first problem, your name will still go on a list that can be made public, but as I said we can probably survive that, it's just somewhat ironic to have to go public to protect your privacy. You would need to seed the opt-out list with hashes of tens of millions of fake addresses, and those fake addresses would need to be ones that can't be spotted as fake (they don't bounce) and which occur on popular spamming lists, but which are not anybody's mailbox. That's a bit of a tall order! Reversing a secure hash is (of course) not an issue here, you don't need to do it to turn the list of hashed addresses into real addresses when you have the database of 50 million valid emails on CD the spammers trade around. If you get spam, you're on their lists, so they can make a list of everybody on the opt-out list who is on a common spammer's list. Now why they want to spam it I don't know, possibly for spite. Only well hidden overseas spammers would do it, but they would. It is also a DoS attack on people. If you hate somebody, extract the list of opted out people, then fake mail from the hated person to thousands of opted out people. Presuming the opt-out is working, the recipients will be extra angry, this would bring down a rain of trouble on the poor soul. Perhaps this is the greatest danger of the opt-out list. It also applies to the special domain I described and all other systems though. If opt-in were morally acceptable, it would certainly be easier to implement, but it isn't. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 20:19:24 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA26465 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:19:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2R1eRF21712 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:40:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R1eRO21709 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:40:27 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA26460; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:18:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R1d5O21600; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:39:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R1chO21584 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:38:43 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA26381 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:17:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.57] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2R1JUqd012967; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:19:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:19:30 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Brad Templeton'" , "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] The "problem" from an engineering standpoint MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:19:30 -0800 I think that is ok for the first order problem, although writing this on a rim pager, I would like to be able to decide which messages are worth payin to download. The second order problem caused by would be solutions is also a major concern. It really is a prolem if email does not get through because of filters blacklists etc. It is a problem if a blacklist starts pinging servers repeatedly every few seconds. It is also a problem if a blacklist attempts to blackmail me into changing isps with blacklisting based on other customers behavior. -----Original Message----- From: Brad Templeton Sent: Wed Mar 26 14:45:41 2003 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] The "problem" from an engineering standpoint While I know the spam definition question, though in the long term unavoidable, is a quagmire, let me redirect to something that might not be so intractable. That is, "what is the problem we're here to fix from an engineering perspective?" Some in the anti-spam community have written like they think the problem is they got a mail they didn't like or didn't ask for, and this is what must be solved. Let me express why I think we're here and see if people agree. 1) Unwanted E-mail volume is sufficient to put a major burden on servers and pipes. Goal: Reduce the volume so it is a tiny fraction of desired traffic and thus no longer worthy of engineering notice. 2) Unwanted E-mail volume is sufficent to reduce the signal/noise ratio in user E-mail boxes, making them of lower utility to their users. For some users (mostly outside USA), noticeable costs are also incurred. Goal: Reduce that volume to minor nuisance level, so that users are not averse to using E-mail because of it. A S/N of 100 to 1 would certainly do this, for example. 3) Users are afraid to reveal their E-mail address in public, mostly because of problem #2. Goal: Eliminate that fear. May be done by eliminating problem 2, but there are also other ways to go after this problem. 4) Service providers suffer undue cost handling complaints about mail which originated from their networks, or didn't originate there but appeared to originate there. Goal: Reduce complaint volume to manageable levels. So while I have done nothing to rigidly define spam, I hope I have stated why we are here, why people think there is a need to fight it, for engineering reasons. Is this a better place to start? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 20:22:20 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA26503 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:22:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2R1hNm21869 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:43:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R1hNO21866 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:43:23 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA26497; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:21:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R1g3O21839; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:42:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R1fJO21808 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:41:19 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA26487 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:19:44 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2QNVAbn029909 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:31:10 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2QNVAsH029905 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:31:10 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: "'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 5b. Opt-Out, 2nd version In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:31:10 -0800 (PST) > Hang on a second here, I don't think anyone in the crypto world I'd > seriously worried about an atack which woud allow an attacker to find an > eficient inverse function for sha1 and I they did we would be sooo screwed > every other way it would not be funny. Technology advances, both in terms of scientific research on cryptography and just pure computational force power. You can never assume it'll not be broken... In reality I was thinking more in terms of trying to add somewhat easily guessable poison email address to catch those doing dictionary attacks and using the results improperly. But Brad is also right, if somebody has 100 million email addresses gathered from everywhere else and they wanted to clean it up to real addresses, they would check with this opt-out list of 20million addresses, there is good bet 99% of those 20million are contained in those 100million (people would opt-out when they are already receiving too much unwanted email and their email is already known), that however does not mean there are no valid email addresses in remaining 80million so spammer would probably continue to send to all 100million anyway. But this does expose the problem that if you distribute list and let email marketing company do all validation on their own, they will get almost entire list. With cental server, while this is still also possible, at least the authority providing the service can gather statistics of how many queries each particulr authorized client is doing and if they see somebody doing brutal force check of their 100million addresses, they probably know its not a legit bulk mailer company. With opt-out specific to each domain, the ability to do central verification is gone so even if you see somebody doing this kind of check (which is difficult - you only know statistics for your domain), its unclear if you can have any serious response to it. > I was thinking we would add boogus email addresses that have already found > their way to the lists... > > > -----Original Message----- > From: william@elan.net > Sent: Wed Mar 26 14:59:08 2003 > To: Kee Hinckley > Cc: Hallam-Baker, Phillip; 'Brad Templeton'; 'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)' > Subject: RE: [Asrg] 5b. Opt-Out, 2nd version > > > >We could add to the list addresses that are not actually valid - like > > >the striker addresses for example. > > I think this is called "poison pill" and different pills can be inserted > into lists that are distributed to different parties. Then if unwanted email > > appears on this email, that can be used as verification that they > decryppted entire opt-out list. > > > How would you validate them? And if you don't, why wouldn't some > > helpful person do a dictionary attack on the opt-out list in order to > > remove everyone. > > Similar "poison pill" system can also work for central server that > provides authentication to get opt-out list. In this case you invent some > easily guessable email addresses but not actually use it in any email. If > somebody querries for it and gets opt-out no answer but then there are > unsolicited emails coming to it, you know who did something wrong. > > ---- > William Leibzon > Elan Communications Inc. > william@elan.net _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 20:25:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA26577 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:25:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2R1ka321984 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:46:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R1kaO21981 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:46:36 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA26570; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:25:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R1j2O21929; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:45:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R1i5O21892 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:44:05 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA26518 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:22:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc02.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2R1Opqd013737; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:24:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:24:50 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Brad Templeton'" Cc: "'william@elan.net'" , "'Kee Hinckley'" , "'Brad Templeton'" , "'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] 5b. Opt-Out, 2nd version MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:24:50 -0800 The list maintainer need not be one entity. All we need is agreement on the hash function. I sugest a keyed digest with the key sha1("asrg") You could give your email address to your participating isp, verisign, the uspostal service or alan ralsky as you choose. Most registrars would not keep any record of the addresses listed. -----Original Message----- From: Brad Templeton Sent: Wed Mar 26 17:11:20 2003 To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip Cc: 'william@elan.net'; 'Kee Hinckley'; 'Brad Templeton'; 'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)' Subject: Re: [Asrg] 5b. Opt-Out, 2nd version On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 04:57:35PM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > Hang on a second here, I don't think anyone in the crypto world I'd > seriously worried about an atack which woud allow an attacker to find an > eficient inverse function for sha1 and I they did we would be sooo screwed > every other way it would not be funny. > > I was thinking we would add boogus email addresses that have already found > their way to the lists... The privacy goals are twofold. We would like to avoid having to declare publicly your desire to opt-out, though frankly this is not that much of a killer. Secondly, we would want to avoid spammers deliberately spamming all the people who opted out because they can get a list of all of them. The seeding idea is interesting. It doesn't solve the first problem, your name will still go on a list that can be made public, but as I said we can probably survive that, it's just somewhat ironic to have to go public to protect your privacy. You would need to seed the opt-out list with hashes of tens of millions of fake addresses, and those fake addresses would need to be ones that can't be spotted as fake (they don't bounce) and which occur on popular spamming lists, but which are not anybody's mailbox. That's a bit of a tall order! Reversing a secure hash is (of course) not an issue here, you don't need to do it to turn the list of hashed addresses into real addresses when you have the database of 50 million valid emails on CD the spammers trade around. If you get spam, you're on their lists, so they can make a list of everybody on the opt-out list who is on a common spammer's list. Now why they want to spam it I don't know, possibly for spite. Only well hidden overseas spammers would do it, but they would. It is also a DoS attack on people. If you hate somebody, extract the list of opted out people, then fake mail from the hated person to thousands of opted out people. Presuming the opt-out is working, the recipients will be extra angry, this would bring down a rain of trouble on the poor soul. Perhaps this is the greatest danger of the opt-out list. It also applies to the special domain I described and all other systems though. If opt-in were morally acceptable, it would certainly be easier to implement, but it isn't. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 20:30:07 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA26667 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:30:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2R1pAw22116 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:51:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R1pAO22113 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:51:10 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA26634; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:29:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R1o6O22097; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:50:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R1noO22074 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:49:50 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA26617 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:28:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h2R1UZI31786; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:30:35 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'Brad Templeton'" , "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] The "problem" from an engineering standpoint Message-ID: <20030327013035.GF29146@main.templetons.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:30:35 -0800 On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 05:19:30PM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > I think that is ok for the first order problem, although writing this on a > rim pager, I would like to be able to decide which messages are worth payin > to download. Indeed, though the network design will only be moderately influenced by the needs of small volume users who choose to use particularly expensive channels. We want to help them, but the ability is more limited. > > The second order problem caused by would be solutions is also a major > concern. It really is a prolem if email does not get through because of > filters blacklists etc. It is a problem if a blacklist starts pinging > servers repeatedly every few seconds. It is also a problem if a blacklist > attempts to blackmail me into changing isps with blacklisting based on other > customers behavior. > Absolutely. There are a number of general goals -- Russell is trying to enumerate them -- which govern how we can solve the problem. The first step though is to describe the problem from an engineering standpoint. What's going wrong, and what is the standard to reach to declare it as fixied. I have an extra thing to add to the problem. I enumerated the trouble of ISPs handling complaints (valid and invalid) but we should also include the problem of end users having to deal with bogus complaints. (We are not so worried about spammers dealing with legit complaints) We would like to fix the DoS attack that spam can be, when somebody spams in your name and you take the flack for it. Any other items to add to the _problem_ set? We can also specify the other goals and constraints that govern now we solve the problem, such as avoiding invalid blacklisting and so on. But first we must identify the problem and a test to decide we have solved it, then outline the other constraints and goals, and come up with the best solution that solves the problem as well as it can considering the constraints and other goals. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 20:32:15 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA26797 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:32:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2R1rJS22263 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:53:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R1rIO22260 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:53:18 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA26754; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:31:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R1q3O22230; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:52:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R1pTO22142 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:51:29 -0500 Received: from plaidworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA26649 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:29:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.8/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h2R1W6ZQ015228; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:32:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] 5b. Opt-Out, 2nd version Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , "'william@elan.net'" , "'Kee Hinckley'" , "'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)'" To: Brad Templeton From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <20030327011112.GE29146@main.templetons.com> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:32:04 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wednesday, March 26, 2003, at 05:11 PM, Brad Templeton wrote: > > Secondly, we would want to avoid spammers deliberately spamming all > the people > who opted out because they can get a list of all of them. > > > The seeding idea is interesting. if we revisit something I mentioned a while ago -- the idea of a "robots.txt" for e-mail, to allow a domain to define usage/consent rules in a standardized way. It's fairly trivial to extend that concept to include traps addresses, ones placed into that file specifically to catch people attempting to harvest and use the concent addresses. And any IP that mails to a trap address gets blackholed for a period of time. It creates the problem of people using those addresses as an attack mode, but the attacks are fairly limited and can be handled: subscribing trappaddr@foo.com to emarketer@bar.com only gets people in trouble to the degree they try to mail to bar.com, and only to the degree that the trap address becomes known outside of the folks controlling the domain -- and as it becomes known, its usefulness goes away and it should be changed, since the spammers will figure it out and wash it, leaving behind only something useful for the trolls... this is a fairly common way to trap the web robots that misbehave, it'd be a reasonable way to both extend consent out for email and protect the addresses in the file, since it wouldn't be obvious what addresses are the traps, only that there are traps there. and yes, trap discovery is an issue, but there are ways to deal with that, also. > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 20:39:26 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA26891 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:39:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2R20U322495 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 21:00:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R20TO22492 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 21:00:29 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA26883; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:38:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R1x6O22410; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:59:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R1wRO22382 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:58:27 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA26865 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:36:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h2R1d9X31945; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:39:09 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'Brad Templeton'" , "'william@elan.net'" , "'Kee Hinckley'" , "'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] 5b. Opt-Out, 2nd version Message-ID: <20030327013909.GH29146@main.templetons.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:39:09 -0800 On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 05:24:50PM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > The list maintainer need not be one entity. All we need is agreement on the > hash function. I sugest a keyed digest with the key sha1("asrg") > > You could give your email address to your participating isp, verisign, the > uspostal service or alan ralsky as you choose. > > Most registrars would not keep any record of the addresses listed. Can you be more specific as to how that solves the problem? My issue is this. If you have a system -- any system at all -- which will "clean" (ie. remove opted out addresses) from a large spammer's master list (such as the lists they trade around on CD, you all have gotten spams to buy them) then it is inherent that you will be giving them back a list of all people on their list not in the opt-out list, and thus a list of all people on their list who _are_ on the opt-out list. The only way to avoid that would be what direct marketers do. The cleaner also delivers the spam! You would need bonded companies which send spam, but remove any opted out address from the mailing. They are bonded to not reveal the contents of the list. This may seem bizarre but in fact is not out of the question. This is how the direct marketing business works. Of course the postal service is the only company which delivers the mail. But if you want to do a direct mailing, the list sellers don't give you a copy of their list. They prefer to give it to a trusted 3rd company that is mailing your ads for you. (Often they print, stuff and address for you.) You hand them the ad, and tell them what lists you are buying, and they clean the lists (of dups) print, stuff, address and take it to the post office for you.) However, larger mailers are trusted to get lists, and for a price you can buy them. To avoid people "stealing" the lists, they seed them with special trap addresses. If they get a direct mailing that they didn't rent the list for, they come and get you. So if there were a "official" spamhuases, which respected the opt-out list, you would not even need to blacklist it, because you could just opt-out and encourage your users to opt-out. Spammers who wanted to deliver their own spam would not be able to clean their lists, and would be subject to the full wrath of anti-spam systems. This sort of thing has been proposed by spammers in the past, and quite correctly we have not trusted them. If the mailing houses however were approved by us (meaning IETF folks and major ISPs) it's not as silly as it sounds. At least until everybody gets on the opt-out list, and the company becomes moot, and we start over again, unfortunately. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 20:42:12 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA27004 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:42:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2R23Fq22625 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 21:03:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R23FO22622 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 21:03:15 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA26952; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:41:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R221O22593; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 21:02:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R21aO22554 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 21:01:36 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA26918 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:40:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (h005018086b3b.ne.client2.attbi.com[66.31.45.164]) by rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (rwcrmhc51) with SMTP id <20030327014223051003fk5ge>; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 01:42:23 +0000 X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas Subject: Re: [Asrg] Hotmail caps email (via el reg) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) From: mathew In-Reply-To: To: asrg@ietf.org X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-4--444820144 X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to . X-Image-Url: http://meta.ATH0.com/photos/MailPictures/meta@pobox.com Message-Id: <5963D1AA-5FF5-11D7-B69B-00039380F1B6@pobox.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:42:20 -0500 --Apple-Mail-4--444820144 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tuesday, Mar 25, 2003, at 18:48 US/Eastern, matthew richards wrote: > "punters will be barred from sending emails to more than 100 e-mail > addresses in a 24-hour period" > > this is basically what i was proposing in my first post to this list. > now if only this feature was built into SMTP spammers would be > screwed... well almost. Not really. They'd just use 1,000 different open relay SMTP servers and send 100 messages via each. Hell, some of them probably do that already. On the other hand, Hotmail's "solution" has screwed a friend of mine who has a legitimate private opt-in low-traffic e-mail list with more than 100 recipients. mathew --Apple-Mail-4--444820144 Content-Type: text/enriched; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tuesday, Mar 25, 2003, at 18:48 US/Eastern, matthew richards wrote: 0000,0000,0000"punters will be barred from sending emails to more than 100 e-mail addresses in a 24-hour period" 0000,0000,0000this is basically what i was proposing in my first post to this list. now if only this feature was built into SMTP spammers would be screwed... well almost. Not really. They'd just use 1,000 different open relay SMTP servers and send 100 messages via each. Hell, some of them probably do that already. On the other hand, Hotmail's "solution" has screwed a friend of mine who has a legitimate private opt-in low-traffic e-mail list with more than 100 recipients. mathew --Apple-Mail-4--444820144-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 20:54:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA27453 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:54:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2R2FLj24080 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 21:15:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R2FLO24077 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 21:15:21 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA27422; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:53:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R2E5O23963; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 21:14:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R2DoO23918 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 21:13:50 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA27393 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:52:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (h005018086b3b.ne.client2.attbi.com[66.31.45.164]) by rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (rwcrmhc53) with SMTP id <20030327015436053005jl1he>; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 01:54:36 +0000 X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas Subject: Re: [Asrg] email pull (was RE: Authentication ) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: mathew In-Reply-To: <6662ECE6-5FC0-11D7-83EE-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> To: asrg@ietf.org X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to . X-Image-Url: http://meta.ATH0.com/photos/MailPictures/meta@pobox.com Message-Id: <0FDFF80D-5FF7-11D7-B69B-00039380F1B6@pobox.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:54:35 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This goes back to the suggestion from myself and others, earlier on. Once you've moved the mailing list traffic to an RSS-like "pull" system, you take the next step, and move all e-mail traffic to it. Now for someone to send you e-mail, they send you the bare URL of their RSS feed from them to you. The advantage over the current system is that when an ISP closes off an account used for spam, all the spam that was sent with that account gets un-sent, so those who didn't download it yet never see it. In addition, it puts the bandwidth burden of spam on the site that's used to send it, rather than on the recipients, hopefully making it too expensive to leave your mail system insecure. I have to confess that at this stage I forget what the objections were that people came up with :-( How's that taxonomy of proposed solutions coming? I feel it's past time to start cataloging all the proposals on the web, assigning them names, and collecting the objections. mathew _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 20:57:00 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA27567 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:57:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2R2I4A24228 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 21:18:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R2I4O24225 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 21:18:04 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA27547; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:56:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R2H2O24195; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 21:17:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R2GiO24167 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 21:16:44 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA27508 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:55:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (h005018086b3b.ne.client2.attbi.com[66.31.45.164]) by rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (rwcrmhc53) with SMTP id <20030327015730053005lh8te>; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 01:57:30 +0000 X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas Subject: Re: Authentication (no longer Re: [Asrg] My Opinion...) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: mathew In-Reply-To: To: asrg@ietf.org X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to . X-Image-Url: http://meta.ATH0.com/photos/MailPictures/meta@pobox.com Message-Id: <77D8A7FC-5FF7-11D7-B69B-00039380F1B6@pobox.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:57:30 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wednesday, Mar 26, 2003, at 16:00 US/Eastern, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > The Nigerian 419 gangs have murdered several people and kidnapped many > more, we have had extortions, theft, fraud, suicides and more. I can't help thinking that 419 scams point out the danger of stupidity and greed, rather than the danger of spam. mathew _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 21:04:25 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA27819 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 21:04:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2R2PT524672 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 21:25:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R2PTO24669 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 21:25:29 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA27797; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 21:03:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R2OEO24557; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 21:24:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R2LqO24410 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 21:21:52 -0500 Received: from turkey.mail.pas.earthlink.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA27723 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 21:00:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from dialup-67.30.214.121.dial1.atlanta1.level3.net ([67.30.214.121] helo=darwin) by turkey.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18yMiz-0003kp-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 18:02:37 -0800 Message-ID: <00d401c2f404$f97312f0$0100000a@darwin> From: "Paul Tenny" To: References: <000f01c2f0b8$6ba7c140$5880bbd0@kit> Subject: Re: [Asrg] If You Don't Fix It, The Politicians Will MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 21:02:38 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have actually already suggested such a system. The only differences were it did not cost anything, and it was not run by a government. Reference: https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg01565.html Absolutely no one commented on it, so it's merits are still totally unknown. I'm working on a more detailed informational paper but based on the lack of interest, I have serious doubts I'd be doing anything but wasting my time sharing it with anyone. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jed Margolin" To: Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2003 4:17 PM Subject: [Asrg] If You Don't Fix It, The Politicians Will > I am dismayed at the report that the IETF session was not productive. > > You should consider the following: > > 1. The Internet has become an important part of the Civilized World's > infrastructure. > > 2. The Internet is threatened by the increasing volume of spam. > > 3. If the world's Internet Experts (that's you) cannot figure out how to fix > it, the Politicians *will*. > > And how do you think they will do that, considering that politicians hardly > ever pass up an opportunity to control things and bring in more revenue? > > I expect they will use the Postal Service as a model. > > Yes, the Sender will pay. > > While you might be thinking, "OK, I'm willing to pay $0.0001 per email if it > will eliminate spam," consider that: > > 1. The higher cost of snailmail has not stopped snailmail spam (junk mail). > [The Post Office makes money from junk mail.] > > 2. The higher cost of phone service has not stopped phone spammers > (Telemarketers). [The phone companies make money from selling telcom > services to Telemarketers.] > > 3. The rates for email will eventually be raised to the levels of snailmail > and telephone calls, perhaps higher, because of the value of almost instant > delivery. > > They will justify it by offering premium services (just like the U.S. Postal > Service) of secure encryption (except for the backdoor for the 3-letter > agencies), certified delivery, delivery confirmation, etc. > > They could conceivably require that *all* email be routed through their > servers in order to maintain proper control. (They'll call it the Electronic > Post Office.). > > In any event, it will require new protocols and new software for everyone > wanting to use email. > > So, if you don't fix the problem, the politicians will. > > Their solution will cost everyone money, the democratic nature of the > Internet will be lost, everyone will have to get new software anyway, and it > won't even stop spam. > > > Jed Margolin > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 22:09:07 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA00088 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 22:09:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2R3TgD29242 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 22:29:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R3TgO29239 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 22:29:42 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA00012; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 22:08:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R3RaO29074; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 22:27:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R3P3O28974 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 22:25:03 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA29744 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 22:03:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2R35dca028024 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:05:39 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303270305.h2R35dca028024@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: 5c. Message Status - Re: [Asrg] ASRG work items References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:05:39 -0700 (MST) > From: "Jon Kyme" > > - I think communicating consent is hopeless and even a bad idea. > > Advertisers will never entirely honor anything but "tell me more." > > The only person who can be trusted to honor consent is the end user. > might *consult* my consent - including (in a particular order): > My organisation, my ISP, a legitimate mass mailer, the courts. The needs of the courts to determine your consent have nothing to do with network protocols, the IETF, or the IRTF. That extreme case illustrates some problems with the other cases. > And why (I know I shouldn't bite) a "bad idea"? It's a bad idea because saying "ok, you're ok but no thanks" will get you more spam. Any expression sent to almost any mass mailer, no matter how legitimate, is likely to be "checked," as in "6 months (weeks, days, or hours) ago you said you didn't want to hear everything from us. surely you've changed your mind?" Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 22:16:22 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA00376 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 22:16:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2R3bQN30340 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 22:37:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R3bQO30329 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 22:37:26 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA00338; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 22:15:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R3aAO29522; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 22:36:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R3Z6O29474 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 22:35:06 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA00214 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 22:13:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc01.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2R3DNMX002315; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 19:13:23 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 19:15:50 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Brad Templeton'" , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'william@elan.net'" , "'Kee Hinckley'" , "'Asrg (asrg@ietf.org)'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 5b. Opt-Out, 2nd version MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 19:15:47 -0800 > My issue is this. If you have a system -- any system at all -- which > will "clean" (ie. remove opted out addresses) from a large > spammer's master > list (such as the lists they trade around on CD, you all have > gotten spams > to buy them) then it is inherent that you will be giving them > back a list > of all people on their list not in the opt-out list, and thus > a list of > all people on their list who _are_ on the opt-out list. What is the risk that you are concerned about here? That the spam sender might send MORE email to people that don't want it? If the list has at least as high a percentage of garbage addresses as the lists do on average it will be useless as a mechanism for validating addresses. Trying to send mail to the junk addresses will cause bounces. In fact ISPs receiving lots of email to closed accounts would have an incentive to list so the list might well end up having more closed accounts and other bogus emails than addresses of genuine folk who want to opt out. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 22:32:03 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA00813 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 22:32:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2R3r7v31057 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 22:53:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R3r7O31054 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 22:53:07 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA00791; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 22:31:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R3q8O30987; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 22:52:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R3pQO30954 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 22:51:26 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA00732 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 22:29:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2R3WAAc000493 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:32:10 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303270332.h2R3WAAc000493@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: 5c. Message Status - Re: [Asrg] ASRG work items References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:32:10 -0700 (MST) > From: Chuq Von Rospach > >> - I think communicating consent is hopeless and even a bad idea. > >> Advertisers will never entirely honor anything but "tell me more." > > This is bogus. It's like saying because there are hackers out there, > all programmers can't be trusted. Let's use an even wider brush for the > painting, and simply go for the entire human race in one swath. > > Smart advertisers have figured out that stuffing messages down user's > throats when they don't want them makes them a lot more likely to buy > your products (yeah, right). > > Please don't assume that since some sites (like real) are deceptive in > how they do their consent management and others are outright frauds > that everyone's like that. that simply polarizes a discussion into > camps that fight when cooperation is in fact needed. Have you ever worked with or otherwise encountered a marketing organization that will never have an enthusiastic member who will dig out the old lists to see if any contacts might have changed their minds? I've know several marketing organizations up close, including at very strongly anti-Internet-abuse over the decades, but they've all had similar problems. Have you heard of any marketing organization of more than ~50 people or for a company of more than 1000 employees that has not had and will not always have occassional spam problems? I've not. The difference between hopelessly enthusiastic spammers like RealNetworks and the rest of the Fortune 100,000 is in a matter of degree. In fact no prgrammers can be entirely trusted because some of us are bad guys. That is why we have all sorts of access control mechanisms. I think that any non-trivial "consent mechanisms" would be like root accounts without passwords, sendmail "debug" switches, and gets() or sprintf() functions. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Mar 26 23:02:12 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA01549 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 23:02:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2R4NHc00654 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 23:23:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R4NHO00651 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 23:23:17 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA01537; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 23:01:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R4M6O00588; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 23:22:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R4LIO00553 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 23:21:18 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA01466 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 22:59:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2198078; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 23:02:04 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <0FDFF80D-5FF7-11D7-B69B-00039380F1B6@pobox.com> References: <0FDFF80D-5FF7-11D7-B69B-00039380F1B6@pobox.com> To: mathew From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] email pull (was RE: Authentication ) Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 21:16:55 -0500 At 8:54 PM -0500 3/26/03, mathew wrote: >This goes back to the suggestion from myself and others, earlier on. > >Once you've moved the mailing list traffic to an RSS-like "pull" >system, you take the next step, and move all e-mail traffic to it. > >Now for someone to send you e-mail, they send you the bare URL of >their RSS feed from them to you. Pull is a great idea, and if we can persuade mailing list operators to offer it as a choice, that's great. But it's not email. It doesn't have a number of the necessary attributes for person-to-person email. - it requires a server that is up all the time - it requires storing outgoing email for an indefinite amount of time - it completely the destroys the go-online, fetch, go-offline model From a resource and operational standpoint it looks an awful lot like running a web server. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 27 00:37:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA04077 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 00:37:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2R5wnS07005 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 00:58:49 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R5wnO07002 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 00:58:49 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA04067; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 00:37:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R5vPO06968; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 00:57:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R5ugO06915 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 00:56:42 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA04012 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 00:35:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2R5bKKJ013960 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 22:37:20 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303270537.h2R5bKKJ013960@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 5b. Opt-Out, 2nd version References: <20030327011112.GE29146@main.templetons.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 22:37:20 -0700 (MST) > From: Brad Templeton > ... > Secondly, we would want to avoid spammers deliberately spamming all the people > who opted out because they can get a list of all of them. > > The seeding idea is interesting. It doesn't solve the first problem, your > name will still go on a list that can be made public, but as I said we can > probably survive that, it's just somewhat ironic to have to go public to > protect your privacy. > ... > you get spam, you're on their lists, so they can make a list of everybody > on the opt-out list who is on a common spammer's list. > > Now why they want to spam it I don't know, possibly for spite. Only well hidden > overseas spammers would do it, but they would. > ... Why do some spammers curently test 10,000 arbitrary user names at many domain names to see if they are valid with either Rcpt_To "vrfy" or trial spam? Whatever their reasons, wouldn't it be far faster and easier for them to get the same information using the opt-out system? Imagine that you are a spammer and do not have a current list of targets. What if you test against the opt-out system a list of 10,000 or 1,000,000 user names, starting with "tom", "dick, and "harry," and continuing with zillions of other names including message-IDs and other strings, all combined with a few 1000 or 1,000,000 domain names? That would give you a list of many of the entries in the opt-out list. If you were a spammer who doesn't believe the opt-out list applies to your important message, could you use such a list? Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 27 01:04:09 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA04965 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 01:04:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2R6PHM09000 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 01:25:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R6PHO08997 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 01:25:17 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA04946; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 01:03:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R6O5O08911; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 01:24:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R6N2O08861 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 01:23:02 -0500 Received: from plaidworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA04872 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 01:01:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.8/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h2R63WZQ018291; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 22:03:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] email pull (was RE: Authentication ) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: mathew , asrg@ietf.org To: Kee Hinckley From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 22:03:31 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wednesday, March 26, 2003, at 06:16 PM, Kee Hinckley wrote: > Pull is a great idea, and if we can persuade mailing list operators to > offer it as a choice, that's great. > > But it's not email. No, but it solves THAT problem nicely. I better be careful, or I'll use the words "hammer" and "nails" soon. and it helps solve some of the e-mail problems, becaues the more you can take this kind of content out of the email stream, the easier it is to focus on other issues. Effectively, moving this stuff to RSS would whitelist it for us, which simplifies the problem we're trying to solve. > It doesn't have a number of the necessary attributes for > person-to-person email. not intended to. it's a one to many solution. but a lot of email IS one to many. > - it requires a server that is up all the time not really. Good RSS readers will retry over time. It needs a server that's moderately well connect and moderately useful, but it'd work nicely over a dialup for personal stuff. > - it requires storing outgoing email for an indefinite amount of time why? RSS generally doesn't do that. it stores the last "N". > - it completely the destroys the go-online, fetch, go-offline model > From a resource and operational standpoint it looks an awful lot like > running a web server. > well, that's because you're running a web server. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 27 02:09:26 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA15182 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 02:09:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2R7Uag23427 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 02:30:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R7UaO23424 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 02:30:36 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA14661; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 02:08:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R7TMO23168; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 02:29:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R7SaO23145 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 02:28:36 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA12707 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 02:06:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h2R79D106630; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 23:09:13 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: Vernon Schryver Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 5b. Opt-Out, 2nd version Message-ID: <20030327070913.GK29146@main.templetons.com> References: <20030327011112.GE29146@main.templetons.com> <200303270537.h2R5bKKJ013960@calcite.rhyolite.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200303270537.h2R5bKKJ013960@calcite.rhyolite.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 23:09:13 -0800 On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 10:37:20PM -0700, Vernon Schryver wrote: > Why do some spammers curently test 10,000 arbitrary user names at many > domain names to see if they are valid with either Rcpt_To "vrfy" or > trial spam? Whatever their reasons, wouldn't it be far faster and > easier for them to get the same information using the opt-out system? That is indeed the problem I am pointing out. I noted dictionary attacks as another possible avenue. That's less likely with a cleaning "service" in that the service could notice that you're trying to clean a dictionary list, but even then it's hard to fully protect. One way or another, if there is an opt out list, the spammers will get ahold of most of it, and presumably abuse it. However, it should be noted that this would be a particularly strong offence, sent to people who are known hostile to spam, so doing this would bring down even harsher penalties, but I wouldn't bank on their effectiveness. If the list is seeded with tens of millions of addresses which are bogus, it it becomes harder, but there must be no way for them to find out if those addresses are bogus -- ie. you must not be able to verify them with vrfy, and mail servers must accept delivery for them, or they will be quickly weeded out. The seeded addresses would of course contain lots of dictionary style addresses (common names, initial plus common last name etc.) But it would possibly result in a lot of spams you have to eat just to make this tactic ineffective. It was for this reason that I decided that the rather unsatisfactory approach of getting a new mailing address that had a reserved word in the domain to indicate opt-out was all that could be done to be immune to this particular attack. But it's pretty dramatic, having to get a new email. (though you could have an autoresponder on your old email to tell people about your new one, and even forward the old one for a time etc.) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 27 02:35:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA18767 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 02:35:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2R7uqV25457 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 02:56:52 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R7upO25453 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 02:56:51 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA18735; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 02:35:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R7s8O25327; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 02:54:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R7qXO25262 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 02:52:33 -0500 Received: from tomts12-srv.bellnexxia.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA18578 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 02:30:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from node1 ([64.231.8.176]) by tomts12-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.19 201-253-122-122-119-20020516) with SMTP id <20030327073311.OKDO23066.tomts12-srv.bellnexxia.net@node1> for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 02:33:11 -0500 From: Joe Hill To: Antispam Research Message-Id: <20030327023010.0885994f.joehill@sympatico.ca> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] lists of known spammer domains? Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 02:30:10 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Could someone link me to a list of known spammer domains? Thanks. -- Warm regards, - Joe "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - H.S.T. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 27 02:57:20 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA19206 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 02:57:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2R8IVN26998 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 03:18:31 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R8IUO26995 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 03:18:30 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA19140; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 02:56:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R8H7O26952; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 03:17:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R8GiO26935 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 03:16:44 -0500 Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA19114 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 02:55:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18ySG9-0000dZ-00; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 23:57:13 -0800 To: Chuq Von Rospach cc: Kee Hinckley , mathew , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] email pull (was RE: Authentication ) In-Reply-To: Message from Chuq Von Rospach of "Wed, 26 Mar 2003 22:03:31 PST." References: X-face: ?^_yw@fA`CEX&}--=*&XqXbF-oePvxaT4(kyt\nwM9]{]N!>b^K}-Mb9 YH%saz^>nq5usBlD"s{(.h'_w|U^3ldUq7wVZz$`u>MB(-4$f\a6Eu8.e=Pf\ X-image-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/kanga.face.tiff X-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Message-ID: <2452.1048751833@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 23:57:13 -0800 On Wed, 26 Mar 2003 22:03:31 -0800 Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > not really. Good RSS readers will retry over time. It needs a server > that's moderately well connect and moderately useful, but it'd work > nicely over a dialup for personal stuff. Additionally now that we're inventing whole new transports and formats there's also nothing to say that the RSS feed wouldn't be available via BitTorrent or a distributed gnutella-like protocol, thus requiring very little in the way of connectivity of the original server. Heck, all we have to do is add conversational supports and we have NNTP redux. >> - it requires storing outgoing email for an indefinite amount of time > why? RSS generally doesn't do that. it stores the last "N". ObNote: This assumes that the RSS feed is statically generated and not the result of a (complex) query. Neither need be true (and neither is true in the case of systems I'm currently building). >> - it completely the destroys the go-online, fetch, go-offline model >> From a resource and operational standpoint it looks an awful lot like >> running a web server. > well, that's because you're running a web server. Gack! -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 27 03:06:06 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA19467 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 03:06:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2R8RHt27392 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 03:27:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R8RGO27389 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 03:27:16 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA19431; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 03:05:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R8N3O27253; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 03:23:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R8M5O27203 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 03:22:05 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA19365 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 03:00:23 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2R6Btbn001820; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 22:11:55 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2R6BsSp001816; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 22:11:55 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: Teo cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 4b Survey of solutions and place in taxonomy of solutions In-Reply-To: <00d901c2f3df$9903e0e0$0b01a8c0@gateway> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 22:11:54 -0800 (PST) You're wrong here. While ipv6 provides delivery path tracking capabilities (which may or may not be supported by in-between routers) for ip packets, this is different communication layer and only helps in tracking where ip came from and what routers it traversed, this has nothing to do with SMTP where each mail in itself can be thought of as packet traversing serious of nodes and for email path tracking is basicly the received headers. I will not go into more details here, but if you want to understand more, please read good book on networking or see: http://glossary.its.bldrdoc.gov/fs-1037/dir-025/_3680.htm http://www2.rad.com/networks/1997/nettut/protocols.html IPv4 and IPv4 are network layer, while SMTP is application layer and one does not help the other that much at least in our case. On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Teo wrote: > Taxonomy: > > I think that if IPv6 was operational it will fulfill the requirements of > > 1. b) ii) Tracking and > 2. b) iii) (2) How was it sent - delivery path info > > I am not sure what the chances of IPv6 are of ever making it into the real > net, however for completeness reasons we should include its as part of a > solution that will make the job of tracing spammers much easier. Also it > will make blacklisting / watching address blocks possible because of the > hierarchical nature of IPv6 address allocation. There might be something in > the proposed 1to1 mapping between geographical areas and address blocks > allocation. > > Spammers will not be able to hide anymore, or make the job of hiding > hardware intensive, therefore more costly, thus changing the business model, > hopefully crossing the line into making it non profitable. > > > Teo > > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 27 03:48:27 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA20228 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 03:48:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2R99e231286 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 04:09:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R99dO31283 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 04:09:39 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA20213; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 03:47:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R98SO31209; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 04:08:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R97TO30886 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 04:07:29 -0500 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA20190 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 03:45:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 18yT3O-0006ci-00; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 08:48:06 +0000 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: 5c. Message Status - Re: [Asrg] ASRG work items To: "Chuq Von Rospach" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.4.13] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 172.25.243.3 Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 08:48:06 +0000 > > On Wednesday, March 26, 2003, at 12:36 PM, Jon Kyme wrote: > > > >> - I think communicating consent is hopeless and even a bad idea. > >> Advertisers will never entirely honor anything but "tell me more." > Ooh - please sort out your ascribing - it was V.S. said that. Thank you. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 27 03:55:12 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA20330 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 03:55:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2R9GO531581 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 04:16:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R9GOO31578 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 04:16:24 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA20324; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 03:54:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R9F2O31523; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 04:15:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R9EdO31477 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 04:14:39 -0500 Received: from mr1.ima.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA20300 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 03:52:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.ima.com ([202.75.0.13]) by mr1.ima.com with ESMTP (IMA Internet Exchange 6.0) id 1d430d; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 16:49:46 +0800 Received: from banaue ([172.16.16.9]) by mail.ima.com with ESMTP (IMA Internet Exchange 6.0) id 104fdb; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 16:41:00 +0800 Message-ID: <002b01c2f43d$bcee4730$091010ac@banaue> From: "Tim Kehres" To: "Joe Hill" , "Antispam Research" References: <20030327023010.0885994f.joehill@sympatico.ca> Subject: Re: [Asrg] lists of known spammer domains? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 16:49:11 +0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit You might try looking at some of the various RBL lists for different sets of opinions on this. :-) Best Regards, Tim Kehres International Messaging Associates http://www.ima.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Hill" To: "Antispam Research" Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 3:30 PM Subject: [Asrg] lists of known spammer domains? > Could someone link me to a list of known spammer domains? > > Thanks. > > -- > Warm regards, > > - Joe > > "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." > - H.S.T. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 27 04:08:19 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA20602 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 04:08:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2R9TW332059 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 04:29:32 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R9TWO32056 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 04:29:32 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA20596; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 04:07:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R9S4O32012; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 04:28:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R9QdO31955 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 04:26:39 -0500 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA20574 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 04:04:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 18yTLt-0000DC-00; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 09:07:13 +0000 In-Reply-To: <200303270305.h2R35dca028024@calcite.rhyolite.com> Subject: Re: 5c. Message Status - Re: [Asrg] ASRG work items To: "Vernon Schryver" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.4.13] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 172.25.243.3 Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 09:07:13 +0000 > > VS>> > - I think communicating consent is hopeless and even a bad idea. >> > Advertisers will never entirely honor anything but "tell me more." >> > The only person who can be trusted to honor consent is the end user. > JK>> might *consult* my consent - including (in a particular order): >> My organisation, my ISP, a legitimate mass mailer, the courts. > VS>The needs of the courts to determine your consent have nothing to do >with network protocols, the IETF, or the IRTF. That extreme case >illustrates some problems with the other cases. > Sorry, what? Again the non sequitur. You imply consent expression is useless. I point out 4 examples of entities who might consult it. The needs of *any* entity to consult consent are *clearly* a consideration in the formulation of a consent expression framework (be it expressed through a network protocol, proposed through the IETF, the IRTF or written on a matchbook). >> And why (I know I shouldn't bite) a "bad idea"? > >It's a bad idea because saying "ok, you're ok but no thanks" will get >you more spam. Any expression sent to almost any mass mailer, no >matter how legitimate, is likely to be "checked," as in "6 months >(weeks, days, or hours) ago you said you didn't want to hear everything >from us. surely you've changed your mind?" > Yes maybe - so they consult your consent again. Is there some problem with this? I can only assume that you see problems (unspecified) with some particular mechanism (unspecified) of consent expression - and then make the logical false step which leads you to conclude that consent expression in general must have those flaws. This is bad reasoning, and makes for bad argument. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 27 04:37:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA21187 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 04:37:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2R9woB01557 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 04:58:50 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R9woO01554 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 04:58:50 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA21137; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 04:37:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R9v9O01451; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 04:57:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2R9sXO01338 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 04:54:33 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA21026 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 04:32:48 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2R7iNbn002926 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 23:44:23 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2R7iNqY002922 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 23:44:23 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Asrg] 5b. Opt-Out, 3rd version Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 23:44:23 -0800 (PST) I'v made futher update to opt-out notes based on what was discussed today. The notes are now separated into general section on what we want out of opt-out, how to we can do it and how to enforce it and first part can be used to evaluate opt-out proposals as well. I'm hoping we can finish with the general discussion and in the future use the notes when talking about actual proposals. And I do actually have idea on trying to mix #2 and #3 together with some properties of #1 --------------------------------------------------------------- I. Requirements/Goals for Opt-Out 1. General - To reduce amount of commercial email received Pros: a. We all want less commercial mail!!! b. If at least some advertisers follow opt-out we should have less mail unwanted email Cons: b. Many are afraid that opt-out may instead bring more commercial mail by allowing advertisers to confirm your email addresses 2. To provide global opt-out system that large number of legitimate commercial mail entities can all use at the same time Pros: a. Standard system that you can apply to large number of lists you maybe on is convinient b. Standard way for marketing companies to find your opt-out preferences reduces their own cost of emailing and dealing with unhappy customers Cons: a. This only works for legitimate business that abide by these rules, everybody else will continue to do as they wish b. Unless we have good enforcement even some legit business may not agree to this 3. To provide local opt-out to only particular types of email or even more specific for particular maillist Pros: a. You could potentially be very specific on what emails you want to receive. For example if you're loooking for a car you'd be interested to hear about car dealership offers and advertisers could be very specific to your needs which works in your favor. b. If advertisers know what you want they'd be able to a lot better manage their own resources. c. Certain global types is a must, for example children should not be expected to receive any offers of adult nature or for alcogol or cigarates and in fact this maybe againt the law depending on locality and advertisers Cons: a. Its somewhat difficult to have everybody agree on classification of commercial advertisements though some very broad global scale maybe possible that will satisfy c. b. Even if classification is agreed, some email offers may fall into multiple categories, or are otherwise not as clear about exact type, the reality is that classifying email to be sent into certain category is still up to advertiser and this may not agree with how user who opted out would classify it 4. To provide capabilities to temporary reduce amount of email received Pros: a. In some situations its usefull to be able to opt-out of all commercial email for certain period (when you're on vacation) and opt-in at another when you actually have time or interest to read more email Cons: b. Most opt-out procedures are likely to take longer time then several day or week that you may actually be on vacation and temporary opt-out might not work that well, filters or automatic forwarding of certain email to special mailbox maybe better 5. To filter out legitimate email marketing companies from "true" spammers Pros: a. There exists email marketing industry that provides real service to users who really really opted to receive such emails. But these companies suffer by being compared to spammers (some are like that) and standards that these companies should follow will to distiguish good marketing companies from bad. b. If we had clear guidelines what email marketing companies need to do to not be considered spammers and this is supported by law, then they will follow it more often and our we'd have less complaints about improper emails Cons: a. Bad spammers will inevitably try to diguise themselve as email marketing companies and this can make things even worse. Note: 5 points listed above can be used as way to evaluate exact opt-out technology proposals. These proposals would fall into one or more of the below categories: II. Technlogies for Opt-Out 1. Distributed lists which use some type of encryption to allow validation of particular address but not see enter list. Pros: a. Opt-out lists can be easily cleaned up before the transmission b. Distribution of lists can be controlled by tightly controlled. Some improper activities can be prevented by using special email addresses specific for each authorized client c1. Dictionary Attack prevention An email that is not for valid user but easily guessable is introduced. If emails are received to this address, this indicates dictionary attack was tried c2. Proper conduct in collecting emails by advertiser Email addresses are added that are not actually used in email (example - addresses added into webpages and collected by spiders) If advertiser checks for these email address, he does not have properly collected email list d. Because all advertisers that use opt-out lists sign service agreement both legal and criminal court actions are easier Cons: a. Because entire list is received by advertiser, its a lot easier for it to just check very very large list of email addresses and get practicly entire list of opt-out addresses (see above c2 how they can possibly be caught) b. Distribution lists can easily go sub-distributed and go beyoned authenticated base and thereafter abused c. Patents relating to the encryption technologies exists d. Concerns about who and how will make opt-out lists and distribute them e. Concerns that opt-out lists will instead be used to verify if email address in spammer database is real f. Its possibly encryption technology maybe broken in some distant future g. It takes longest time to opt-out or change opt-out status with this technology 2. Opt-out server. Here special service/server is made available to legit bulk-mailers. Anybody wishing to check if the address is opt-out or not can connect to that server and check Variations: 2a. One unified service is made available by the authorized agency 2b. A number of special opt-out servers exist in parallel which are used/run by different groups of commercial mailers Pros: a. Opt-out lists can be cleaned up before the transmission begins b. Distribution of lists can be controlled by tightly controlled with authentication means and distribution beyond authorized advertiser is not allowed. Because its known who is accessing the list, there exist way to also detect some improper activities c1. Dictionary Attack prevention - see c1 in #1 above c2. Proper conduct in collecting emails by advertiser - see c2 above c. If improper activities are detected as in c1 or c2 or if somebody is trying to access to check way too many addresses (trying to verify their 100 million emails CD), the access to client can be denied fairly fast! d. Because access would involve service agreement, the law may make it easier to prosecute the offenders Cons: a. Special opt-out verification protocol may have to be developed b. Concerns about who and how will run opt-out service c. Concerns that opt-out service will instead be used to verify if email address in spammer database is real d. Depending how service is setup, it may take long for opt-out to work (i.e. until maketers do updates to their lists). 3. Opt-out system maintained together with mail servers on per-domain basis. Variations: 3a. Service made available as part of mail server, new command added to SMTP to check opt-out preference of user on email server 3b. Service made available as part of mail transmission and is more tightly integrated with actually sending email, i.e. email being sent contains some preference for opt-out check and email server can based on that return email back with proper error code Note: to a degree this is what some filters already do ... 3c. Service made available through separate protocol to be run by ISP on per-domain basis. Pros: a. An opt-out is controlled by mail server operator and not any questinable central agency. b. Depending on how system is implemented it maybe a lot harder to actually gather list of valid email addresses (mail server operator may choose to answer opted-out for any email address that does not exist, for example) Cons: a. A new protocol (or extensions to SMTP) need to be developed b. It maybe a lot harder to clean up lists before emailing (maybe this this also good thing?) c. If implemented as in 3a all MX servers (even backups) may need to answer yes on question of opt-out, this created implementation problems and seems unnecessary d. Access to opt-out verification has to be made public (or at most on per email basis) and no serious authentication of who can access it can be done. These allows easy avenue for abuse. 4. Modification of Email address to show opt-out choice. Variations: 4a. General opt-out choice recognized by everybody, which may actually be some variation of mail service domain/subdomain 4b. Opt-in choice specific to particular situation or mailing list example - email+list@domain.com Pros: a. Very easy to implement and does not require new technology, 4b is already actively used by many b. Address itself shows optout choice, so spammers can not do email address cleanup for purposes of finding valid address Note: this is also a Con! c. Opt-out choice is controlled by each individual user and not by external entity (be it central agency or mail service provider) Cons: a. This generally requires us to use different email address then what we already do, often even more then one. It does not address issues with existing currently use email addresses (see section I on what we want to do), this is a BIG Con. b. Use of "special" email address may also be taken by spammers as verification that email address is valid! Below are possible ways to deal with those that do not comply with opt-out standards if any are to be developed III. Enforcement of Opt-Out Note: #1 and #2 below may well be done in parallel 1. Done by goverment by legislation to have all commercial email marketers participate in some system or abide by specific protocol standards Enforcement is afterwards left to courts Pros: a. There would be clear guidelines for commercial email senders to follow and if they do not they will pay an actual price for it b. Its a lot more likely commercial businesses will follow the law Cons: a. This maybe problematic when considering email as global system and not specific to US or EU laws b. It takes some time for laws to be passed and then be verified in courts to be workable 2. Enforcement is left to ISP/mail server operators through use of filters if email is found to be from commercial email marketer that is known to mail server operator Pros: a. Filtering is already well adapted technology b. When email is found to have violated opt-out choice, stopping future email from the particular marketer is easy and fast (blacklist) but it does require marketers to be well identified Cons: a. Use of filtering means some email will inevitably be filtered b. Filters will never completed stop unwanted email even with opt-out choice, some email marketers may choose not to follow it ------ William Leibzon Elan Communications Inc. william@elan.net _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 27 06:08:47 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA23154 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 06:08:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2RBU1k07671 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 06:30:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RBU1O07664 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 06:30:01 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA23139; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 06:08:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RBQbO07436; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 06:26:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RBNmO07361 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 06:23:48 -0500 Received: from moebius2.Space.Net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id GAA22970 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 06:02:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 13569 invoked by uid 1013); 27 Mar 2003 11:04:23 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 5b. Opt-Out, 2nd version Message-ID: <20030327120423.A10143@Space.Net> References: <20030327011112.GE29146@main.templetons.com> <200303270537.h2R5bKKJ013960@calcite.rhyolite.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <200303270537.h2R5bKKJ013960@calcite.rhyolite.com>; from vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com on Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 10:37:20PM -0700 Organization: SpaceNet AG, Muenchen, Germany X-PGP-Fingerprint: 66 F3 75 79 01 D0 B8 5F 1A C7 77 88 4A B6 70 DF Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 12:04:23 +0100 On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 10:37:20PM -0700, Vernon Schryver wrote: > Why do some spammers curently test 10,000 arbitrary user names at many > domain names to see if they are valid with either Rcpt_To "vrfy" or > trial spam? What evidence do you have they do? I can't see this happen. We host about 10000 domains and we do log VRFY commands. I see about one VRFY a day and and checking the session it's not from spammers but someone using a telnet connection to speak SMTP and playing around. If you mean by verify that they use mail1.asp-platform.com:216.109.92.216 rejected: to this would mean that they care for the results. They don't. Although the above inject results in a permanent error every time, they did exactly the same sender/recipient pair about 70 times within the last 12 hours. Probing would mean doing it once, ok maybe 2-3 times to be sure, but not 70 times within 12 hours or 208 times within the last 36 hours or 368 times within the last 60 hours The last "massive spam attack" were about 5 million bounces where the spammers used the same username as sender name they used for the recipient, i.e. from user@bouncevictim.domain to user@target.domain they didn't get the bounces back. We got them. They simply don't care and why should they? I have yet to see a reason why spammers should honor an opt-out list at all. With snail mail it a massive cost factor, so "robinson lists" save a lot of money for the sender. With email nobody cares. And you will never get a law to enforce this policy. And if you get it in country one they abuse it in country two. And what worldwide resolutions/agreements mean this days can be seen in tv and every newspapers for the last few days. Discussing opt-out list strategies is IMHO a waste of time. \Maex -- SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0 Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 "The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 27 06:24:12 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA23438 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 06:24:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2RBjQB08990 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 06:45:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RBjQO08987 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 06:45:26 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA23429; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 06:23:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RBg5O08881; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 06:42:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RBdfO08790 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 06:39:41 -0500 Received: from rhenium.btinternet.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA23317 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 06:17:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from host217-35-52-188.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([217.35.52.188] helo=gateway) by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #24) id 18yVQX-0001S2-00; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:20:10 +0000 Message-ID: <001801c2f452$c45e3880$0b01a8c0@gateway> From: "Teo" To: Cc: References: Subject: Re: [Asrg] 4b Survey of solutions and place in taxonomy of solutions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4920.2300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:19:43 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, William You are of course correct as to the division in layers etc, as per the OSI model. However, if something bothers you in one layer (spam email) you can dig in the underlying layers (maybe not through SMTP, but do we limit ourselves to SMTP?) to find out where the offending packets came from. You still have to figure out what to do about it, however at the moment there is much IP spoofing etc. If a spam email source was traced to a single computer, then blacklisting that computer will force the spammer to at least change the network card, maybe more if the NIC is on the motherboard. The added time / money expended by spammers might tip the balance into the unprofitable range. in IPv6 there is a hardware component to the way the IP address is constructed, also the plan is to allocate the non-hardware ranges by geographical region. This might also help if you then set your email client / server spam filter to only accept mail from your chosen countries, leaving out the wilder regions of the globe. Regards Teo ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Teo" Cc: Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 6:11 AM Subject: Re: [Asrg] 4b Survey of solutions and place in taxonomy of solutions > You're wrong here. While ipv6 provides delivery path tracking capabilities > (which may or may not be supported by in-between routers) for ip > packets, this is different communication layer and only helps in tracking > where ip came from and what routers it traversed, this has nothing to do > with SMTP where each mail in itself can be thought of as packet > traversing serious of nodes and for email path tracking is basicly the > received headers. I will not go into more details here, but if you want to > understand more, please read good book on networking or see: > http://glossary.its.bldrdoc.gov/fs-1037/dir-025/_3680.htm > http://www2.rad.com/networks/1997/nettut/protocols.html > > IPv4 and IPv4 are network layer, while SMTP is application layer and one > does not help the other that much at least in our case. > > On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Teo wrote: > > > Taxonomy: > > > > I think that if IPv6 was operational it will fulfill the requirements of > > > > 1. b) ii) Tracking and > > 2. b) iii) (2) How was it sent - delivery path info > > > > I am not sure what the chances of IPv6 are of ever making it into the real > > net, however for completeness reasons we should include its as part of a > > solution that will make the job of tracing spammers much easier. Also it > > will make blacklisting / watching address blocks possible because of the > > hierarchical nature of IPv6 address allocation. There might be something in > > the proposed 1to1 mapping between geographical areas and address blocks > > allocation. > > > > Spammers will not be able to hide anymore, or make the job of hiding > > hardware intensive, therefore more costly, thus changing the business model, > > hopefully crossing the line into making it non profitable. > > > > > > Teo > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Asrg mailing list > > Asrg@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 27 06:49:55 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA23955 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 06:49:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2RCBAe10722 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 07:11:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RCBAO10719 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 07:11:10 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA23949; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 06:49:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RC89O10616; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 07:08:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RC5gO09765 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 07:05:42 -0500 Received: from moebius2.Space.Net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id GAA23859 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 06:43:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 18803 invoked by uid 1013); 27 Mar 2003 11:46:17 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 4b Survey of solutions and place in taxonomy of solutions Message-ID: <20030327124617.B10143@Space.Net> References: <001801c2f452$c45e3880$0b01a8c0@gateway> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <001801c2f452$c45e3880$0b01a8c0@gateway>; from vteodorescu@btinternet.com on Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 11:19:43AM -0000 Organization: SpaceNet AG, Muenchen, Germany X-PGP-Fingerprint: 66 F3 75 79 01 D0 B8 5F 1A C7 77 88 4A B6 70 DF Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 12:46:17 +0100 On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 11:19:43AM -0000, Teo wrote: > in IPv6 there is a hardware component to the way the IP address is > constructed, which will most likely never been seen outside the LAN, as routers will either not route the addresses or will rewrite them. > also the plan is to allocate the non-hardware ranges by > geographical region. This might also help if you then set your email client > / server spam filter to only accept mail from your chosen countries, leaving > out the wilder regions of the globe. The plan is obsolete. Current allocation practise has already broken this concept. Also blocking mails based on geographical information is not a solution to the problem. Current allocation practise is to allocate at least /64 blocks. That are 2^64 addresses. This means everyone will have at least 2^64 addresses. In a small company this will be fun: Hack one host and grab the 2^64-10 or so free addresses and you can send each spam mail from a different IPv6 address. IPv6 will not contribute to solving the spam problem in any way. \Maex -- SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0 Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 "The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 27 09:49:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA00170 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 09:49:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2RFAum23030 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:10:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RFAuO23027 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:10:56 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA00164; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 09:49:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RF5PO22033; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:05:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RF24O21906 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:02:04 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA00047 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 09:40:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2201538; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 09:42:33 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: Chuq Von Rospach From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] email pull (was RE: Authentication ) Cc: mathew , asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 09:26:51 -0500 At 10:03 PM -0800 3/26/03, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: >> It doesn't have a number of the necessary attributes for >>person-to-person email. > >not intended to. it's a one to many solution. but a lot of email IS >one to many. I don't disagree. However there have been a number of proposals made to this list that assumed it would be a drop-in replacement for all email. >>- it requires a server that is up all the time > >not really. Good RSS readers will retry over time. It needs a server >that's moderately well connect and moderately useful, but it'd work >nicely over a dialup for personal stuff. Not for the average end-user. For someone who was conscious that they were running a service, and made an effort to be online a reasonable amount of the time, yes. We've had this discussion on a previous thread wrt a proposal to make email end-to-end instead of store and forward. >>- it requires storing outgoing email for an indefinite amount of time > >why? RSS generally doesn't do that. it stores the last "N". True, but RSS also usually points at a web server that has the rest of the messages. Again--primarily an issue if you are trying to replace N to N, not so much for 1 to N. >>- it completely the destroys the go-online, fetch, go-offline model >>From a resource and operational standpoint it looks an awful lot >>like running a web server. >> > >well, that's because you're running a web server. Precisely. Again, primarily an issue only if you are trying to replace something other than a mailing list. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 27 09:52:11 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA00259 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 09:52:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2RFDVp23154 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:13:31 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RFDVO23151 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:13:31 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA00233; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 09:51:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RF9ZO22921; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:09:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RF28O21910 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:02:08 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA00049 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 09:40:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2201542; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 09:42:34 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <200303261736.h2QHaS5D023747@calcite.rhyolite.com> <200303261736.h2QHaS5D023747@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Tony Finch From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: 5c. Message Status - Re: [Asrg] ASRG work items Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 09:39:03 -0500 At 7:07 PM +0000 3/26/03, Tony Finch wrote: >Kee Hinckley wrote: >>At 10:36 AM -0700 3/26/03, Vernon Schryver wrote: >>>Oh, I was confused. I think spending time on bounce formats is a >>>bigger waste of time than "internationalizing" error messages from >>>programs. In practice, computer error messages are always opaque >>>cybercrud to everyone except the priesthood. "ABEND 12345" may be a >> >>I would take this as a *reason* to standardize them. Given that they >>are getting even more confusing. The point isn't to standardize them >>for humans--but for computers. > >What's wrong with these? Bear in mind that I've just gone and skimmed these. So if I've misrepresented one, let me knomw. > >3461 Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) Service Extension for > Delivery Status Notifications (DSNs). K. Moore. January 2003. > (Format: TXT=76076 bytes) (Obsoletes RFC1891) (Status: DRAFT > STANDARD) This requires that the sending MTA request extended result codes which makes widespread deployment more difficult. >3463 Enhanced Mail System Status Codes. G. Vaudreuil. January 2003. > (Format: TXT=31832 bytes) (Obsoletes RFC1893) (Status: DRAFT > STANDARD) Right idea, but the semantics we are looking for aren't covered there, and I think they are complex enough that we're going to have to specify standard contents for the text part of the response as well as the numeric code. > >3464 An Extensible Message Format for Delivery Status Notifications. > K. Moore, G. Vaudreuil. January 2003. (Format: TXT=83060 bytes) > (Obsoletes RFC1894) (Status: DRAFT STANDARD) This looks like a good base for the replies. What we need to do is standardize on a set of headers that fit within the framework. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 27 10:51:00 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04606 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:51:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2RGCJR27854 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:12:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RGCJO27851 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:12:19 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04596; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:50:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RFxCO26443; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:59:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RFuCO26315 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:56:12 -0500 Received: from plaidworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA03551 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:34:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.8/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h2RFaRZQ024332; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 07:36:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] 5b. Opt-Out, 2nd version Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: asrg@ietf.org To: Markus Stumpf From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <20030327120423.A10143@Space.Net> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 07:36:26 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thursday, March 27, 2003, at 03:04 AM, Markus Stumpf wrote: > I have yet to see a reason why spammers should honor an opt-out list > at all. > With snail mail it a massive cost factor, so "robinson lists" save a > lot > of money for the sender. > It's yet another example of lumping the e-marketers in with the fraudulent spammers, and assuming they're one in the same in search of "a solution". The e-marketing segment is a different beast (and a much tinier problem) to the problem of all that forged garbage. The folks who are already hiding themselves won't deal with opt-out lists, other than to grab them to spam to them, also. Opt-out lists would be great with the e-marketing segment, but 100% compliance in that segment woldn't even be noticed if we don't fix the bigger problem. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 27 10:54:07 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04663 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:54:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2RGFQI27987 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:15:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RGFQO27984 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:15:26 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04649; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:53:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RG54O26794; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:05:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RFvRO26384 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:57:27 -0500 Received: from plaidworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA03664 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:35:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.8/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h2RFboZQ024359; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 07:37:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] email pull (was RE: Authentication ) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: mathew , asrg@ietf.org To: Kee Hinckley From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <111D751C-606A-11D7-9334-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 07:37:50 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thursday, March 27, 2003, at 06:26 AM, Kee Hinckley wrote: > >>> - it requires a server that is up all the time >> >> not really. Good RSS readers will retry over time. It needs a server >> that's moderately well connect and moderately useful, but it'd work >> nicely over a dialup for personal stuff. > > Not for the average end-user. But the users we're talking about already aren't running those services. Or if they are, it's as a yahoogroup. So I see that as a non-issue. Although frankly, some of the stuff being done with MacOS X shows ways we can make it point and click friendly for them, too. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 27 11:01:03 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA04852 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:01:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2RGMM128313 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:22:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RGMMO28310 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:22:22 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA04819; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:00:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RGCSO27887; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:12:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RG5EO26803 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:05:14 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04287 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:43:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2RFjhOn021672 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 08:45:43 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303271545.h2RFjhOn021672@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] email pull (was RE: Authentication ) References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 08:45:43 -0700 (MST) > From: Chuq Von Rospach > ... > > Pull is a great idea, and if we can persuade mailing list operators to > > offer it as a choice, that's great. > > > > But it's not email. > > No, but it solves THAT problem nicely. I better be careful, or I'll use > the words "hammer" and "nails" soon. and it helps solve some of the > e-mail problems, becaues the more you can take this kind of content out > of the email stream, the easier it is to focus on other issues. > Effectively, moving this stuff to RSS would whitelist it for us, which > simplifies the problem we're trying to solve. > ... Who is we and what is our prblem, kemo sabe? Collaboration, text messaging, and information sharing mechanisms other than mailing lists sound interesting, but here they are as relevant as flamewars about who is really behind SPEWS or lying about whether SPEWS listed all of UUNET. For better or worse, we're supposed to fix the hammer that is email so that it drives fewer crooked spam nails. If the word "hopeless" fits expecting 500,000,000 users and 30,000,000 system administrators to install new email software to fix spam (it does fit), then what is the word for expecting many of those 500M people to switch to something that is not email? Would it make sense for this mailing list to conclude with "spam can't be fixed, so stop using email"? Perhaps so, but discussions of the replacement for email would be off-topic. I've found the talk of RSS interesting, but it seems off-topic here. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 27 11:06:22 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA05101 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:06:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2RGRfH28578 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:27:41 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RGRfO28575 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:27:41 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA05059; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:05:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RGI5O28136; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:18:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RGFWO28000 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:15:32 -0500 Received: from moebius2.Space.Net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA04654 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:53:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 40876 invoked by uid 1013); 27 Mar 2003 15:56:02 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Basic Proposals So Far ... Message-ID: <20030327165602.B28624@Space.Net> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030326160252.0312da28@mail.lextek.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030326160252.0312da28@mail.lextek.com>; from pollarda@lextek.com on Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 04:18:46PM -0700 Organization: SpaceNet AG, Muenchen, Germany X-PGP-Fingerprint: 66 F3 75 79 01 D0 B8 5F 1A C7 77 88 4A B6 70 DF Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 16:56:02 +0100 On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 04:18:46PM -0700, Art Pollard wrote: > 1) Leave the message on the server and let the client retrieve the message > allowing for unforgeable addresses. What I never understood with this setup is: How do I as a person know that some server somewhere has a message for me without the server sending me an email/notification telling me he has email for me. Alice wants to send me a email. She opens her mail client and writes the text, fills in my email address. What happens next? Do I get a short notification that Alice's server has a message for me waiting? This would really be a big gain. I have the notice in my mailbox and I have to make a connection to another server, do some sort of authentication there (otherwise everyone could retrieve my email). And of course I would also get a lot of those "notifications" from spammers. And I would have to wade through them and delete them. What is the difference to just delete the spam message. Ok, my mailbox isn't filled with spam, but it's filled with messages telling me spam is waiting on the servers. And what if Alice chooses to change the provider? Then she writes from a different server, even if the has the same email address. Would you trust the new server or would you just delete the notification? What is the gain with this system if spammers continue to fake sender addresses just like they do now? > Also allowing for post-sending cancelation by a sysadmin. You mean like "the sender wishes to reclaim the message sent to you earlier?" Surely not without (strong) cryptography. And that would require a - non existant - distributed Internet wide PKI. \Maex -- SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0 Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 "The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 27 11:09:51 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA05226 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:09:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2RGVBb28755 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:31:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RGVAO28752 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:31:10 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA05215; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:09:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RGN5O28353; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:23:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RGGnO28074 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:16:49 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04704 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:54:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2RFvI8K022525 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 08:57:18 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303271557.h2RFvI8K022525@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 5b. Opt-Out, 2nd version References: <20030327070913.GK29146@main.templetons.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 08:57:18 -0700 (MST) > From: Brad Templeton > > Why do some spammers curently test 10,000 arbitrary user names at many > > domain names to see if they are valid with either Rcpt_To "vrfy" or > > trial spam? Whatever their reasons, wouldn't it be far faster and > > easier for them to get the same information using the opt-out system? > > That is indeed the problem I am pointing out. I noted dictionary attacks > as another possible avenue. That's less likely with a cleaning "service" > in that the service could notice that you're trying to clean a dictionary > list, but even then it's hard to fully protect. I don't understand that. I am talking about a dictionary attack on the opt-out list. Separately, anyone running an SMTP server and paying any attention notices some current dictionary attacks. Some dictionary attack spamware seems to be multi-threaded and hits SMTP servers with 100s of names per second. > ... > If the list is seeded with tens of millions of addresses which are bogus, it > it becomes harder, but there must be no way for them to find out if those > addresses are bogus -- ie. you must not be able to verify them with vrfy, > and mail servers must accept delivery for them, or they will be quickly > weeded out. The seeded addresses would of course contain lots of dictionary > style addresses (common names, initial plus common last name etc.) > ... Enough people already use trap lists such as http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/dict-attack.html so that there are millinos of such traps. They are somewhat effective for things like the DCC, but they're certainly not The Final Solution To Spam. > ... > It was for this reason that I decided that the rather unsatisfactory approach > of getting a new mailing address that had a reserved word in the domain to > indicate opt-out was all that could be done to be immune to this particular > attack. But it's pretty dramatic, having to get a new email. (though you > could have an autoresponder on your old email to tell people about your > new one, and even forward the old one for a time etc.) I don't understand that because it seems to imply that people either opt-out of everything or nothing. Anyone who want's to opt-out of everything is best served by not having an address, or at least not having an address that is ever given to anyone but very close personal friends who won't pass it on. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 27 11:10:21 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA05251 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:10:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2RGVeM28795 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:31:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RGVeO28792 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:31:40 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA05222; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:09:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RGRvO28607; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:27:57 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RGH2O28085 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:17:02 -0500 Received: from acsdefense.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04715 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:55:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from dilbert.acsdefense.com ([192.168.101.7]) by gateway.acsdefense.com with ESMTP id <119056>; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:04:33 -0500 Received: by webmail.acsdefense.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2654.89) id ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:04:42 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Preston, Tony" To: "'asrg@ietf.org'" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2654.89) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [Asrg] My ideas... Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:04:36 -0500 I am new to this list, but thought I would see if I could contribute a bit here or there. I have been programming for quite a while(30 yrs or so), worked on every thing from simple applications to device drivers. I do have some questions about the solutions/ideas talked about. I was wondering why not have the "TO:" field be required to be verifiable from each stop. I know this would increase the bandwidth requirements of each email, but it would also prevent unidentified emails (99% of the spam I get are unidentified). If the MTA would validate on arrival and unvalidated email gets rejected, you at least have an identified user to squash when spammed. Next, I do think you need federal legislation that creates the email equivalent of a "do not call" list that any legitimate bulk emailer must consult. I think it must be accepted that bulk emailers are going to be around, will operate with/without your consent... The problem I see is that on the sending end, anyone can create a bulk email business for virtually no cost. I personally use a whitelist for most of my expected email, but expect to get several that are unexpected, but not spam. The unexpected are filtered, I get false positive and false negatives, I still have to get rid of the junk...(interesting enough, 99% of my spam is in html email which I never read, if it gets to me as html and valid I tell the person to use plain text and add them to my whitelist). Any solution that requires users to change their tools/upgrade/do something different is OK, they have the incentive to do it so as to get rid of spam. Any solution that requires an ISP to change/upgrade/do something different is much less likely to happen since you still have open relys out there that haven't been updated in years... If it costs money it aint gonna happen. Besides, my ISP could get into trouble if they started blocking emails I wanted... The problem has to be solved on the sending end or you do not have a solution. The only ideas that seem to make sense are the idea of validating the sender at each hop (then as more and more MTAs get updated to do this, the sender is better identified and can be blocked) and the idea of estamps. Tony Preston Systems Engineer - AS&T Corp, Division of L3 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 27 11:28:25 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA05985 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:28:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2RGnjH30552 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:49:45 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RGnjO30549 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:49:45 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA05971; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:27:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RGk4O30320; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:46:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RGYDO28949 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:34:13 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA05321 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:12:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2RGEdrN025828 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 09:14:39 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303271614.h2RGEdrN025828@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 5b. Opt-Out, 2nd version References: <20030327120423.A10143@Space.Net> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 09:14:39 -0700 (MST) > From: Markus Stumpf > ... > > Why do some spammers curently test 10,000 arbitrary user names at many > > domain names to see if they are valid with either Rcpt_To "vrfy" or > > trial spam? > > What evidence do you have they do? > I can't see this happen. We host about 10000 domains and we do log VRFY > commands. I see about one VRFY a day and and checking the session it's not > from spammers but someone using a telnet connection to speak SMTP and > playing around. I see almost no use of the SMTP VRFY or EXPN commands. Instead I and many others see uses of the SMTP RCPT_To command (sometimes followed by DATA) to get the same effect as VRFY. Note that sendmail does not normally log RCTP_To commands used in place of VRFY. > ... > I have yet to see a reason why spammers should honor an opt-out list at all. Spammers vary. Some don't want to offend prospective customers and see everyone as a prospect. Others don't have as as much foresight and don't care if they offend non-customers. > ... > Discussing opt-out list strategies is IMHO a waste of time. I think "arranging deck chairs on the Titanic" fits. It's not a complete waste, but so far the benefits seem unlikely to be enduring. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 27 11:33:19 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA06255 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:33:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2RGsdP30893 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:54:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RGsdO30890 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:54:39 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA06220; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:32:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RGoDO30593; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:50:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RGa1O29067 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:36:01 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA05422 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:14:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 22965 invoked from network); 26 Mar 2003 16:13:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO startechgroup.co.uk) (10.2.100.157) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 26 Mar 2003 16:13:01 -0000 Subject: Re: [Asrg] email pull (was RE: Authentication ) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: asrg@ietf.org To: Vernon Schryver From: Matt Sergeant In-Reply-To: <200303271545.h2RFjhOn021672@calcite.rhyolite.com> Message-Id: <7A493392-606F-11D7-9F58-0003939CB5D8@startechgroup.co.uk> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 16:16:33 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thursday, Mar 27, 2003, at 15:45 Europe/London, Vernon Schryver wrote: > Who is we and what is our prblem, kemo sabe? TINW. The problem (ok, just one of the problems) is to stop spam without harming legitimate business needs to get their subscriber info out. To make this relevant to the DCC, the DCC marks bulk mail. If you could get legit bulk mailers (newsletters) to switch to pull, then more of the bulk mail is spam, and this makes the DCC more of an effective tool to combat spam. I don't think it's irrelevant here at all. We all acknowledge that we need a multiple of solutions (no single solution), and this might fulfill some needs here. Matt. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 27 11:38:49 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA06890 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:38:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2RH0Ap31420 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 12:00:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RH0AO31417 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 12:00:10 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA06831; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:38:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RGt4O30939; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:55:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RGowO30646 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:50:58 -0500 Received: from moebius2.Space.Net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA06008 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:29:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 44353 invoked by uid 1013); 27 Mar 2003 16:31:26 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] My ideas... Message-ID: <20030327173126.C28624@Space.Net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: ; from Tony.Preston@acs-inc.com on Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 11:04:36AM -0500 Organization: SpaceNet AG, Muenchen, Germany X-PGP-Fingerprint: 66 F3 75 79 01 D0 B8 5F 1A C7 77 88 4A B6 70 DF Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 17:31:26 +0100 On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 11:04:36AM -0500, Preston, Tony wrote: > The problem has to be solved on the sending end or you do not have > a solution. The only ideas that seem to make sense are the idea of > validating the sender at each hop (then as more and more MTAs get > updated to do this, the sender is better identified and can be blocked) > and the idea of estamps. What exactly do you mean with "validating". We have some 1000 POP3/IMAP customers that use our mailservers also for relaying. Should we disallow our customers to send emails with a different envelope sender than the one they have authenticated (SMTP AUTH) with? How about small companies that host their own mailserver? If not and he uses joe@example.com, the SMTP server could go down a chain of LDAP/X.500 server and query the server for example.com whether joe@example.com exists. This leads at least to three problems: 1) Those LDAP/X.500/whatever servers will be vulnarable to dict query attacks and will reveal valid email addresses that helps the bad guys to clean up and populate their databases 2) it reveals nothing about the identity of the sender. Everyone could use joe@example.com and no MTA has a chance to know whether it's real or fake. 3) it doesn't prevent spammers to allocate another 12345abcde.com domain for two weeks, set up a LDAP/X.500/whatever server that always answers "validated" and spam on. \Maex -- SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0 Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 "The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 27 11:52:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA07526 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:52:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2RHDr101201 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 12:13:53 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RHDqO01198 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 12:13:53 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA07508; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:52:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RHABO00911; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 12:10:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RH7cO00480 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 12:07:38 -0500 Received: from moebius2.Space.Net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA07294 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:45:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 48013 invoked by uid 1013); 27 Mar 2003 16:48:06 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 5b. Opt-Out, 2nd version Message-ID: <20030327174806.D28624@Space.Net> References: <20030327120423.A10143@Space.Net> <200303271614.h2RGEdrN025828@calcite.rhyolite.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <200303271614.h2RGEdrN025828@calcite.rhyolite.com>; from vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com on Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 09:14:39AM -0700 Organization: SpaceNet AG, Muenchen, Germany X-PGP-Fingerprint: 66 F3 75 79 01 D0 B8 5F 1A C7 77 88 4A B6 70 DF Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 17:48:06 +0100 On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 09:14:39AM -0700, Vernon Schryver wrote: > DATA) to get the same effect as VRFY. Note that sendmail does not > normally log RCTP_To commands used in place of VRFY. I use a heavily patched qmail and I see everything ;-) like 12-247-32-83.client.attbi.com:12.247.32.83 allowed: to using this method against a qmail smtpd doesnt make sense at all, as qmail will accept all messages, except for blocked sender addresses (badmailfrom). > Spammers vary. Some don't want to offend prospective customers and > see everyone as a prospect. Others don't have as as much foresight > and don't care if they offend non-customers. I have talked to a former customer (a publisher of computer magazines) who did a spam mailing to about 50000 addresses to get new subscribers. He said he doesn't care much about offending. The users that read it and find it interesting aren't offended and do a trial or become subscribers at once. The ones that are not interested may be offended, but he doesn't care about them. IMHO the problem with spam is that it still works, 'cause if they are interested they say "damn, it's spam, but it's interesting" and they but it. I also know about a smaller ISP that fought (and fights) spam whenever possible. But when one of the admins was spammed with a offering for cheap USENET news service via satellite they signed the contract with that company. *sigh* \Maex -- SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0 Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 "The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 27 12:04:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA08009 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 12:04:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2RHQ0L02325 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 12:26:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RHPxO02320 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 12:25:59 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA07998; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 12:04:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RHJCO01524; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 12:19:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RHGvO01366 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 12:16:57 -0500 Received: from moebius2.Space.Net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA07603 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:55:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 48670 invoked by uid 1013); 27 Mar 2003 16:57:24 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] email pull (was RE: Authentication ) Message-ID: <20030327175724.E28624@Space.Net> References: <200303271545.h2RFjhOn021672@calcite.rhyolite.com> <7A493392-606F-11D7-9F58-0003939CB5D8@startechgroup.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <7A493392-606F-11D7-9F58-0003939CB5D8@startechgroup.co.uk>; from msergeant@startechgroup.co.uk on Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 04:16:33PM +0000 Organization: SpaceNet AG, Muenchen, Germany X-PGP-Fingerprint: 66 F3 75 79 01 D0 B8 5F 1A C7 77 88 4A B6 70 DF Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 17:57:24 +0100 On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 04:16:33PM +0000, Matt Sergeant wrote: > If you could > get legit bulk mailers (newsletters) to switch to pull, They won't. There already is a "pull" method, it's called HTTP and it doesn't work. Think about a weekly newsletter. You surf the Web, find it interesting and subscribe. You get it delivered each week straight to you mailbox. Would you use the "pull" method and visit the website every week, just to pull? Would you come back, if there is one issue that isn't too interesting? Nearly every company I know of has their product infos ready for "pull". But they use push mailinglists to contact their customers and refresh their memory and deliver information just in time and when it's relevant. They won't want to loose that instrument. \Maex -- SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0 Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 "The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 27 12:46:23 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA09638 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 12:46:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2RI7k406413 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 13:07:46 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RI7jO06410 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 13:07:45 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA09624; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 12:45:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RHwGO05175; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 12:58:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RHsqO04900 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 12:54:52 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA09142 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 12:32:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (zcard307.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h2RHZHM08803; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 12:35:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDFCW9JS; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 12:35:17 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBGJA8; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 12:35:17 -0500 Message-ID: <3E83371C.5060902@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: william@elan.net CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 5b. Opt-Out, 3rd version References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 12:38:36 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit william@elan.net wrote: > 2. To provide global opt-out system that large number of legitimate > commercial mail entities can all use at the same time > Pros: > a. Standard system that you can apply to large number of lists you > maybe on is convinient > b. Standard way for marketing companies to find your opt-out > preferences reduces their own cost of emailing and dealing with > unhappy customers > Cons: > a. This only works for legitimate business that abide by these > rules, everybody else will continue to do as they wish > b. Unless we have good enforcement even some legit business may > not agree to this I think it needs to be stated explicitly: the business models of most "mailing houses", legitimate or otherwise, provide a financial disincentive to following any "global opt-out list". Ie: mailing houses charge "per impression". The global opt-out reduces their "impression" count... If global opt-out were to work in any meaningful sense of the term, it has to be _forced_, either by legal means or a clear fear of impending legal means. I think the eMPS provides ample proof that a strictly voluntary one isn't working. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 27 14:21:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA13947 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 14:21:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2RJgs913524 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 14:42:54 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RJgsO13521 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 14:42:54 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA13923; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 14:20:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RJf7O13378; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 14:41:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RJcSO13211 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 14:38:28 -0500 Received: from aismtp1g.bellsouth.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA13668 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 14:16:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from 01al10015010061.ad.bls.com ([90.152.5.165] [90.152.5.165]) by aismtp1g.bellsouth.com with ESMTP for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 14:19:15 -0500 Received: by 01al10015010061.ad.bls.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 13:18:55 -0600 Message-Id: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D6D4@bremocag> From: "Sauer, Damon" To: "'asrg@ietf.org'" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [Asrg] [Rant] Mantras Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 13:18:54 -0600 Concerning some of the threads I have read (and have participated in) that turned into flame wars. I do believe that I can be a valuable and contributing member of this group. I am a real world postmaster and I blocked over 1.1 billion spam messages in 2000-2001 for a corporation that had just over 100k email addresses. Some of you know me personally and know that I am a really easy going person. I am also very busy, and as you can imagine, I do not have time to read every single email as thoroughly as I would like. I can sometimes fail to state my opinions in concise and formatted statements... I am therefore apologizing in advance. I really want this group to be successful. It literally means millions of dollars to me in resources that are currently only being used to combat spam. So I will make these statements: I will not pretend to know something I don't. I will try not to sound authoritative on something that I don't know much about. My spam is not better than your spam. You are most likely much smarter than I. You can pee-pee much further than me, I don't care to compete. If I ask you to read my mind, please tell me not to. (unless you actually can, in which case, sorry for the misspellings) I do not want to fix SMTP, I want to break spam. I am a FIRM believer in rDNS of some type. Would anyone care to add to my list? Regards, Damon Sauer ***** "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers." _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 27 14:25:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA14062 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 14:25:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2RJkwt13718 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 14:46:58 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RJkwO13715 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 14:46:58 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA14054; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 14:25:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RJg2O13446; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 14:42:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RJd2O13239 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 14:39:02 -0500 Received: from acsdefense.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA13683 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 14:17:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from PRESTON ([192.168.108.63]) by gateway.acsdefense.com with SMTP id <119108>; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 14:26:37 -0500 Message-ID: <002801c2f495$ddbde7b0$3f6ca8c0@PRESTON> From: "Tony Preston" To: References: <20030327170006.31387.82863.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> Organization: Atlantic Sciences and Technology Inc. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Re: Asrg digest, Vol 1 #133 - 14 msgs Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 14:20:02 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > From: Markus Stumpf > To: "'asrg@ietf.org'" > Subject: Re: [Asrg] My ideas... > Organization: SpaceNet AG, Muenchen, Germany > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 11:04:36AM -0500, Preston, Tony wrote: > > The problem has to be solved on the sending end or you do not have > > a solution. The only ideas that seem to make sense are the idea of > > validating the sender at each hop (then as more and more MTAs get > > updated to do this, the sender is better identified and can be blocked) > > and the idea of estamps. > > > What exactly do you mean with "validating". > We have some 1000 POP3/IMAP customers that use our mailservers also for > relaying. > Should we disallow our customers to send emails with a different > envelope sender than the one they have authenticated (SMTP AUTH) with? > How about small companies that host their own mailserver? > What I mean is that if joe@example.com is the FROM user, he should exist on example.com, a query to example.com would check to see if that is true. This would at least give you a user on a site that is responsible for sending. I realize that a spammer just sets up the account joe. What this does do is that the first hop from example.com will validate that there is the user joe and add the validation header to the email. Each hop would ask the same question. This is a lot of overhead in the email, it would happen on every email on every hop. The affect would be similar to the tarpit idea since it would hit the guy doing the sending with 10000 requests times the hops if he sends out 10000 emails... Even if the headers are faked, you still know you got the email from the current connection, you can record it. This gives you the ip address of the spammer and can be blocked. If the validation fails, it would have to be resolved before the user joe could send email. Sending email with a different envelope would have to be handled by having a validated FROM that will give the "THIS IS OK". Sending with a fake email that will not validate gets the email bounced. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 27 14:53:12 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA15512 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 14:53:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2RKEc615998 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 15:14:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RKEcO15995 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 15:14:38 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA15494; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 14:52:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RKA6O15589; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 15:10:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RK9FO15541 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 15:09:15 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA15129 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 14:47:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from aland by mail.nitros9.org with local (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18yYZz-00024S-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 09:42:07 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Message-Id: Subject: [Asrg] Requirements for gathering statistics Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 09:42:07 -0500 I've received a significant amount of private mail about this topic. Most express concerns about bias due to "who decides what is spam, and how do they do that." I am in the process of writing a draft document which proposes reasons for gathering data, goals, which measurements to make about spam, how to make them, and how the data analysis is done. When I'm done (within a week, I hope), I will post it here for further comments. The document will include an introduction to data collection methodology, and examples which will hopefully make it clear that: a) we CAN gather meaningful statistics about spam b) analysis of that data will help us understand the current scope of the problem. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 27 15:19:47 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA17240 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 15:19:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2RKfD318433 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 15:41:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RKfDO18430 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 15:41:13 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA17188; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 15:19:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RKa7O17364; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 15:36:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RKZsO17324 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 15:35:54 -0500 Received: from toad.date.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA16656 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 15:13:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from date.com (unknown [216.130.219.81]) by toad.date.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46D8D1C39DC; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 15:16:18 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3E835C12.E95060E7@date.com> From: Michael Ellis X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Sauer, Damon" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] [Rant] Mantras References: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D6D4@bremocag> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 15:16:18 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hmmm well given that I work part-time as a psychic, I will accept all of those for myself except the mind-reading one *grins* I agree Damon and Im a newbie to this world but struggling with the learning curve so I won't claim to any expertise at all. Im sure you are all smarter than me. "Sauer, Damon" wrote: > Concerning some of the threads I have read (and have participated in) that > turned into flame wars. > > I do believe that I can be a valuable and contributing member of this > group. > I am a real world postmaster and I blocked over 1.1 billion spam messages > in 2000-2001 for a corporation that had just over 100k email addresses. Some > of you know me personally and know that I am a really easy going person. I > am also very busy, and as you can imagine, I do not have time to read every > single email as thoroughly as I would like. I can sometimes fail to state my > opinions in concise and formatted statements... I am therefore apologizing > in advance. > > I really want this group to be successful. It literally means millions of > dollars to me in resources that are currently only being used to combat > spam. > > So I will make these statements: > > I will not pretend to know something I don't. > I will try not to sound authoritative on something that I don't know much > about. > My spam is not better than your spam. > You are most likely much smarter than I. > You can pee-pee much further than me, I don't care to compete. > If I ask you to read my mind, please tell me not to. (unless you actually > can, in which case, sorry for the misspellings) > I do not want to fix SMTP, I want to break spam. > I am a FIRM believer in rDNS of some type. > > Would anyone care to add to my list? > > Regards, > Damon Sauer > > > > > ***** > "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to > which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or > privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use > of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or > entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received > this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all > computers." > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg -- Michael Ellis, IAPP Privacy Manager Date.com Phone (416) 306-0022 ext 620 Fax (416) 306-0023 Date.com - "The New Way To Date" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 27 16:13:06 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA19506 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 16:13:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2RLYXf22454 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 16:34:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RLYXO22451 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 16:34:33 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA19498; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 16:12:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RLRPO21915; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 16:27:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RLQNO21846 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 16:26:23 -0500 Received: from smtp.istop.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA19029 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 16:04:24 -0500 (EST) From: waltdnes@waltdnes.org Received: from waltdnes.org (ip245-165.tor.istop.com [66.11.165.245]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 9B6F9369F0 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 16:06:45 -0500 (EST) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 27 Mar 2003 16:07:16 -0500 To: ASRG list Message-ID: <20030327210716.GB2454@m400> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Subject: [Asrg] 7.c Mass Mailers, reliability, and lack thereof Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 16:07:16 -0500 There have been complaints by mass mailers about their emails not reaching intended recipients. Internet email to residential accounts is not five-nines reliable today, never was in the past, and never will be. Deal with it. The advertisers are *DEMANDING* that their spam^H^H^H^H "legitimate commercial email" *NOT* be blocked. This results in the more cynical amongst us feeling that the "JamSpam" initiative might be better named "JamSWpamDownYourThroat" Enough of my criticisms; have I got a better solution? What if all those millions of recipients *REALLY* *REALLY* *REALLY* want those "newsletters", etc? Personally, I think that claim is a sick joke on par with claiming that people love to have their supper interrupted by telemarketers. However, I'm willing to give e-marketers the opportunity to prove me wrong. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, all those people on the "Millions CDs" really *DID* want those ads. There is a very simple solution that would not require any conferences, or standards, or legislation. The email marketers could set up their own "legitimate commercial email delivery" ISP, which they would control, and willing "newsletter subscribers" could join that ISP. Not only will they have the end-to-end-control necessary to guarantee delivery of their messages to willing subscribers, but those people who buy stock early in the new ISP will MAKE_MONEY_FAST as the stock shoots up through the roof when millions of newsletter-starved subscribers come crawling in on their hands and knees, begging to be allowed to join up. The financial carnage amongst today's big ISPs will be horrendous when people find out about all the "exciting offers" they've been missing and abandon today's big names in droves. OK e-marketers, if you're really telling the truth about all your millions of eager "double-opt-in-subscribers", this is your opportunity to... - guarantee email delivery *TO WILLING RECIPIENTS ONLY* - and make a financial killing - and prove that you aren't out to JamSpamDownTheThroats of unwilling recipients I'm even willing to be there to cut the ribbon at the opening ceremony for that ISP. ***PUT UP OR SHUT UP***. -- Walter Dnes An infinite number of monkeys pounding away on keyboards will eventually produce a report showing that Windows is more secure, and has a lower TCO, than linux. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 27 16:14:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA19606 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 16:14:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2RLa4722552 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 16:36:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RLa3O22549 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 16:36:03 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA19556; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 16:14:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RLY3O22419; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 16:34:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RLXdO22398 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 16:33:39 -0500 Received: from mail-out1.apple.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA19448 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 16:11:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailgate2.apple.com (A17-129-100-225.apple.com [17.129.100.225]) by mail-out1.apple.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2RLDxOr014642 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 13:13:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from scv2.apple.com (scv2.apple.com) by mailgate2.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 13:13:58 -0800 Received: from plaidworks.com (vg0602e-dhcp175.apple.com [17.216.21.175]) by scv2.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h2RLDvH15773; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 13:13:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] 7.c Mass Mailers, reliability, and lack thereof Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: ASRG list To: waltdnes@waltdnes.org From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <20030327210716.GB2454@m400> Message-Id: <0542356B-6099-11D7-97C2-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 13:13:56 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thursday, March 27, 2003, at 01:07 PM, waltdnes@waltdnes.org wrote: > Let's assume, for the sake of argument, all those > people on the "Millions CDs" really *DID* want those ads. Yet another case of lumping legitimate e-marketing operations in with the spammers. No wonder nobody makes any progress on this stuff (and no wonder they won't talk to you about issues, walt) As long as people carry these kinds of attitudes around, why should anyone be surprised that the legitimate e-marketers avoid you like the plague, anyway? it's not useful, not productive, and it doesn't help solve anything here. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 27 16:26:20 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA19825 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 16:26:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2RLlmi23752 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 16:47:48 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RLlmO23749 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 16:47:48 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA19811; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 16:25:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RLkCO23708; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 16:46:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RLjRO23660 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 16:45:27 -0500 Received: from mail-out1.apple.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA19780 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 16:23:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailgate2.apple.com (A17-129-100-225.apple.com [17.129.100.225]) by mail-out1.apple.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2RLPpOr017965 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 13:25:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from scv2.apple.com (scv2.apple.com) by mailgate2.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 13:25:50 -0800 Received: from plaidworks.com (vg0602e-dhcp175.apple.com [17.216.21.175]) by scv2.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h2RLPoH20671; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 13:25:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Asrg digest, Vol 1 #133 - 14 msgs Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: To: "Tony Preston" From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <002801c2f495$ddbde7b0$3f6ca8c0@PRESTON> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 13:25:47 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thursday, March 27, 2003, at 11:20 AM, Tony Preston wrote: > What I mean is that if joe@example.com is the FROM user, he should > exist > on example.com, a query to example.com would check to see if that is > true. > Minor semantical change (but important): joe@example.com should be AUTHORIZED to send email from example.com. You will have both addresses that exist to send e-mail but aren't users, and users that exist that shouldn't be sending email. If you just check for existance of the user, spammers can simply start sending all of their mail from, say, bin@example.com, or uucp@example.com, or root@example.com, things that exist. Better to be able to explicitly decouple user from permission, and set up a permission scheme that allows you to have users, but not send e-mail, to get away from forged role account issues. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 27 16:58:06 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA21395 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 16:58:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2RMJZ226719 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 17:19:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RMJZO26716 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 17:19:35 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA21390; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 16:57:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RME9O26335; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 17:14:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RMDuO26284 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 17:13:56 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA21079 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 16:51:55 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2RK3kbn015602 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 12:03:46 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2RK3ktE015598 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 12:03:46 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Asrg] 5b. Opt-Out Notes, ver 3.1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 12:03:46 -0800 (PST) Did updates based on two relevant emails by Vernon and Chris, very few comments today, so seems I probably got it right. I'll offer my proposal on opt-out next. --------------------------------------------------------------- I. Requirements/Goals for Opt-Out 1. General - To reduce amount of commercial email received Pros: a. We all want less commercial mail!!! b. If at least some advertisers follow opt-out we should have less mail unwanted email Cons: b. Some are afraid that opt-out may instead bring more commercial mail by allowing advertisers to confirm your email addresses 2. To provide global opt-out system that large number of legitimate commercial mail entities can all use at the same time Pros: a. Standard system that you can apply to large number of lists you maybe on is convinient b. Standard way for marketing companies to find your opt-out preferences reduces their own cost of emailing and dealing with unhappy customers Cons: a. This only works for legitimate business that abide by these rules, everybody else will continue to do as they wish b. Commercial mailers of any kind have financial disincentive on following global opt-out list as they derive their revenue on per-email basis and opt-out lists reduce the revenue stream. In order to work the system must be forced to them by either internet community or the goverment and good enforcement mechanisms have to be in place. 3. To provide local opt-out to only particular types of email or even more specific for particular maillist Pros: a. You could potentially be very specific on what emails you want to receive. For example if you're loooking for a car you'd be interested to hear about car dealership offers and advertisers could be very specific to your needs which works in your favor. b. If advertisers know what you want they'd be able to a lot better manage their own resources. c. Certain global types is a must, for example children should not be expected to receive any offers of adult nature or for alcogol or cigarates and in fact this maybe againt the law depending on locality and advertisers Cons: a. Its somewhat difficult to have everybody agree on classification of commercial advertisements though some very broad global scale maybe possible that will satisfy c. b. Even if classification is agreed, some email offers may fall into multiple categories, or are otherwise not as clear about exact type, the reality is that classifying email to be sent into certain category is still up to advertiser and this may not agree with how user who opted out would classify it 4. To provide capabilities to temporary reduce amount of email received Pros: a. In some situations its usefull to be able to opt-out of all commercial email for certain period (when you're on vacation) and opt-in at another when you actually have time or interest to read more email Cons: b. Most opt-out procedures are likely to take longer time then several day or week that you may actually be on vacation and temporary opt-out might not work that well, filters or automatic forwarding of certain email to special mailbox maybe better 5. To filter out legitimate email marketing companies from "true" spammers Pros: a. There exists email marketing industry that provides real service to users who really really opted to receive such emails. But these companies suffer by being compared to spammers (some are like that) and standards that these companies should follow will to distiguish good marketing companies from bad. b. If we had clear guidelines what email marketing companies need to do to not be considered spammers and this is supported by law, then they will follow it more often and our we'd have less complaints about improper emails Cons: a. Bad spammers will inevitably try to diguise themselve as email marketing companies and this can make things even worse. Note: 5 points listed above can be used as way to evaluate exact opt-out technology proposals. These proposals would fall into one or more of the below categories: II. Technlogies for Opt-Out 1. Distributed lists which use some type of encryption to allow validation of particular address but not see enter list. Pros: a. Opt-out lists can be easily cleaned up before the transmission b. Distribution of lists can be controlled by tightly controlled. Some improper activities can be prevented by using special email addresses specific for each authorized client c1. Dictionary Attack prevention An email that is not for valid user but easily guessable is introduced. If emails are received to this address, this indicates dictionary attack was tried c2. Proper conduct in collecting emails by advertiser Email addresses are added that are not actually used in email (example - addresses added into webpages and collected by spiders) If advertiser checks for these email address, he does not have properly collected email list d. Because all advertisers that use opt-out lists sign service agreement both legal and criminal court actions are easier Cons: a. Because entire list is received by advertiser, its a lot easier for it to just check very very large list of email addresses and get practicly entire list of opt-out addresses (see above c2 how they can possibly be caught) b. Distribution lists can easily go sub-distributed and go beyoned authenticated base and thereafter abused c. Patents relating to the encryption technologies exists d. Concerns about who and how will make opt-out lists and distribute them e. Concerns that opt-out lists will instead be used to verify if email address in spammer database is real f. Its possibly encryption technology maybe broken in some distant future g. It takes longest time to opt-out or change opt-out status with this technology 2. Opt-out server. Here special service/server is made available to legit bulk-mailers. Anybody wishing to check if the address is opt-out or not can connect to that server and check Variations: 2a. One unified service is made available by the authorized agency 2b. A number of special opt-out servers exist in parallel which are used/run by different groups of commercial mailers Pros: a. Opt-out lists can be cleaned up before the transmission begins b. Distribution of lists can be controlled by tightly controlled with authentication means and distribution beyond authorized advertiser is not allowed. Because its known who is accessing the list, there exist way to also detect some improper activities c1. Dictionary Attack prevention - see c1 in #1 above c2. Proper conduct in collecting emails by advertiser - see c2 above c. If improper activities are detected as in c1 or c2 or if somebody is trying to access to check way too many addresses (trying to verify their 100 million emails CD), the access to client can be denied fairly fast! d. Because access would involve service agreement, the law may make it easier to prosecute the offenders Cons: a. Special opt-out verification protocol may have to be developed b. Concerns about who and how will run opt-out service c. Concerns that opt-out service will instead be used to verify if email address in spammer database is real d. Depending how service is setup, it may take long for opt-out to work (i.e. until maketers do updates to their lists). 3. Opt-out system maintained together with mail servers on per-domain basis. Variations: 3a. Service made available as part of mail server, new command added to SMTP to check opt-out preference of user on email server 3b. Service made available as part of mail transmission and is more tightly integrated with actually sending email, i.e. email being sent contains some preference for opt-out check and email server can based on that return email back with proper error code Note: to a degree this is what some filters already do ... 3c. Service made available through separate protocol to be run by ISP on per-domain basis. Pros: a. An opt-out is controlled by mail server operator and not any questinable central agency. b. Depending on how system is implemented it maybe a lot harder to actually gather list of valid email addresses (mail server operator may choose to answer opted-out for any email address that does not exist, for example) Cons: a. A new protocol (or extensions to SMTP) need to be developed b. It maybe a lot harder to clean up lists before emailing (maybe this this also good thing?) c. If implemented as in 3a all MX servers (even backups) may need to answer yes on question of opt-out, this created implementation problems and seems unnecessary d. Access to opt-out verification has to be made public (or at most on per email basis) and no serious authentication of who can access it can be done. These allows easy avenue for abuse. 4. Modification of Email address to show opt-out choice. Variations: 4a. General opt-out choice recognized by everybody, which may actually be some variation of mail service domain/subdomain 4b. Opt-in choice specific to particular situation or mailing list example - email+list@domain.com Pros: a. Very easy to implement and does not require new technology, 4b is already actively used by many b. Address itself shows optout choice, so spammers can not do email address cleanup for purposes of finding valid address Note: this is also a Con! c. Opt-out choice is controlled by each individual user and not by external entity (be it central agency or mail service provider) Cons: a. This generally requires us to use different email address then what we already do, often even more then one. It does not address issues with existing currently use email addresses (see section I on what we want to do), this is a BIG Con. b. Use of "special" email address may also be taken by spammers as verification that email address is valid! c. The special email address would only work on global basis while it is usefull to be able to do opt-out specific to particular type of email, etc. This may result in need of large number of special email addresses and entire system will not be easily managable. d. There is no way to implement temporary opt-out with this system III. Enforcement of Opt-Out Note: #1 and #2 below may well be done in parallel 1. Done by goverment by legislation to have all commercial email marketers participate in some system or abide by specific protocol standards Enforcement is afterwards left to courts Pros: a. There would be clear guidelines for commercial email senders to follow and if they do not they will pay an actual price for it b. Its a lot more likely commercial businesses will follow the law Cons: a. This maybe problematic when considering email as global system and not specific to US or EU laws b. It takes some time for laws to be passed and then be verified in courts to be workable 2. Enforcement is left to ISP/mail server operators through use of filters if email is found to be from commercial email marketer that is known to mail server operator Pros: a. Filtering is already well adapted technology b. When email is found to have violated opt-out choice, stopping future email from the particular marketer is easy and fast (blacklist) but it does require marketers to be well identified Cons: a. Use of filtering means some email will inevitably be filtered b. Filters will never completed stop unwanted email even with opt-out choice, some email marketers may choose not to follow it ------ William Leibzon Elan Communications Inc. william@elan.net _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 27 17:09:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21691 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 17:09:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2RMUvH27120 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 17:30:57 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RMUvO27117 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 17:30:57 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21680; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 17:08:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RMTLO27048; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 17:29:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RMSYO27012 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 17:28:34 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21624 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 17:06:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h2RM8ph24025; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 14:08:51 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: waltdnes@waltdnes.org Cc: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] 7.c Mass Mailers, reliability, and lack thereof Message-ID: <20030327220851.GM19853@main.templetons.com> References: <20030327210716.GB2454@m400> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030327210716.GB2454@m400> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 14:08:51 -0800 On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 04:07:16PM -0500, waltdnes@waltdnes.org wrote: > There have been complaints by mass mailers about their emails not > reaching intended recipients. Internet email to residential accounts is > not five-nines reliable today, never was in the past, and never will be. > Deal with it. Hmm. While I agree that current E-mail is not fully reliable, I would disagree with the suggestion that it could not be made fully reliable and should not be made so. I don't believe that's the province of this research group, but nor is it for us to say that his won't happen. > > The advertisers are *DEMANDING* that their spam^H^H^H^H "legitimate > commercial email" *NOT* be blocked. This results in the more cynical > amongst us feeling that the "JamSpam" initiative might be better named > "JamSWpamDownYourThroat" We have to accept that spammers, and near-spammers will indeed put their support for selfish reasons behind principles of reliable mail delivery, eliminating mail blockage and many of the other principles that we value here. Child pornographers and holocaust deniers also give their cheering support to our free speech efforts, however that in no way is an argument to diminish those efforts. There actually are a significant number of legit mails that have been blocked by anti-spam techniques. It's real, and it's a flaw in those techniques, and it is to be eliminated. One of the classic examples was a simultaneous mailing to hundreds of Yale (IIRC) applicants telling them they had been accepted at Yale. Safe to say those people wanted to get that E-mail, and that it was a serious error for the blocking software to have discarded it, and a more serious error to have the discard not be reported to those who would care about it. Stories of innocent sites improperly blacklisted are legion. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 27 17:22:16 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22205 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 17:22:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2RMhhh28560 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 17:43:43 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RMhhO28557 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 17:43:43 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22159; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 17:21:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RMb3O27537; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 17:37:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RMVjO27200 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 17:31:45 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21709 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 17:09:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.57] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2RMC7qd022299 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 14:12:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 14:12:07 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: ASRG list Subject: RE: [Asrg] 7.c Mass Mailers, reliability, and lack thereof MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 14:12:06 -0800 > However, I'm willing to give e-marketers the > opportunity > to prove me wrong. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, all those > people on the "Millions CDs" really *DID* want those ads. The majority of this mail has NOTHING to do with marketing. Hint, you are currently receiving a bulk email, it is from a mailing list. Yes, lots of people on the net subscribe to Bruce Schnier's Cryptogram and other newsletters and YES THEY DO WANT TO GET THEM. The problem is that other people send newsletters that are not requested, not wanted etc. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 27 17:47:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22933 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 17:47:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2RN8ue30689 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 18:08:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RN8uO30686 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 18:08:56 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22887; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 17:45:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RMx6O29356; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 17:59:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RMw9O29291 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 17:58:09 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22571 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 17:36:09 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2RKlxbn016253 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 12:47:59 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2RKlx58016249 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 12:47:59 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Asrg] Proposal for Opt-Out Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 12:47:59 -0800 (PST) In my head and partially on paper I'v worked out system that I think can be effectively and securily used for opt-out and it has benefits of both technologies #2, #3 and even #1 on my list. Here is how I imagine it: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Commercial emailers agree to general classification of email based on subject of what is being advertised (i.e. for example adult, internet services, other service, electronic goods, sports goods, etc) 2. There is setup a certain number of opt-out authoritive agencies probably couple per region or country if necessary but not too many - i.e. dozen worldwide is probably a max. Each agency may have its own AUP and its own principals of operations (clearly published) and these agencies also deal with handling of complaints (in fact user can not go to court when complaining aboutg email and has to go through proper agency first). 3. Each mail server operator can choose one agency to handle commercial email control on per-domain basis, this information is published through special record in dns zone file in domain. 4. Users send their preferences for opt-out to their mail operator (see below on how they can also do it directly to agency) if they participate in this system and have this special dns record. The operator does not send their actual email but instead encrypts it and sends SHA1 based hash list to the agency (so agency does not actually have list of emails, this all stays locally on mail server) and in addition sends a special set of keys (either separate key on per-email basis or one global key for entire domain). 5. When commercial mailer wants to send somebody an email, they check dns for that domain and obtain id of the agency. They have to contact the agency and got authorization to use its services (probably pay them too) and agency needs to verify whatever it can about the commecial mailer. Once verified commercial mailer is granted authorized access to agencie's database and can verify email addresses. 6. Email addresses are verified through the agency on the basis of each commercial email type that commercial mailer wants to send, i.e. it has to specifically ask if user is opted out of receiving all adult emails. As an answer agency provides special encrypted verification code, which is actually encryption of DATE of the request for opt-out verification, ID of the mass mailer (as listed in agencies database) and TYPE of email mass mailer intended to send and FROM address of where email would come from (as far as email of commercial mailer or their client). Each request gives only limited time authorization to send email (say 1 month) and the code is encrypted with the key that has been provided to the agency by domain mail operator or end-user. 7. When commecial mail operator is sending email, they HAVE TO include special header in the email indicating that this is commercial mail and of what type and they HAVE TO include the verification code that they received from the agency. When email is received, mail server operator can use its key to decrypt the verficiation code and they can then verify that: 1. Email is sent no more then month after verification has been obtained 2. From email address email would have to come from 3. Type of this commercial email In addition to that mail operator can check its database for updates for opt-out preferences by this user. If between time opt-out verification by commercial emailer was done and when email is received, user has changed preferences and no longer wants to receive commercial email of this type, then email would still need to be rejected with special REPLY and email server operator must send updates to the agency so mass mailer could verify that preferences have changed. Additional special rejection REPLY is if user is opting out temporary (vacation) in this case time when the black-out period is over should be sent to mass-emailer and they can choose resent email after that time. If there were no changes user opt-out preferences and they are in accordinace with what is listed in verification code, then email has to be "whitelisted" and accepted for delivery by mail operator. 8. A special case is allowed when mail server operator does not support this opt-out system but user still wants it, then one particular agency is considered to be default and user can contact it and send opt-out preferences directly to that agency. Commercial mailers in abcense of special dns record for opt-out agency for domain have to check this default agency. In this case all verification of email is done on the client MUA and it can accept email into proper user inbox, reject it, etc. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The above combines best of #2 and #3 from my notes, in particular having central agency means mass-emailers are all authenticated and can not easily verify all of their 100 million email addresses and even more particularly because they say exactly what type of email they will send and from who, their request is very specific and they can not assume user opt-out preferences for different type of email. Plus having specific time that they are given to send email means they have to do opt-out checks often enough to catch all the changes and they have to stay a client of the agency to continue to send email to user. In addition to that all control of opt-out is really local and agency does not even have your email address (for privacy reasons for example; though they can obviously find it based on requests, but really they shouldn't be doing it) and user can change preferences locally as well. Verificaition code (its something similar to a stamp actually) provides strong authentication control over email that is being sent and can be used ONLY by the mass mailer that obtained it and can ONLY be verified by the recepient. Agency also shields acts to facilitate abuse control and shields commercial mailers from potential legal action if they act properly. But it should setup its own court-like system to hear officially filed abuse complaints and if complaint is rejected user can go to court (same system as public utilities commisions that regulate telcos in many us states). Agencies can be specific to laws of particular region - i.e. agency for US, agency for EU and can thus apply laws properly as are done in that region. Ok, I'm done. Let me know what you think of this idea. ---- William Leibzon Elan Communications Inc. william@elan.net _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 27 18:23:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA25440 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 18:23:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2RNj9e00842 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 18:45:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RNj8O00839 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 18:45:08 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA25345; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 18:23:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RNaMO32076; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 18:36:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RNZGO32013 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 18:35:16 -0500 Received: from nic-naa.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA24604 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 18:13:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from nic-naa.net (localhost.nic-naa.net [127.0.0.1]) by nic-naa.net (8.12.8/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h2RNCrGL078172; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 18:12:53 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brunner@nic-naa.net) Message-Id: <200303272312.h2RNCrGL078172@nic-naa.net> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: william@elan.net cc: asrg@ietf.org, brunner@nic-naa.net Subject: Re: [Asrg] Proposal for Opt-Out In-Reply-To: Message from william@elan.net of "Thu, 27 Mar 2003 12:47:59 PST." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 18:12:53 -0500 > 1. Commercial emailers agree to general classification of email based on PICS. > 2. There is setup a certain number of opt-out authoritive agencies Some jurisdictions are opt-in, some opt-out. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 27 18:36:57 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA26024 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 18:36:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2RNwQW01377 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 18:58:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RNwQO01373 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 18:58:26 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA26016; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 18:36:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RNo8O01081; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 18:50:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RNnLO01022 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 18:49:21 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA25590 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 18:27:21 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2RLdCbn016979; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 13:39:12 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2RLdChi016975; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 13:39:12 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Proposal for Opt-Out In-Reply-To: <200303272312.h2RNCrGL078172@nic-naa.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 13:39:12 -0800 (PST) > > 1. Commercial emailers agree to general classification of email based on > > PICS. That is fine by me. > > 2. There is setup a certain number of opt-out authoritive agencies > > Some jurisdictions are opt-in, some opt-out. Ok. So we add additional default domain preference that mail operator is sending back. If they are in jurisdiction that is opt-out, the default preference is "yes" if jurisdiction is opt-in default is no. I suspect that commercial mailers & marketers will only agree to such a system if we actually call it "opt-out"... -- William Leibzon Elan Communications Inc. william@elan.net _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 27 20:52:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA00920 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 20:52:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2S2ECh12128 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 21:14:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S2ECO12125 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 21:14:12 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA00900; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 20:52:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S26aO11044; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 21:06:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S25hO10974 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 21:05:43 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA00520 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 20:43:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2206054 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 20:46:04 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: To: Asrg@ietf.org From: Kee Hinckley Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Subject: [Asrg] Blacklist blackmail Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 20:34:22 -0500 We are now getting RBLs who will remove your host from their blacklist for a fee. (See http://www.blars.org/errors/block.html for an example.) And yes, people actually subscribe to these. And yes, they do block non-spamming ISPs. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 27 20:53:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA00964 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 20:53:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2S2FCd12183 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 21:15:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S2FCO12180 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 21:15:12 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA00935; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 20:53:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S26mO11067; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 21:06:48 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S25lO10980 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 21:05:47 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA00523 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 20:43:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2206056; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 20:46:07 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: To: william@elan.net From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Proposal for Opt-Out Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 20:45:50 -0500 I'd like to back up a second here on opt-out. I don't believe this group should recommend a global opt-out solution. I believe that opt-out is 100% the wrong way to manage bulk mailings. It is fundamentally flawed, and it will make the current spam situation far worse than it currently is. First of all. Look at the world as it is. Who sends you bulk email? 1. People whom you told to send you email. 2. People to whom you gave your email address to (e.g. product registrations, online purchases) but didn't specifically tell them they could send you email. 3. Affiliates of #1 or #2. 4. People who bought your address from #1 or #2. 5. People who bought the assets of #1 or #2. 6. People who snarfed your address off the web or from another location which did not carry any implied consent for bulk email. 7. People who bought from #6. This is how I think most people feel about each of those. I'm sure there's a range, and it's not like I've gone out and done a survey. But I think it's roughly like this. Please don't get picky if your personal moral slider moves it in one direction or the other. 1. Fine if I can opt-out 2. Iffy, depending on content, but okay if I can opt-out 3. More iffy, but okay if I can a) stop the spread and b) opt-out 4. Probably crossing the line (no way to stop the spread) 5. Wrong, but the courts say it's okay, hopefully can opt-out 6. Wrong 7. Wrong Now, let's consider an opt-out list. Who will it impact? 1. No 2. No 3. Possibly, but probably not 4. Yes 5. Possibly 6. No (they'll ignore it) 7. No (they'll ignore it) So. An opt-out list will stop people who bought your list from someone you gave your email address to. You don't *want* it to stop the people you explicitly gave permission to. It might stop people who bought the assets of a defunct company. It probably won't stop affiliates of a company (e.g. multiple catalog companies owned by a single entity) because they probably had fine print saying that you gave permission to all of them (that's certainly what they do now). It will have zero impact on existing spammers. That's the good news. Here's the bad news. A global opt-out list is a tacit statement that it's okay to spam random email addresses. After all, if you didn't want email, you would have put your name on the list, right? This is exactly the *wrong* way to go. We do not want "100 million email address CDs" to become legitimate sales tools just because they were cleaned by the opt-out list. You do *not* want every company in the country broadcasting email address to every address they can find. "But," you say, "If you don't want that, just put your name on the opt-out list." I assert that if we tacitly support opt-out, we will create a mail situation so bad that you won't be able to function unless you opt-out. *Everyone* will want to opt out. And what is the point of an opt-out system in which every person in the world is required to opt out? Furthermore, as has been mentioned numerous times. It's not just a question of email addresses, it's a question of domains and bounces as well. Opt-out can work for phone numbers because there are a finite number of phone numbers. There are *not* a finite number of email addresses. It should not be mandatory that every time you reserve a domain you have to go and opt-out all possible email addresses in that domain. That makes no sense whatsoever. To sum it up. 1. Opt-out doesn't affect the majority of the people we are trying to stop. 2. Opt-out will make things worse. 3. There is no point in an opt-out system that everyone has to join. Even if you don't believe #2, #1 and #3 still stand. As do my points concerning domains and infinite email addresses. I strongly believe that this group should make absolutely no recommendations for a global opt-out system. I further believe that it should recommend that opt-out is, with regards to email, fundamentally flawed. I believe that we could make positive recommendations for opt-in, but I want to keep that discussion separate from this one. The point here is simple. We should not recommend *any* opt-out system. As an aside; other differences between email and phones. Email addresses change more frequently, causing aging problems. Many people manage more email addresses (sometimes *lots* more) than they do phone numbers, making managing opt outs (especially if they age-out) far more difficult. Email addresses reach inside companies, where phone numbers often don't. Phone opt-outs can be verified against an address to avoid do-gooders opt-ing out lots of people. Email addresses cannot be verified except via confirmation email--and that rules out wildcard, bouncing address and domain opt-out possibilities. (I don't personally have a problem with someone writing a program that opts out everyone in the world--but I don't believe the marketing companies will accept an opt-out system that doesn't have verification or other barriers against excessive ease of use.) -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 27 20:54:59 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA01010 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 20:54:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2S2GVu12305 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 21:16:31 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S2GVO12302 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 21:16:31 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA00989; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 20:54:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S292O11884; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 21:09:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S28jO11868 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 21:08:45 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA00677 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 20:46:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2206079; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 20:49:05 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: To: Brad Templeton From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] 7.c Mass Mailers, reliability, and lack thereof Cc: waltdnes@waltdnes.org, ASRG list Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 20:48:41 -0500 At 2:08 PM -0800 3/27/03, Brad Templeton wrote: >Stories of innocent sites improperly blacklisted are legion. This has a certain irony for me. Several weeks ago I signed up for several of the JamSpam lists. The lack of traffic on those lists (none) kind of surprised me, but I was busy, so I didn't think much about it. Yesterday I decided to test the lists. After a bit of experimentation I discovered that in fact I'd never been signed up. Topica, which runs the lists, is dropping all mail from my domain on the floor without any notification. That's particularly ironic, given that Topica has, on more than one occasion, allowed *other* people to sign my addresses up for their lists without confirmation. P.S. And we won't get into how Topica's web confirmation system falsely implies that I won't be able to join until I give them a bunch of personal information. And *that* was when I was trying to sign up for the JamSpam privacy list! -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 27 21:23:49 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA01545 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 21:23:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2S2jMR14365 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 21:45:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S2jMO14362 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 21:45:22 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA01521; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 21:23:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S2iDO14312; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 21:44:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S2hxO14287 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 21:43:59 -0500 Received: from xuxa.iecc.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id VAA01509 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 21:21:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 4972 invoked by uid 100); 27 Mar 2003 21:24:17 -0500 Message-ID: <20030328022417.4971.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) To: william@elan.net Subject: Re: [Asrg] Opt-Out Notes: too complicated, ignoring history Newsgroups: iecc.lists.asrg In-Reply-To: Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA Cc: asrg@ietf.org Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 27 Mar 2003 21:24:17 -0500 Did you look at the NO UCE/NO UBE banner proposal that I described about a week ago? It does everything a global opt-out list is supposed to with far fewer privacy problems at much less cost. Furthermore, legislators in multiple states are aware of it and have said they'd be willing to write laws that use it. Also, are you aware of the number of global opt-out systems that have been proposed and implemented, from the DMA's eMPS and Rodney Joffe's SafeEPS down to various spammer fronts? SafeEPS and eMPS were both implemented by technically sophisticated and well-funded entities, yet they both failed to stop any noticible amount of spam. Since every opt-out plan to date has failed, I'm surprised that nobody seems to be analyzing why that happened, and it's not because they didn't include the magic IETF seal of approval. Unless you identify and solve the problems that have killed them all, why would you expect another similar plan to work any better? Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner "A book is a sneeze." - E.B. White, on the writing of Charlotte's Web _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 27 21:46:54 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA02068 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 21:46:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2S38Rw16171 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 22:08:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S38RO16168 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 22:08:27 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA02059; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 21:46:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S37HO15781; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 22:07:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S36NO15357 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 22:06:23 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA02025 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 21:44:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h2S2kWg29861; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 18:46:32 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: Kee Hinckley Cc: william@elan.net, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Proposal for Opt-Out Message-ID: <20030328024632.GQ19853@main.templetons.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 18:46:32 -0800 Oh, I think many people feel opt-out systems won't be very effective. I just presumed members of the group were no doubt free to draft technical proposals on on such systems (and other unworkable or politically unacceptable solutions) and seek input on them to prepare something for the group. At which point the group can reject it as unworkable. Of course, if you know in advance that the group is not likely to judge it as workable, you are probably wasting your time and should work on something else. As for opt-out systems, I will say this. Some of the people pushing for laws are pushing for laws that (though they may not realize it) call for changes to protocols. In fact, there have been several laws which have respecified the format of the Subject line, demanding that it contain "ADV:" (some jurisdictions) "Advert:" (some jurisdictions) and other such tags, plus extra tags like "Adv+Adult:" and so on. I doubt I have to convince anybody here that the government should not be writing protocol changes into the law. Especially incompatible ones. What that does mean however is that if they insist on drafting laws, the laws should say, "The appropriate standards body for the E-mail system in question shall be asked to define a format extension to use to tag the thing we are naming in this law, and this law shall compell obedience to that protocol." So we might be asked to come up with tagging and opt-out systems as these are among the more popular laws. I personally oppose them. The evidence so far is that the current 25 spam laws do nothing, and I hold no optimism for the success of future ones in a global net, not on their own. Plus most of them are unconstitutional anyway, but that doesn't really matter since they have to work before you even get to that debate. However, we may need to be ready for them nonetheless. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 27 22:31:46 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA02869 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 22:31:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2S3rMj18530 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 22:53:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S3rLO18527 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 22:53:21 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA02855; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 22:31:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S3pWO18441; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 22:51:32 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S3oiO18418 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 22:50:44 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA02795 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 22:28:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h2S3Urn30494; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 19:30:53 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: "John R. Levine" Cc: william@elan.net, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Opt-Out Notes: too complicated, ignoring history Message-ID: <20030328033053.GS19853@main.templetons.com> References: <20030328022417.4971.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030328022417.4971.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 19:30:53 -0800 On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 09:24:17PM -0500, John R. Levine wrote: > Did you look at the NO UCE/NO UBE banner proposal that I described > about a week ago? It does everything a global opt-out list is > supposed to with far fewer privacy problems at much less cost. > Furthermore, legislators in multiple states are aware of it and have > said they'd be willing to write laws that use it. Where is the draft of it. Most banner proposals have had a number of problems. 1) "Banner" implies they occur on connection, however you don't yet know the policies of the target users until you get a RCPT command. You can have a site opt-out at corporate sites, where one entity technically owns every mailbox on the site, but servers that hold mailboxes for different entities need a way to give them individual control. You certainly don't want to have your ability to opt-out or in require you to switch ISPs. 2) There's no good way to deal with the question of legitimate relaying, ie. MX records. All your MXs and other relays need to know the preference of every _user_ they relay for, unless they relay only for single-user sites. 3) Likewise, what do outgoing relays do? For many mails, the user sends mail to an outgoing MTA, that relays to an MX, which relays to the target MTA. The only way to deal with this is to require the outgoing user to label, so that the MTA which finally talks to the final destination can know what to do if it's informed about a policy after it issues the RCPT TO: I wrote a few drafts in this area many years ago, but in the end I felt these problems were difficult to surmount. Since a policy system effectively turns into a tagging system, my not just have a tag, and put it in the envelope so you can reject based on it, rather than trying to implement a policy language in addition to a tagging language? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 27 23:01:53 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA03440 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 23:01:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2S4NTZ20387 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 23:23:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S4NTO20384 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 23:23:29 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA03420; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 23:01:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S4MKO20304; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 23:22:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S4LgO20278 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 23:21:42 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA03349 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 22:59:34 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2S2BWuY020674 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 18:11:32 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2S2BW2h020670 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 18:11:32 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Proposal for Opt-Out Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 18:11:32 -0800 (PST) Opt-out will not be effective all by itself. If we do opt-out now with email protocol completely open as it is and laws ineffective then it'll not work, we'v already seen it. So do not assume that what I offered is a solution for spam, not at all, this should even be tried now until we find some way to fix the protocol. On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Brad Templeton wrote: > Oh, I think many people feel opt-out systems won't be very effective. > > I just presumed members of the group were no doubt free to draft > technical proposals on on such systems (and other unworkable or politically > unacceptable solutions) and seek input on them to prepare something for > the group. At which point the group can reject it as unworkable. > > Of course, if you know in advance that the group is not likely to judge > it as workable, you are probably wasting your time and should work on > something else. > > As for opt-out systems, I will say this. Some of the people pushing for > laws are pushing for laws that (though they may not realize it) call for > changes to protocols. In fact, there have been several laws which have > respecified the format of the Subject line, demanding that it contain > "ADV:" (some jurisdictions) "Advert:" (some jurisdictions) and other such > tags, plus extra tags like "Adv+Adult:" and so on. > > I doubt I have to convince anybody here that the government should not > be writing protocol changes into the law. Especially incompatible ones. > > What that does mean however is that if they insist on drafting laws, the > laws should say, "The appropriate standards body for the E-mail system in > question shall be asked to define a format extension to use to tag the > thing we are naming in this law, and this law shall compell obedience to > that protocol." > > So we might be asked to come up with tagging and opt-out systems as > these are among the more popular laws. > > I personally oppose them. The evidence so far is that the current 25 spam > laws do nothing, and I hold no optimism for the success of future ones in > a global net, not on their own. Plus most of them are unconstitutional > anyway, but that doesn't really matter since they have to work before you > even get to that debate. > > However, we may need to be ready for them nonetheless. > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 27 23:13:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA03660 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 23:13:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2S4ZIr21074 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 23:35:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S4ZIO21071 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 23:35:18 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA03648; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 23:13:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S4Y4O21014; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 23:34:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S4XVO20962 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 23:33:31 -0500 Received: from tom.iecc.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id XAA03623 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 23:11:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 12103 invoked from network); 27 Mar 2003 23:13:45 -0500 Received: (ofmipd 208.31.42.38); 28 Mar 2003 04:13:23 -0000 Message-ID: From: "John R Levine" To: "Brad Templeton" Cc: william@elan.net, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Opt-Out Notes: too complicated, ignoring history In-Reply-To: <20030328033053.GS19853@main.templetons.com> Cleverness: None detected MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 27 Mar 2003 23:13:45 -0500 > Where is the draft of it. Most banner proposals have had a number of > problems. www.cauce.org/proposal, same place it's been for years Please keep in mind that the point of his proposal is to provide a spec for laws that want to provide server operators with a consistent way to provide notice to senders that they don't want UBE or UCE. As Hamidi, Compuserve v. Cyberpromo, and many other cases have established, server operators are quite entitled to tell unwanted visitors to go away. > 1) "Banner" implies they occur on connection, however you don't yet > know the policies of the target users until you get a RCPT command. The banner displays the policy of the server owner. Every ISP has terms of service, no ISP provides an unlimited unfiltered bit pipe to and from the entire rest of the world, and no ISP will receive an unlimited amount of mail for its users. It's perfectly reasonable for the terms to say that they don't accept incoming spam unless you pay extra, just like they say that your mailbox is only 10MB (or whatever), and if you want to get bigger messages than that, you're ouf of luck unless you switch to their higher priced service with bigger mailboxes. If for some reason a server owner wanted to sell a higher priced service for people who want spam, he could set up a subdomain with a separate server (most likely on the same physical equipment) that doesn't say NO UCE or NO UBE. > 2) There's no good way to deal with the question of legitimate relaying, > ie. MX records. The banners on a domain's MXes are the domain's policies. If a domain has more than one MX, it would be a good idea if they all published the same policy, but that's not a technical issue. Outgoing relays before the transaction to the MX or incoming relays after that transaction don't matter, since the MX is where the mail is handed from the sender's agent to the recipient's. I realize that you can construct scenarios where a mailbox on server A without a NO UBE policy is forwarded to a mailbox on server B which does have a NO UBE policy, but humans interpreting a law wouldn't have any trouble dealing with that; if the forward was authorized by the user on server B, it's solicited, if not, it's server A's problem to control his network. > All your MXs and other relays need to know the > preference of every _user_ they relay for, unless they relay only for > single-user sites. This is the "every user's entitled to receive all spam" fallacy again. > 3) Likewise, what do outgoing relays do? For many mails, the user sends > mail to an outgoing MTA, that relays to an MX, which relays to the > target MTA. That wouldn't be a good way to send mail that needs to obey a NO UCE or NO UBE policy. So don't do that. Every ISP I know of doesn't let you send spam through their MTAs anyway, so this would not be a change to current practice. > The only way to deal with this is to require the > outgoing user to label, so that the MTA which finally talks to the > final destination can know what to do if it's informed about a > policy after it issues the RCPT TO: Not at all. They could either listwash before sending the mail (we have sample code on the web site), or hire a mailing service that washes on the fly. This proposal does make it somewhat harder, but not overwhelmingly so, to send UBE or UCE to people who will accept it. I don't see that as a problem, since it pushes the cost of spamming back on the spammers. It's a content neutral (for NO UBE at least) time and manner regulation. This has the significant advantage over other proposals I've seen that it doesn't require any software work by the recipient server operators other than editing the server banner one time to add the appropriate text, something that is easy to do with all the SMTP servers I know. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner "A book is a sneeze." - E.B. White, on the writing of Charlotte's Web _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 27 23:19:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA03756 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 23:19:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2S4fAu22029 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 23:41:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S4fAO22026 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 23:41:10 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA03744; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 23:19:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S4Z1O21058; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 23:35:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S4YRO21033 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 23:34:27 -0500 Received: from backbone.midwestcs.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA03637 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 23:12:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from footbone.midwestcs.com ([206.222.212.237] helo=midwestcs.com) by backbone.midwestcs.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18ylGH-0000AZ-00 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 22:14:37 -0600 To: asrg@ietf.org (IRTF Anti-Spam Research Group) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Blacklist blackmail References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: wayne In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lines: 53 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanner: exiscan *18ylGH-0000AZ-00*8GQd6IE/852* () Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 27 Mar 2003 22:14:36 -0600 In Kee Hinckley writes: > We are now getting RBLs who will remove your host from their blacklist > for a fee. (See http://www.blars.org/errors/block.html for an > example.) If by "now", you mean within the last year or so, then ok. The last modification time on that web page was about a year ago. And if by "blackmail" you mean charging money for services rendered rather than the traditional dictionary definition of "blackmail", then I guess that is ok also. > And yes, people actually subscribe to these. So what? Can't people do what they want with their own machines? > And yes, they do block > non-spamming ISPs. So what? If you send email to someone and it is block because they use Blars DNSBL, you have three choices: 1) Don't bother sending that person (or ISP) email anymore. 2) Try to convince the person (or ISP) you sent email to that they shouldn't be using that DNSBL, but understand that they are under no obligation to change. 3) Try to convince Blars DNSBL to remove you. In this particular case, you will have to put down a sizable deposit and if Blars decides that you were correctly listed, you will probably end up paying that deposit to him. DNSBLs are like restaurant reviews. Yeah, some of them like the NYTimes reviews can make a significant impact on the restaurant, but that is only because they are well respected. Anyone can create a restaurant review if they want, but it is unlikely that many will be interested in it. Personally, I doubt that many clueful person (or ISP) use Blars DNSBL to block email and I would almost certainly choose option 1. -wayne _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 27 23:51:06 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA04479 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 23:51:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2S5Cf623694 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:12:41 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S5CfO23691 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:12:41 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA04473; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 23:50:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S5BAO23654; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:11:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S5A8O23584 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:10:08 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA04396 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 23:48:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h2S4oGY31801; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 20:50:16 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: John R Levine Cc: Brad Templeton , william@elan.net, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Opt-Out Notes: too complicated, ignoring history Message-ID: <20030328045016.GV19853@main.templetons.com> References: <20030328033053.GS19853@main.templetons.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 20:50:16 -0800 On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 11:13:45PM -0500, John R Levine wrote: > > 1) "Banner" implies they occur on connection, however you don't yet > > know the policies of the target users until you get a RCPT command. > > The banner displays the policy of the server owner. Then it is, unfortunately, only a limited solution. The problem is that if it were the only solution, it would put a lot of pressure for conformity on ISP users. The whole site must make a simultaneous decision for all of its users, and the only alternative is to leave the host (and change your e-mail address) if you don't agree with the policy. This is true both for people who want an open mailbox at a site which wants to declare a blocking policy, and those who want a blocking policy at a site that wants open. We would want to be careful about releasing a solution which solves some people's problems and because it doesn't solve others, pidgeonholes them into the site-wide approach, and thus does not meet the goal of providing individual user choice. > Every ISP has terms of service, no ISP provides an unlimited unfiltered > bit pipe to and from the entire rest of the world, and no ISP will receive > an unlimited amount of mail for its users. It's perfectly reasonable for > the terms to say that they don't accept incoming spam unless you pay > extra, just like they say that your mailbox is only 10MB (or whatever), > and if you want to get bigger messages than that, you're ouf of luck > unless you switch to their higher priced service with bigger mailboxes. It is indeed possible for most ISPs to change their terms of service on their customers, however this would not meet the goal of facilitating user choice, so this can only be one prong in a broader set of solutions. > > If for some reason a server owner wanted to sell a higher priced service > for people who want spam, he could set up a subdomain with a separate > server (most likely on the same physical equipment) that doesn't say NO > UCE or NO UBE. Indeed they could but that would require all those users to change their e-mail address, something I think we are loathe to accept as a solution, unless there are not other alternatives I hope you would agree. > The banners on a domain's MXes are the domain's policies. If a domain has > more than one MX, it would be a good idea if they all published the same > policy, but that's not a technical issue. Outgoing relays before the > transaction to the MX or incoming relays after that transaction don't > matter, since the MX is where the mail is handed from the sender's agent > to the recipient's. But this makes the above forced-aggregation-of-decision problem even worse. Not only must all users at a site have the same policy, but this must match at all mail relayers. Again, this seems very much at odds with the goal of end-user control. We would only adopt it if it became very clear that end-user control was not attainable. I think it's clear as well that this approach, though I used to favour it, would quickly result in the same policy being applied to everybody, with no alternative but to change your email address to express your will. > > All your MXs and other relays need to know the > > preference of every _user_ they relay for, unless they relay only for > > single-user sites. > > This is the "every user's entitled to receive all spam" fallacy again. I believe that many people do believe that it is ideal to leave the choice of filtering in the hands of the end-user. This does not mean, by the way, that an ISP can't charge you for e-mail received by the megabyte above some limit (as some ISPs do) as a way of strongly encouraging you to follow a given policy. But I don't believe the IETF would ever want to, in technical specifications, push policy decisions on users or service providers. Rather we would wish to provide tools and protocols to implement policy decisions. Many believe in preserving the end to end nature of internet protocols as much as possible, sacrificing it with great reluctance or not at all. > > 3) Likewise, what do outgoing relays do? For many mails, the user sends > > mail to an outgoing MTA, that relays to an MX, which relays to the > > target MTA. > That wouldn't be a good way to send mail that needs to obey a NO UCE or NO > UBE policy. So don't do that. Every ISP I know of doesn't let you send > spam through their MTAs anyway, so this would not be a change to current > practice. Nonetheless it is the way mail works, and the relays are generally designed to be "dumb" -- their job is to forward the traffic, not be involved in decisions. ISPs unfortunately have many definitions of spam in their TOS, and while that might be reconciled, in some cases users may not even be aware that they are using a relay. Some ISPs redirect traffic on port 25 through their relay, no matter what IP you attempt to send it to. > This proposal does make it somewhat harder, but not overwhelmingly so, to > send UBE or UCE to people who will accept it. I don't see that as a > problem, since it pushes the cost of spamming back on the spammers. It's > a content neutral (for NO UBE at least) time and manner regulation. Indeed, it's much more workable on the UBE side of things, but you have made note of UCE as a possible policy a number of times, so naturally that is a concern, since single mails will continue to be sent through normal channels in which such a policy banner system would not be workable. > This has the significant advantage over other proposals I've seen that it > doesn't require any software work by the recipient server operators other > than editing the server banner one time to add the appropriate text, > something that is easy to do with all the SMTP servers I know. Actually, there are several proposals that work at this level. About 6 years ago, I even had an SMTP banner which made such a declaration, as did many other people. Which comes to the other point. How effective would such a scheme be, do you think? One would presume that it would need laws to back it up, but even then, but it's pretty clear now that laws resembling any of the existing ones don't work, some would argue they never can in a global net. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 00:11:22 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA04963 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:11:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2S5WvC24483 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:32:57 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S5WvO24480 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:32:57 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA04952; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:10:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S5VDO24388; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:31:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S5NWO24191 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:23:32 -0500 Received: from pink.rahul.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA04784 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:01:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from mauve.rahul.net (mauve.rahul.net [66.237.72.25]) by pink.rahul.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FD5E2FE3F for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 21:03:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by mauve.rahul.net (Postfix, from userid 4188) id 18CDB2B574; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 21:03:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from mauve.rahul.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mauve.rahul.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A5F72B54E for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 21:03:47 -0800 (PST) To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 7.c Mass Mailers, reliability, and lack thereof From: pattib@gammon.com In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 27 Mar 2003 16:07:16 EST." <20030327210716.GB2454@m400> Message-Id: <20030328050347.18CDB2B574@mauve.rahul.net> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 21:03:45 -0800 While I've switched careers (at least temporarily) out of the high-tech industry, I have worked for a legitimate email marketer. And I can tell you for a fact that there are people who *do* want to receive opt-in email marketing. They want to be notified of new homes for sale in their neighborhood, when mortgage rates fluctuate, what new classical music CDs have come out this week, and when airfares to Newark have dropped. Why they want to go to Newark is beyond me, but they want to know how to get there cheaply. Many of these people are your Aunt Mildred-- they signed up for AOL because it was easy to use and Bertha next door usd it. They aren't technically literate, and they aren't about to switch ISPs just to be able to get their weekly Cheez-Wiz recipe fix, but they *do* want to get this mail. Legit email marketers are pretty far away from the millions-of- addresses CDs; they clients tend to get the signups from their own websites-- "Want to know when tuna is $.25 off at your neighborhood grocery store? Enter your address here." They don't always follow anti-spam best practices, and sometimes they even screw up, but in general, legit email marketers will try pretty damned hard not to send mail to people who don't want it. There has to be a solution that allows solicited commercial email to get through (fairly) reliably, while at the same time stopping unsolicited mail. Lumping the two together is counter-productive. -Patti _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 00:26:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA05354 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:26:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2S5mCs25850 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:48:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S5mCO25847 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:48:12 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA05289; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:26:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S5l6O25774; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:47:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S5l0O25747 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:47:00 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA05273 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:24:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2207312; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:27:15 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200303261934.h2QJYF4T007032@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <200303261934.h2QJYF4T007032@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Vernon Schryver From: Kee Hinckley Subject: [Asrg] Re: 5c. Message Status Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:06:14 -0500 At 12:34 PM -0700 3/26/03, Vernon Schryver wrote: >I think standardized error messages for computers has worse problems. >Consider the example of SMTP response coes. There are only 3 results >answers that computers can deal with, "it worked," "it failed but >might work if you try again later," and "it failed--go away." In >practice the other literally millions of status codes and extended >status values are wasted bandwidth for humans and computers. The point of extending status codes would not be to give the MTA more options--but to allow it to return something intelligent to the MUA. A large number of the proposals we have seen have weird return values like: - insufficient cpu - run this java applet - insufficient funds - go to the bank - blocked due to naughty word - send here to bypass - blocked due to rogue RBL - click here to complain - blocked due to lack of intelligence - prove you are a human and so on. As you may have gathered from my examples, I'm not fond of these ideas. Nonetheless, they exist now, and they are growing. If these systems are going to interoperate with existing transports, they need to provide some kind of response which the transport can pass back to the human or back to an MTA or MUA which actually does understand them. I think we run the risk of having hundreds of systems all using different mechanisms. So the question is.... Can we specify a standard MTA response format which will let us modify MTAs *once*, regardless of the particular scheme the recipient (and possibly sender) are using? Bonus points if we can degrade gracefully for non-enhanced MTAs (e.g. specify a standard format for the text portion that goes along with an existing numeric response). Like my proposal for a new whitelisting scheme, I'm proposing this not because I like the systems people are implementing--but because I don't want to live in a world where everyone implements incompatible solutions. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 00:27:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA05451 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:27:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2S5n8r25912 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:49:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S5n8O25909 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:49:08 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA05411; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:27:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S5m3O25817; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:48:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S5l2O25759 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:47:02 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA05277 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:24:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2207318; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:27:18 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: "Preston, Tony" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] My ideas... Cc: "'asrg@ietf.org'" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:19:42 -0500 At 11:04 AM -0500 3/27/03, Preston, Tony wrote: >I do have some questions about the solutions/ideas talked about. I >was wondering why not have the "TO:" field be required to be verifiable >from each stop. I know this would increase the bandwidth requirements I'm not clear on what you mean by "To:" field. The To: field is what the user and the MUA decide to put in the letter. It has nothing to do with what gets delivered--that's on the envelope, which doesn't get seen by the user--just the transport. There are lots of very valid reasons why you may not want everyone to see who is in the To: field, which is why mail programs provide Bcc. But what does it mean to validate a To:? How is that different from either receiving or bouncing the email message? >Next, I do think you need federal legislation that creates the email >equivalent of a "do not call" list that any legitimate bulk emailer >must consult. I think it must be accepted that bulk emailers are >going to be around, will operate with/without your consent... See my posting on "RE: [Asrg] 5b. Opt-Out, 2nd version". Email is not like the phone system. Not only is opt-out unlikely to impact any of your spam, it's quite likely to increase it. >get rid of the junk...(interesting enough, 99% of my spam is in html >email which I never read, if it gets to me as html and valid I tell >the person to use plain text and add them to my whitelist). A common techie comment. However based on my involuntary wormalert survey (which is to say, I'm getting the email involuntarily--but I might as well use it while I have it), about 60% of "end-user" email is HTML. >Any solution that requires users to change their tools/upgrade/do something >different is OK, they have the incentive to do it so as to >get rid of spam. Only if the pain of the new something is less than the pain of spam. >Any solution that requires an ISP to change/upgrade/do something different >is much less likely to happen since you still have open relys out there >that haven't been updated in years... If it costs money it aint You forget the numbers. ISPs number in the thousands. Users in the hundred millions. ISP upgrades are more likely. Those open servers aren't ISP servers--they are small companies and clueless users. Different problem. >gonna happen. Besides, my ISP could get into trouble if they started >blocking emails I wanted... They almost certainly already do. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 00:27:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA05466 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:27:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2S5nJx25938 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:49:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S5nJO25935 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:49:19 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA05435; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:27:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S5m2O25801; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:48:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S5l1O25755 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:47:01 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA05275 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:24:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2207316; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:27:17 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <00d401c2f404$f97312f0$0100000a@darwin> References: <000f01c2f0b8$6ba7c140$5880bbd0@kit> <00d401c2f404$f97312f0$0100000a@darwin> To: "Paul Tenny" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] If You Don't Fix It, The Politicians Will Cc: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:10:17 -0500 At 9:02 PM -0500 3/26/03, Paul Tenny wrote: >I have actually already suggested such a system. The only differences >were it did not cost anything, and it was not run by a government. > >Reference: >https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg01565.html Actually you don't seem to mention who would run it. However, what you proposed was taking something that is currently highly distributed and centralizing it. I don't think that's going to fly. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 00:27:47 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA05480 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:27:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2S5nN625954 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:49:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S5nNO25951 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:49:23 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA05442; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:27:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S5m4O25833; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:48:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S5l3O25767 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:47:03 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA05280 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:24:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2207320; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:27:19 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: william@elan.net From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Proposal for Opt-Out Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:25:13 -0500 At 6:11 PM -0800 3/27/03, william@elan.net wrote: >Opt-out will not be effective all by itself. Of the proposals we have seen so far, which would change the dynamics of opt-out as I've described them? -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 00:42:46 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA05813 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:42:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2S64MY26606 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 01:04:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S64MO26602 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 01:04:22 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA05798; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:42:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S637O26498; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 01:03:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S626O26448 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 01:02:06 -0500 Received: from tom.iecc.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id AAA05680 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:39:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 15725 invoked from network); 28 Mar 2003 00:42:20 -0500 Received: (ofmipd 208.31.42.38); 28 Mar 2003 05:41:58 -0000 Message-ID: From: "John R Levine" To: "Brad Templeton" Cc: william@elan.net, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Opt-Out Notes: too complicated, ignoring history In-Reply-To: <20030328045016.GV19853@main.templetons.com> Cleverness: None detected MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 28 Mar 2003 00:42:19 -0500 > Then it is, unfortunately, only a limited solution. I suppose, but I'd think that a 99% solution would be preferable to the 0% alternatives that are on offer. > We would want to be careful about releasing a solution which solves some > people's problems and because it doesn't solve others, pidgeonholes them > into the site-wide approach, and thus does not meet the goal of providing > individual user choice. Server banners in practice give users a whole lot more choice than they have now. No ISP offers unfiltered mail, since their spool disks would fill up in seconds. > [ higher priced service ] > Indeed they could but that would require all those users to change their > e-mail address, something I think we are loathe to accept as a solution, > unless there are not other alternatives I hope you would agree. They don't have to change their address. The "send me spam" address could easily be in addition to their original address, e.g., fred@isp.com would add fred@sendmespam.isp.com. Since the sendmespam mailbox would always be over quota, you'd want to keep it separate for practical reasons anyway. > But this makes the above forced-aggregation-of-decision problem even worse. > Not only must all users at a site have the same policy, but this must match > at all mail relayers. Well, yeah. So what? If you want a backup MX, find one with a compatible UBE policy. Maybe my experience is atypical, but don't know of very many domains with multiple MXes not under the same management, and I don't know of any at all where compatible UBE policies would be an issue. > I believe that many people do believe that it is ideal to leave the choice > of filtering in the hands of the end-user. No argument there. Since end-users currently have in practice no alternative but to use filters, frequently pretty incompetent ones, a simple published policy would be a big improvement. And since we know that the people who don't want spam vastly outnumber the ones who do, it's reasonable to design a system that makes the common case easy while making the uncommon case possible, just like it's possible to get a mailbox that can receive gigabyte messages, even though it's not common or cheap. If you want spam, get an extra mailbox for it. Or, of course, sign up on a few FFA sites in which case it's not U so you can use any mailbox you want. > But I don't believe the IETF would ever want to, in technical specifications, > push policy decisions on users or service providers. Rather we would wish > to provide tools and protocols to implement policy decisions. Right. How does giving server operators the option to publish a NO UBE policy force a policy decision on them? For the 99.99999999% of server operators and their users who don't want spam they publish a standard NO UBE banner. For toad.com, they don't. It's up to them. > > That wouldn't be a good way to send mail that needs to obey a NO UCE or NO > > UBE policy. So don't do that. Every ISP I know of doesn't let you send > > spam through their MTAs anyway, so this would not be a change to current > > practice. > > Nonetheless it is the way mail works, ... Could you list two or three ISPs that let users send spam through their outgoing mail servers? Or for that matter, who let retail users send bulk non-spam mail through them? That's the way that individual mail works, which wouldn't be affected by a NO UBE policy, but it's not the way that bulk mail, spam or otherwise, works. You know that. > Indeed, it's much more workable on the UBE side of things, but you have > made note of UCE as a possible policy a number of times, so naturally that > is a concern, since single mails will continue to be sent through normal > channels in which such a policy banner system would not be workable. I would cheerfully strike non-bulk UCE from the proposal. Sen. Bowen's bill in California which bans all UCE refers to it and I argued fairly strenuously with the aide drafting the bill that any such law needs a carve out for non-bulk mail. I think she got it, although I haven't looked at the draft lately. The reason that UCE is still in the proposal is pragmatic. Most of the interest is in banning UCE which I'm trying to deflect into banning UBCE, without a UCE spec there's no basis to start working with them. > Actually, there are several proposals that work at this level. About 6 years > ago, I even had an SMTP banner which made such a declaration, as did many > other people. Same here. Mine's still there, since I don't change mail servers very often. > Which comes to the other point. How effective would such a scheme be, > do you think? In the absence of laws, as ineffective as any other opt-out proposal. With a federal law, I'd expect it to be about as effective as the TCPA, which hasn't eradicated junk faxes but has kept them down to a level that keeps our fax machines usable. > but even then, but it's pretty clear now that laws resembling any of > the existing ones don't work, If you compare the level of junk faxes now to the pre-TCPA level, it's hard to argue that it doesn't work. I'm aware of the "spammers will move offshore" argument, but of course a U.S. law applies to a U.S. advertiser no matter how or where the ads are sent, and the majority of spam is still for US stuff. By the way, do you think the TCPA should be repealed? It means that even if you're willing to change your phone number, you can't get one where junk faxes are permitted. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 00:42:58 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA05837 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:42:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2S64Yi26625 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 01:04:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S64YO26622 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 01:04:34 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA05805; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:42:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S63BO26532; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 01:03:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S62iO26477 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 01:02:44 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA05712 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:40:35 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2S3qVuY021839; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 19:52:31 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2S3qVJY021835; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 19:52:31 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: John R Levine cc: Brad Templeton , Subject: Re: [Asrg] Opt-Out Notes: too complicated, ignoring history In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 19:52:31 -0800 (PST) > www.cauce.org/proposal, same place it's been for years Its well known draft. And I usually do not like to critisize CAUCE, I actually think its one of the best anti-spam organizations, but you're beeing too one-sided here. The problem is that your proposal forces all forces the same settings on all users of the isp and does not make any distintion on type of UCE. It also does not solve the problem on when user game some company consent to send emails about new MP3s and they begin to send him credit card offers for example, claiming full consent to send user whatever they like and afterwards company goes out of business and email list is sold to another company (as part of merger process) and now they claim consent, etc etc. What we need is system to regular the cases above where some type of opt-in happened but comapny is not behaving properly and along with that regular all those semi-legit business that buy your email "opt-in" email lists from failed .coms. I'm not talking about trying to regular completely unsolicited email, that is trying send some fraud offer, these we need to completely stop. Now as far as regulation, marketing is big business in US and they have powerfull friends that will fight in court any attempts to pass a law that allows isp to choose unified policy for all its subscribers, but if system is such that user can CHOOSE to opt-in or opt-out on per-user basis, they will not be able to challenge this kind of law (though, I'm sure they'll try...). I always try to find compromise between different positions and what you saw in my proposal is such a compromise - its complex, but it allows for local control of opt-in preferences through isp (which can set default opt-out everyting for its users) or directly by end user, it allows for some goverment regulation and has privacy issues dealt as best possibe (i.e. your email does not go outside your isp for example) and as well as using such encryption techniques that do not allow advertisers to sell permission to email you to somebody else or use it for different purpose. I can't think of any other proposal that goes as far and has so many options which I believe should satisfy all sides. Yes, its complex - most of my proposals are, that is what I'm good at - finding good points in different solutions and trying to combine them together to offer good in each at the same time eliminating weeknesses that one particular solution may have, you'll probably see this in my other proposals. P.S. Keep in mind my opt-out proposal is not designed to regulate UBE, its designed to regulate opt-in and semi opt-in marketing companies and only those that operate under the law. > > Where is the draft of it. Most banner proposals have had a number of > > problems. > > > Please keep in mind that the point of his proposal is to provide a spec > for laws that want to provide server operators with a consistent way to > provide notice to senders that they don't want UBE or UCE. As Hamidi, > Compuserve v. Cyberpromo, and many other cases have established, server > operators are quite entitled to tell unwanted visitors to go away. > > > 1) "Banner" implies they occur on connection, however you don't yet > > know the policies of the target users until you get a RCPT command. > > The banner displays the policy of the server owner. > > Every ISP has terms of service, no ISP provides an unlimited unfiltered > bit pipe to and from the entire rest of the world, and no ISP will receive > an unlimited amount of mail for its users. It's perfectly reasonable for > the terms to say that they don't accept incoming spam unless you pay > extra, just like they say that your mailbox is only 10MB (or whatever), > and if you want to get bigger messages than that, you're ouf of luck > unless you switch to their higher priced service with bigger mailboxes. > > If for some reason a server owner wanted to sell a higher priced service > for people who want spam, he could set up a subdomain with a separate > server (most likely on the same physical equipment) that doesn't say NO > UCE or NO UBE. > > > 2) There's no good way to deal with the question of legitimate relaying, > > ie. MX records. > > The banners on a domain's MXes are the domain's policies. If a domain has > more than one MX, it would be a good idea if they all published the same > policy, but that's not a technical issue. Outgoing relays before the > transaction to the MX or incoming relays after that transaction don't > matter, since the MX is where the mail is handed from the sender's agent > to the recipient's. > > I realize that you can construct scenarios where a mailbox on server A > without a NO UBE policy is forwarded to a mailbox on server B which does > have a NO UBE policy, but humans interpreting a law wouldn't have any > trouble dealing with that; if the forward was authorized by the user on > server B, it's solicited, if not, it's server A's problem to control his > network. > > > All your MXs and other relays need to know the > > preference of every _user_ they relay for, unless they relay only for > > single-user sites. > > This is the "every user's entitled to receive all spam" fallacy again. > > > 3) Likewise, what do outgoing relays do? For many mails, the user sends > > mail to an outgoing MTA, that relays to an MX, which relays to the > > target MTA. > > That wouldn't be a good way to send mail that needs to obey a NO UCE or NO > UBE policy. So don't do that. Every ISP I know of doesn't let you send > spam through their MTAs anyway, so this would not be a change to current > practice. > > > The only way to deal with this is to require the > > outgoing user to label, so that the MTA which finally talks to the > > final destination can know what to do if it's informed about a > > policy after it issues the RCPT TO: > > Not at all. They could either listwash before sending the mail (we have > sample code on the web site), or hire a mailing service that washes on the > fly. > > This proposal does make it somewhat harder, but not overwhelmingly so, to > send UBE or UCE to people who will accept it. I don't see that as a > problem, since it pushes the cost of spamming back on the spammers. It's > a content neutral (for NO UBE at least) time and manner regulation. > > This has the significant advantage over other proposals I've seen that it > doesn't require any software work by the recipient server operators other > than editing the server banner one time to add the appropriate text, > something that is easy to do with all the SMTP servers I know. > > Regards, > John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", > Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner > "A book is a sneeze." - E.B. White, on the writing of Charlotte's Web > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 00:46:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA05891 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:46:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2S684B27526 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 01:08:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S684O27523 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 01:08:04 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA05881; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:45:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S671O26782; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 01:07:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S65aO26675 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 01:05:36 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA05861 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:43:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2207410; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:45:52 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: wayne From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Blacklist blackmail Cc: asrg@ietf.org (IRTF Anti-Spam Research Group) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:43:20 -0500 At 10:14 PM -0600 3/27/03, wayne wrote: >In Kee Hinckley > writes: > >> We are now getting RBLs who will remove your host from their blacklist >> for a fee. (See http://www.blars.org/errors/block.html for an >> example.) > >If by "now", you mean within the last year or so, then ok. The >last modification time on that web page was about a year ago. First I've heard of it. So for me it was "now". Your point? >And if by "blackmail" you mean charging money for services rendered >rather than the traditional dictionary definition of "blackmail", then >I guess that is ok also. I think that advertising a RBL, getting people to use it, adding innocent ISPs to it, and then charging them to get off is pretty close to blackmail. > > And yes, people actually subscribe to these. > >So what? Can't people do what they want with their own machines? Certainly. I was simply trying to point out that there are serious problems with some of the RBLs. Your point? > > And yes, they do block >> non-spamming ISPs. > >So what? Oh, nothing. I thought we were trying to solve problems on this list. Sorry, must have been a wrong number. >If you send email to someone and it is block because they use Blars >DNSBL, you have three choices: > >1) Don't bother sending that person (or ISP) email anymore. Thank God the phone system doesn't work that way. > >2) Try to convince the person (or ISP) you sent email to that they > shouldn't be using that DNSBL, but understand that they are under > no obligation to change. I'm sure my father would figure that one out on his own. > >3) Try to convince Blars DNSBL to remove you. In this particular > case, you will have to put down a sizable deposit and if Blars > decides that you were correctly listed, you will probably end up > paying that deposit to him. You're assuming that "I" am someone who runs their own mail server. Please get real here. Your father (or grandfather, as the case may be) gets an email bounce with some nonsensical garbage in it about being blocked. He complaints to his ISP. His ISP tries to solve the problem and discovers that it's going to cost them several thousand dollars to fix the problem. Now tell me which part of this system is working well? >Personally, I doubt that many clueful person (or ISP) use Blars DNSBL >to block email and I would almost certainly choose option 1. In this case, the RBL is used by another RBL. Osirusoft. Do you suppose that people who subscribe to Osirusoft's RBL are aware that they are aiding this kind of thing? -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 01:18:12 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA06416 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 01:18:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2S6dnX29474 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 01:39:49 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S6dnO29471 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 01:39:49 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA06407; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 01:17:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S6cIO29406; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 01:38:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S6bAO28901 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 01:37:10 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA06389 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 01:14:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2S6HJHE000599 for Asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 23:17:19 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303280617.h2S6HJHE000599@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Blacklist blackmail References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 23:17:19 -0700 (MST) > We are now getting RBLs ... It would be better to say "blacklist," "blocklist," DNS blacklist," or something else other than "RBL" or "Realtime BlackList" unless you are talking the real RBL. It's not only that "RBL" seems to be a registered trademark or "servicemark" of MAPS, but that the other blacklists differ significantly from MAPS's RBL or RBL+. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 01:22:16 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA06477 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 01:22:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2S6hsa29632 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 01:43:54 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S6hsO29629 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 01:43:54 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA06466; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 01:21:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S6h2O29595; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 01:43:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S6gvO29580 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 01:42:57 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA06457 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 01:20:48 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2S4WluY022353 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 20:32:47 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2S4WlSk022349 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 20:32:47 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Proposal for Opt-Out Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 20:32:47 -0800 (PST) On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Kee Hinckley wrote: > At 6:11 PM -0800 3/27/03, william@elan.net wrote: > >Opt-out will not be effective all by itself. > > Of the proposals we have seen so far, which would change the dynamics > of opt-out as I've described them? The proposals offered so far are incomplete, that is why we all can not decide on any one... But I'll tell general solution: 1. We stop forgeries of mail headers and force all senders to reveal their name (but that I mean source, not actual name for personal emails, etc). 2. We provide means for mail servers to authenticate in such a way that spammer can not easily change just their domain or their ip and begin sending email again (they'd soon be detected and their mail server blacklisted). 3. Law outlaws sending unsolicited commercial email 4. ISPs use filtering to get rid of unwanted spam that may still path through the cracks (i.e. spammer got new mail server and it has not been blacklisted yet or they hijacked the server, etc. etc.) This leaves commercial opt-in email lists where company is setup as real business that does not hide itself and they get permission to send user an information on their product (airline ticket offers) but you do not want to receive "extra" advertisements of credit card offers as you're not interested in that. This is where opt-out system comes in and helps, it regulates commercial email and forces them to respect your wishes. Now the system I described allows for automated white-listing of certain commercial emails where users want to receive them - that will help on filters and allow them to be more effective and have less false-positives. -- William Leibzon Elan Communications Inc. william@elan.net _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 01:31:04 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA06674 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 01:31:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2S6qfk30014 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 01:52:41 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S6qfO30011 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 01:52:41 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA06661; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 01:30:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S6p4O29966; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 01:51:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S6oMO29946 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 01:50:22 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA06633 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 01:28:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h2S6UU800902; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 22:30:30 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: John R Levine Cc: Brad Templeton , william@elan.net, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Opt-Out Notes: too complicated, ignoring history Message-ID: <20030328063030.GW19853@main.templetons.com> References: <20030328045016.GV19853@main.templetons.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 22:30:30 -0800 On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 12:42:19AM -0500, John R Levine wrote: > They don't have to change their address. The "send me spam" address could > easily be in addition to their original address, e.g., fred@isp.com would > add fred@sendmespam.isp.com. Since the sendmespam mailbox would always be > over quota, you'd want to keep it separate for practical reasons anyway. Ah. This may be the source of disagreement. You are assuming perhaps that the reason people would not want a policy decided for them is because they want spam? I can't say I have run into anybody that wants spam -- for their definition of it. There are several reasons why people would want individual choice. The primary one would be they don't agree with the particular program and definitions decided upon. Particularly ones that might affect non-bulk mail as those who use the term UCE have been known to suggest. There are also those who simply defend the principle of individual choice, and don't want to make decisions for others when it comes to something as fundamental to a free society as blocking communications. Even when an immense majority are likely to agree with a choice, or will take it if it is all that were offered. > And since we know that the people who don't want spam vastly outnumber the > ones who do, it's reasonable to design a system that makes the common case > easy while making the uncommon case possible, just like it's possible to Except we live in a society where permitting communications, especially unsolicited communications, is the default. It's more than that it's a hard-fought for and hard-won right. It wasn't discarded over things vastly more important than spam in the grand scheme. However, to get into this debate, I would point to the long history of policy making on this issue, but this is really not the place. Nonetheless the history is strongly in favour of rejecting proposals which whould, in practice cause almost everybody to adopt the same policy. > Right. How does giving server operators the option to publish a NO UBE > policy force a policy decision on them? For the 99.99999999% of server > operators and their users who don't want spam they publish a standard NO > UBE banner. For toad.com, they don't. It's up to them. This is where it gets messy. As noted, this approach very stronly encourages only domain-wide policy. Then it has to deal with the questions of what policies can be expressed. If you go to very simple policies like only a tag that means "No UBE" with some definition agreed on to the parameters of that, then people can have only a binary choice of policy. If you make a more complex policy language, you make it more complex for senders. My earlier drafts had the ability to specify expressions like "No mail if total unsolicited recipients > N" and the like. But I didn't find an easy middle ground. But mostly I abandoned this course because I didn't see how it would actually be effective. However, we can certainly draft how to do it if it could become effective. > Could you list two or three ISPs that let users send spam through their > outgoing mail servers? Or for that matter, who let retail users send bulk I can name many ISPs who let users send what _some_ people include in their definition of spam. This, actually, is why I have argued without much luck for finding the "intersection" definition of spam that still covers almost all spam but is narrow so that everybody can agree it's spam. > In the absence of laws, as ineffective as any other opt-out proposal. > With a federal law, I'd expect it to be about as effective as the TCPA, > which hasn't eradicated junk faxes but has kept them down to a level that > keeps our fax machines usable. I would rate the TCPA as highly ineffective. I have gone to court with TCPA lawsuits, and even won and even collected the $500 damages. It was not a productive use of my time. > > By the way, do you think the TCPA should be repealed? It means that even > if you're willing to change your phone number, you can't get one where > junk faxes are permitted. We can discuss that offline if you like, but I believe the recorded voice robodialer portion of the TCPA is mostly constitutional. The do-not-call list portion is useless and being replaced. I got lots of junk faxes when I had an open fax. However, again, there is almost nobody who wants junk fax (by their definition) and nobody who wants spam (by their definition.) The problem with a binary policy flag is that it effectively applies the same policy decision to all, and I believe policy decisions should rest with the individual, and nobody's mail should be blocked in a way they don't wish it to be blocked. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 01:33:25 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA06713 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 01:33:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2S6t2730099 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 01:55:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S6t2O30096 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 01:55:02 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA06696; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 01:32:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S6r1O30042; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 01:53:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S6qUO29995 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 01:52:30 -0500 Received: from mailhost.aix.cc (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA06654 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 01:30:21 -0500 (EST) Received: by mailhost.aix.cc (Postfix, from userid 2) id 689DA1B50; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 20:53:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from wildmlt (unknown [4.18.158.247]) by mailhost.aix.cc (Postfix) with SMTP id E6DDC1DDDBA for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 17:25:26 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <004301c2f4af$ba22eb60$1174fea9@aix.cc> From: "M Wild" To: References: Subject: Re: [Asrg] My ideas... MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 17:21:36 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "Preston, Tony" To: Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 11:04 AM Subject: [Asrg] My ideas... > I do have some questions about the solutions/ideas talked about. I > was wondering why not have the "TO:" field be required to be verifiable > from each stop. I know this would increase the bandwidth requirements > of each email, but it would also prevent unidentified emails (99% of > the spam I get are unidentified). If the MTA would validate on > arrival and unvalidated email gets rejected, you at least have an identified > user to squash when spammed. Welcome Tony - Reading this message I get the sense that you want to validate the From: address rather than the To: I am contemplating clueing my MTA's in to actual valid users in the domain so that I can reject mail that I know I won't be able to deliver. The thought here is to reduce the bounce messages to likely invalid free email accounts. If the list members have any thoughts on why this would be a Bad Plan(tm) I am open to hearing them. My first thougth on it is that my MTA will assist the spammers in weeding out invalid accounts in my domain however that is balanced by not having to send bounce messages (to the tune of 28000 I'm getting rid of now just to get some spool space back) to sometimes unresponsive mail hosts. > Any solution that requires users to change their tools/upgrade/do something > different is OK, they have the incentive to do it so as to > get rid of spam. Um...I don't know. I never ceased to be amazed by the number of customers that we have that are using sub 200MHz Pentium boxes using IE 3.02/Microsoft Mail as their client software. Some folks just don't have the patience for a 25MB download. > Any solution that requires an ISP to change/upgrade/do something different > is much less likely to happen since you still have open relys out there > that haven't been updated in years... If it costs money it aint > gonna happen. Besides, my ISP could get into trouble if they started > blocking emails I wanted... I am contemplating MTA configuration changes to try to reduce the load on my servers. IF there were an effective solution (IMHO) for spam would I change/update/reconfigure my software? In a heartbeat. Adding horsepower only puts off the day where the spam load overwhelms the aggregate capacity of my mail servers. It astounds me that I have more computing horsepower than it took to put a man on the moon and the system still can't keep up...ad this is with approximately 3500 mailboxes. *sigh* > The problem has to be solved on the sending end or you do not have > a solution. The only ideas that seem to make sense are the idea of > validating the sender at each hop (then as more and more MTAs get > updated to do this, the sender is better identified and can be blocked) > and the idea of estamps. I disagree on this point. I cannot control what other folks do with their MTA's I *CAN* control how my mail servers are configured, what software they run and whatever else it takes to, if not solve, at least reduce the problem. This paragraph also supports my initial assertion that you want to validate From: addresses. This has been proposed in other threads and the question that comes to my mind is "Isn't that what VRFY is for?" I may be mistaken. Again, I appeal to the collective wisdom of the list. Regards Mike _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 02:05:27 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA12711 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 02:05:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2S7R6c09988 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 02:27:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S7R5O09985 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 02:27:05 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA12213; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 02:04:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S7Q6O09957; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 02:26:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S7PwO09941 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 02:25:58 -0500 Received: from tom.iecc.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id CAA11056 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 02:03:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 21955 invoked from network); 28 Mar 2003 02:06:09 -0500 Received: (ofmipd 208.31.42.38); 28 Mar 2003 07:05:47 -0000 Message-ID: From: "John R Levine" To: "Brad Templeton" Cc: william@elan.net, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Opt-Out Notes: too complicated, ignoring history In-Reply-To: <20030328063030.GW19853@main.templetons.com> Cleverness: None detected MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 28 Mar 2003 02:06:08 -0500 > There are several reasons why people would want individual choice. > The primary one would be they don't agree with the particular program > and definitions decided upon. Particularly ones that might affect non-bulk > mail as those who use the term UCE have been known to suggest. Don't get hung up on non-bulk mail. I think we can agree that the spam problem is due to scaling issues with bulk mail and there's no compelling state interest to regulate non-bulk mail, U, C, or otherwise, any more strongly than any other individual communication. I suppose I should adjust the proposal to make that clear, NO UCE means no UBCE. (But the fact that it's spelled "NO UCE" is good because that helps preempt an unwise non-bulk rule.) I'll skip over all the non-bulk issues, since I don't think we disagree there. > > Right. How does giving server operators the option to publish a NO UBE > > policy force a policy decision on them? For the 99.99999999% of server > > operators and their users who don't want spam they publish a standard NO > > UBE banner. For toad.com, they don't. It's up to them. > > This is where it gets messy. As noted, this approach very stronly encourages > only domain-wide policy. Then it has to deal with the questions of what > policies can be expressed. If you go to very simple policies like only a > tag that means "No UBE" with some definition agreed on to the parameters of > that, then people can have only a binary choice of policy. Given that there must be hundreds of millions of domains and subdomains on the net, a domain strikes me as a pretty fine level of granularity. And you can have any policy you want, with NO UBE as a baseline. If you put on a NO UBE banner and publish a policy somewhere saying "we welcome all mail about kittens to meow@templetons.com", kitten mail to that address, even if bulk, is not U any more. Laws and software are not the same and it's a really bad idea to try to encode every legal statement you might want to make into software, which is one of the reasons I think the complicated opt-out list proposal is a non-starter. > I would rate the TCPA as highly ineffective. I have gone to court with > TCPA lawsuits, and even won and even collected the $500 damages. It was > not a productive use of my time. The goal of the TCPA is not to pay you $500, it's to keep fax machines usable. I have a stack of junk faxes like everyone else, but my fax machine is still useful. My email inbox is rapidly approching the place that my fax machine was pre-TCPA, with all the paper on the floor filled with junk and none left for the real faxes. > The problem with a binary policy flag is that it effectively applies the > same policy decision to all, Uh, no. See note above. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 02:24:09 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA19301 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 02:24:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2S7jmk11923 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 02:45:48 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S7jmO11920 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 02:45:48 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA19273; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 02:23:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S7iKO11760; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 02:44:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S7h3O11590 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 02:43:03 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA19165 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 02:20:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h2S7NAt01660; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 23:23:10 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: John R Levine Cc: Brad Templeton , william@elan.net, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Opt-Out Notes: too complicated, ignoring history Message-ID: <20030328072310.GX19853@main.templetons.com> References: <20030328063030.GW19853@main.templetons.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 23:23:10 -0800 On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 02:06:08AM -0500, John R Levine wrote: > > Given that there must be hundreds of millions of domains and subdomains on > the net, a domain strikes me as a pretty fine level of granularity. And > you can have any policy you want, with NO UBE as a baseline. If you put > on a NO UBE banner and publish a policy somewhere saying "we welcome all > mail about kittens to meow@templetons.com", kitten mail to that address, Problem is, get practical. Do you have any doubt, any doubt at all, that this would make the banner the almost universal netwide default policy? As you know, de facto universal policies are often viewed the same as laws. If everybody picks the same thing, you have by definition not given them really a choice. Everybody in Iraq voted for Saddam, remember -- but the fact that they did means they didn't actually have a choice. In a proper engineering solution, you seek a means to actually give people a choice. Do you feel this meets that test? For example, if the banner had a numeric parameter concerning the size of the mailing (and the rules doing appropriate things to avoid any attempt to game the number, because remember -- computers don't send e-mail, human beings do) then we might see a variety of choices being expressed, which would be a valid purpose for a protocol. However, putting in a protocol so that everybody can set it is silly from a technical standpoint. Same with a law. > > The problem with a binary policy flag is that it effectively applies the > > same policy decision to all, > > Uh, no. See note above. Within the grounds of the protocol it does. To put forward analogy, say you wanted to propose a protocol for expressing policy on the size of messages. And you only allowed it to say, "no messages over 1 petabyte, please." Well, of course everybody would set it and it would be meaningless. Or if it said "no messages over 100 bytes" then nobody would set it. You would want to have it actually express something to be a technically meaningful tool. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 02:46:24 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA19986 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 02:46:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2S883e14005 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 03:08:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S883O14002 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 03:08:03 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA19977; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 02:45:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S876O13271; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 03:07:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S86PO13180 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 03:06:25 -0500 Received: from mail.asianet.co.th (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA19933 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 02:44:14 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200303280744.CAA19933@ietf.org> Received: from virscan1.asianet.co.th (HELO mx.asianet.co.th) ([203.144.222.197]) (envelope-sender ) by mail1.asianet.co.th (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 28 Mar 2003 14:46:56 +0700 Received: from ppp-203.144.203.4.revip.asianet.co.th (HELO localhost) ([203.144.203.4]) (envelope-sender ) by mx2.asianet.co.th (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 28 Mar 2003 14:36:50 +0700 From: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" To: "Kee Hinckley" , "wayne" Cc: "IRTF Anti-Spam Research Group" Reply-To: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" Priority: Normal X-Mailer: PMMail 1.96a For OS/2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] Blacklist blackmail Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:46:22 +0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:43:20 -0500, Kee Hinckley wrote: >>1) Don't bother sending that person (or ISP) email anymore. >Thank God the phone system doesn't work that way. In fact it works precisely that way on modern telephone exchanges, which provide the option to refuse calls from call-originators who block transmission of Caller ID data. The ID-blocking caller receives a message he can't complete the call. Jeffrey Race _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 02:48:26 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA20023 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 02:48:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2S8A5814121 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 03:10:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S8A5O14118 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 03:10:05 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA20019; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 02:47:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S893O14070; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 03:09:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S88xO14044 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 03:08:59 -0500 Received: from tom.iecc.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id CAA20009 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 02:46:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 25807 invoked from network); 28 Mar 2003 02:49:10 -0500 Received: (ofmipd 208.31.42.38); 28 Mar 2003 07:48:48 -0000 Message-ID: From: "John R Levine" To: "Brad Templeton" Cc: william@elan.net, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Opt-Out Notes: too complicated, ignoring history In-Reply-To: <20030328072310.GX19853@main.templetons.com> Cleverness: None detected MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 28 Mar 2003 02:49:10 -0500 > > you can have any policy you want, with NO UBE as a baseline. If you put > > on a NO UBE banner and publish a policy somewhere saying "we welcome all > > mail about kittens to meow@templetons.com", kitten mail to that address, > > Problem is, get practical. Do you have any doubt, any doubt at all, that > this would make the banner the almost universal netwide default policy? I certainly hope so. Since we've learned that UBE is rapidly making e-mail unusable, the practical options are some sort of ban on UBE or no e-mail at all. I would guess that we'd also agree that any sort of system that allowed people to opt out of UBE would be universally taken up, so the effect of your position here is to oppose any limits on UBE. Surely that's not what you want. > As you know, de facto universal policies are often viewed the same as laws. > If everybody picks the same thing, you have by definition not given them > really a choice. People can ask for any e-mail they want. That's a real and useful choice. Choices have to make a meaningful difference to be important. I don't have the choice to drive down the left side of the road, but that doesn't limit my ability to get where I want to go. > In a proper engineering solution, you seek a means to actually give people > a choice. Do you feel this meets that test? For example, if the banner had > a numeric parameter concerning the size of the mailing ... Forget it, that's too complicated. The point here is to come up with something that is useful but still simple enough that it can be referred to in a law and interpreted by judges who are not dumb but don't have a software background. I can confirm that explaining NO UCE and NO UBE to legislators and staffers is pretty easy, since I've done it. > However, putting in a protocol so that everybody can set it is silly from > a technical standpoint. Same with a law. There's an entirely sensible reason for definining it this way, which I suspect you already know. Server banners allow laws to be phrased in terms of property rights, as opposed to laws that would completely ban classes of mail which get tied up in knots with arguments about free speech. I happen to think the free speech arguments are misguided, particularly in view of the strong recent appellate opinion upholding the junk fax law, but it's clear that a pure NO UBE or NO UBCE law isn't going to happen. Politics is the art of the possible, and NO UBE is possible and achieves a result with negligible practical downside, since it still lets every user ask for and get any mail that he or she wants. Any sort of opt out or tagging rule or any other limit on spam is meaningless without a legal stick to whack violators, so I don't see much point in defining constructs that have no chance of having the necessary stick attached. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 03:33:21 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA20783 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 03:33:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2S8t0h16976 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 03:55:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S8t0O16973 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 03:55:00 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA20763; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 03:32:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S8rZO16927; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 03:53:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S8qaO16852 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 03:52:37 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA20723 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 03:30:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h2S8Wed02720; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:32:40 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: John R Levine Cc: Brad Templeton , william@elan.net, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Opt-Out Notes: too complicated, ignoring history Message-ID: <20030328083240.GA2518@main.templetons.com> References: <20030328072310.GX19853@main.templetons.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:32:40 -0800 On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 02:49:10AM -0500, John R Levine wrote: > People can ask for any e-mail they want. That's a real and useful choice. Indeed, but not one in this protocol proposed. But in the end, I see this banner as effectively equivalent to writing into SMTP, "Senders MUST NOT send UBE" Which might indeed be what most people want, but it's not for the IETF to do, and as you point out, it's not that meaningful without a law behind it, which is also not for the IETF to do. The IETF defines protocols that lets users specify their choices. The goal here is not to give users a choice, the reality is it is to have everybody specify the same choice, for who wouldn't want to say they don't want spam? I am concerned by defining a technically meaningless option. It's like "Mail-type: Electronic" > There's an entirely sensible reason for definining it this way, which I > suspect you already know. Server banners allow laws to be phrased in > terms of property rights, as opposed to laws that would completely ban > classes of mail which get tied up in knots with arguments about free > speech. I happen to think the free speech arguments are misguided, Well, you know I have many thoughts on these issues, but I will refrain from going onto them on this list, where I prefer to discuss the merits of engineering solutions. The engineering question here is, "Do users need a way to refect their UBE preferences during the SMTP dialog, and if so, how should they be able to do it in a way that meets their desires." I'm not sure a basic banner would meet that test, but the concept can be explored more. However, it's only really meaningful in the concept of law. > Any sort of opt out or tagging rule or any other limit on spam is > meaningless without a legal stick to whack violators, so I don't see much > point in defining constructs that have no chance of having the necessary > stick attached. Well, that's certainly true, though in fact this does not require the congress. For example, ISP TOS can and do have the ability to cut off users for sending traffic that is in violation of protocols. In many ways it can be clearer than just the no spam rule. However, they can't apply this sort of test if the ISP has its own relay server since the proposed protocol does not allow the user of a relay server to even see the policy. On the nearly-technical side, I am also concerned about how much success there will be in defining the terms. Some what Solicited to be implied on a pre-existing relationship (possibly with a "respect unsubscribe requests" rule) and others want solicited to mean explicit subscription. I would hope they can be reconciled. And there are arguments on bulk in either case and where the cutoff should be, though in truth all low cutoffs are probably enough to solve the spam problem -- if they were obeyed. Alas, I have poor faith on any of this being obeyed. As you know, a significant fraction of the spam sent today is already illegal under non-spam laws --- fraud, illegal medical sales and all the rest -- so I see little hope in those spammers obeying the No-UBE sign we might hope to put up on our mailbox. Back to the technical, I would still recommend that any protocol defined in this matter allow individual choice. Thus an ability to express desires after a RCPT command, in addition to at the banner, with a requirement that new mail tools SHOULD support this while older ones may only support the banner. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 04:05:58 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA21654 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 04:05:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2S9ReY19563 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 04:27:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S9ReO19560 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 04:27:40 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA21648; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 04:05:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S9Q8O19502; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 04:26:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S9PZO19441 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 04:25:35 -0500 Received: from mail010.syd.optusnet.com.au (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA21597 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 04:03:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from co3001591-a.troy.rollo.name (c18374.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [210.49.142.222]) by mail010.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2S95ZG19527; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 20:05:36 +1100 Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20030328200348.02691ce0@> X-Sender: (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Troy Rollo Subject: Re: [Asrg] Opt-Out Notes: too complicated, ignoring history Cc: Brad Templeton , John R Levine In-Reply-To: <20030328045016.GV19853@main.templetons.com> References: <20030328033053.GS19853@main.templetons.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 20:05:33 +1100 At 20:50 27/03/03 -0800, Brad Templeton wrote: >On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 11:13:45PM -0500, John R Levine wrote: > > The banner displays the policy of the server owner. > >Then it is, unfortunately, only a limited solution. The problem is that >if it were the only solution, it would put a lot of pressure for conformity >on ISP users. Hence BMPP and BMTP. BMPP provides the preferences on a per-recipient basis. BMTP provides an alternative transport designed for bulk. -- Troy Rollo Chairman, CAUBE.AU asrg@troy.rollo.name Executive Director, iCAUCE _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 05:06:18 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA22691 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 05:06:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SAS1U23662 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 05:28:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SAS0O23659 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 05:28:00 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA22673; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 05:05:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SAQLO23614; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 05:26:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SAPmO23593 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 05:25:48 -0500 Received: from esanlinux.kolumbus.fi (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA22656 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 05:03:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (uid 1000) by esanlinux.kolumbus.fi with local; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:05:57 +0200 From: Esa Laitinen To: IRTF Anti-Spam Research Group Subject: Re: [Asrg] Blacklist blackmail Message-ID: <20030328100556.GD7089@esanlinux.kolumbus.fi> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:05:57 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 12:43:20AM -0500, Kee Hinckley wrote: > I think that advertising a RBL, getting people to use it, adding > innocent ISPs to it, and then charging them to get off is pretty > close to blackmail. Sure. And your proof of innocent ISP's getting listed is exactly where? Notice that proof of listing is not enough. Let us know the IP's involved so others can decide for themselves if the listing was justified. > In this case, the RBL is used by another RBL. Osirusoft. Do you > suppose that people who subscribe to Osirusoft's RBL are aware that > they are aiding this kind of thing? How is Osirusoft's bl using blars (pointers, please)? Sure, the www lookup on Osirusoft's site queries blars as well, but I fail to see any information regarding Osirusoft's bl using blars. Yours, esa -- "I'm really excited by George Bush's latest reason forbombing Iraq: he's running out of patience. And soam I! For some time now I've been really p1ssed offwith Mr Johnson, who lives a couple of doors down thestreet." http://radio.weblogs.com/0114406/2003/03/11.html YIM: reunaesa ICQ: 160631289 AIM: punkkinen MSN: esahi5@hotmail.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 05:26:54 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA23029 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 05:26:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SAmcW25144 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 05:48:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SAmcO25141 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 05:48:38 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA23007; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 05:26:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SAf4O24867; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 05:41:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SAecO24849 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 05:40:38 -0500 Received: from mr1.ima.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA22879 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 05:18:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.ima.com ([202.75.0.13]) by mr1.ima.com with ESMTP (IMA Internet Exchange 6.0) id 1d5372; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:15:00 +0800 Received: from banaue ([172.16.16.9]) by mail.ima.com with ESMTP (IMA Internet Exchange 6.0) id 1061a1; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:07:04 +0800 Message-ID: <02f001c2f512$eaf7ccc0$091010ac@banaue> From: "Tim Kehres" To: "Brad Templeton" , "John R Levine" Cc: "Brad Templeton" , , References: <20030328072310.GX19853@main.templetons.com> <20030328083240.GA2518@main.templetons.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Opt-Out Notes: too complicated, ignoring history MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:15:11 +0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'm farily new to this list (but not the issues and problems), so if I say something that's allready been hashed over, please be gentle with me... :-) I've seen several messages over the past few days that exhibit in various degress part of the following sections I'll quote -so my focus is not solely no this particular message or text. > On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 02:49:10AM -0500, John R Levine wrote: > > People can ask for any e-mail they want. That's a real and useful choice. > > Indeed, but not one in this protocol proposed. > > But in the end, I see this banner as effectively equivalent to writing > into SMTP, "Senders MUST NOT send UBE" > > Which might indeed be what most people want, but it's not for the IETF > to do, and as you point out, it's not that meaningful without a law behind > it, which is also not for the IETF to do. The IETF defines protocols that > lets users specify their choices. To be extremely blunt on this - while the intent of laws are all well and good (which I do support), relying on them for real world impact is not practical. It never has been and never will. Enact as many laws as you want it whatever juristdiction you happen to be in, and the bad guys will simply move elsewhere. I happen to be at the moment in Hong Kong. Why should I be concerend with laws in the US or Europe? And if it gets to the point where I would be, I can simply move my bad guy operation to a neighboring country, pay off the law enforcement people, and I'm in business indefinitely. Without naming any names, trust me on the later - it is the reality in many places. :-( The vigalante nature of most of the blacklist organizations brings their own set of problems that are well known to most here. It seems to me that our best hope for a solution is in a group such as this - however we are not dealing with problems as black and white (at least in technical terms) as most other IETF groups work with. Coming up with things like the MIME and DSN recommendations was pretty black and white as an example - most issues were purely technical. Not the case with SPAM. My preference would be to rephrase your last comment as "The IETF should be defining protocols and solutions to let users solve real problems." The difference is that the scope is a bit wider here - and can encompass areas not specifically covered by protocol design. > Well, you know I have many thoughts on these issues, but I will refrain from > going onto them on this list, where I prefer to discuss the merits of > engineering solutions. I'm not sure what you are trying to imply here. Most engineering designs have to take into consideration the technologies available, their costs, and at the end of the day build something that works for people. It's the later part of the equation that is most often the most difficult, and most certainly the case here. > The engineering question here is, "Do users need a way to refect their > UBE preferences during the SMTP dialog, and if so, how should they be able > to do it in a way that meets their desires." I'm not sure a basic banner > would meet that test, but the concept can be explored more. However, it's > only really meaningful in the concept of law. It has already been shown that the bad guys have no respect for protocol or laws. Hey, we've even had one spammer recently that we uncovered that was simply ingoring all the SMTP failure codes (after we detected they were a spammer), and simply continued blindly along sending the message. I think we do a disconnect now rather than continue the SMTP dialog, but it just goes to show that SMTP extensions will not be effective for those you are trying to pull the reigns in on. These are not your normal law abiding citizens, and never will be, so don't expect for them to conform to standards or recommendations designed to keep them out. > > Any sort of opt out or tagging rule or any other limit on spam is > > meaningless without a legal stick to whack violators, so I don't see much > > point in defining constructs that have no chance of having the necessary > > stick attached. > > Well, that's certainly true, though in fact this does not require the > congress. For example, ISP TOS can and do have the ability to cut off > users for sending traffic that is in violation of protocols. In many ways > it can be clearer than just the no spam rule. To be effective, solutions need to be devised that do NOT rely upon legal enforcement for the reasons cited above. If you don't believe me, check the archives of many of the anit-spam lists that have discussed this over the past several years. This is not a new concept - in fact many have believed it to be the silver bullet to enforce policies, however time and time again it has been shown to be a false assumption. > On the nearly-technical side, I am also concerned about how much success there > will be in defining the terms. Some what Solicited to be implied on a pre-existing > relationship (possibly with a "respect unsubscribe requests" rule) and others > want solicited to mean explicit subscription. I would hope they can be > reconciled. And there are arguments on bulk in either case and where the > cutoff should be, though in truth all low cutoffs are probably enough to solve > the spam problem -- if they were obeyed. Alas, I have poor faith on any > of this being obeyed. As you know, a significant fraction of the spam > sent today is already illegal under non-spam laws --- fraud, illegal medical > sales and all the rest -- so I see little hope in those spammers obeying > the No-UBE sign we might hope to put up on our mailbox. Exactly! To expand on this, it is my opinion, despite how hard it is to come to consensus, that a common definition of what we believe SPAM to be is established. Everyone has their own definitions, from the DMA, to those that think that anything they were not expecting in their inbox (regardless of content, sender, or any other criteria) would be considered SPAM. A well understood definition needs to be established before a system to deal with it can be properly designed. Otherwise, how will you ever know if you've reached your goal, if the target keeps moving? Anyway, hope I've not strayed too far off topic here - if so, please be kind in your rebuttles... :-) Best Regards, -- Tim _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 07:01:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA25224 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 07:01:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SCNKB30867 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 07:23:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SCNKO30864 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 07:23:20 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA25192; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 07:01:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SCFLO30490; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 07:15:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SCA3O30321 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 07:10:03 -0500 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA24930 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 06:47:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 18ysN7-000727-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:50:09 +0000 To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.4.13] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 172.25.243.3 Message-Id: Subject: [Asrg] 5.b. Opt out ? EC / UK govt proposals == Strict Opt in? Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:50:09 +0000 I'm sure many people have seen this: http://www.dti.gov.uk/cii/regulatory/telecomms/telecommsregulations/comms_d pd.shtml So if you have, please ignore. The EC Directive (annex 1) requires 40) Safeguards should be provided for subscribers against intrusion of their privacy by unsolicited communications for direct marketing purposes in particular by means of automated calling machines, telefaxes, and e-mails, including SMS messages. These forms of unsolicited commercial communications may on the one hand be relatively easy and cheap to send and on the other may impose a burden and/or cost on the recipient. Moreover, in some cases their volume may also cause difficulties for electronic communications networks and terminal equipment. For such forms of unsolicited communications for direct marketing, it is justified to require that prior explicit consent of the recipients is obtained before such communications are addressed to them. The single market requires a harmonised approach to ensure simple, Community-wide rules for businesses and users. The UK draft regulation proposes: 22.1.b Except in the circumstances referred to in paragraph (3), a person shall not transmit, or instigate the transmission of, unsolicited communications, for the purposes of direct marketing, by means of electronic mail, unless – the recipient of the electronic mail has previously notified the sender that he consents for the time being to such communications being sent by, or at the instigation of, the sender for direct marketing purposes; and and A subscriber shall not permit his line to be used in contravention ... Now IANAL but that looks like it seeks to make spam *transmission* illegal in the UK The draft also provides for the "voiding" of contracts inconsistent with the regulations. Good huh? -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 07:09:46 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA25364 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 07:09:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SCVU231241 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 07:31:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SCVUO31238 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 07:31:30 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA25359; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 07:09:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SCO3O30906; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 07:24:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SCNFO30858 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 07:23:15 -0500 Received: from moebius2.Space.Net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id HAA25180 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 07:00:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 8642 invoked by uid 1013); 28 Mar 2003 12:03:20 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Asrg digest, Vol 1 #133 - 14 msgs Message-ID: <20030328130320.A29840@Space.Net> References: <20030327170006.31387.82863.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> <002801c2f495$ddbde7b0$3f6ca8c0@PRESTON> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <002801c2f495$ddbde7b0$3f6ca8c0@PRESTON>; from tony.preston@acs-inc.com on Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 02:20:02PM -0500 Organization: SpaceNet AG, Muenchen, Germany X-PGP-Fingerprint: 66 F3 75 79 01 D0 B8 5F 1A C7 77 88 4A B6 70 DF Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:03:20 +0100 On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 02:20:02PM -0500, Tony Preston wrote: > What I mean is that if joe@example.com is the FROM user, he should exist > on example.com, a query to example.com would check to see if that is > true. There is such a identification method that was widelier used years ago. It still exists and it's called IDENT (RFC 931) ... and it doesn't work. It's all a matter of trust and you can't trust anybody or any system that you haven't full control over. I currently have in my queue the following emails (bounces) to cathy781672@hotjuicycunt.com cathy161126@hotjuicycunt.com cathy381564@hotjuicycunt.com the emails spamvertise the website http://www.hotjuicycunt.com/ Where is the problem for the spammer to set up an identification/validation service for hotjuicycunt.com and answer all questions with "yes". Instead of a full featured system a 100 line program will do it for spammers. Would it have stopped the spam? No. > This would at least give you a user on a site that is responsible for > sending. No it won't. And there is always a user responsible, either the sysadmin for being a loser or a spammer. And I doubt you will get a private home user convicted for running an open proxy or being attacked by a virus that installed an open proxy and being abused as spam relay. So responsibility is not a spam breaker. > connection, you can record it. This gives you the ip address of the > spammer and can be blocked. My database contains roughly 20 millions of those IP addresses and all are blocked. I have no problems getting about 150000 new each day from my logs. All I currently have to do is grep for HELO earthling.net HELO mail.worldnet.att.net HELO cyberproxy.com and block the hosts identifying that way. Also, the implication for every single person to be listed or for mailinglists that use VERP are enormous. And, as I said before, those systems can be attacked with dictionary queries that make it worse, more than it will help. \Maex -- SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0 Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 "The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 08:10:50 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA27580 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:10:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SDWaR02876 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:32:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SDWZO02873 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:32:35 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA27560; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:10:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SDOJO02399; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:24:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SDNiO02367 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:23:44 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA27330 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:01:26 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2SBDYuY027509 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 03:13:34 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2SBDYf0027505 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 03:13:34 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Asrg] Notes on Callback SMTP Transmission Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 03:13:34 -0800 (PST) As promised I'm sending you notes on callback tranmission. This notes are similar format as verification notes I sent before and in fact I had them done together. Callback tranmission has use in verifying server listed in EHLO (this can also be done by pure dns) and prohibiting use of mail relays and proxies. If callback is additionally delayed it can also be used to determine "bulkness" of email (since you assume spammer would have many emails waiting for you at his server all of same or similar content) but drawback of delayed email communications is too great. What is listed in #2 and #4 are probably best as far as callback ideas. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Introduction: In normal email transmission, email communication is one way from the source to destination. The actual transmission may involve multiple hops (mail servers) but in all cases the email travels one way, each time source or previous server in the mail path contacts next server and sends the data stream. As a comparison in POP3 protocol, mail is retrieved and there client (which is destination where mail message would end up) calls the server and requests to download the message. With callback transmission, the above are combined, so now source contacts the destination and informs that it wants to send an email, but instead of actually sending email, the actual data is retrieved by destination from the source server. Technical Details on Callback proposals 1. SSMTP (from http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nunn-ssmtp-00.txt) Email is initiated as normal SMTP, instead of issuing EHLO command the source issues "SHLO domain.com", if destination server supports SSMTP it means it knows this protocol and "after receiving a SHLO from the source, desitnation mail server performs an MX lookup, then connects to the IP address over port 25 and issues X-RECEIVEMAIL command (as opposed to EHLO or SHLO) and if successfull answer is received, that means it reached server that initiated contact (in which case original tranmission source-> desttination is dropped) and destination then retrieves the message using this new connection Pros: a. This allows verification that address listed in HELO is for domain where email server that is sending email to the target b. The system completely prohibits use of mail relays and proxies that are so favorite by spammers c. This guarantees that source server is actual server handling email for that particular domain Cons: a. This will work only if there is one and only one MX listed for domain in SHLO and only one server can send the message. Obviously in most cases there are log more then one MX and in many cases email is transmitted outbound from different servers then received inbound. b. This will not work when source is from location under firewall where firewall closed port25 or is only redirecting it to specific other server, it'll not work for NAT, it'll not work for roaming users. c. This requires modifications to SMTP protocol or new protocol d. Issues to be worked out on actual retrieval (i.e. MAIL FROM, DATA command susually initiated by sender, here its by receiver, but receiver can only give status codes). e. The source server may have nothing to do with server listed in MAIL FROM or From, so it does not help with forged headers Summary: This proposal is not very usefull because of the way how SMTP is extended and because it assumes only one MX exists for domain in SHLO. But it can be noted that draft actually has a lot more good ideas and extensions then just callback and as a whole it can be improved and is a possible base for futher work. 2. Real-time callback to domain listed in EHLO Source mail server connects to destination mail server and issues "EHLO server.domainname.com" command indicating its actual name. The destination mail server answers and provides list of extensions it supports, if one of the extensions is callback and source mail server also supports and wants this function, then source server issues command to request callback (CALLBACK callid). Destination server thens calls source on port 25 and issues retrieve command (RETRIEVE callid), which source server answers with status and immediatly with EHLO. Afterwards communication continues as if source server originally called in. Pros: a. This allows verification that address listed in HELO is for domain where email server that is sending email to the target b. The system completely prohibits use of mail relays and proxies that are so favorite by spammers c. This will work for most roaming users, for maillists, for forwarders as long as they all support new extensions Cons: a. This will not work when source is from location under firewall where firewall closed port25 or is only redirecting it to specific other server, it'll not work for NAT or for other places where calling server can not listed on port 25. b. This requires modifications to SMTP protocol c. The source server may have nothing to do with server listed in MAIL FROM or From, so it does not help with forged headers d. All mail servers in mail path need to support callback for this system to be usefull and its absolutly no way to know from mail connections if this true Summary: This proposal is quite usefull for verification of EHLO server and as well as at stopping use of mail relays and proxies but it does require all mail servers to support callback 3. Delayed callback to domain listed in EHLO The technology is exactly the same as listed in #2, except that callback is not immediate and can be done within certain period of time specified as answer to CALLBACK command. The destination when calling the source does not not require active previous connection and it can be noted that if multiple emails are pending for destination from the same source, all the email can be retrieved together in one callback session. Pros: a. This allows verification that address listed in HELO is for domain where email server that is sending email to the target b. The system completely prohibits use of mail relays and proxies that are so favorite by spammers c. This will work for maillists, for forwarders as long as they all support new extensions d. This will prohibit dialup users or "hit-run" spammers from being able to send email e. When emails are retrieved from the server if there are multiple and they are all of the same or similar content, this is very good estimation that this is a spam (easier to determination if emails are bulk, especially since spammers would generally send all emails within same day) Cons: a. This will not work when source is from location under firewall where firewall closed port25 or is only redirecting it to specific other server, it'll not work for NAT or for other places where calling server can not listed on port 25 and will not work for roaming users and other locations that do not have permanent internet connection. b. This requires modifications to SMTP protocol c. The source server may have nothing to do with server listed in MAIL FROM or From, so it does not help with forged headers d. There is a presumption in email communication that emails should be delivered quickly, this breaks this system as emails can be delayed for unknown period of time. Discussion in emaillist is very difficult. e. All mail servers in mail path need to support callback for this system to be usefull and its absolutly no way to know from mail connections if this true Summary: This proposal is quite usefull for verification of EHLO server and as well as at stopping use of mail relays and in addition helps to distinguish bulk emails, but tranmission time for email communication time is severely impacted which generally overshadows the good points. 4. Callback to server with MAIL FROM extensions. The source server connects to destination and destination should show callback extensions support during EHLO. The source server shows support for callback by listing "CALLBACK=callbackservername,calllbackid" as extended parameter during MAIL FROM command. In this case either during MAIL FROM or after RCPT TO, the destination server can request callback by giving back special statuscode. If statuscode is received, source server prepares for callback - if source server is not the one listed in CALLBACK parameter as callback server, the source server internally within its network connects to that server and sends email there with callback id (this is done by using CALLBACK mailfrom extension and if server sees that its name as callbackserver, it understands that its a client mail server within same network that wants it to do relay for callback and as its within same network server should know how to authenticate that client). After preparation for callback are complete, source server gives command "NOOP" and disconnects, at this time time destination server checks in dns if callback server it got from as part of MAIL FROM is one of the servers listed as MX server for domain listed in MAIL FROM. If this is so, destination server calls on port 25 that callback server and after going through typical EHLO it issues "CALLBACK callid" command. This should be followed by 200 ok code at which time server "change positions" and the callback server sends EHLO command followed by RCPT TO and MAIL FROM. The destination server should verify that MAIL FROM and RCPT TO are the same as it got during original call and if it is so, it can accept the email. Pros: a. This allows verification that address listed in HELO is for domain where email server that is sending email to the target b. This allows verification that email address in MAIL FROM is in fact for the network that is theh source of the mail tranmission. c. This will work for properly setup maillists, for forwarders as long as they all support new extensions and put their address for MAIL FROM. d. This will work for systems behind firewall and NAT and roaming users, but they will all need to automaticly relay email through central domain server (which should have some way to authenticate such firewall/roaming systems). d. This will prohibit dialup users or "hit-run" spammers from being able to send email e. The system completely prohibits use of mail relays and proxies that are so favorite by spammers Cons: a. Locations under firewall, roaming users and in fact any server that is not one listed as MX for the domain must relay the email through central callback ready MX server and be able to authenticate there. b. This requires modifications to SMTP protocol c. All mail servers in mail path need to support callback for this system to be usefull and its absolutly no way to know from mail connections if this true Summary: Probably most usefull of callback proposals as it also verified use of MAIL FROM but does have restrictions that all non-central mail servers from domain must relay email through one of main source domain server. To be effective this must be implemented on all servers in mail path. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 08:43:04 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA28437 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:43:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SE4oW05070 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:04:50 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SE4oO05067 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:04:50 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA28430; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:42:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SDv5O04679; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:57:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SDuVO04648 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:56:31 -0500 Received: from tcp.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA28224 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:34:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from tcp.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tcp.com (8.12.8+Sun/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2SDaYpc027267 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 05:36:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (jlick@localhost) by tcp.com (8.12.8+Sun/8.12.2/Submit) with ESMTP id h2SDaYao027264 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 05:36:34 -0800 (PST) From: James Lick To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Asrg digest, Vol 1 #133 - 14 msgs In-Reply-To: <20030328130320.A29840@Space.Net> Message-ID: References: <20030327170006.31387.82863.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> <002801c2f495$ddbde7b0$3f6ca8c0@PRESTON> <20030328130320.A29840@Space.Net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from QUOTED-PRINTABLE to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h2SDuVO04649 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 05:36:34 -0800 (PST) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Markus Stumpf wrote: > Where is the problem for the spammer to set up an identification/validation > service for hotjuicyspam.com and answer all questions with "yes". On the other hand, I could use such a facility to automatically say "no" to any address verification for pleasure.com, a domain of mine which is frequently forged and which I never use on outgoing email. Bingo, no more spam forged from that domain name. If yahoo, hotmail and AOL deploy it, you can no longer just randomly generate forged mail from that. The problem such a facility solves is to make spam forgery more difficult, and to force spammers into sending mail in a way that it can be tracked back. So my response to you is that your problem is actually a feature. Whoever is running hotjuicyspam.com and merrily saying all addresses are valid has just painted a huge bullseye target on himself making it easier for me to reject his mail or take more extreme steps like suing him or getting his connection yanked. This system is akin to rejecting non-existant domains from sending mail. Easily circumvented. Standard practice for years. Idiot spammers still using fake domains like crazy. Not nearly as much as before, but it still blocks an awful lot of spam. More serious aspects of such a system are that it may drive spammers to forge spam from real addresses instead of fake, and that they may use such facilities to do address verification or dictionary attack harvesting. I would also like to say that I am disappointed in a lot of the criticisms of spam blocking/prevention techniques. A lot of people are rejecting systems outright for having one or more flaws, when the system can still be effective despite those flaws. Rather, one should evaluate a system not on whether it can be circumvented, but instead focus on the benefits of making things more difficult for the spammers. Even if it is just a minor hassle to get around, it is still causing pain for the spammers. Deploying many of these techniques in total means that eventually the spammers are painted into a corner. --- James Lick --- 黎建溥 --- jlick@drivel.com --- http://drivel.com.tw/ --- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 08:46:09 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA28512 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:46:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SE7tU05927 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:07:55 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SE7tO05924 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:07:55 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA28486; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:45:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SDxEO04817; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:59:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SDvkO04711 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:57:46 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA28246 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:35:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc02.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2SDboqd002557; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 05:37:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 05:37:49 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Kee Hinckley'" , Asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Blacklist blackmail MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 05:37:48 -0800 The paragraph in question being: If you would like a site be added or removed from BlarsBL, you may hire Blars at his normal consulting rates (currently $250/hour, 2 hour minimum, $1000 deposit due in advance for non-established customers) to investigate your evidence about the site. If it is found that the entry was a mistake, no charge will be made and the entire deposit will be refunded. Send Blars email from a non-listed account to verify current rates and arrange payment. There is precedent here for this being considered outright blackmail. It is not unusual for someone to call up a major software vendor to report a 'security problem' and demand to be paid a 'consulting fee' to fix it, otherwise the 'security problem' will appear on Bugtraq or the like and cause bad publicity for the company. In this instance we have a threat to continue to advertise a statement about the users of an IP address block unless a fee is paid. In most jurisdicitions it does not matter whether the statement being made is true or not. It is still blackmail if someone threatens to expose a true statement such as reveal an affair, homosexuality etc. Somewhat amusing is the following code points describing the reasons for listing: .8 Wants spam compainers to jump through hoops Would charging a $250/hr consulting fee constitute jumping through hoops? Interesting side point, consider the MEDIA3/MAPS case: http://www.mail-abuse.org/pressreleases/2001-01-02-media3.pdf Here the court denies a preliminary injunction for the sole reason that insufficient harm is demonstrated which in turn is shown by the fact Media3 waited 6 months to file the application. One of the side effects of this case is that it implies that anyone who has been wrongly or maliciously listed on a blacklist should apply for an injunction as a FIRST resort rather than as a LAST resort because delay is likely to weaken their case. Another interesting point here, the ruling is typed on what appears to be either a 1970s vintage Remington portable or someone messing with our minds with software deliberately tricked up to look like one, complete with the variable impact pressure of different keys etc. I suspect the former, so deep in the home state of MIT courts who have yet to make it into the 1980s with word-processing are deciding cases on the use of the Internet... Phill > -----Original Message----- > From: Kee Hinckley [mailto:nazgul@somewhere.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 8:34 PM > To: Asrg@ietf.org > Subject: [Asrg] Blacklist blackmail > > > We are now getting RBLs who will remove your host from their > blacklist for a fee. (See http://www.blars.org/errors/block.html for > an example.) > > And yes, people actually subscribe to these. And yes, they do block > non-spamming ISPs. > -- > Kee Hinckley > http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering > http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology > and Society > > I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so > unwilling to accept > responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so > eager to regulate > everyone else's. > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 09:27:24 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA29481 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:27:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SEnCQ08542 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:49:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SEnCO08539 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:49:12 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA29474; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:26:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SEfOO08218; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:41:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SEekO08179 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:40:46 -0500 Received: from backbone.midwestcs.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA29245 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:18:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from footbone.midwestcs.com ([206.222.212.237] helo=midwestcs.com) by backbone.midwestcs.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18yuip-0002NX-00 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:20:43 -0600 To: asrg@ietf.org (IRTF Anti-Spam Research Group) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Blacklist blackmail References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: wayne In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lines: 103 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanner: exiscan *18yuip-0002NX-00*h2.92haDuw6* () Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 28 Mar 2003 08:20:37 -0600 In Kee Hinckley writes: > At 10:14 PM -0600 3/27/03, wayne wrote: > > In Kee Hinckley > > writes: > > > >> We are now getting RBLs who [ ... ] > > > >If by "now", you mean within the last year or so, then ok. [ ... ] > > First I've heard of it. So for me it was "now". Your point? My point is that people have been expressing their opinions about spam sources via DNSBLs for a long time and many of those opinions haven't been worth the bits they were printed on. Contrary to your implication, this is not something new. > I think that advertising a RBL, getting people to use it, adding > innocent ISPs to it, and then charging them to get off is pretty close > to blackmail. I don't think it is at all close to blackmail. First, Blars isn't threatening to expose information if you don't pay him money, he *is* exposing information. Secondly, there is nothing wrong with charging people money when those people ask you to do some work. Third, my take on his "fees" is that he doesn't want to hear from anyone about how he runs his blacklist, but it is more effect to say "I will ignore you unless you pay me big bucks" than "I don't want to hear from you." > > > And yes, people actually subscribe to these. > > > >So what? Can't people do what they want with their own machines? > > Certainly. I was simply trying to point out that there are serious > problems with some of the RBLs. Your point? I guess the thing that triggered my to respond is that we get enough proposals to solve spam to this list as is and many of those proposals have serious problems. We don't need to bring up every example of spam "solutions" that are badly implemented. Shall we start discussing all the bogus spam content filters that are out there and somehow use them to imply that all content filters have serious problems? What about ISPs that don't enforce the TOSs and AUPs? Bringing up this DNSBL, implying that it is "new" and calling it "blackmail" is very close to flame bait. > >1) Don't bother sending that person (or ISP) email anymore. > > Thank God the phone system doesn't work that way. Uh, the phone system does work that way. If I call you and you tell me you don't want to hear from me, I better stop or I will find police at my door. > >2) Try to convince the person (or ISP) you sent email to that they > > shouldn't be using that DNSBL, but understand that they are under > > no obligation to change. > > I'm sure my father would figure that one out on his own. Well, yeah, but the same goes for all other spam filter systems. > >3) Try to convince Blars DNSBL to remove you. In this particular > > case, you will have to put down a sizable deposit and if Blars > > decides that you were correctly listed, you will probably end up > > paying that deposit to him. > > You're assuming that "I" am someone who runs their own mail server. > > Please get real here. I am "real" here. These are your choices. Well, I guess I should have also included "4) switch ISPS". If some of the choices are too hard for you, then you need to choose a different one. Sending email to someone is not a right. Your ISP probably restricts you from sending mass mailings to random people. If you don't like this restriction, you basically have the same four choices. If the destination email address has restrictions, whether DNSBLs or otherwise, then again you have those four choices. > >Personally, I doubt that many clueful person (or ISP) use Blars DNSBL > >to block email and I would almost certainly choose option 1. > > In this case, the RBL is used by another RBL. Osirusoft. Do you > suppose that people who subscribe to Osirusoft's RBL are aware that > they are aiding this kind of thing? Ok, I was not aware that Osirusoft was using Blars DNSBL, however, this really isn't that important to me. My testing of particular Osirusoft DNSBLs that I actually use show very low false positive rates. So, either Blars DNSBL isn't used by those particular Osirusoft DNSBL, or Blars doesn't block very much valid email. -wayne _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 09:48:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA00088 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:48:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SFAJB10382 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:10:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SFAJO10379 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:10:19 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA00063; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:48:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SEx4O09065; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:59:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SEwSO09040 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:58:28 -0500 Received: from backbone.midwestcs.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA29769 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:36:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from footbone.midwestcs.com ([206.222.212.237] helo=midwestcs.com) by backbone.midwestcs.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18yuzx-0002Vf-00 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:38:25 -0600 To: asrg@ietf.org (IRTF Anti-Spam Research Group) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Blacklist blackmail References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: wayne In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lines: 22 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanner: exiscan *18yuzx-0002Vf-00*oOAXslxB89I* () Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 28 Mar 2003 08:38:25 -0600 In "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" writes: > In most > jurisdicitions it does not matter whether the statement being made is true > or not. It is still blackmail if someone threatens to expose a true > statement such as reveal an affair, homosexuality etc. Right. So what Blars is doing is *not* blackmail because he is not threatening to release information. He *has* released information. It might be consider extortion if you think that Blars is intimidating people by expressing his opinions, but I doubt that any court would agree. Blars doesn't seem very intimidating to me. Blars is expressing his opinions via a DNSBL. He is giving you the option, for a fee, to have him reconsider his opinion. I personally don't think his opinions are worth the bits they are printed on. -wayne _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 09:51:06 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA00188 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:51:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SFCsp10552 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:12:54 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SFCsO10549 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:12:54 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA00171; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:50:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SF58O09323; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:05:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SF2rO09210 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:02:53 -0500 Received: from moebius2.Space.Net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id JAA29849 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:40:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 34613 invoked by uid 1013); 28 Mar 2003 14:42:56 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Asrg digest, Vol 1 #133 - 14 msgs Message-ID: <20030328154256.D24104@Space.Net> References: <20030327170006.31387.82863.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> <002801c2f495$ddbde7b0$3f6ca8c0@PRESTON> <20030328130320.A29840@Space.Net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: ; from jlick@drivel.com on Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 05:36:34AM -0800 Organization: SpaceNet AG, Muenchen, Germany X-PGP-Fingerprint: 66 F3 75 79 01 D0 B8 5F 1A C7 77 88 4A B6 70 DF Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:42:56 +0100 On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 05:36:34AM -0800, James Lick wrote: > The problem such a facility solves is to make spam forgery more difficult, No, not really. What is the probability to fake @hotmail.com or and get a hit? I'd say if you do it halfway intelligent it's about 98%. So you get mail from susan23@hotmail.com it gets verified by hotmail.com as existant. What exactly help in this situation to eliminate spam? > and to force spammers into sending mail in a way that it can be tracked > back. I don't understand this. Mar 28 14:58:39 pid 38745: unknown:210.82.89.177 allowed: to <4566@sf.com> 4566@sf.com does not exist and never did. I haven't looked at the message but I'd say with 99% probability that this was spam. 220 YSmtp mta590.mail.yahoo.com ESMTP service ready RCPT TO: 250 recipient ok How exactly did the verification help in tracking back the message or force them to send the message in a trackable form? > So my response to you is that your problem is actually a feature. > Whoever is running hotjuicyspam.com and merrily saying all addresses are > valid has just painted a huge bullseye target on himself making it easier > for me to reject his mail or take more extreme steps like suing him or > getting his connection yanked. 1) what is wrong, if I accept all addresses @lamer.de to say that all addresses are valid? Why do I get a big bullseye target pointing on me? 2) If I don't want to accept emails from @hotjuicyspam.com I don't need any validation service as an argument. I simply don't do it. 3) If they use susi@hotjuicyspam.com the way the number is used in owner-spamtools+=maex-spamtools=space.net@lists.abuse.net and respond with yes for every susi*@hotjuicyspam.com what exactly makes the difference and helps you suing them - more than the reasons and arguments you already have now? > This system is akin to rejecting non-existant domains from sending mail. > Easily circumvented. Standard practice for years. Idiot spammers still > using fake domains like crazy. Not nearly as much as before, but it still > blocks an awful lot of spam. Yes. And now they fake existing domains. > I would also like to say that I am disappointed in a lot of the criticisms > of spam blocking/prevention techniques. A lot of people are rejecting > systems outright for having one or more flaws, when the system can still > be effective despite those flaws. Rather, one should evaluate a system > not on whether it can be circumvented, but instead focus on the benefits > of making things more difficult for the spammers. Forcing the spammers to use existing domain names by doing A and MX lookups helped the situation for a short time. Now they fake real addresses and things are worse than before, because the "system" was too easy to circumvent. I don't see the goal of this group to find a new method that works for 2-6 months and after that it's worse than before. > Deploying many of these techniques in total means that eventually the > spammers are painted into a corner. We already have many of these techniques and they are used. A lot of them can easily be circumvented. What do they help? Does the spam volume decline? Having thousands of sysadmins plugin nitty gritty tools will not solve the problem. \Maex -- SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0 Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 "The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 10:15:10 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA02826 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:15:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SFaxw11893 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:36:59 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SFaxO11890 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:36:59 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA02769; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:14:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SFX4O11692; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:33:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SFVpO11624 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:31:51 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA02051 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:09:29 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2SDLXuY030648; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 05:21:33 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2SDLXO7030644; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 05:21:33 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: Markus Stumpf cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Asrg digest, Vol 1 #133 - 14 msgs In-Reply-To: <20030328154256.D24104@Space.Net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 05:21:33 -0800 (PST) Most (if not all) proposed verification methods and what they can and can not do are found in my presentation: http://www.elan.net/~william/asrg-emailpathverification-presentation.pdf (I still have not found time to put this into htm for website, sorry...) On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Markus Stumpf wrote: > On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 05:36:34AM -0800, James Lick wrote: > > The problem such a facility solves is to make spam forgery more difficult, > > No, not really. > What is the probability to fake @hotmail.com or > and get a hit? I'd say if you do it halfway intelligent it's about 98%. > So you get mail from > susan23@hotmail.com > it gets verified by hotmail.com as existant. > What exactly help in this situation to eliminate spam? > > > and to force spammers into sending mail in a way that it can be tracked > > back. > > I don't understand this. > Mar 28 14:58:39 pid 38745: unknown:210.82.89.177 allowed: > to <4566@sf.com> > 4566@sf.com does not exist and never did. I haven't looked at the > message but I'd say with 99% probability that this was spam. > > 220 YSmtp mta590.mail.yahoo.com ESMTP service ready > RCPT TO: > 250 recipient ok > > How exactly did the verification help in tracking back the message or > force them to send the message in a trackable form? > > > So my response to you is that your problem is actually a feature. > > Whoever is running hotjuicyspam.com and merrily saying all addresses are > > valid has just painted a huge bullseye target on himself making it easier > > for me to reject his mail or take more extreme steps like suing him or > > getting his connection yanked. > > 1) what is wrong, if I accept all addresses @lamer.de to say that all > addresses are valid? Why do I get a big bullseye target pointing on me? > 2) If I don't want to accept emails from @hotjuicyspam.com I don't need > any validation service as an argument. I simply don't do it. > 3) If they use susi@hotjuicyspam.com the way the number is used in > owner-spamtools+=maex-spamtools=space.net@lists.abuse.net > and respond with yes for every susi*@hotjuicyspam.com what exactly > makes the difference and helps you suing them - more than the reasons > and arguments you already have now? > > > This system is akin to rejecting non-existant domains from sending mail. > > Easily circumvented. Standard practice for years. Idiot spammers still > > using fake domains like crazy. Not nearly as much as before, but it still > > blocks an awful lot of spam. > > Yes. And now they fake existing domains. > > > I would also like to say that I am disappointed in a lot of the criticisms > > of spam blocking/prevention techniques. A lot of people are rejecting > > systems outright for having one or more flaws, when the system can still > > be effective despite those flaws. Rather, one should evaluate a system > > not on whether it can be circumvented, but instead focus on the benefits > > of making things more difficult for the spammers. > > Forcing the spammers to use existing domain names by doing A and MX > lookups helped the situation for a short time. Now they fake real > addresses and things are worse than before, because the "system" was > too easy to circumvent. > I don't see the goal of this group to find a new method that works > for 2-6 months and after that it's worse than before. > > > Deploying many of these techniques in total means that eventually the > > spammers are painted into a corner. > > We already have many of these techniques and they are used. A lot of > them can easily be circumvented. What do they help? Does the spam volume > decline? > Having thousands of sysadmins plugin nitty gritty tools will not solve > the problem. > > \Maex _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 10:20:58 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA03410 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:20:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SFglr13056 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:42:47 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SFgkO13053 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:42:47 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA03357; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:20:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SFdBO12841; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:39:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SFcLO12762 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:38:21 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA02910 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:15:59 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2SDSAuY030747; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 05:28:10 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2SDS97l030743; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 05:28:10 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" cc: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Blacklist blackmail In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 05:28:09 -0800 (PST) I don't think its blackmail since they are not threatening to report to blacklist (the person is already on blacklist). But what they are doing isn't right be me either way and it maybe breaking some kind of law, though I can't immediatly see which one. If this is officially sanctioned by blacklist operator, I'd strongly advice not to use this blacklist. On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > The paragraph in question being: > > If you would like a site be added or removed from BlarsBL, you may hire > Blars at his normal consulting rates (currently $250/hour, 2 hour minimum, > $1000 deposit due in advance for non-established customers) to investigate > your evidence about the site. If it is found that the entry was a mistake, > no charge will be made and the entire deposit will be refunded. Send Blars > email from a non-listed account to verify current rates and arrange payment. > > > > There is precedent here for this being considered outright blackmail. It is > not unusual for someone to call up a major software vendor to report a > 'security problem' and demand to be paid a 'consulting fee' to fix it, > otherwise the 'security problem' will appear on Bugtraq or the like and > cause bad publicity for the company. > > In this instance we have a threat to continue to advertise a statement about > the users of an IP address block unless a fee is paid. In most > jurisdicitions it does not matter whether the statement being made is true > or not. It is still blackmail if someone threatens to expose a true > statement such as reveal an affair, homosexuality etc. > > Somewhat amusing is the following code points describing the reasons for > listing: > > .8 Wants spam compainers to jump through hoops > > Would charging a $250/hr consulting fee constitute jumping through hoops? > > > Interesting side point, consider the MEDIA3/MAPS case: > http://www.mail-abuse.org/pressreleases/2001-01-02-media3.pdf > > Here the court denies a preliminary injunction for the sole reason that > insufficient harm is demonstrated which in turn is shown by the fact Media3 > waited 6 months to file the application. One of the side effects of this > case is that it implies that anyone who has been wrongly or maliciously > listed on a blacklist should apply for an injunction as a FIRST resort > rather than as a LAST resort because delay is likely to weaken their case. > > Another interesting point here, the ruling is typed on what appears to be > either a 1970s vintage Remington portable or someone messing with our minds > with software deliberately tricked up to look like one, complete with the > variable impact pressure of different keys etc. I suspect the former, so > deep in the home state of MIT courts who have yet to make it into the 1980s > with word-processing are deciding cases on the use of the Internet... > > Phill > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Kee Hinckley [mailto:nazgul@somewhere.com] > > Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 8:34 PM > > To: Asrg@ietf.org > > Subject: [Asrg] Blacklist blackmail > > > > > > We are now getting RBLs who will remove your host from their > > blacklist for a fee. (See http://www.blars.org/errors/block.html for > > an example.) > > > > And yes, people actually subscribe to these. And yes, they do block > > non-spamming ISPs. > > -- > > Kee Hinckley > > http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering > > http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology > > and Society > > > > I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so > > unwilling to accept > > responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so > > eager to regulate > > everyone else's. > > _______________________________________________ > > Asrg mailing list > > Asrg@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 10:23:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA03536 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:23:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SFjY513316 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:45:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SFjYO13313 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:45:34 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA03526; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:23:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SFdLO12858; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:39:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SFcZO12770 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:38:35 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA02935 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:16:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2SFIVCA001515 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:18:31 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303281518.h2SFIVCA001515@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Opt-Out Notes: too complicated, ignoring history References: <02f001c2f512$eaf7ccc0$091010ac@banaue> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:18:31 -0700 (MST) > From: "Tim Kehres" > I'm farily new to this list (but not the issues and problems),... See http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/objections/kehres.html Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 10:43:21 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04310 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:43:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SG5Bw14714 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:05:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SG5BO14711 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:05:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04272; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:42:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SG0LO14229; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:00:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SFxWO14136 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:59:32 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04018 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:37:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2SFdYkA004603 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:39:35 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20030328153919.12829.62664.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> Message-ID: References: <20030328153919.12829.62664.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Asrg] Re: Notes on Callback SMTP Transmission Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:39:34 -0500 (EST) > From: william@elan.net > Subject: [Asrg] Notes on Callback SMTP Transmission > As promised I'm sending you notes on callback tranmission. This notes > are similar format as verification notes I sent before and in fact I had > them done together. Callback transmission is an interesting idea, but consider: 1 - NastySpammer sends millions of connections from thousands of 0wned hosts, and suddenly poor victim gets a DDoS from all the callbacks from hosts attempting to receive the purported mail. 2 - How does this fix open SMTP relays? An open SMTP relay will presumably set itself as the host to call back. In fact, how does this interoperate with SMTP relaying? -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 10:43:53 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04361 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:43:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SG5h014762 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:05:43 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SG5gO14759 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:05:42 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04322; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:43:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SG0dO14308; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:00:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SFxeO14166 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:59:40 -0500 Received: from joy.songbird.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04024 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:37:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from bbprime.brandenburg.com (208.184.79.252.songbird.com [208.184.79.252] (may be forged)) by joy.songbird.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SFdP724271 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 07:39:25 -0800 From: Dave Crocker X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.63 Beta/6) Personal Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <170136118608.20030328073922@brandenburg.com> To: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] cost vs. benefit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 07:39:22 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Folks, wen> b. If at least some advertisers follow opt-out we should have less wen> mail unwanted email The above statement reflects a frequent orientation towards many proposals that are offered. However it misses two, very basic issues: 1. Implementing and using a proposal is not free. It costs time, money and effort. It can affect email infrastructure performance. It can affect the user experience. So any proposal must balance these very-real costs against the hoped-for benefits. 2. Barriers to adoption and use are key to the success of any proposal. They need to be considered explicitly and realistically. If this group wants to be productive, it needs to develop a framework for evaluating proposals that forces useful rigor onto the developers of a proposal. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking Sunnyvale, CA USA , _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 10:44:06 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04384 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:44:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SG5uQ14787 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:05:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SG5uO14784 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:05:56 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04336; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:43:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SG36O14548; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:03:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SG2PO14487 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:02:25 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04113 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:40:04 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2SDqGuY031328; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 05:52:16 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2SDqGh0031324; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 05:52:16 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: Kee Hinckley cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Proposal for Opt-Out In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 05:52:16 -0800 (PST) > So. An opt-out list will stop people who bought your list from > someone you gave your email address to. Correct > You don't *want* it to stop > the people you explicitly gave permission to. Opt-out should be specific enough that you could blacklist entire category of commercial email but whitelist particular sender. So basicly even if you gave them your email to say notify of updates and they are instead trying to pitch you new product or service you could stop that depending how well opt-out is both technology and laws. > It might stop people > who bought the assets of a defunct company. Correct and I'v had real problems with these companies. It seems my email from excite.com was bought by about 100 other companies (it had very specific nic and address) and I'v been trying to find way to do global opt-out there and even went to court twice to force an issue and find a source who's selling my email. But still every week I blacklist at least one company that again got my email address and is trying to send me some ad (I suspect its all the same companies, whenver I blacklist them they begin to use different domain and different company name but it can all be the same entity that controls it - too many addresses are in Florida). > It probably won't stop > affiliates of a company (e.g. multiple catalog companies owned by a > single entity) because they probably had fine print saying that you > gave permission to all of them (that's certainly what they do now). It'll stop it if opt-out is made specific to type of email. > It will have zero impact on existing spammers. Partial impact. By that I mean there are some spammers that try to appear to operate legally (they send from their own domain and have real address or po box, usually in florida), they do not try to sell you fraud or snake-oil but instead pitch vacations and credit card offers. These kind of spammers the opt-out should stop. > That's the good news. Here's the bad news. > > A global opt-out list is a tacit statement that it's okay to spam > random email addresses. I hope I did not make it appear as if that is true! > After all, if you didn't want email, you > would have put your name on the list, right? This is exactly the > *wrong* way to go. We do not want "100 million email address CDs" to > become legitimate sales tools just because they were cleaned by the > opt-out list. Technology for opt-out should be good enough to prevent use of the email list by anybody but authorized bulk mailer. So spammers would not be able to verify your address either one way or another, other means should be used to stop those (i.e. technology to stop improper headers and after its possible to trace the spammers, legal means to outlaw their activity and get them out of business at the same time filters still to be used for small period of time when spammer is still able to send emails). Also proper laws should stop people like Al Ralsky who operate from US but have servers overseas. They should be considered commercial mailers and would either have to abide by opt-out laws and actually get your opt-in permission before sending email or they should have civil/criminal penalties, for any email sent from company they control no matter from where the email was sent from. > You do *not* want every company in the country > broadcasting email address to every address they can find. I did not understand this. > "But," you say, "If you don't want that, just put your name on the > opt-out list." > > I assert that if we tacitly support opt-out, we will create a mail > situation so bad that you won't be able to function unless you > opt-out. *Everyone* will want to opt out. I do not believe you're right. But a lot of people will opt-out and expect a lot less spam, while opt-out only help to get rid of unwanted commercial emails that are not generally spam. So that is why we need to find solution for real spam before starting to implement opt-out. > And what is the point of > an opt-out system in which every person in the world is required to > opt out? Furthermore, as has been mentioned numerous times. It's > not just a question of email addresses, it's a question of domains > and bounces as well. > > Opt-out can work for phone numbers because there are a finite number > of phone numbers. There are *not* a finite number of email > addresses. It should not be mandatory that every time you reserve a > domain you have to go and opt-out all possible email addresses in > that domain. That makes no sense whatsoever. > > To sum it up. > > 1. Opt-out doesn't affect the majority of the people we are trying to stop. I Agree. > 2. Opt-out will make things worse. I do not agree. > 3. There is no point in an opt-out system that everyone has to join. This point can be right or wrong depending on opt-out technology. In what I proposed it would be wrong. > Even if you don't believe #2, #1 and #3 still stand. As do my points > concerning domains and infinite email addresses. > > I strongly believe that this group should make absolutely no > recommendations for a global opt-out system. If you look at the asrg charter, it specifically says "Possible components of such a framework may include: Consent Expression Component: This involves recipients expressing a policy that gives consent or non-consent for certain types of communications" So it seems we will have to make these "recomendations". ---- William Leibzon Elan Communications Inc. william@elan.net _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 10:45:03 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04412 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:45:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SG6rG14871 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:06:53 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SG6rO14868 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:06:53 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04401; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:44:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SG54O14701; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:05:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SG4OO14649 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:04:24 -0500 Received: from mxlogic.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA04242 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:42:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 32254 invoked from network); 28 Mar 2003 15:44:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO SCOTT) (64.140.61.226) by p01i174.mxlogic.net with SMTP; 28 Mar 2003 15:44:25 -0000 Reply-To: From: "Scott Chasin" To: "'IRTF Anti-Spam Research Group'" Organization: MX Logic Message-ID: <000901c2f540$e0dee010$cf00000a@SCOTT> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2616 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] TCPA & Palladium Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:44:06 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Does a post-Palladium world provide another perspective on the successful execution of SMTP-NG? Is the TCPA (Microsoft) vision of filtering out unsigned messages relevant to the successful execution of a new protocol? "Microsoft claims that Palladium will stop spam, viruses and just about every other bad thing in cyberspace - if so, then the antivirus companies, the spammers, the spam-filter vendors, the firewall firms and the intrusion detection folk could all have their lunch stolen." -- http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html ..Scott _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 11:01:22 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA05003 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:01:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SGNCl16415 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:23:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SGNCO16412 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:23:12 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA04986; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:00:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SGKAO16298; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:20:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SGJJO16228 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:19:19 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04914 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:56:58 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2SFxKFD009265; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:59:20 -0500 Message-Id: <200303281559.h2SFxKFD009265@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.2 03/21/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: scott@mxlogic.com Cc: "'IRTF Anti-Spam Research Group'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] TCPA & Palladium In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:44:06 MST." <000901c2f540$e0dee010$cf00000a@SCOTT> References: <000901c2f540$e0dee010$cf00000a@SCOTT> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_-453521920P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:59:20 -0500 --==_Exmh_-453521920P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:44:06 MST, Scott Chasin said: > > Does a post-Palladium world provide another perspective on the > successful execution of SMTP-NG? Is the TCPA (Microsoft) vision of > filtering out unsigned messages relevant to the successful execution of > a new protocol? > > "Microsoft claims that Palladium will stop spam, viruses and just about > every other bad thing in cyberspace - if so, then the antivirus > companies, the spammers, the spam-filter vendors, the firewall firms and > the intrusion detection folk could all have their lunch stolen." > -- http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html If there's a buffer overflow in IIS, it will still quite happily execute in the IIS security context, just as it does now. What Palladium is REALLY for is to support DRM - so you can't open your own files unless the vendor's app says it's OK. Now combine Palladium with the Kazaa "all your resources are belong to us" EULA, and you have a distributed spam engine that the user CANT TURN OFF!! Ouch. --==_Exmh_-453521920P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+hHFYcC3lWbTT17ARAnb5AJoDhj4l2pR2SiLD3NTr1v04m1EI/QCcCP1C B7lugX4nu1cuYhtD00YX4BM= =gfR2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_-453521920P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 11:18:48 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA05509 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:18:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SGecW18011 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:40:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SGecO18008 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:40:38 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA05491; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:18:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SGc8O17867; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:38:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SGbuO17848 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:37:56 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA05436 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:15:34 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2SERkuY032017; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 06:27:46 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2SERk4H032013; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 06:27:46 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: "David F. Skoll" cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Notes on Callback SMTP Transmission In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 06:27:46 -0800 (PST) > > As promised I'm sending you notes on callback tranmission. This notes > > are similar format as verification notes I sent before and in fact I had > > them done together. > > Callback transmission is an interesting idea, but consider: I never said its "best" of my ideas. It just something that I considered when evaluating various verification schemes and I actually saw some more problems with callback then just the ones you noticed or the ones I included in the notes. I ended up selecting message tracking as the one I'd write actual draft on. But callback can still be usefull, I may come back to it. > 1 - NastySpammer sends millions of connections from thousands of 0wned hosts, > and suddenly poor victim gets a DDoS from all the callbacks from hosts > attempting to receive the purported mail. Which proposal was this for #2 or #4? If #2 (callback to server listed in EHLO), the connection must still be maintained with the original source that is making transmission so they'll be found pretty quickly by network engineers. I mean DoS is still possible but it requires the same amount of resource that they can otherwise already do from those same hosts to attack site directly, so it does not change the picture. If its #4 (callback to domain listed in MAIL FROM command), I see your point since connection is made after original server closes it. But change to keep connection open just like in #2 can also be made. > 2 - How does this fix open SMTP relays? I meant existing ones... but that probably does not matter since they'll not support new system. But it certainly does get rid of proxying. > An open SMTP relay will presumably > set itself as the host to call back. In fact, how does this interoperate > with SMTP relaying? Since this is per-tranmission technology it'll require each relay to do callback. What was not included is another is version of callback proposal 4 which does it differently: If email is received with MAIL FROM and CALLBACK and email would need to go futher (be relayed), this email server (relay) will try to call the next server that it'd otherwise going to send email to and if next server support callback, it'd be make a connection and provide same commands (RCPT TO, MAIL FROM with CALLBACK) as the original call to this server and in this case the actual callback has to be done by that next or final destination server. In the above the relay just passes on origin information and last server in chain that was going to deliver email does callback to pick the actual email data. This makes open relay effectively useless as far as spammer is concerned. ---- William Leibzon Elan Communications Inc. william@elan.net _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 11:26:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA05938 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:26:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SGmUl18448 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:48:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SGmUO18445 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:48:30 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA05872; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:26:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SGk7O18252; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:46:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SGjTO18180 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:45:29 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA05637 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:23:07 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2SGOvFD009625; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:24:57 -0500 Message-Id: <200303281624.h2SGOvFD009625@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.2 03/21/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: John R Levine Cc: Brad Templeton , william@elan.net, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Opt-Out Notes: too complicated, ignoring history In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 27 Mar 2003 23:13:45 EST." References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_-443637976P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:24:57 -0500 --==_Exmh_-443637976P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Thu, 27 Mar 2003 23:13:45 EST, John R Levine said: > > All your MXs and other relays need to know the > > preference of every _user_ they relay for, unless they relay only fo r > > single-user sites. > > This is the "every user's entitled to receive all spam" fallacy again. No. This is the "PSMTP.COM" problem. This *ONE* site is the MX for literally kajillions of domains - I have one Listserv box that has routed 4,985 pieces of mail there in the last week, and that's for 156 different domains. And that's just *MY* one server. There's no way they can advertise the correct policy for all 156 domains unless there is a one-size-fits-all policy at psmtp.com. --==_Exmh_-443637976P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+hHdZcC3lWbTT17ARAl5iAKDiBRSooh35ySrBCh988/DQuWRwRgCg1pCJ dTM4wJrwfHtZRk19IqVI1TI= =F7Jm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_-443637976P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 11:30:27 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA06140 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:30:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SGqI818835 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:52:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SGqIO18832 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:52:18 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA06123; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:29:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SGp4O18777; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:51:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SGoaO18701 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:50:36 -0500 Received: from aismtp3g.bls.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA06078 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:28:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from 01al10015010057.ad.bls.com ([90.152.5.141] [90.152.5.141]) by aismtp3g.bls.com with ESMTP; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:33:42 -0500 Received: by 01al10015010057.ad.bls.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:30:37 -0500 Message-Id: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D6DE@bremocag> From: "Sauer, Damon" To: "'Markus Stumpf'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: Asrg digest, Vol 1 #133 - 14 msgs MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:30:34 -0500 >> The problem such a facility solves is to make spam forgery more difficult, > >No, not really. >What is the probability to fake @hotmail.com or >and get a hit? I'd say if you do it halfway intelligent it's about 98%. >So you get mail from > susan23@hotmail.com >it gets verified by hotmail.com as existant. >What exactly help in this situation to eliminate spam? ----- It makes the sending server legitimate. This is the number one thing that needs to be addressed. There are some very smart people participating, but like most smart people, we are trying to over design it. I submit to you that there will never ever be a way to stop someone from sending spam if they really wanted to. What needs to happen is making this process as difficult as possible and making the true source *accountable* for the email that they send. Let's break spam and not SMTP. The more difficult it is for a spammer to send spam successfully to valid addresses, the lower the return for the spammer. Eventually the economic model for UCE will be broken and you will only get two types. Spam from people with deep pockets and *legitimate* offerings. After you legitimize the source of the email, everything else is an administration issue. How do we do this? A reverse DNS (rDNS) lookup. eg. << HELO 90.67.80.1 >> Sending server has a valid A or MX record. << mail from: susyq123@yahoo.com >> rDNS lookup of YAHOO.com RMX record shows that the IP address 90.67.80.1 is not a member of any of its mail servers' SUBNETS. << 550 Spam-B-Gone The RMX record will either be a subnet in the case of multiple mta's, multiple subnets in the case of multiple MTA's on different subnets or a single IP address for domains with only one MTA. Listing all the specific IP addresses for all MTA's that a host owns is cumbersome and unnecessary. What does this mean for the following example: << HELO 90.67.80.1 >> Sending server has a valid A or MX record << mail from: susyq123@pornspam.com >> rDNS lookup of pornspam.com RMX record shows that the IP address of 90.67.80.1 IS a member of its mail servers' subnets. >> Ok- Send your email. Yes.. that is right, the spam is coming. The HUGE difference here is that I can block the RMX record of the domain, that will block ALL of the spammers subnets or single MTA, whatever the case may be. I can now block the IP, hostname, domain name, etc without fear of it being forged. I realize that DNS can be forged, but this runs into 2 problems for a spammer... he is now subject to federal criminal laws and faces potential long prison sentences and huge fines and he must do many technical things first before he can start spamming, which breaks the economic model or spam. It also removes Joe-the-plumber as a spammer because he is no longer able to just let it fly when he is at work. Right now, spamming requires no real special skills. How many spammers and how much spam did I just kill? Now that I have killed all the untechnical spammers and the spoofing spammers, I can now concentrate on what is left. How do I deal with those- RBLS, pressure on the ISP (because we now know it is *really* coming from them), new or improved laws (I realize that this does not scare a relay owner in Japan, but when was the last time you received a spam asking you to pay up in YEN?!). My point is that even though they are relays, the money is here. Since the amount of spam has been drastically reduced, this leaves investigators free to concentrate on the big guys. Ok.. What did I just say- You do not need to over design anything. Legitimize email and make it difficult to spam. Destroy the economic model. Resolve other issues through administration and tools. Send the big guys to court... Whether it be criminal court or bankruptcy court, the outcome is the same. Force ISP's to mend their ways. Spam *problem* resolved. Regards, Damon ***** "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers." _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 11:31:07 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA06183 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:31:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SGqwf18872 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:52:58 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SGqwO18869 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:52:58 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA06156; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:30:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SGp9O18795; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:51:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SGogO18705 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:50:42 -0500 Received: from tcp.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA06081 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:28:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from tcp.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tcp.com (8.12.8+Sun/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2SGUgpc018778 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:30:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (jlick@localhost) by tcp.com (8.12.8+Sun/8.12.2/Submit) with ESMTP id h2SGUgmh018775 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:30:42 -0800 (PST) From: James Lick To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Asrg digest, Vol 1 #133 - 14 msgs In-Reply-To: <20030328154256.D24104@Space.Net> Message-ID: References: <20030327170006.31387.82863.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> <002801c2f495$ddbde7b0$3f6ca8c0@PRESTON> <20030328130320.A29840@Space.Net> <20030328154256.D24104@Space.Net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from QUOTED-PRINTABLE to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h2SGogO18706 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:30:42 -0800 (PST) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I'm probably not going to be able to convince you, but... On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Markus Stumpf wrote: > We already have many of these techniques and they are used. A lot of > them can easily be circumvented. What do they help? Does the spam volume > decline? Each of the techniques now in use at one time was extremely effective. Each of them still blocks spam in bucketfulls. Together, current techniques can still block 90% of spam. Nothing at all that we do with blocking will ever cause a decline in spam volume, and if anything, it causes the spammers to increase their volume. But ultimately that volume goes up whether we try blocking it or not. Are you suggesting we just give up? Most spam blocking techniques have the attribute that to circumvent it, one either has to expose himself or resort to a more unethical/illegal manner of sending the mail. The fact that spammers more often than not choose the unethical/illegal route is not a failing of the spam blocking techniques, but a failure in the spammer's moral compass. Such practices only highlight the fact that spammers cannot be considered ethical. Whatever we can do to push them to expose this should be encouraged. --- James Lick --- 黎建溥 --- jlick@drivel.com --- http://drivel.com.tw/ --- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 11:35:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA06376 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:35:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SGvTo19198 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:57:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SGvTO19195 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:57:29 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA06350; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:35:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SGt6O19077; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:55:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SGsqO19008 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:54:52 -0500 Received: from infobro.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA06245 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:32:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:32:46 -0500 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:32:37 -0500 Message-ID: <01C2F51D.BBEBE190.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "asrg@ietf.org" Cc: "'william@elan.net'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Proposal for Opt-Out Organization: Information Brokers, Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:32:31 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello all; (new to the RG and list... This message I think presents a fundamental problem that I have not seen addressed (or at least referred to to-date) in the discussion, perhaps a reading of the archives is in order or a document archive contains such. What I am referring to is a Statement of Requirements that enumerates an acceptable solution. Below is such a beginning, and without such a document I don't think much headway can be made. In addition, methods for addressing this "engineering" issue could quickly devolve to a 'religious war' of principle OR, an unwanted debate that has no objective technical basis. As this is the case, and with due reference to the discussion below, I feel a discussion thread or drafting activity - which would be happy to participate in http://new.infobro.com/AboutUS/People/EricWilliams/ericwilliams.html - on a specific, logical and concise requirement document is suggested. Taking a language from the note below: > 1. We stop forgeries of mail headers and force all senders to reveal > their name (but that I mean source, not actual name for personal emails, > etc). Requirement 1) The proposal MUST address the issue of RFC821 [or envelope protocol] originating MTA/MUA authenticity. > 2. We provide means for mail servers to authenticate in such a way that > spammer can not easily change just their domain or their ip and begin > sending email again (they'd soon be detected and their mail server > blacklisted). See Requirement 1). > 3. Law outlaws sending unsolicited commercial email Requirement 2) The proposal SHOULD be amenable to legislation, in place or pending as close as possible. > 4. ISPs use filtering to get rid of unwanted spam that may still path > through the cracks (i.e. spammer got new mail server and it has not been > blacklisted yet or they hijacked the server, etc. etc.) Requirement 3) The proposal MUST provide a flexibility for integration with other ANTI-SPAM (UBE/UCE) approaches [it shouldn't break anything]. Requirement 4) The proposal SHOULD provide implementation specifics that address the issues of privacy, security and which reflect end use choices, of either providers or users. Requirement 5) The proposal SHOULD/MAY [not sure how strong this would be as a requirement] include a mechanism for implementation in messaging relay systems (MX hosts), end use 'post offices' (MTAs), and end node mail recipient systems (MUAs). Proposals that include only one of these messaging system components MUST include mechanisms for interaction with the other components. Requirement 6) The proposal MAY include a method for extension to or integration with other protocols, e.g. HTTP, that may be used to relay messages. I feel there are many more 'technical' requirements which can be discussed in turn, but first some requirements may be in order. In any event, these at least provide a strawman from which further discussion may be derived and do appear to satisfy the framework described in the charter. my $.02 ----- Eric Williams PGP Public Key http://new.infobro.com/KeyServ/EricDWilliams.asc Finger Print: 1055 8AED 9783 2378 73EF 7B19 0544 A590 FF65 B789 On Thursday, March 27, 2003 11:33 PM, william@elan.net [SMTP:william@elan.net] wrote: > On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Kee Hinckley wrote: > > > At 6:11 PM -0800 3/27/03, william@elan.net wrote: > > >Opt-out will not be effective all by itself. > > > > Of the proposals we have seen so far, which would change the dynamics > > of opt-out as I've described them? > The proposals offered so far are incomplete, that is why we all can not > decide on any one... But I'll tell general solution: > > 1. We stop forgeries of mail headers and force all senders to reveal > their name (but that I mean source, not actual name for personal emails, > etc). > > 2. We provide means for mail servers to authenticate in such a way that > spammer can not easily change just their domain or their ip and begin > sending email again (they'd soon be detected and their mail server > blacklisted). > > 3. Law outlaws sending unsolicited commercial email > > 4. ISPs use filtering to get rid of unwanted spam that may still path > through the cracks (i.e. spammer got new mail server and it has not been > blacklisted yet or they hijacked the server, etc. etc.) > > This leaves commercial opt-in email lists where company is setup as real > business that does not hide itself and they get permission to send user an > information on their product (airline ticket offers) but you do not want > to receive "extra" advertisements of credit card offers as you're not > interested in that. This is where opt-out system comes in and helps, > it regulates commercial email and forces them to respect your wishes. > Now the system I described allows for automated white-listing of certain > commercial emails where users want to receive them - that will help on > filters and allow them to be more effective and have less false-positives. > > -- > William Leibzon > Elan Communications Inc. > william@elan.net > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 11:47:54 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA06826 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:47:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SH9jk21033 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:09:45 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SH9jO21030 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:09:45 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA06804; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:47:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SH7JO20571; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:07:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SH3nO19873 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:03:49 -0500 Received: from tom.iecc.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA06591 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:41:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 2649 invoked from network); 28 Mar 2003 11:43:49 -0500 Received: (ofmipd 208.31.42.38); 28 Mar 2003 16:43:27 -0000 Message-ID: From: "John R Levine" To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Cc: "Brad Templeton" , william@elan.net, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Opt-Out Notes: too complicated, ignoring history In-Reply-To: <200303281624.h2SGOvFD009625@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Cleverness: None detected MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 28 Mar 2003 11:43:48 -0500 > > > All your MXs and other relays need to know the preference ... > > > > This is the "every user's entitled to receive all spam" fallacy again. > > No. This is the "PSMTP.COM" problem. This *ONE* site is the MX for literally > kajillions of domains - I have one Listserv box that has routed 4,985 pieces > of mail there in the last week, and that's for 156 different domains. And > that's just *MY* one server. There's no way they can advertise the correct > policy for all 156 domains unless there is a one-size-fits-all policy at > psmtp.com. 156 domains is nothing. At vuurwerk.nl the mail servers handle over 100,000 domains, and at schlund.de they have mail servers that handle over a million. Since psmtp.com is Postini, which is a spam filtering company, I suspect that their policy for all of their incoming mail is NO UBE. But even if it's not, it's not a big deal. They can have one MX that publishes NO UBE and one that doesn't, probably on a single set of hardware. (This is one of the reasons that NO UBE flag is deliberately a single bit, not a complex set of knobs and dials.) The customers who want spam can stay on the MX without the notice, the other 99% on the MX with the notice. Same with Vuurwerk or Schlund. This isn't rocket science, nor is it even complicated programming. If they don't want to use NO UBE, all they have to do is nothing. Why do people want this to be so much more complicated? Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 11:53:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA07104 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:53:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SHEub21534 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:14:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHEuO21531 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:14:56 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA07076; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:52:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHCCO21333; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:12:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHBlO21201 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:11:47 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA06954 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:49:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2208932; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:51:45 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: "Jon Kyme" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] 5.b. Opt out ? EC / UK govt proposals == Strict Opt in? Cc: "ASRG" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h2SHBlO21202 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:38:20 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit At 11:50 AM +0000 3/28/03, Jon Kyme wrote: >Except in the circumstances referred to in paragraph (3), a person shall >not transmit, or instigate the transmission of, unsolicited communications, >for the purposes of direct marketing, by means of electronic mail, unless ñ >the recipient of the electronic mail has previously notified the sender >that he consents for the time being to such communications being sent by, >or at the instigation of, the sender for direct marketing purposes; and > Lacking there is a requirement for the sender to provide evidence of consent. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 11:53:09 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA07126 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:53:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SHF1o21567 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:15:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHF1O21564 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:15:01 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA07084; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:52:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHC9O21281; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:12:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHBbO21182 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:11:37 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA06943 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:49:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2208893; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:51:31 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: william@elan.net From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Proposal for Opt-Out Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:24:07 -0500 At 8:32 PM -0800 3/27/03, william@elan.net wrote: >On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Kee Hinckley wrote: > >> At 6:11 PM -0800 3/27/03, william@elan.net wrote: >> >Opt-out will not be effective all by itself. >> >> Of the proposals we have seen so far, which would change the dynamics >> of opt-out as I've described them? >The proposals offered so far are incomplete, that is why we all can not >decide on any one... But I'll tell general solution: That's a very long wishlist. You've postulated a world where the only people who send you non-opt-in email are either people who bought your address from people who forced you to agree to let them sell it, or people who can't seem to distinguish between the different types of email they want to send you. You then see opt-out as the way to stop that. I don't see that that changes anything. Legitimize opt-out and all companies will buy and sell email addresses. After all, you can always opt-out. And the technical issues (aging, timeout, validation, opting out invalid email addresses...). Those still remain as well. Frankly, opt-out scares the hell out of me. But do go ahead and spell out the best possible system. If we understand the problem technically then that gives us the ability to shoot down bad proposals even before we get to the social argument. Let's just try and keep those unintended consequences in mind. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 11:54:13 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA07201 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:54:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SHG4K21645 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:16:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHG4O21642 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:16:04 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA07148; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:53:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHCDO21349; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:12:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHBpO21205 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:11:51 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA06956 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:49:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2208933; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:51:49 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <20030327170006.31387.82863.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> <002801c2f495$ddbde7b0$3f6ca8c0@PRESTON> <20030328130320.A29840@Space.Net> To: James Lick From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Asrg digest, Vol 1 #133 - 14 msgs Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:41:03 -0500 At 5:36 AM -0800 3/28/03, James Lick wrote: >More serious aspects of such a system are that it may drive spammers to >forge spam from real addresses instead of fake, and that they may use such The good news there is that if they do that, the legal hit is considerably higher. I think most people have agreed on this list that address verification would be useful in preventing fake addresses. It wouldn't stop spam, but it would help stuff the spammers into a smaller box. What doesn't seem to have any agreement is *how* to do address verification. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 11:55:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA07258 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:55:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SHHXb21727 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:17:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHHWO21724 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:17:32 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA07230; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:55:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHCAO21297; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:12:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHBeO21186 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:11:40 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA06947 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:49:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2208929; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:51:36 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: william@elan.net From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Opt-Out Notes: too complicated, ignoring history Cc: John R Levine , Brad Templeton , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:25:25 -0500 At 7:52 PM -0800 3/27/03, william@elan.net wrote: > The problem is that your proposal forces all forces the same settings on >all users of the isp and does not make any distintion on type of UCE. It Not to mention all the domains hosted by that mail server--even more problematic with MXs. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 11:56:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA07305 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:56:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SHITB21795 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:18:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHITO21792 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:18:29 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA07283; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:56:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHE2O21492; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:14:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHD9O21448 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:13:09 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA07007 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:50:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18ysIj-0002Jp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 06:45:37 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Asrg digest, Vol 1 #133 - 14 msgs In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 28 Mar 2003 05:36:34 PST." Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 06:45:36 -0500 James Lick wrote: > The problem such a facility solves is to make spam forgery more difficult, > and to force spammers into sending mail in a way that it can be tracked > back. I agree whole-heartedly. An 'ident' style requirement will never solve all of the spam problem, but it may help. > Whoever is running hotjuicyspam.com and merrily saying all addresses are > valid has just painted a huge bullseye target on himself making it easier > for me to reject his mail or take more extreme steps like suing him or > getting his connection yanked. The owner of the domain name has also lost plausibile deniability. When email "from" some domain comes from a random IP which is not verifiable to be associated with that domain, then we can have: - the domain owner claiming the mail was forged, so he's not responsible for - the owner of the IP claiming the IP was sub-let to someone else - the sub-letter claiming the box was "hacked", and he's not responsible, either. Having a domain publicly admit to be associated with an email makes the work of assigning responsibility that much simpler. > I would also like to say that I am disappointed in a lot of the criticisms > of spam blocking/prevention techniques. A lot of people are rejecting > systems outright for having one or more flaws, when the system can still > be effective despite those flaws. Rather, one should evaluate a system > not on whether it can be circumvented, but instead focus on the benefits > of making things more difficult for the spammers. Even if it is just a > minor hassle to get around, it is still causing pain for the spammers. If the hassle to non-spammer is worse than the hassle to spammers, then the "solution" has problems. But in general, I agree that we will need multiple imperfect, but over-lapping solutions. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 11:56:52 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA07350 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:56:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SHIhi21820 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:18:43 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHIhO21817 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:18:43 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA07290; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:56:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHC8O21264; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:12:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHBWO21178 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:11:32 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA06940 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:49:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2208928; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:51:28 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20030328050347.18CDB2B574@mauve.rahul.net> References: <20030328050347.18CDB2B574@mauve.rahul.net> To: pattib@gammon.com From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] 7.c Mass Mailers, reliability, and lack thereof Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:14:53 -0500 At 9:03 PM -0800 3/27/03, pattib@gammon.com wrote: >While I've switched careers (at least temporarily) out of the >high-tech industry, I have worked for a legitimate email marketer. >And I can tell you for a fact that there are people who *do* >want to receive opt-in email marketing. They want to be notified Isn't that the definition of "opt-in"? Someone came and said they wanted to receive it? (Whether the mailer verified that the idiot who entered the email address is actually the owner of the address of course is (unfortunately) a different issue.) But telling company A you want to receive something is *not* the same as telling company B. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 11:57:49 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA07489 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:57:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SHJeX21909 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:19:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHJeO21906 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:19:40 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA07418; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:57:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHC3O21244; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:12:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHBTO21173 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:11:29 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA06938 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:49:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2208918; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:51:25 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <004301c2f4af$ba22eb60$1174fea9@aix.cc> References: <004301c2f4af$ba22eb60$1174fea9@aix.cc> To: "M Wild" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] My ideas... Cc: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:12:40 -0500 At 5:21 PM -0500 3/27/03, M Wild wrote: >validate the From: address rather than the To: I am contemplating clueing >my MTA's in to actual valid users in the domain so that I can reject mail >that I know I won't be able to deliver. The thought here is to reduce the >bounce messages to likely invalid free email accounts. If the list members >have any thoughts on why this would be a Bad Plan(tm) I am open to hearing >them. My first thougth on it is that my MTA will assist the spammers in It is usually preferable to bounce messages at the SMTP prompt rather than later. Most MTAs do know what accounts are valid. Bouncing later makes things worse for everyone. >Um...I don't know. I never ceased to be amazed by the number of customers >that we have that are using sub 200MHz Pentium boxes using IE 3.02/Microsoft >Mail as their client software. Some folks just don't have the patience for >a 25MB download. There's a 25MB download to upgrade the speed of your Pentium?! :-) Seriously, if they are running 200Mhz Pentium boxes, the odds that that 25MB upgrade is going to run at any reasonable speed on their box is pretty slim. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 11:58:15 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA07517 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:58:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SHK7r21961 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:20:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHK6O21958 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:20:06 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA07465; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:57:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHCBO21317; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:12:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHBiO21195 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:11:44 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA06949 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:49:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2208924; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:51:41 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: "John R Levine" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Opt-Out Notes: too complicated, ignoring history Cc: "Brad Templeton" , william@elan.net, asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:34:07 -0500 At 12:42 AM -0500 3/28/03, John R Levine wrote: >Server banners in practice give users a whole lot more choice than they >have now. No ISP offers unfiltered mail, since their spool disks would >fill up in seconds. You lost me there. You're claiming that there are no ISPs that don't filter spam? That isn't true. You claim that this allows anyone to opt-out, but anyone who doesn't will be flooded with too much email. Why bother having opt-out then? Just make it illegal. Which leads me to the final point. The courts have already ruled (in the U.S.) that an ISPs AUP is sufficient (even if not read by the spammer) to make spam illegal. (Watch the legal presentation at the MIT spam conference.) So the banner is not necessary. And a web-based AUP is far easier to implement, doesn't require the support of MX servers, and can be done on a per-domain basis. Note that the fact that this makes spam illegal hasn't particularly changed anything. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 11:58:46 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA07546 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:58:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SHKb922001 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:20:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHKbO21998 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:20:37 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA07516; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:58:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHCFO21365; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:12:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHBtO21211 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:11:55 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA06958 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:49:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2208930; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:51:53 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200303280744.CAA19933@ietf.org> References: <200303280744.CAA19933@ietf.org> To: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Blacklist blackmail Cc: "wayne" , "IRTF Anti-Spam Research Group" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:42:21 -0500 At 2:46 PM +0700 3/28/03, Dr. Jeffrey Race wrote: >On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:43:20 -0500, Kee Hinckley wrote: > >>>1) Don't bother sending that person (or ISP) email anymore. >>Thank God the phone system doesn't work that way. > >In fact it works precisely that way on modern telephone exchanges, >which provide the option to refuse calls from call-originators who >block transmission of Caller ID data. The ID-blocking caller >receives a message he can't complete the call. No. That's the individual's decision. In this case it's the ISP's decision. It's as though your phone company decided to block all calls to you from Kalamazoo. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 11:58:53 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA07560 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:58:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SHKjP22022 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:20:45 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHKjO22019 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:20:45 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA07537; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:58:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHCGO21382; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:12:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHBwO21222 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:11:58 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA06960 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:49:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2208931; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:51:56 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20030328100556.GD7089@esanlinux.kolumbus.fi> References: <20030328100556.GD7089@esanlinux.kolumbus.fi> To: Esa Laitinen From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Blacklist blackmail Cc: IRTF Anti-Spam Research Group Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:55:30 -0500 At 12:05 PM +0200 3/28/03, Esa Laitinen wrote: >On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 12:43:20AM -0500, Kee Hinckley wrote: >> I think that advertising a RBL, getting people to use it, adding >> innocent ISPs to it, and then charging them to get off is pretty >> close to blackmail. > >Sure. And your proof of innocent ISP's getting listed is exactly where? >Notice that proof of listing is not enough. Let us know the IP's >involved so others can decide for themselves if the listing was >justified. It's very odd that anytime anyone says anything negative about a blacklist they promptly get accused of being loose with the facts. Doesn't seem to happen on any other topic on this list. The World. 199.172.62.105. Do you think Barry's been spamming lately? > > In this case, the RBL is used by another RBL. Osirusoft. Do you >> suppose that people who subscribe to Osirusoft's RBL are aware that >> they are aiding this kind of thing? > >How is Osirusoft's bl using blars (pointers, please)? Sure, the www >lookup on Osirusoft's site queries blars as well, but I fail to see any >information regarding Osirusoft's bl using blars. I have seen the bounce message. The sender was at The World. The receiver said he was using Osirusoft. Since Osirusoft's web site is down, and I don't know their DNS lookup addresses, I'm afraid you're on your own for the rest. Of course, if we follow the typical course of these discussions, the IP will no longer be on the blacklist, and you can tell me that I'm wrong and that the message actually didn't bounce for that reason. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 12:03:04 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA07851 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:03:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SHOuR22203 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:24:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHOtO22200 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:24:55 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA07739; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:02:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHH1O21700; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:17:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHGJO21663 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:16:19 -0500 Received: from infobro.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA07153 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:53:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:56:01 -0500 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:55:57 -0500 Message-ID: <01C2F520.FE3CC7F0.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'John R Levine'" , Brad Templeton Cc: "william@elan.net" , "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Opt-Out Notes: too complicated, ignoring history Organization: Information Brokers, Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:55:32 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Friday, March 28, 2003 2:06 AM, John R Levine [SMTP:johnl@iecc.com] wrote: ... > > > Right. How does giving server operators the option to publish a NO UBE > > > policy force a policy decision on them? For the 99.99999999% of server > > > operators and their users who don't want spam they publish a standard NO > > > UBE banner. For toad.com, they don't. It's up to them. > > > > This is where it gets messy. As noted, this approach very stronly > > encourages > > only domain-wide policy. Then it has to deal with the questions of what > > policies can be expressed. If you go to very simple policies like only a > > tag that means "No UBE" with some definition agreed on to the parameters of > > that, then people can have only a binary choice of policy. > > Given that there must be hundreds of millions of domains and subdomains on > the net, a domain strikes me as a pretty fine level of granularity. And > you can have any policy you want, with NO UBE as a baseline. If you put > on a NO UBE banner and publish a policy somewhere saying "we welcome all > mail about kittens to meow@templetons.com", kitten mail to that address, > even if bulk, is not U any more. Laws and software are not the same and > it's a really bad idea to try to encode every legal statement you might > want to make into software, which is one of the reasons I think the > complicated opt-out list proposal is a non-starter. ... This addresses a policy which must be interpreted by the sending end node of such a policy AND a content 'descriptor' that could be applied, difficult at best I think. In addition if we follow the logic of this approach than we must concede that the spammer will send 'kittenized' U mail to the effect that it circumvents the policy boundary, that does not actually contain 'kitten' mail, do we not? With respect to this witness the U mail at present, how many are really related to the topic in the subject v. how many have misleading subjects. We all know content filtering as a proposal is not a good idea for a solution, this to me seems to be an extension of that concept. > > > The problem with a binary policy flag is that it effectively applies the > > same policy decision to all, > > Uh, no. See note above. With respect to this I think the following requirement should be considered: Requirement 5) The proposal SHOULD/MAY [not sure how strong this would be as a requirement] include a mechanism for implementation in messaging relay systems (MX hosts), end use 'post offices' (MTAs), and end node mail recipient systems (MUAs). Proposals that include only one of these messaging system components MUST include mechanisms for interaction with the other components. Regards, Eric ----- Eric Williams PGP Public Key http://new.infobro.com/KeyServ/EricDWilliams.asc Finger Print: 1055 8AED 9783 2378 73EF 7B19 0544 A590 FF65 B789 > > Regards, > John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for > Dummies", > Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer > Commissioner > "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly. > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 12:07:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA08095 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:07:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SHTWw22484 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:29:32 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHTWO22481 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:29:32 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA08040; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:07:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHS6O22358; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:28:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHQSO22292 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:26:28 -0500 Received: from infobro.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA07936 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:04:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:04:52 -0500 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:04:50 -0500 Message-ID: <01C2F522.3BCF26C0.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'John R Levine'" , Brad Templeton Cc: "william@elan.net" , "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Opt-Out Notes: too complicated, ignoring history Organization: Information Brokers, Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:04:35 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I think the following argument makes the point for these requirements: Requirement 2) The proposal SHOULD be amenable to legislation, in place or pending as close as possible. Requirement 4) The proposal SHOULD provide implementation specifics that address the issues of privacy, security and which reflect end use choices, of either providers or users. Is there some concurrence on this? Eric On Friday, March 28, 2003 2:49 AM, John R Levine [SMTP:johnl@iecc.com] wrote: > > > you can have any policy you want, with NO UBE as a baseline. If you put > > > on a NO UBE banner and publish a policy somewhere saying "we welcome all > > > mail about kittens to meow@templetons.com", kitten mail to that address, > > > > Problem is, get practical. Do you have any doubt, any doubt at all, that > > this would make the banner the almost universal netwide default policy? > > I certainly hope so. Since we've learned that UBE is rapidly making > e-mail unusable, the practical options are some sort of ban on UBE or no > e-mail at all. I would guess that we'd also agree that any sort of system > that allowed people to opt out of UBE would be universally taken up, so > the effect of your position here is to oppose any limits on UBE. Surely > that's not what you want. > > > As you know, de facto universal policies are often viewed the same as laws. > > If everybody picks the same thing, you have by definition not given them > > really a choice. > > People can ask for any e-mail they want. That's a real and useful choice. > > Choices have to make a meaningful difference to be important. I don't > have the choice to drive down the left side of the road, but that doesn't > limit my ability to get where I want to go. > > > In a proper engineering solution, you seek a means to actually give people > > a choice. Do you feel this meets that test? For example, if the banner > > had > > a numeric parameter concerning the size of the mailing ... > > Forget it, that's too complicated. The point here is to come up with > something that is useful but still simple enough that it can be referred > to in a law and interpreted by judges who are not dumb but don't have a > software background. I can confirm that explaining NO UCE and NO UBE to > legislators and staffers is pretty easy, since I've done it. > > > However, putting in a protocol so that everybody can set it is silly from > > a technical standpoint. Same with a law. > > There's an entirely sensible reason for definining it this way, which I > suspect you already know. Server banners allow laws to be phrased in > terms of property rights, as opposed to laws that would completely ban > classes of mail which get tied up in knots with arguments about free > speech. I happen to think the free speech arguments are misguided, > particularly in view of the strong recent appellate opinion upholding the > junk fax law, but it's clear that a pure NO UBE or NO UBCE law isn't going > to happen. Politics is the art of the possible, and NO UBE is possible > and achieves a result with negligible practical downside, since it still > lets every user ask for and get any mail that he or she wants. > > Any sort of opt out or tagging rule or any other limit on spam is > meaningless without a legal stick to whack violators, so I don't see much > point in defining constructs that have no chance of having the necessary > stick attached. > > Regards, > John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for > Dummies", > Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer > Commissioner > "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly. > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 12:07:55 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA08122 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:07:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SHTlF22522 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:29:47 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHTlO22519 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:29:47 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA08066; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:07:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHS9O22374; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:28:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHRfO22331 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:27:41 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA07966 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:05:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18ysWn-0002KU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 07:00:09 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:42:56 +0100." <20030328154256.D24104@Space.Net> Message-Id: Subject: [Asrg] Multiple overlapping solutions Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 07:00:09 -0500 Markus Stumpf wrote: > > The problem such a facility solves is to make spam forgery more difficult, > > No, not really. > What is the probability to fake @hotmail.com or > and get a hit? I'd say if you do it halfway intelligent it's about 98%. > So you get mail from > susan23@hotmail.com > it gets verified by hotmail.com as existant. > What exactly help in this situation to eliminate spam? When coupled with a system like RMX, the effectiveness of an 'ident' increases substantially. Messages can be shown (with some confidence) to be legitimately from a domain. Together, these two techniques ensure that spammers are either traceable, or more likely to be easily determined to be spammers. > I don't see the goal of this group to find a new method that works > for 2-6 months and after that it's worse than before. None of these solutions are proposed in isolation. Can we please STOP assuming that any solution will be the ONLY one implemented, and attacking it based it's imperfections when used in isolation? Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 12:12:20 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA08437 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:12:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SHYCJ22842 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:34:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHYCO22839 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:34:12 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA08410; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:11:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHX2O22767; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:33:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHWpO22743 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:32:51 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA08376 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:09:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18ysbH-0002L6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 07:04:47 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] TCPA & Palladium In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:44:06 MST." <000901c2f540$e0dee010$cf00000a@SCOTT> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 07:04:47 -0500 "Scott Chasin" wrote: > Does a post-Palladium world provide another perspective on the > successful execution of SMTP-NG? Is the TCPA (Microsoft) vision of > filtering out unsigned messages relevant to the successful execution of > a new protocol? It only works if everyone buys in. As a hint to Microsoft: Not everyone in the world is subject to U.S. laws. Many people outside of the U.S. even refuse to buy software or hardware from the U.S. which attempts to enforce U.S. laws on them. > "Microsoft claims that Palladium will stop spam, viruses and just about > every other bad thing in cyberspace - I fail to see how running Palladium on my machine will prevent spammers from sending spam, or me from receiving it. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 12:14:11 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA08523 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:14:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SHa3122995 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:36:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHa3O22992 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:36:03 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA08509; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:13:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHZ2O22916; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:35:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHYUO22862 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:34:30 -0500 Received: from plaidworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA08428 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:12:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.8/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h2SHEEZQ014034; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:14:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Proposal for Opt-Out Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: ASRG To: Kee Hinckley From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:14:13 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Friday, March 28, 2003, at 07:24 AM, Kee Hinckley wrote: > Frankly, opt-out scares the hell out of me. and any opt-out system is either going to have to have the buy-in of the e-marketers voluntarily, or be stuffed down their throat through legislation. And you can bet if they aren't interested in voluntarily buying into it, it won't go easy being legislated. So any opt-out system has to also deal with the needs and interests of the e-marketers. If it's designed and built unilaterally, it'll be a non-starter, and while this is a technical forum, it shouldn't be coming up with things that are politically infeasible, since that's a waste of time. So if there's going to discussions of building systems that other groups have to agree to use, those groups need to be involved at some level, too. Maybe not now, but liason to them one decisions are made to go in that direction. (I'll say again, however, that you can fix every legitimate e-marketer in existance perfectly, exactly the way you want it in your dreams, and most users won't ever notice because of all of the spam in their mailboxes. I think opt-out systems are worthy of exploring, NEXT. Until the issue of spam and spam volumes are dealt with, nothing else matters here. Opt-out systems are polishing the brass on the Titanic. Deal with the iceberg first!) I think the problem is we keep migrating back into "fixing the e-marketing space" because we at least can find and talk to those folks, where spam is a much nastier, intractable problem. the problem, though, is that it ends up solving problems that don't solve the problem, which is that 42% of the mail that I wake up to every morning is spam, and I have a high-volume inbox. And I compare that with the 10-15 pieces of email a week I get from e-marketers (amazon, orbitz, etc), and frankly, that's just not The Problem here. It's sara and her pet zebra. Twelve times. Working with the e-marketing people is a good thing. Coming up with standards for consent systems (whether they're opt-in, opt-out or whatever, it boils down to a consent system) is a good thing. Standardizing EULAs and how they're presented is a very good thing. Anything we can do to help users get a more standard environment that works reliably in that space is a very good thing -- but it won't solve the problem, and even if all of that got implemented perfectly, this forum would be an abject failure if sara's e-mail keeps showing up in my mailbox every day. Yes, it's the tougher problem, but if it's not solved, nothing else matters. IMHO, of course. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 12:19:24 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA08793 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:19:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SHfGe24037 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:41:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHfGO24034 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:41:16 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA08782; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:18:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHd3O23939; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:39:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHcBO23881 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:38:11 -0500 Received: from acsdefense.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA08668 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:15:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from PRESTON ([192.168.108.63]) by gateway.acsdefense.com with SMTP id <119043>; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:25:10 -0500 Message-ID: <001d01c2f54e$10f79370$3f6ca8c0@PRESTON> From: "Tony Preston" To: References: <20030328153919.12829.62664.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> Organization: Atlantic Sciences and Technology Inc. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Re: Asrg digest, Vol 1 #135 - 25 msgs Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:18:35 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit |From: "M Wild" |To: |Subject: Re: [Asrg] My ideas... |Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 17:21:36 -0500 | |> I do have some questions about the solutions/ideas talked about. I |> was wondering why not have the "TO:" field be required to be verifiable |> from each stop. I know this would increase the bandwidth requirements |> of each email, but it would also prevent unidentified emails (99% of |> the spam I get are unidentified). If the MTA would validate on |> arrival and unvalidated email gets rejected, you at least have an |identified |> user to squash when spammed. | |Welcome Tony - Reading this message I get the sense that you want to |validate the From: address rather than the To: I am contemplating clueing |my MTA's in to actual valid users in the domain so that I can reject mail |that I know I won't be able to deliver. The thought here is to reduce the |bounce messages to likely invalid free email accounts. If the list members |have any thoughts on why this would be a Bad Plan(tm) I am open to hearing |them. My first thougth on it is that my MTA will assist the spammers in |weeding out invalid accounts in my domain however that is balanced by not |having to send bounce messages (to the tune of 28000 I'm getting rid of now |just to get some spool space back) to sometimes unresponsive mail hosts. Your right, I was thinking FROM: and typed TO: I was not thinking it would be all that much of a benifit for a spammer to send you tons of mail that all bounced since that identifies his IP address for blocking. |> Any solution that requires users to change their tools/upgrade/do |something |> different is OK, they have the incentive to do it so as to |> get rid of spam. | |Um...I don't know. I never ceased to be amazed by the number of customers |that we have that are using sub 200MHz Pentium boxes using IE 3.02/Microsoft |Mail as their client software. Some folks just don't have the patience for |a 25MB download. I guess my view is that if a user wants to get rid of spam they must do something (like upgrade their mail tools, pressure their isp to upgrade) or I have little sympathy. |> The problem has to be solved on the sending end or you do not have |> a solution. The only ideas that seem to make sense are the idea of |> validating the sender at each hop (then as more and more MTAs get |> updated to do this, the sender is better identified and can be blocked) |> and the idea of estamps. | I| disagree on this point. I cannot control what other folks do with their |MTA's I *CAN* control how my mail servers are configured, what software |they run and whatever else it takes to, if not solve, at least reduce the |problem. This paragraph also supports my initial assertion that you want to |validate From: addresses. This has been proposed in other threads and the |question that comes to my mind is "Isn't that what VRFY is for?" I may be |mistaken. Again, I appeal to the collective wisdom of the list. | |Regards |Mike That is my point, you cannot control what other people do, but on your system you upgrade to the super-duper spam detector and you help all those downstream to your system. It reduces your load because you only receive them and don't have to send them on. The closer you get to the sender at stopping spam, the greater the benifit. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 12:22:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA08882 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:22:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SHiLx24206 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:44:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHiKO24203 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:44:20 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA08867; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:21:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHg3O24088; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:42:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHfZO24054 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:41:35 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA08790 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:19:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18yskE-0002M9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 07:14:02 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 7.c Mass Mailers, reliability, and lack thereof In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 27 Mar 2003 21:03:45 PST." <20030328050347.18CDB2B574@mauve.rahul.net> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 07:14:02 -0500 pattib@gammon.com wrote: > Legit email marketers are pretty far away from the millions-of- > addresses CDs ... They don't always follow anti-spam best > practices, and sometimes they even screw up, but in general, legit > email marketers will try pretty damned hard not to send mail to > people who don't want it. The 'legitimaate' emails would appear to satisfy the following criteria: a) send a lot of email b) are willing to publicly state who they are, and why they're sending the email c) are willing to remove people from their lists d) try to have only 'opt-in' lists The amount of mail from bulk emailers who *don't* satisfy all of those criteria is probably a thousand, to a million times worse than the amount of mail from bulk emailers who do satisfy those criteria. Spam solutions should affect 'legitimate' bulk emailers as little as possible. But if we can agree on that, the "problem" of email from bulk emailers is so small that it's irrelevant to the discussion about spam. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 12:30:51 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA09155 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:30:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SHqhb24549 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:52:43 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHqhO24546 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:52:43 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA09146; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:30:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHj4O24254; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:45:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHi1O24188 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:44:01 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA08855 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:21:37 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2SFXpuY001015; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 07:33:51 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2SFXpKP001011; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 07:33:51 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: "Eric D. Williams" cc: "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Proposal for Opt-Out In-Reply-To: <01C2F51D.BBEBE190.eric@infobro.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 07:33:51 -0800 (PST) > This message I think presents a fundamental problem that I have not seen > addressed (or at least referred to to-date) in the discussion, perhaps a We have this on our "Work Items" list and nobody before did it. I think you just volunteered - congrats and thank you! > reading of the archives is in order or a document archive contains such. There were couple emails early on that I remember that contained some kind of list of requirements. I'll try to find it out and send to you and the list to help it out. > Requirement 1) The proposal MUST address the issue of RFC821 [or envelope > protocol] originating MTA/MUA authenticity. There is actually some difference between authenticity between MTAs and authenticiy of origin (i.e. so that email headers are not forged). That is why I put it as #1 & #2. I have to think a little bet to see if I can find how to fraze requirement for my #2 below. > > 2. We provide means for mail servers to authenticate in such a way that > > spammer can not easily change just their domain or their ip and begin > > sending email again (they'd soon be detected and their mail server > > blacklisted). > > See Requirement 1). > > > 3. Law outlaws sending unsolicited commercial email > > Requirement 2) The proposal SHOULD be amenable to legislation, in place or > pending as close as possible. Good. I don't like wording "pending as close as possible". Just "amenable to legislation" is enough. > Requirement 3) The proposal MUST provide a flexibility for integration with > other ANTI-SPAM (UBE/UCE) approaches [it shouldn't break anything]. Ok with above But there should be SEPARATE requirement that "Proposal SHOULD NOT break existing email communication infrastructure" > Requirement 4) The proposal SHOULD provide implementation specifics that > address the issues of privacy, security and which reflect end use choices, of > either providers or users. Make it "providers and end-users" > Requirement 5) The proposal SHOULD/MAY [not sure how strong this would be as a > requirement] include a mechanism for implementation in messaging relay systems > (MX hosts), end use 'post offices' (MTAs), and end node mail recipient systems > (MUAs). Proposals that include only one of these messaging system components > MUST include mechanisms for interaction with the other components. I'm ok with the above, I did not quite understand why it needed. > Requirement 6) The proposal MAY include a method for extension to or > integration with other protocols, e.g. HTTP, that may be used to relay > messages. Because it says "MAY" this can not be part of the REQUIREMENTS. And I do not see why fraze like that is needed. ---- William Leibzon Elan Communications Inc. william@elan.net _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 12:32:04 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA09196 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:32:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SHrvu24649 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:53:57 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHrvO24646 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:53:57 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA09184; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:31:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHp4O24480; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:51:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHooO24464 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:50:50 -0500 Received: from tom.iecc.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA09103 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:28:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 5679 invoked from network); 28 Mar 2003 12:30:46 -0500 Received: (ofmipd 208.31.42.38); 28 Mar 2003 17:30:24 -0000 Message-ID: From: "John R Levine" To: "Eric D. Williams" Cc: "Brad Templeton" , "william@elan.net" , "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Opt-Out Notes: too complicated, ignoring history In-Reply-To: <01C2F522.3BCF26C0.eric@infobro.com> Cleverness: None detected MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 28 Mar 2003 12:30:46 -0500 > Requirement 2) The proposal SHOULD be amenable to legislation, in place or > pending as close as possible. > > Requirement 4) The proposal SHOULD provide implementation specifics that > address the issues of privacy, security and which reflect end use choices, of > either providers or users. > > Is there some concurrence on this? Sure, so long as you realize there's some tension between the two. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 12:32:27 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA09219 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:32:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SHsK724671 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:54:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHsKO24668 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:54:20 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA09192; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:31:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHr5O24610; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:53:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHqPO24530 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:52:25 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA09139 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:30:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2209096; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:32:25 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20030328154256.D24104@Space.Net> References: <20030327170006.31387.82863.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> <002801c2f495$ddbde7b0$3f6ca8c0@PRESTON> <20030328130320.A29840@Space.Net> <20030328154256.D24104@Space.Net> To: Markus Stumpf From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Asrg digest, Vol 1 #133 - 14 msgs Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:17:03 -0500 At 3:42 PM +0100 3/28/03, Markus Stumpf wrote: >On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 05:36:34AM -0800, James Lick wrote: >> The problem such a facility solves is to make spam forgery more difficult, > >No, not really. >What is the probability to fake @hotmail.com or >and get a hit? I'd say if you do it halfway intelligent it's about 98%. >So you get mail from > susan23@hotmail.com >it gets verified by hotmail.com as existant. >What exactly help in this situation to eliminate spam? 1. It makes it more obvious to the clueless that spam is not legitimate. Sending email with a fake address is very different from sending email using someone's real address. 2. It gives us a better legal hammer with which to hit spammers. Damages are more clear (some of the early spam suits were of this type), and a number of existing laws come into play as soon as you send something while pretending to be someone else. Nobody is claiming this will stop spam. However it will limit a certain type of abuse which is now extremely common. In addition, such a mechanism has the potential to be used to verify that addresses entered on a web form are valid *before* they are sent email. I'm sure I'm not the only one running a domain that would greatly benefit from that check. > > This system is akin to rejecting non-existant domains from sending mail. > > Easily circumvented. Standard practice for years. Idiot spammers still > > using fake domains like crazy. Not nearly as much as before, but it still >> blocks an awful lot of spam. > >Yes. And now they fake existing domains. Right. We've limited their return address options. Add the ability to check addresses and we limit them more. This seems like a move in the correct direction. >We already have many of these techniques and they are used. A lot of >them can easily be circumvented. What do they help? Does the spam volume >decline? >Having thousands of sysadmins plugin nitty gritty tools will not solve >the problem. Agreed. But the alternative is replacing them all with a new system. And that's not going to happen. So we work with what we have. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 12:32:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA09242 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:32:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SHsm724705 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:54:48 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHsmO24702 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:54:48 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA09215; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:32:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHr2O24573; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:53:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHq1O24508 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:52:01 -0500 Received: from pink.rahul.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA09131 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:29:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from mauve.rahul.net (mauve.rahul.net [66.237.72.25]) by pink.rahul.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD6632FE0E for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:32:00 -0800 (PST) Received: by mauve.rahul.net (Postfix, from userid 4188) id 9BD5A2B58C; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:32:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from mauve.rahul.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mauve.rahul.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E3402B585 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:32:00 -0800 (PST) To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 7.c Mass Mailers, reliability, and lack thereof From: pattib@gammon.com In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:14:53 EST." Message-Id: <20030328173200.9BD5A2B58C@mauve.rahul.net> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:31:59 -0800 >Isn't that the definition of "opt-in"? Someone came and said they >wanted to receive it? (Whether the mailer verified that the idiot >who entered the email address is actually the owner of the address of >course is (unfortunately) a different issue.) Yes, it is. In an ideal (i.e. spam-free) world, I could just go off to my hairdresser's website, slap my address in where it says "let me know when you start using a new brand of shampoo", and that would be it. Sure, there would occasionally be abuse-- someone could get pissed at you and slam your name onto two dozen mailing lists, for example. But in this dream spamn-free world that would only be a mild annoyance, since you could just unsubscribe and be done with it. The start of this thread was someone who lumped in genuine opt-in marketing email with millions-of-addresses-on-CD spammers. I wanted to show that they are two very different things. >But telling company A you want to receive something is *not* the same >as telling company B. That depends upon who companies A and B are. If company A is the abovementioned hairdresser, and company B provides the actual mechanics of sending out the new-shampoo mail, then I think it is the same thing. This assumes, of course, that company B is providing that service honestly and carefully, and doesn't use my address for anything other than sending mail from my hairdresser. (This is the kind of company I worked for.) How about the next tier? "We're providing you with this free service. In exchange, you agree to let some of our buddies send you ads." Can that be workable? While that email is generally less interesting to the recipient, I think it can also be workable if it's done well. In this case, the address would either need to be kept in-house, or passed off to one responsible vendor who serves as an agent. This allows for a reliable single-point-of-unsubscribe mechanism for all mail sent as a result of your affiliation with free-service-provider. You definitely don't want the address passed off to multiple entities, since turning off the flow would then be significantly more difficult. I'm making some assumptions about the email vendors in all of this-- they promptly and reliably honor unsubscribe requests, carefully protect the privacy and security of mailing lists, etc. But there *are* email vendors like that out there-- I worked for one. (You would not believe how many technical hoops I jumped through to ensure that every single unsubscribe request was honored during every conceivable flavor of system downtime.) They also impose some stringent restrictions on their clients about how addresses are acquired and managed, to avoid sending mail to people who don't want it. I'll admit that most vendors are probably not quite as good about this as they should be, but they *are* trying. These vendors are as far from make-money-fast-with-a-bigger-penis-and- hot-lolitas-and-viagra-to-15-million-addresses as you can get. -Patti _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 12:33:02 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA09257 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:33:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SHstd24729 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:54:55 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHstO24726 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:54:55 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA09234; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:32:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHr4O24593; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:53:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SHqOO24525 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:52:24 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA09137 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:30:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2209099; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:32:24 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: william@elan.net From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Proposal for Opt-Out Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:08:00 -0500 At 5:52 AM -0800 3/28/03, william@elan.net wrote: > > You don't *want* it to stop >> the people you explicitly gave permission to. >Opt-out should be specific enough that you could blacklist entire category >of commercial email but whitelist particular sender. So basicly even if >you gave them your email to say notify of updates and they are instead >trying to pitch you new product or service you could stop that depending >how well opt-out is both technology and laws. That gets pretty complex and subjective. Nice in concept though. > > A global opt-out list is a tacit statement that it's okay to spam >> random email addresses. >I hope I did not make it appear as if that is true! I don't see how it can be otherwise. If I put my email address on my web site (e.g. support@example.com), why won't they assume that it's okay to send anything to that address so long as it's not on an opt-out list? > > After all, if you didn't want email, you > > would have put your name on the list, right? This is exactly the > > *wrong* way to go. We do not want "100 million email address CDs" to > > become legitimate sales tools just because they were cleaned by the > > opt-out list. >Technology for opt-out should be good enough to prevent use of the email >list by anybody but authorized bulk mailer. So spammers would not be able >to verify your address either one way or another, other means should be No verification necessary. Just remove opted-out people from the CD and sell it. > > You do *not* want every company in the country >> broadcasting email address to every address they can find. >I did not understand this. Umm. Yes, well it would help if I'd written it in a known language. What I meant to say was, "You do *not* want every company in the country sending email to every address they can find that isn't on the opt-out list." > > I strongly believe that this group should make absolutely no >> recommendations for a global opt-out system. >If you look at the asrg charter, it specifically says >"Possible components of such a framework may include: > >Consent Expression Component: This involves recipients expressing a policy >that gives consent or non-consent for certain types of communications" > >So it seems we will have to make these "recomendations". Absolutely. I'm saying that we should recommend against opt-out as means of consent. There are other, much simpler, ways to define consent. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 12:44:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA09554 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:44:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SI6QY25147 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:06:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SI6QO25144 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:06:26 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA09537; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:44:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SI38O25052; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:03:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SI2EO25006 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:02:14 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA09447 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:39:52 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2SHfeFD010784; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:41:40 -0500 Message-Id: <200303281741.h2SHfeFD010784@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.2 03/21/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: John R Levine Cc: Brad Templeton , william@elan.net, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Opt-Out Notes: too complicated, ignoring history In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:43:48 EST." References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_-425973280P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:41:40 -0500 --==_Exmh_-425973280P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:43:48 EST, John R Levine said: > it's not, it's not a big deal. They can have one MX that publishes NO UBE > and one that doesn't, probably on a single set of hardware. (This is one > of the reasons that NO UBE flag is deliberately a single bit, not a > complex set of knobs and dials.) The customers who want spam can stay on > the MX without the notice, the other 99% on the MX with the notice. Same > with Vuurwerk or Schlund. > > This isn't rocket science, nor is it even complicated programming. If > they don't want to use NO UBE, all they have to do is nothing. > > Why do people want this to be so much more complicated? I didn't say it was complicated. I was pointing out that the problem wasn't "everybody's entitled to get spam", but that you *do* have to think about things like "two seperate MX". So I think we're in agreement here. ;) --==_Exmh_-425973280P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+hIlUcC3lWbTT17ARAvRVAJ9vmK0WXiVrnEm4rI+ko+VeFtlG9ACdF/zO NQ7OZlTyyIpfjbHWt0HTAgI= =ZbF6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_-425973280P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 12:56:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA09972 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:56:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SIIKx26420 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:18:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SIIKO26417 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:18:20 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA09965; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:55:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SIBDO26277; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:11:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SIALO26252 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:10:21 -0500 Received: from infobro.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA09824 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:47:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:48:59 -0500 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:48:56 -0500 Message-ID: <01C2F528.6558F1A0.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'Brad Templeton'" , John R Levine Cc: "william@elan.net" , "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Opt-Out Notes: too complicated, ignoring history Organization: Information Brokers, Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:42:53 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Brad, You make a good point for an additional requirement: Requirement 7) The proposal SHOULD describe a working definition of Unsolicited, Solicited, Bulk and other terms used to describe messaging commonly referred to as SPAM. Eric On Friday, March 28, 2003 3:33 AM, Brad Templeton [SMTP:brad@templetons.com] wrote: ... > > On the nearly-technical side, I am also concerned about how much success > there will be in defining the terms. Some what Solicited to be implied on a pre- > existing relationship (possibly with a "respect unsubscribe requests" rule) and others > want solicited to mean explicit subscription. I would hope they can be > reconciled. And there are arguments on bulk in either case and where the > cutoff should be, though in truth all low cutoffs are probably enough to > solve the spam problem -- if they were obeyed. Alas, I have poor faith on any > of this being obeyed. As you know, a significant fraction of the spam > sent today is already illegal under non-spam laws --- fraud, illegal medical > sales and all the rest -- so I see little hope in those spammers obeying > the No-UBE sign we might hope to put up on our mailbox. > > > Back to the technical, I would still recommend that any protocol defined > in this matter allow individual choice. Thus an ability to express desires > after a RCPT command, in addition to at the banner, with a requirement that > new mail tools SHOULD support this while older ones may only support the > banner. > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 13:04:15 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA10227 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:04:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SIQ7N26797 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:26:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SIQ7O26794 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:26:07 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA10209; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:03:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SILDO26549; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:21:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SIKhO26522 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:20:43 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA10032 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:58:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from aland by mail.nitros9.org with local (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18ytM5-0002Nz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 07:53:09 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:47:42 GMT." Message-Id: Subject: [Asrg] Unhelpful "helpful" solutions Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 07:53:09 -0500 Can I ask the chair to remove this person from the mailing list? > From: tim@mailkey.com ... > > The email you sent to me with the subject line as above has been rejected due to the fact that my email account is protected from SPAM by MailKey. You are not (yet) on my 'A-list' of approved senders, and the mail did not contain a valid MailKey. > > To successfully send the email to me, you need to obtain a MailKey from the MailKey website. ... > The service is free, is very easy, and should take less than 1 minute to use! Posting to the list should NOT be taken as an excuse to spam people with advertisements for commercial services. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 13:13:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA10476 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:13:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SIZa427363 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:35:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SIZaO27360 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:35:36 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA10459; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:13:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SIY4O27219; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:34:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SIXMO27201 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:33:22 -0500 Received: from mail-out1.apple.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA10366 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:10:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailgate2.apple.com (A17-129-100-225.apple.com [17.129.100.225]) by mail-out1.apple.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2SIDKOr009086 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:13:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from scv3.apple.com (scv3.apple.com) by mailgate2.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:13:20 -0800 Received: from plaidworks.com (vg0602e-dhcp175.apple.com [17.216.21.175]) by scv3.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h2SIDKd15868 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:13:20 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Subject: Fwd: - RE: [ASRG] PROPOSAL FOR OPT-OUT From: Chuq Von Rospach To: ASRG Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:13:19 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit speaking of whitelists, someone doesn't have his set up properly for this list (grin) of course, he probably won't get this one, either. Begin forwarded message: > From: tim@mailkey.com > Date: Fri Mar 28, 2003 9:49:27 AM US/Pacific > To: chuqui@plaidworks.com > Subject: RE:- RE: [ASRG] PROPOSAL FOR OPT-OUT > > The email you sent to me with the subject line as above has been > rejected due to the fact that my email account is protected from SPAM > by MailKey. You are not (yet) on my 'A-list' of approved senders, > and the mail did not contain a valid MailKey. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 13:21:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA10725 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:21:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SIhXW28603 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:43:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SIhXO28600 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:43:33 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA10704; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:21:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SIe5O28391; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:40:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SIdpO28315 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:39:51 -0500 Received: from tom.iecc.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA10605 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:17:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 8292 invoked from network); 28 Mar 2003 13:19:49 -0500 Received: (ofmipd 208.31.42.38); 28 Mar 2003 18:19:27 -0000 Message-ID: From: "John R Levine" To: "Anti Spam Research Group" Cleverness: None detected MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Asrg] How not to fight spam Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 28 Mar 2003 13:19:49 -0500 Can we agree that this sort of stuff is not an appropriate way to fight spam. Jump through a hoop, visit a web site, pick up a magic string, then paste it into subsequent mail I send. I don't know very many people who I'm that desperate to sent e-mail to. I was responding to a message he sent me; evidently he's too busy to read answers to questions he asks. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:03:45 +0000 From: tim@mailkey.com To: johnl@iecc.com Subject: RE:- RE: [ASRG] OPT-OUT NOTES: TOO COMPLICATED, IGNORING HISTORY The email you sent to me with the subject line as above has been rejected due to the fact that my email account is protected from SPAM by MailKey. You are not (yet) on my 'A-list' of approved senders, and the mail did not contain a valid MailKey. To successfully send the email to me, you need to obtain a MailKey from the MailKey website. A MailKey is a short unique code which will allow the email to be delivered you simply insert the MailKey anywhere in the subject line, and re-send the email to me. The service is free, is very easy, and should take less than 1 minute to use! Please go to http://www.mailkey.com/pklookup.aspx?to=xxx@xxxxxxx.com&from=xxxxx@xxxx.com to obtain the MailKey you need. To retrieve the email you sent please go to http://www.mailkey.com/retrievebody.aspx?id=xxxx If you want to use the free MailKey service to lock out SPAM from your email account, or find out more about MailKey, please go to http://www.mailkey.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 13:23:02 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA10816 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:23:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SIisJ28710 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:44:54 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SIisO28705 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:44:54 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA10781; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:22:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SIf2O28477; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:41:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SIewO28431 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:40:58 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA10644 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:18:35 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2SIKvFD011378; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:20:57 -0500 Message-Id: <200303281820.h2SIKvFD011378@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.2 03/21/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: Chuq Von Rospach Cc: ASRG Subject: Re: Fwd: - RE: [ASRG] PROPOSAL FOR OPT-OUT In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:13:19 PST." References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_-414004288P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:20:56 -0500 --==_Exmh_-414004288P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:13:19 PST, Chuq Von Rospach said: > speaking of whitelists, someone doesn't have his set up properly for > this list (grin) > > of course, he probably won't get this one, either. Somebody needs to record the URL of the original msg to the list, so we can reference it the next time somebody things whitelists are the best thing since sliced bread and will cure AIDS, the common cold, cancer, and blackheads. :) --==_Exmh_-414004288P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+hJKIcC3lWbTT17ARAqEsAJ9vMX5KfdqjZh68JXRdcDbRZvs8CACfb3Xe Go60KPKxaAU03O+YJAzPz2Y= =6Yad -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_-414004288P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 13:30:15 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA11068 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:30:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SIq8E28969 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:52:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SIq7O28966 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:52:07 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA11062; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:29:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SIo7O28886; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:50:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SInSO28855 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:49:28 -0500 Received: from mail-out1.apple.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA10992 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:27:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailgate1.apple.com (A17-128-100-225.apple.com [17.128.100.225]) by mail-out1.apple.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2SITQOr013993 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:29:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from scv3.apple.com (scv3.apple.com) by mailgate1.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:29:17 -0800 Received: from plaidworks.com (vg0602e-dhcp175.apple.com [17.216.21.175]) by scv3.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h2SITPd23360; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:29:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: - RE: [ASRG] PROPOSAL FOR OPT-OUT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: ASRG To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <200303281820.h2SIKvFD011378@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-Id: <33595515-614B-11D7-8191-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:29:24 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Friday, March 28, 2003, at 10:20 AM, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > > Somebody needs to record the URL of the original msg to the list, so > we can > reference it the next time somebody things whitelists are the best > thing > since sliced bread and will cure AIDS, the common cold, cancer, and > blackheads. > you forgot that it adds three inches..... (oh, never mind) whitelists are far from a panacea. I simply now consider them a lesser evil... _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 13:30:53 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA11109 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:30:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SIqjI29003 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:52:45 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SIqjO29000 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:52:45 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA11088; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:30:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SIp2O28931; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:51:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SIoHO28899 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:50:17 -0500 Received: from tom.iecc.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA11026 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:27:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 8817 invoked from network); 28 Mar 2003 13:30:16 -0500 Received: (ofmipd 208.31.42.38); 28 Mar 2003 18:29:54 -0000 Message-ID: From: "John R Levine" To: "Brad Templeton" Cc: william@elan.net, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Opt-Out Notes: too complicated, ignoring history In-Reply-To: <20030328083240.GA2518@main.templetons.com> Cleverness: None detected MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 28 Mar 2003 13:30:16 -0500 > > People can ask for any e-mail they want. That's a real and useful choice. > > Indeed, but not one in this protocol proposed. I don't get it. People can already ask for all the bulk mail they want, by signing up for newsletters and discussion groups. That part of the e-mail infrastructure works fine, with or without adding NO UBE. Why is it important or even useful to reinvent that? > But in the end, I see this banner as effectively equivalent to writing > into SMTP, "Senders MUST NOT send UBE" Don't be silly. If you want to run a system that accepts all spam, or uses some other scheme to decide what mail it'll accept, you can keep doing so, and senders can keep sending it to you. Nothing here changes the status quo for people who don't want to change their mail servers. > The goal here is not to give users a choice, the reality is it is to > have everybody specify the same choice, for who wouldn't want to say they > don't want spam? Saying this over and over again doesn't make it any more true and only distracts from your valid arguments. Nothing coerces server managers to use NO UBE (other than, perhaps, a desire for self-preservation which neither of us is likely to change). If a server manager doesn't want to use NO UBE, nobody other than his users will care in the least. > The engineering question here is, "Do users need a way to refect their > UBE preferences during the SMTP dialog, and if so, how should they be able > to do it in a way that meets their desires." No, the question is whether server managers need a standardized way to publish the policy they already have. If you want to invent a system full of knobs and dials with a langugage that allows users to state in excruciating detail what kind of mail they want and under what conditions, you can certainly do so, but that's not what this is. > On the nearly-technical side, I am also concerned about how much success there > will be in defining the terms. Some what Solicited ... This argument has been thrashed out in telemarketing and junk fax laws and court cases. It's not a technical question, so we don't need to redo that here. > Back to the technical, I would still recommend that any protocol defined > in this matter allow individual choice. Users can already ask for all the mail they want, so the principle of parsimony tells us that it's unwise to invent a new mechanism that duplicates (badly) what they already have. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 13:47:15 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA11710 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:47:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SJ97130529 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:09:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SJ97O30526 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:09:07 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA11692; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:46:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SJ47O29481; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:04:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SJ40O29462 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:04:00 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA11415 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:41:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc01.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2SIfMMX010954; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:41:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:43:50 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Eric D. Williams'" , "'Brad Templeton'" , John R Levine Cc: william@elan.net, asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Opt-Out Notes: too complicated, ignoring history MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:43:43 -0800 Slight difference to the wording. It should be clear what the person if opting out from. We don't have to define spam, just the solicitations that they are opting out from. Phill > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric D. Williams [mailto:eric@infobro.com] > Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 12:43 PM > To: 'Brad Templeton'; John R Levine > Cc: william@elan.net; asrg@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Asrg] Opt-Out Notes: too complicated, ignoring history > > > Brad, > > You make a good point for an additional requirement: > > Requirement 7) The proposal SHOULD describe a working definition of > Unsolicited, Solicited, Bulk and other terms used to describe > messaging > commonly referred to as SPAM. > > Eric > > On Friday, March 28, 2003 3:33 AM, Brad Templeton > [SMTP:brad@templetons.com] > wrote: > ... > > > > On the nearly-technical side, I am also concerned about how > much success > > there will be in defining the terms. Some what Solicited > to be implied on a > pre- > > existing relationship (possibly with a "respect unsubscribe > requests" rule) > and others > > want solicited to mean explicit subscription. I would hope > they can be > > reconciled. And there are arguments on bulk in either case > and where the > > cutoff should be, though in truth all low cutoffs are > probably enough to > > solve the spam problem -- if they were obeyed. Alas, I > have poor faith on > any > > of this being obeyed. As you know, a significant fraction > of the spam > > sent today is already illegal under non-spam laws --- > fraud, illegal medical > > sales and all the rest -- so I see little hope in those > spammers obeying > > the No-UBE sign we might hope to put up on our mailbox. > > > > > > Back to the technical, I would still recommend that any > protocol defined > > in this matter allow individual choice. Thus an ability to > express desires > > after a RCPT command, in addition to at the banner, with a > requirement that > > new mail tools SHOULD support this while older ones may > only support the > > banner. > > _______________________________________________ > > Asrg mailing list > > Asrg@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 14:03:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA12423 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:03:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SJPS131422 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:25:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SJPSO31419 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:25:28 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA12363; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:03:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SJB4O30637; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:11:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SJAtO30619 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:10:55 -0500 Received: from moebius2.Space.Net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA11811 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:48:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 57161 invoked by uid 1013); 28 Mar 2003 18:50:52 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Asrg digest, Vol 1 #133 - 14 msgs Message-ID: <20030328195052.H24104@Space.Net> References: <20030327170006.31387.82863.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> <002801c2f495$ddbde7b0$3f6ca8c0@PRESTON> <20030328130320.A29840@Space.Net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: ; from nazgul@somewhere.com on Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 10:41:03AM -0500 Organization: SpaceNet AG, Muenchen, Germany X-PGP-Fingerprint: 66 F3 75 79 01 D0 B8 5F 1A C7 77 88 4A B6 70 DF Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 19:50:52 +0100 On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 10:41:03AM -0500, Kee Hinckley wrote: > I think most people have agreed on this list that address > verification would be useful in preventing fake addresses. It > wouldn't stop spam, but it would help stuff the spammers into a > smaller box. It wouldn't even reduce the amount of spam. Is it just me or why do I get the impression that a lot of people think that spammers are dumb idiots and that telling them "nanana, you can't do this anymore" will change a thing? I am rather sure they are on this list and watch closely to be prepared and they are no idiots. Has anybody noticed spam like e.g. (addresses are envelope information): unknown:66.118.181.5 HELO gfpqkw.com unknown:66.118.181.5 rejected: to unknown:66.118.181.5 rejected: to unknown:66.118.181.5 rejected: to What's so unusual about it? It's not a 1:n relation, but a n:1 relation in one connection from the same host. Spammers no longer depend on the multi RCPT_TO feature and it still works. It shouldn't be too big a problem to combine pairs from their databases (just like a lot of outlook viruses already do from the addressbook) and use the same ole algorithms. Or let the software abuse the domain of the abused mailserver (ok, that's at least more fair than using the domain of anyone unrelated). The changes to the existing software should be minimal, I'd assume. The spammers software is evolving and the time when it was "dumb" is long gone. I have skimmed over Williams slides at http://www.elan.net/~william/asrg-emailpathverification-presentation.pdf and what I am really missing in the scenarios are e.g. the thousands of small companies on a dynamic DSL connection that depend on running their own mailserver, because they are connected to "ISPs" that don't offer this service. Have you ever asked them what they think about DUL? What will they think about validating services or RMX? From my experience 80% won't even understand what you are talking about. I really don't know ... does hotmail, yahoo etc all provide SMTP relay services or do you have to use their web interfaces? If they don't provide SMTP relay there is also missing a solution for the thousands of public mail service provider users that use those addresses for this and that, from Internet cafes or from their mailbox. We need a rather easy and widely adoptable solution or it won't work. And really I don't want to "attack" all the discussed solutions, but if any such system should be a workable approach, using a "all or nothing" system if probably the worst. Also a solution that needs a "if you support system X it's nice, if you don't I'll take it too" is rather absurd. When designing such a system - think about universities ... will they set up validation mechanisms for ten thousands of users? - think about medium sized companies ... will they change to the new system? The more we burden the end user (and in this area small/medium companies qualify as end user) the system will fail, because they won't go through the hassle. And if they don't do it nobody will. As an ISP I can't change to a system on 1.1.2004 that is used by 5% of all users and tell my customers "too bad. And no it won't stop spam but it makes it harder, and sorry that you cannot talk to your clients any more". And if there are reasons ISPs can't (easily) migrate, they won't at all. IMHO an integral part of all those discussions should be - benefit how much spam will it stop MORE - costs how much will it cost to install and maintain the system What is the cost of adding one new user to the system. (think small companies .. hiring a technician and paying big bucks for adding an email account will distract them). - usability how much has every user to do more to send email to another person? How complicated is it? Will they want to do it? Do they need new software? - transition are there pitfalls during a transition period? Will hosts that have [not] changed be isolated? How much percent of email users in total will take part right at the start at a specified date. what is the estimated period that we expect users to switch to the system. Besides I am not too convinced behind the ideas of all systems discussed, most badly fail at least 2 of the above topics. And no, I don't have a resourceful solution. If I had I wouldn't discuss here but wade in money. \Maex -- SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0 Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 "The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 14:04:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA12549 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:04:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SJQOw31524 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:26:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SJQOO31521 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:26:24 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA12488; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:03:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SJI6O31057; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:18:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SJHoO31040 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:17:50 -0500 Received: from zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA12056 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:55:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (zcard307.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h2SIviT06035 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:57:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GDFC5DM9; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:57:44 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id G3JBGJ60; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:57:45 -0500 Message-ID: <3E849BEE.7070003@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Opt-Out Notes: too complicated, ignoring history References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:01:02 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kee Hinckley wrote: > At 7:52 PM -0800 3/27/03, william@elan.net wrote: > >> The problem is that your proposal forces all forces the same >> settings on >> all users of the isp and does not make any distintion on type of UCE. It > Not to mention all the domains hosted by that mail server--even more > problematic with MXs. The whole world doesn't consist of ISPs and multiple-domain MTAs. Corporate and private domains need to be able to specify a choice. "No UBE" is corporate policy here. Indeed, much of the content UBE'd here would get the recipient in serious trouble if they actually took the UBE'er up on it. The recipients _don't_ have a choice. LEgally, neither do we. And even with ISPs, a UBE banner would trivially allow them to differentiate service levels, and a low pain migration path should be easy to specify. At the volumes we're seeing, the people who'd actually want take advantage of the choice of "unfiltered" are vanishingly small. Remember the choice here w.r.t. survival is between "controlling UBE" or preventing it outright. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 14:04:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA12565 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:04:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SJQQX31540 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:26:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SJQQO31537 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:26:26 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA12495; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:04:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SJDAO30745; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:13:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SJCGO30699 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:12:16 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA11859 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:49:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h2SIq7t13196; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:52:07 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: "Eric D. Williams" Cc: "'John R Levine'" , Brad Templeton , "william@elan.net" , "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Opt-Out Notes: too complicated, ignoring history Message-ID: <20030328185207.GB12619@main.templetons.com> References: <01C2F522.3BCF26C0.eric@infobro.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <01C2F522.3BCF26C0.eric@infobro.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:52:07 -0800 Russell Brand is working on building a list of all the proposed goals that have been discussed here. Nobody will agree with the complete set but there should be a core that can be found in it. This is a worthwhile project, in that I don't think you can take a real stab at solving a problem until you have a clear common view of what the problem is and what would constitute a solutions and what constraints (technical and philosophical and legal) there are on those solutions. However, it is fine in this group to bring forward possible solutions, debate and refine them, and see if they can be made to fit our goals. That include things like opt-out systems, policy-declaration banners and so on. However, it may be the case that in the final light, some of these may be judged wanting for not adequately meeting some of the goals that have been expressed, such as facilitating end-user choice, and not depending on limited jurisdictional laws. (This is not a USA-only organization, nor a USA only problem, after all.) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 14:09:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA12762 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:09:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SJVVq31686 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:31:31 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SJVVO31683 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:31:31 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA12729; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:09:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SJN4O31322; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:23:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SJMtO31290 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:22:55 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA12174 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:00:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18yuKG-0002QV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:55:20 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Opt-Out Notes: too complicated, ignoring history In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:01:02 EST." <3E849BEE.7070003@americasm01.nt.com> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:55:20 -0500 "Chris Lewis" wrote: > And even with ISPs, a UBE banner would trivially allow them to > differentiate service levels, and a low pain migration path should be > easy to specify. And no one is requiring that ISP's have the *same* UBE banner on all of their MTA's. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 14:24:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA13300 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:24:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SJkZR00610 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:46:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SJkZO00607 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:46:35 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA13287; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:24:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SJc5O32689; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:38:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SJbVO32651 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:37:31 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA12994 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:15:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h2SJHPY13616; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:17:25 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: John R Levine Cc: Brad Templeton , william@elan.net, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Opt-Out Notes: too complicated, ignoring history Message-ID: <20030328191724.GE12619@main.templetons.com> References: <20030328083240.GA2518@main.templetons.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:17:24 -0800 On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 01:30:16PM -0500, John R Levine wrote: > > > People can ask for any e-mail they want. That's a real and useful choice. > > > > Indeed, but not one in this protocol proposed. > I don't get it. People can already ask for all the bulk mail they want, > by signing up for newsletters and discussion groups. That part of the > e-mail infrastructure works fine, with or without adding NO UBE. Why is > it important or even useful to reinvent that? It isn't. But the context here is that we started with an open end-to-end, anybody-can-mail-anybody e-mail system, which is consistent both with deeply held philosophical principles as well as consensus IETF engineering principles. The spam problem forces us to look at limiting that, reluctantly. You seem to assume sometimes in this debate that people would not think this banner is the best solution because they think somebody wants spam. I've not run into anybody like that. I have, however, run into many people who believe that if E-mail is to be restricted, individuals should be the decision makers in how it is to be restricted. This is a part of the end to end design philosophy. But as you agree you are aware, every site would use this flag if it were what was available to them. So this is really not about providing users with choice on how their mail operates, but is in fact about setting a global network spam policy. And you may want a global network spam policy, but it's not consistent with that philosophy that I should be the master of my own mailbox. This may be a subtle point for some not used to the history of this sort of politics of technology. At the EFF we deal with it every day. The DRM battle is another perfect example. You try to avoid making global decisions for people on how their mail will be filtered. Now I am not against the ability to put up a "no UBE" or similar sign on my mailbox that might have similar legal force to a no trespassing sign on my gate. However, we don't have the mayor of the city put up a No Tresspassing sign at the entrance to the city, and tell people if they don't like the policy, they are free to move to another town. > Don't be silly. If you want to run a system that accepts all spam, or > uses some other scheme to decide what mail it'll accept, you can keep > doing so, and senders can keep sending it to you. Nothing here changes > the status quo for people who don't want to change their mail servers. Again, you bring up this straw man. I have not met anybody who wants spam (by their definition of spam.) I found it odd that somebody cited toad.com as a site that wants spam, clearly whoever that was has no knowledge of the situation there. There is no question on whether users want the ability to stop spam. The issue is how, from a technical standpoint, we will give them the tools to implement their own decisions on the matter. > > Users can already ask for all the mail they want, so the principle of > parsimony tells us that it's unwise to invent a new mechanism that > duplicates (badly) what they already have. Just about everybody agrees that we don't want any systems interfering with solicited mail. Our focus is on various forms of unsoclited mail. (With alas, different definitions of unsolicited.) Users are fare from one mind on that, however. In particular, as has been noted before, I, and literally millions of others, send unsolicited bulk e-mail. We do it to people we have met before, not to strangers. But some I speak to seem to strongly feel that simply meeting somebody is not a solicitation for them to send you e-mail. It's a quagmire. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 14:26:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA13365 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:26:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SJmPH00695 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:48:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SJmPO00692 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:48:25 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA13348; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:26:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SJf3O00385; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:41:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SJeaO00339 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:40:36 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA13082 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:18:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h2SJKV913669; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:20:31 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: Alan DeKok Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Unhelpful "helpful" solutions Message-ID: <20030328192031.GF12619@main.templetons.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:20:31 -0800 On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 07:53:09AM -0500, Alan DeKok wrote: > Can I ask the chair to remove this person from the mailing list? > > > From: tim@mailkey.com > ... > > > > The email you sent to me with the subject line as above has been rejected due to the fact that my email account is protected from SPAM by MailKey. You are not (yet) on my 'A-list' of approved senders, and the mail did not contain a valid MailKey. > > > > To successfully send the email to me, you need to obtain a MailKey from the MailKey website. > ... > > The service is free, is very easy, and should take less than 1 minute to use! > > Posting to the list should NOT be taken as an excuse to spam people > with advertisements for commercial services. > Actually, it might be interesting to draft an RFC that simply gathers together principles already established in other RFCs that might apply to anti-spam tools. For example, it looks like this user has violated the rule that says that autoresponders should not respond to mailing list mail, except for well-formatted bounces, which may cause the user to be removed from the list. Or did you get this when you replied to a mailing this person sent, and thus were sending mail directly to him? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 14:26:50 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA13383 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:26:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SJmhs00719 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:48:43 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SJmhO00716 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:48:43 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA13353; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:26:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SJf2O00369; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:41:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SJe5O00321 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:40:05 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA13072 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:17:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc01.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2SJHYMX017613 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:17:34 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:20:02 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Unhelpful "helpful" solutions MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:20:00 -0800 Looks like a Best Practices, or maybe a 'worst practices' draft is the answer here. We cannot affect the whole world but we can certainly police our own lists. It is very likely that others will follow our guidelines. This is how Netiquette evolves. There is a problem in that mail clients can't distinguish mail sent from MOST mailing lists. The ietf lists are different in that they do actually implement the List-Id feature so there is no excuse not to recognise that the email came from a list. These bounceback schemes are unacceptable and unscalable. In effect every person who subscribes creates a spam for every email they receive from someone not whitelisted. Even more anoying is the people like Dan Bernstein who send you a patronising message explaining that you were not important enough to be whitelisted. Email callback authentication is acceptable for mailing lists where it is done to protect the recipient. It is not acceptable for individuals to use it indiscriminately. It is possibly acceptable as a last resport for messages identified as being probable spam. For example a filter rates the probability of a mail being spam as 90% so the agent sends a response back saying 'the message you sent was identified as being 90% likely spam so we are checking just in case it is genuine'. People should not receive multiple callback messages from the same address. Whitelisting MUST be automatic. Phill > -----Original Message----- > From: Alan DeKok [mailto:aland@freeradius.org] > Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 7:53 AM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: [Asrg] Unhelpful "helpful" solutions > > > Can I ask the chair to remove this person from the mailing list? > > > From: tim@mailkey.com > ... > > > > The email you sent to me with the subject line as above has > been rejected due to the fact that my email account is > protected from SPAM by MailKey. You are not (yet) on my > 'A-list' of approved senders, and the mail did not contain a > valid MailKey. > > > > To successfully send the email to me, you need to obtain a > MailKey from the MailKey website. > ... > > The service is free, is very easy, and should take less > than 1 minute to use! > > Posting to the list should NOT be taken as an excuse to spam people > with advertisements for commercial services. > > Alan DeKok. > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 14:38:24 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA13951 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:38:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SK0Hv01452 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:00:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SK0HO01449 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:00:17 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA13942; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:37:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SJp5O00864; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:51:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SJhcO00506 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:43:38 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA13205; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:21:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2209432; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:23:34 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: To: asrg@ietf.org, asrg-admin@ietf.org From: Kee Hinckley Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Subject: [Asrg] Please remove tim@mailkey.com from the mailing list Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:23:19 -0500 I just got two of these. 1. I never sent mail to tim@mailkey.com. I've gone through my outbox. As far as I can tell this is a reply to mail he received from the list, incorrectly sent to the From instead of the Return-Path. I'd report the bug to the mailkey folks, but in order to contact them they force me to use their system. Why should I waste my time any more than I already have? Welcome to the fundmental flaw in challenge-response--it assumes that the sender cares more about sending than the receiver cares about receiving. 2. It's is nice that every once in a while someone joins the list and demonstrates the kind of broken adhoc solutions that we are here to try and prevent. 3. Love the all caps subject. It's so 70's. At 6:03 PM +0000 3/28/03, tim@mailkey.com wrote: >Return-Path: >Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:03:48 +0000 >X-Mailer: Chilkat ActiveX Mail Control (www.chilkatsoft.com) >To: nazgul@somewhere.com >From: tim@mailkey.com >Subject: RE:- RE: [ASRG] RE: ASRG DIGEST, VOL 1 #133 - 14 MSGS > >The email you sent to me with the subject line as above has been >rejected due to the fact that my email account is protected from >SPAM by MailKey. You are not (yet) on my 'A-list' of approved >senders, and the mail did not contain a valid MailKey. > >To successfully send the email to me, you need to obtain a MailKey >from the MailKey website. > >A MailKey is a short unique code which will allow the email to be >delivered you simply insert the MailKey anywhere in the subject >line, and re-send the email to me. > >The service is free, is very easy, and should take less than 1 minute to use! > >Please go to >http://www.mailkey.com/pklookup.aspx?to=tim@mailkey.com&from=nazgul@somewhere.com >to obtain the MailKey you need. > >To retrieve the email you sent please go to >http://www.mailkey.com/retrievebody.aspx?id=1596 > >If you want to use the free MailKey service to lock out SPAM from >your email account, or find out more about MailKey, please go to >http://www.mailkey.com -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 14:40:19 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA14000 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:40:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SK2DO01517 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:02:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SK2DO01514 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:02:13 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA13992; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:39:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SJs3O01119; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:54:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SJrQO01082 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:53:26 -0500 Received: from moebius2.Space.Net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id OAA13585 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:31:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 59510 invoked by uid 1013); 28 Mar 2003 19:33:23 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Asrg digest, Vol 1 #133 - 14 msgs Message-ID: <20030328203323.I24104@Space.Net> References: <20030327170006.31387.82863.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> <002801c2f495$ddbde7b0$3f6ca8c0@PRESTON> <20030328130320.A29840@Space.Net> <20030328154256.D24104@Space.Net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: ; from jlick@drivel.com on Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 08:30:42AM -0800 Organization: SpaceNet AG, Muenchen, Germany X-PGP-Fingerprint: 66 F3 75 79 01 D0 B8 5F 1A C7 77 88 4A B6 70 DF Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 20:33:23 +0100 On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 08:30:42AM -0800, James Lick wrote: > I'm probably not going to be able to convince you, but... :-)) > causes the spammers to increase their volume. But ultimately that volume > goes up whether we try blocking it or not. Are you suggesting we just > give up? No. What I'd like to have is a situation like with a desease (e.g. influenza). You can use some medicine to ease headache and another to ease cough, i.e. cure the symptoms. Or you can fight the virus causing all the problems at the root. > only highlight the fact that spammers cannot be considered ethical. > Whatever we can do to push them to expose this should be encouraged. Do you think there is one person on the Internet that uses email for longer than 3 month that is not aware of this? But - others do it and they don't go to jail, so why shouldn't I do it I suffer from them so they can also suffer a bit because of me. - ethics are fine, but if your company is bankrupt, because you are ethical and the unethical guy next door earns millions of dollars, how would you decide? How will 90% of the world population decide? And remember, it's sad, but spam really works :( So just pushing someone in the unethical corner won't help :-(( And: if a spammer is forced to use your email address to send out the crap because using totally faked ones is impossible, because we wanted him to expose that he is unethical, you'll wish he wasn't pushed that hard. I can sue him then, you'll want to argue, right? We're located in Germany. Our domain was abused. About 5 million bounces. A few hundred complaints that our abuse Team had to deal with. The spam was injected via dialup accounts in Mexico, Brasil and Argentina. The contact address is Power Publishing, P.O. Box 7138, North Port, FL 34287 What do you think the chances of any successful legal action are like? IANAL, but I'd say zero. There is no evidence that the above company is the originator of the spam. They could argue some competitor did it to mischief them. Case closed. \Maex -- SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0 Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 "The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 14:49:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA14424 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:49:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SKBP902742 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:11:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SKBOO02739 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:11:24 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA14418; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:48:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SJw6O01332; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:58:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SJvkO01259 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:57:46 -0500 Received: from moebius2.Space.Net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id OAA13868 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:35:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 59714 invoked by uid 1013); 28 Mar 2003 19:37:43 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Multiple overlapping solutions Message-ID: <20030328203743.J24104@Space.Net> References: <20030328154256.D24104@Space.Net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: ; from aland@freeradius.org on Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 07:00:09AM -0500 Organization: SpaceNet AG, Muenchen, Germany X-PGP-Fingerprint: 66 F3 75 79 01 D0 B8 5F 1A C7 77 88 4A B6 70 DF Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 20:37:43 +0100 On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 07:00:09AM -0500, Alan DeKok wrote: > None of these solutions are proposed in isolation. Can we please > STOP assuming that any solution will be the ONLY one implemented, and > attacking it based it's imperfections when used in isolation? The more different solutions you will need to work together "to make it work" the lower are the chances any of these will be adopted, because the migration pathes will be too complicated or even not working at all. \Maex -- SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0 Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 "The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 15:02:22 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA15172 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:02:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SKOHE03413 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:24:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SKOHO03410 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:24:17 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA15106; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:01:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SKLIO03203; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:21:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SKI2O03036 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:18:02 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA14650 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:55:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2209522; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:58:00 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20030328173200.9BD5A2B58C@mauve.rahul.net> References: <20030328173200.9BD5A2B58C@mauve.rahul.net> To: pattib@gammon.com From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] 7.c Mass Mailers, reliability, and lack thereof Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:53:10 -0500 At 9:31 AM -0800 3/28/03, pattib@gammon.com wrote: >How about the next tier? "We're providing you with this free service. >In exchange, you agree to let some of our buddies send you ads." Can >that be workable? While that email is generally less interesting to >the recipient, I think it can also be workable if it's done well. Does anyone do that well? (Just idly curious.) I got burned by Jackpot.com a little over a year ago. Someone signed up on their web site using my email address. Within a matter of minutes Jackpot had given my email address to a dozen affiliates who promptly started a barrage of email advertisements. The process was *not* reversible. Jackpot had no way to say, "Oops, we take that address back." I had to fight it out which each individual affiliate. My only payment for this pain? One of the affiliates lost their ISP account as a result. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 15:04:49 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA15439 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:04:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SKQhc03581 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:26:43 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SKQhO03578 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:26:43 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA15384; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:04:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SKO1O03313; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:24:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SKLoO03232 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:21:50 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA14898 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:59:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc01.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2SJxHMX023529; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:59:17 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:01:45 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Markus Stumpf'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: Asrg digest, Vol 1 #133 - 14 msgs MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:01:44 -0800 > It wouldn't even reduce the amount of spam. > Is it just me or why do I get the impression that a lot of > people think > that spammers are dumb idiots and that telling them "nanana, you can't > do this anymore" will change a thing? Lightweight authentication by IP address will reduce the amount of spam in the short term. In most part the same way that car alarms reduce the chance that YOUR car is the one stolen. > I am rather sure they are on this list and watch closely to > be prepared > and they are no idiots. Some are idiots, quite a lot in fact and yes it would be rather good if those millions of CDROMs with email addresses on started to become useless. > It shouldn't be too big a problem to combine pairs from their > databases > (just like a lot of outlook viruses already do from the addressbook) > and use the same ole algorithms. That is whay any authentication mechanism has to be set up so that it can progress from lightweight authentication on the sender IP address to more robust, cryptographic means. Eventually we are going to have to deploy DNSSEC or SSL mail certificates to defeat the bastards but we don't need to do that on day one to reduce the problem. > Have you ever asked them what they think about DUL? > What will they think about validating services or RMX? From my > experience 80% won't even understand what you are talking about. Clearly the distinction between Dial up lists ceases to have any utility once everyone is using DSL. Plenty of companies are legitimately using DSL to support mail servers. DSL has plenty of capacity for that task - heck not so long ago the whole of CERN had less bandwidth than my cable provider gives me for my house. There is an important point here, what appears to be expensive to geekdom can be cheap to businesses, what appears cheap can be very very expensive. In particular IETF solutions tend to view geek time as being free. There is perhaps even a conflict of interest here since many of the people who press for geek intensive solutions then go out to sell expensive consulting services. So proposing that someone use SSL and get a CA issued certificate for $350 is a no-no, but devising an obfusticated and complex protocol that requires many days of $2000/day consultancy is OK. Err... right. > I really don't know ... does hotmail, yahoo etc all provide SMTP > relay services or do you have to use their web interfaces? > If they don't provide SMTP relay there is also missing a solution for > the thousands of public mail service provider users that use those > addresses for this and that, from Internet cafes or from their > mailbox. The only mechanisms I can think of that is currently deployable for that application would be to either relay email through a hotmail SMTP relay (with appropriate authentication of course), or to issue the users with S/MIME certificates, probably as part of a 'premium account' package. Of course the volumes of the certificates involved would probably make the cost per cert pretty minor. [In cae you are wondering why I don't suggest PGP, well first, Hotmail and AOL are both parts of companies that produce S/MIME products so it is very unlikely they would support a competing spec, second the authentication model of PGP is not at all easy to automate for the customers who use Hotmail, Yahoo, Earthlink and AOL.] > We need a rather easy and widely adoptable solution or it won't work. Amen. > Also a solution that needs a "if you > support system > X it's nice, if you don't I'll take it too" is rather absurd. What is needed is a way for Hotmail to say 'we support system X, everything else should be rejected'. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 15:10:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA16396 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:10:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SKWaS03919 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:32:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SKWaO03916 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:32:36 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA16273; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:10:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SKU7O03774; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:30:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SKPMO03512 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:25:22 -0500 Received: from infobro.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id PAA15260 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:02:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:04:39 -0500 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:04:38 -0500 Message-ID: <01C2F53B.5A133900.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: Notes on Callback SMTP Transmission Organization: Information Brokers, Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:04:31 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit AMEN, It does not appear to address the fundamentals and is easily circumvented using easily implemented methods (not the least of which is exploiting relays and/or causing DoS to 'get revenge' on some poor unsuspecting user group. It is well thought through however and to me represents an attempt at addressing of a requirement. IMHO, a requirement that addresses (My requirement #1 in a later thread on this list): The proposal MUST address the issue of RFC821 [or envelope protocol] originating MTA/MUA authenticity. However, after reviewing the draft I would make the following points: + Some of the elements appear to mix RFC822 header functionality with RC821 envelope functionality, is this intended or just begging for yet another revision to 821? + The section 4.0 stuff is a bit mis-leading, errors in the message verification checks suggested (bogus verification checks) a client could potentially lead to loss of message, for instance a so-called bogus message verification token may have a name space collision with a valid message or with a message in 'transit'. What are the client validation message (so that the server does not arbitrarily drop messages on 'validation') envelope semantics, e.g. how does the server know the verifying client is the recipients client? Thanks, Eric On Friday, March 28, 2003 10:40 AM, David F. Skoll [SMTP:dfs@roaringpenguin.com] wrote: > > From: william@elan.net > > Subject: [Asrg] Notes on Callback SMTP Transmission > > > As promised I'm sending you notes on callback tranmission. This notes > > are similar format as verification notes I sent before and in fact I had > > them done together. > > Callback transmission is an interesting idea, but consider: > > 1 - NastySpammer sends millions of connections from thousands of 0wned hosts, > and suddenly poor victim gets a DDoS from all the callbacks from hosts > attempting to receive the purported mail. > > 2 - How does this fix open SMTP relays? An open SMTP relay will presumably > set itself as the host to call back. In fact, how does this interoperate > with SMTP relaying? > > -- > David. > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 15:22:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA17363 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:22:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SKiZx05420 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:44:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SKiZO05417 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:44:35 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA17330; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:22:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SKb2O04271; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:37:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SKVMO03855 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:31:22 -0500 Received: from infobro.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id PAA16011 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:08:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:11:16 -0500 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:11:14 -0500 Message-ID: <01C2F53C.465C6B60.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'asrg@ietf.org'" Cc: "'Dave Crocker'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] cost vs. benefit Organization: Information Brokers, Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:11:10 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks Dave. :-) I think the charter presents a fairly accurate framework. What I suggest is a requirements document, and you are of course (to me at least) articulating the exact reason for development of a Requirements statement. To that end let me include in this note the requirements I have cobbled together from this lists threads so far: Requirement 1) The proposal MUST address the issue of RFC821 [or envelope protocol] originating MTA/MUA authenticity. Requirement 2) The proposal SHOULD be amenable to legislation, in place or pending as close as possible. Requirement 3) The proposal MUST provide a flexibility for integration with other ANTI-SPAM (UBE/UCE) approaches [it shouldn't break anything]. Requirement 4) The proposal SHOULD provide implementation specifics that address the issues of privacy, security and which reflect end use choices, of either providers or users. Requirement 5) The proposal SHOULD/MAY [not sure how strong this would be as a requirement] include a mechanism for implementation in messaging relay systems (MX hosts), end use 'post offices' (MTAs), and end node mail recipient systems (MUAs). Proposals that include only one of these messaging system components MUST include mechanisms for interaction with the other components. Requirement 6) The proposal MAY include a method for extension to or integration with other protocols, e.g. HTTP, that may be used to relay messages. Requirement 7) The proposal SHOULD describe a working definition of Unsolicited, Solicited, Bulk and other terms used to describe messaging commonly referred to as SPAM. -e ----- Eric Williams PGP Public Key http://new.infobro.com/KeyServ/EricDWilliams.asc Finger Print: 1055 8AED 9783 2378 73EF 7B19 0544 A590 FF65 B789 On Friday, March 28, 2003 10:39 AM, Dave Crocker [SMTP:dhc@dcrocker.net] wrote: > Folks, > > wen> b. If at least some advertisers follow opt-out we should have > less > wen> mail unwanted email > > The above statement reflects a frequent orientation towards many > proposals that are offered. However it misses two, very basic issues: > > 1. Implementing and using a proposal is not free. It costs time, money > and effort. It can affect email infrastructure performance. It can > affect the user experience. So any proposal must balance these very-real > costs against the hoped-for benefits. > > 2. Barriers to adoption and use are key to the success of any proposal. > They need to be considered explicitly and realistically. > > If this group wants to be productive, it needs to develop a framework > for evaluating proposals that forces useful rigor onto the developers of > a proposal. > > d/ > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > Sunnyvale, CA USA , > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 15:23:06 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA17384 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:23:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SKj1I05447 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:45:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SKj1O05444 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:45:01 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA17359; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:22:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SKb3O04289; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:37:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SKVTO03867 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:31:29 -0500 Received: from earth.tc.umn.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA16026 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:09:03 -0500 (EST) Received: by earth.tc.umn.edu; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:11:20 -0600 From: Steven F Siirila To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'Markus Stumpf'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Asrg digest, Vol 1 #133 - 14 msgs Message-ID: <20030328201120.GC24992@earth.tc.umn.edu> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:11:20 -0600 On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 12:01:44PM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > > > Have you ever asked them what they think about DUL? > > What will they think about validating services or RMX? From my > > experience 80% won't even understand what you are talking about. > > Clearly the distinction between Dial up lists ceases to have > any utility once everyone is using DSL. Plenty of companies are > legitimately using DSL to support mail servers. DSL has plenty > of capacity for that task - heck not so long ago the whole of CERN > had less bandwidth than my cable provider gives me for my house. We block IP address ranges which are used for dialup/dynamic addresses. As far as we're concerned, if you don't have a static address for which we can reach you at Postmaster@[IPaddress] later on, you have no business sending us email from that address. Such users are told to route their email through their ISP or obtain a static IP address for their MTA. -- Steven F. Siirila Office: Lind Hall, Room 130B Internet Services E-mail: sfs@umn.edu Office of Information Technology Voice: (612) 626-0244 University of Minnesota _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 15:23:19 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA17402 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:23:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SKjE805482 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:45:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SKjDO05478 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:45:13 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA17379; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:22:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SKapO04179; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:36:51 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SKTeO03739 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:29:40 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA15759; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:07:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.57] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2SK9Xqd009704; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:09:37 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:09:33 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Kee Hinckley'" , asrg@ietf.org, asrg-admin@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Please remove tim@mailkey.com from the mailing list MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:09:30 -0800 No, not THE flaw, A flaw. Remember the challenge/response anti-spam house that decided to spam everyone they had sent a challenge to with a marketting message? > I just got two of these. > > 1. I never sent mail to tim@mailkey.com. I've gone through my > outbox. As far as I can tell this is a reply to mail he received > from the list, incorrectly sent to the From instead of the > Return-Path. I'd report the bug to the mailkey folks, but in order > to contact them they force me to use their system. Why should I > waste my time any more than I already have? Welcome to the > fundmental flaw in challenge-response--it assumes that the sender > cares more about sending than the receiver cares about receiving. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 15:27:53 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA17514 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:27:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SKnm105684 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:49:48 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SKnlO05681 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:49:47 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA17501; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:27:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SKd2O05123; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:39:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SKcIO05080 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:38:18 -0500 Received: from moebius2.Space.Net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id PAA17062 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:15:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 62259 invoked by uid 1013); 28 Mar 2003 20:18:14 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: Steven F Siirila Cc: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , "'Markus Stumpf'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Asrg digest, Vol 1 #133 - 14 msgs Message-ID: <20030328211814.K24104@Space.Net> References: <20030328201120.GC24992@earth.tc.umn.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20030328201120.GC24992@earth.tc.umn.edu>; from sfs@tc.umn.edu on Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 02:11:20PM -0600 Organization: SpaceNet AG, Muenchen, Germany X-PGP-Fingerprint: 66 F3 75 79 01 D0 B8 5F 1A C7 77 88 4A B6 70 DF Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 21:18:14 +0100 On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 02:11:20PM -0600, Steven F Siirila wrote: > As far as we're concerned, if you don't have a static address for which > we can reach you at Postmaster@[IPaddress] later on, you have no business > sending us email from that address. Such users are told to route their > email through their ISP or obtain a static IP address for their MTA. If the DSL provider charges extra bucks for use of their mailserver or doesn't have a mailserver at all and the client of a customer of yours (we're an ISP) tells your customer "manage to receive my email or I'll cancel the contract" what would you tell your customer? How many of your own customers can you afford to loose because of that? \Maex -- SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0 Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 "The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 15:29:20 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA17574 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:29:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SKpFL05781 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:51:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SKpFO05778 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:51:15 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA17542; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:28:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SKi2O05395; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:44:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SKhrO05376 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:43:53 -0500 Received: from earth.tc.umn.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA17312 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:21:27 -0500 (EST) Received: by earth.tc.umn.edu; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:23:49 -0600 From: Steven F Siirila To: Markus Stumpf Cc: Steven F Siirila , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Asrg digest, Vol 1 #133 - 14 msgs Message-ID: <20030328202349.GB25926@earth.tc.umn.edu> References: <20030328201120.GC24992@earth.tc.umn.edu> <20030328211814.K24104@Space.Net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030328211814.K24104@Space.Net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:23:49 -0600 On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 09:18:14PM +0100, Markus Stumpf wrote: > On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 02:11:20PM -0600, Steven F Siirila wrote: > > As far as we're concerned, if you don't have a static address for which > > we can reach you at Postmaster@[IPaddress] later on, you have no business > > sending us email from that address. Such users are told to route their > > email through their ISP or obtain a static IP address for their MTA. > > If the DSL provider charges extra bucks for use of their mailserver or > doesn't have a mailserver at all and the client of a customer of yours > (we're an ISP) tells your customer "manage to receive my email or I'll > cancel the contract" what would you tell your customer? > How many of your own customers can you afford to loose because of that? How many customers can we afford to lose if we continue to allow the huge amounts of spam that were coming in via dialups? ;-) As always, tradeoffs. Actually, we've had little to no complaints. Our user base is about 100,000. -- Steven F. Siirila Office: Lind Hall, Room 130B Internet Services E-mail: sfs@umn.edu Office of Information Technology Voice: (612) 626-0244 University of Minnesota _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 15:34:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA17711 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:34:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SKuTm05944 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:56:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SKuTO05941 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:56:29 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA17700; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:34:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SKm3O05595; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:48:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SKl3O05568 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:47:03 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA17435 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:24:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h2SKQs915122; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:26:54 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: Alan DeKok Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Opt-Out Notes: too complicated, ignoring history Message-ID: <20030328202653.GJ12619@main.templetons.com> References: <3E849BEE.7070003@americasm01.nt.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:26:53 -0800 On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 08:55:20AM -0500, Alan DeKok wrote: > "Chris Lewis" wrote: > > And even with ISPs, a UBE banner would trivially allow them to > > differentiate service levels, and a low pain migration path should be > > easy to specify. > > And no one is requiring that ISP's have the *same* UBE banner on all > of their MTA's. Yes, actually, that was what I believe he was proposing, a binary choice. Either a No UBE banner, or no banner. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 15:48:51 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA18152 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:48:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SLAkY07183 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:10:46 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SLAkO07180 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:10:46 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA18118; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:48:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SL8CO07067; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:08:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SL5hO06210 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:05:43 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA17974 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:43:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.57] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2SKjcqd015146; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:45:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:45:38 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Steven F Siirila'" , Markus Stumpf Cc: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: Asrg digest, Vol 1 #133 - 14 msgs MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:45:29 -0800 We need to get beyond mechansisms that rely on listing dialup blocks etc. There is simply too much hassle involved getting blocks listed and unlisted etc. Blacklists are not a cheap solution, maintaining them properly is very expensive. What happens when someone is assigned an IP block that has previously been identified as dialup? how do they even know the listing exists? Similar problems are being seen with the listing of IP blocks that were previously 'unassigned' and hijacked by spamers, now people are being assigned new IP blocks and finding that they are blacklisted before they ever send a mail. Complaint volume is not a good guide here, how does someone know why or even if you are blacklisting them? All they know is that there is a university with a faulty mail service. We need to move from these ad-hoc mechanisms to mechanisms that are not tied to ad-hoc assumptions about how the network works. My broadband DHCP address may in theory be 'dynamic' but it has been stable for the past two years. Lots of companies run mail servers off machines with DHCP addresses. The only Internet protocol that requires a static IP address is DNS. postmaster@IPaddress is never guaranteed to work. We move machines arround all the time. This email could go out via any one of a number of email servers that are hosted in completely different IP address blocks. The SMTP client tells the server which address it wants complaints sent to when it does the initial SMTP HELO command. Phill > -----Original Message----- > From: Steven F Siirila [mailto:sfs@tc.umn.edu] > Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 3:24 PM > To: Markus Stumpf > Cc: Steven F Siirila; Hallam-Baker, Phillip; asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Asrg digest, Vol 1 #133 - 14 msgs > > > On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 09:18:14PM +0100, Markus Stumpf wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 02:11:20PM -0600, Steven F Siirila wrote: > > > As far as we're concerned, if you don't have a static > address for which > > > we can reach you at Postmaster@[IPaddress] later on, you > have no business > > > sending us email from that address. Such users are told > to route their > > > email through their ISP or obtain a static IP address for > their MTA. > > > > If the DSL provider charges extra bucks for use of their > mailserver or > > doesn't have a mailserver at all and the client of a > customer of yours > > (we're an ISP) tells your customer "manage to receive my > email or I'll > > cancel the contract" what would you tell your customer? > > How many of your own customers can you afford to loose > because of that? > > How many customers can we afford to lose if we continue to > allow the huge > amounts of spam that were coming in via dialups? ;-) As > always, tradeoffs. > Actually, we've had little to no complaints. Our user base > is about 100,000. > -- > > Steven F. Siirila Office: Lind Hall, Room 130B > Internet Services E-mail: sfs@umn.edu > Office of Information Technology Voice: (612) 626-0244 > University of Minnesota > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 15:51:04 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA18220 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:51:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SLD0107285 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:13:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SLCxO07282 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:12:59 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA18207; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:50:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SLA2O07131; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:10:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SL9MO07099 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:09:22 -0500 Received: from aismtp4g.bellsouth.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA18079 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:46:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from 01al10015010061.ad.bls.com ([90.152.5.165] [90.152.5.165]) by aismtp4g.bellsouth.com with ESMTP; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:51:40 -0500 Received: by 01al10015010061.ad.bls.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:49:12 -0600 Message-Id: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D6EF@bremocag> From: "Sauer, Damon" To: "'Hallam-Baker, Phillip'" , "'Markus Stumpf'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: Asrg digest, Vol 1 #133 - 14 msgs MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:49:11 -0600 >> It wouldn't even reduce the amount of spam. >> Is it just me or why do I get the impression that a lot of >> people think >> that spammers are dumb idiots and that telling them "nanana, you can't >> do this anymore" will change a thing? >Lightweight authentication by IP address will reduce the amount >of spam in the short term. In most part the same way that car >alarms reduce the chance that YOUR car is the one stolen. --- I can tell you that when we added LDAP to our 821 process, the volume of spammers actually trying to make connections dropped by over 1/2 and has stayed down since Sept of last year. Real world example of just saying "nanana" actually reduces over-all spam connection load. Regards, Damon ***** "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers." _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 16:05:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA18704 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:05:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SLRDR07947 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:27:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SLRDO07944 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:27:13 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA18694; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:04:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SLJ4O07577; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:19:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SLGLO07433 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:16:21 -0500 Received: from earth.tc.umn.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA18317 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:53:49 -0500 (EST) Received: by earth.tc.umn.edu; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:56:12 -0600 From: Steven F Siirila To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'Steven F Siirila'" , Markus Stumpf , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Asrg digest, Vol 1 #133 - 14 msgs Message-ID: <20030328205612.GA28881@earth.tc.umn.edu> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:56:12 -0600 On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 12:45:29PM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > > We need to get beyond mechansisms that rely on listing > dialup blocks etc. There is simply too much hassle involved > getting blocks listed and unlisted etc. Blacklists are > not a cheap solution, maintaining them properly is very > expensive. What happens when someone is assigned an IP > block that has previously been identified as dialup? > how do they even know the listing exists? Similar problems > are being seen with the listing of IP blocks that were > previously 'unassigned' and hijacked by spamers, now > people are being assigned new IP blocks and finding that > they are blacklisted before they ever send a mail. I don't dispute the maintenance headaches with such lists. > Complaint volume is not a good guide here, how does someone > know why or even if you are blacklisting them? All they > know is that there is a university with a faulty mail service. Our rejection messages include a 550 with an embedded URL containing encrypted information where the user can go to find out why they were blocked and how they can request an override from our user. I guess the fact that we allow our users to override our default blocking is what allows us to be heavier-handed in the first place. > postmaster@IPaddress is never guaranteed to work. We move > machines arround all the time. This email could go out > via any one of a number of email servers that are hosted > in completely different IP address blocks. I had thought this was an RFC requirement. I could be wrong. > The SMTP client tells the server which address it wants > complaints sent to when it does the initial SMTP HELO > command. Now I know that is not standardized. How would I know that's what you meant by putting an IP address in the HELO? Most sites ignore the HELO parameter as it is really only a comment, strictly speaking. -- Steven F. Siirila Office: Lind Hall, Room 130B Internet Services E-mail: sfs@umn.edu Office of Information Technology Voice: (612) 626-0244 University of Minnesota _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 16:10:57 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA18975 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:10:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SLWrY08231 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:32:53 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SLWrO08228 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:32:53 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA18965; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:10:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SLODO07819; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:24:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SLNFO07770 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:23:15 -0500 Received: from backbone.midwestcs.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA18545 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:00:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from footbone.midwestcs.com ([206.222.212.237] helo=midwestcs.com) by backbone.midwestcs.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18z10C-00057C-00 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:03:04 -0600 To: asrg@ietf.org (IRTF Anti-Spam Research Group) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Blacklist blackmail References: <20030328100556.GD7089@esanlinux.kolumbus.fi> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: wayne In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lines: 33 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanner: exiscan *18z10C-00057C-00*cHJ/jGUzZOo* () Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 28 Mar 2003 15:03:03 -0600 In Kee Hinckley writes: > > I have seen the bounce message. The sender was at The World. The > receiver said he was using Osirusoft. Since Osirusoft's web site is > down, and I don't know their DNS lookup addresses, I'm afraid you're > on your own for the rest. I really don't think this is the place to discuss specific problems with specific blacklists (or other systems). However, in order to help diagnose a specific problem, I would need more details, such as the complete email of the bounce, including all headers. Osirusoft runs several different blocklists, so I would need to know exactly which blacklist the receiver is using. In particular, if the sender is using blocktest.osirusoft.com, then it is quite likely that The World is on the list. The Osirusoft website is not exactly down, but I have had to try about 10 times to get each web page. I was able to confirm that relays.osirusoft.com does not claim to use the blars DNSBL. You can read Osirusoft's FAQ webpage via googles cache at: http://216.239.39.100/search?q=cache:KPIM79Ow8X8C:relays.osirusoft.com/faq.html&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 In any case, making a claim that blacklists "are now" charging money to be added or removed from blacklists is not something that is new. Nor is this blackmail. Nor did you explain that the reason you posted your original email was because of a specific problem. -wayne _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 16:31:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA19672 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:31:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SLrRh09726 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:53:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SLrRO09723 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:53:27 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA19653; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:30:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SLjNO09431; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:45:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SLiiO09404 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:44:44 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA19410 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:22:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h2SLOaJ16240; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:24:36 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: "Eric D. Williams" Cc: "'asrg@ietf.org'" , "'Dave Crocker'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] cost vs. benefit Message-ID: <20030328212436.GK12619@main.templetons.com> References: <01C2F53C.465C6B60.eric@infobro.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <01C2F53C.465C6B60.eric@infobro.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:24:36 -0800 On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 03:11:10PM -0500, Eric D. Williams wrote: > Thanks Dave. :-) > > Requirement 1) The proposal MUST address the issue of RFC821 [or envelope > protocol] originating MTA/MUA authenticity. Hmm. I would venture that that is just one tool against spam, and not a necessary one. A working group on email authentication really is an independent issue. I would consider this a MAY, not a MUST. Again, this is an implementation approach, not a goal. Or rather, if SMTP envelope authentication is a goal in and of itself, it's not a goal of this RG, which is researching solutions to the spam problem. > > Requirement 2) The proposal SHOULD be amenable to legislation, in place or > pending as close as possible. Also a MAY. Legislation is inherently local. This is an international engineering body. We can provide tools to help a general legislative framework where it might exist, but we should not do anything specific to local laws like U.S. laws. And be very wary of "pending" legislation. There's always tons of "pending" legislation that doesn't have a snowball's chance of passing, and it would be a serious error to design protocols with any attention to it. > > Requirement 3) The proposal MUST provide a flexibility for integration with > other ANTI-SPAM (UBE/UCE) approaches [it shouldn't break anything]. It is required not to break any existing and adopted RFCs but I can see no reason why it should be constrained by various anti-spam tools out there. For example, there are now many challenge/response systems out there and I fully expect that any effort to standardize such activity (for example a new SMTP response) would possibly break some of them. > > Requirement 4) The proposal SHOULD provide implementation specifics that > address the issues of privacy, security and which reflect end use choices, of > either providers or users. Russell is working on a much more detailed list for debate of such goals and constraints which I am sure we will go over in detail. > > Requirement 5) The proposal SHOULD/MAY [not sure how strong this would be as a > requirement] include a mechanism for implementation in messaging relay systems > (MX hosts), end use 'post offices' (MTAs), and end node mail recipient systems > (MUAs). Proposals that include only one of these messaging system components > MUST include mechanisms for interaction with the other components. You're getting way to deep into implementation details for a statement of goals. The broad goal is that whatever is proposed should work within the context of existing mail transport mechanisms (which of course include MUAs, MTAs, outgoing relays and incoming relays) > > Requirement 6) The proposal MAY include a method for extension to or > integration with other protocols, e.g. HTTP, that may be used to relay > messages. Not sure what you are mean here. We MAY propose any system that will address the spam problem, of course. IS there something specific about HTTP you have in mind. > > Requirement 7) The proposal SHOULD describe a working definition of > Unsolicited, Solicited, Bulk and other terms used to describe messaging > commonly referred to as SPAM. An important goal for some applications, though based on experience, not one I think we'll accomplish. Indeed, any proposal that is of the form, "Mail which meets the [definition of spam] shall do this, or shall not do that" needs such a definition. Proposals that instead rely simply on new rules for bulk mail (which I think we can successfully define) could exist without a definition of spam itself. There are many components in the various definitions of spam out there, and proposals can be created to deal with these sub-components, and thus become tools for people to build tools to attack their vision of what spam is. Amongst those sub components are: Bulk(volume) vs. Person to Person Subscribed (Explicitly, directly solicited) vs. Unsubscribed Reply vs. Origination Existing Relationship vs. Stranger These are all components of spam definitions which we can work with without laying down a spam definition. Some other components much harder to define are: Parameters of implicit solicitation Degrees of existing relationship _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 16:32:13 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA19694 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:32:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SLsAp09763 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:54:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SLsAO09760 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:54:10 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA19688; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:31:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SLk6O09484; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:46:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SLjTO09440 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:45:29 -0500 Received: from esanlinux.kolumbus.fi (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA19424 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:23:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (uid 1000) by esanlinux.kolumbus.fi with local; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:25:23 +0200 From: Esa Laitinen To: IRTF Anti-Spam Research Group Subject: Re: [Asrg] Blacklist blackmail Message-ID: <20030328212523.GA27445@esanlinux.kolumbus.fi> References: <20030328100556.GD7089@esanlinux.kolumbus.fi> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:25:23 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 10:55:30AM -0500, Kee Hinckley wrote: > It's very odd that anytime anyone says anything negative about a > blacklist they promptly get accused of being loose with the facts. > Doesn't seem to happen on any other topic on this list. > > The World. 199.172.62.105. Do you think Barry's been spamming lately? Dunno. There are reports about spam coming from that address space (two from this year in NANAS). I don't know if they've been too busy (or unable) to deal with them (or some other, not mentioned in NANAS). The response from blars bl is 127.1.0.33, which indicates spam sending domain and hosting spammer web sites. I just wish blars gave more information about the listing. Currently that address is not listed in osirusoft as far as I can tell, but it is listed in blars, so I think the reference to osirusoft is false. I ran into a curious snippet of information: apparently Barry isn't too worried about a few false positives either, see http://www.internetweek.com/story/INW20021219S0003 QUOTE: "The one thing I won't do is spend a remaining minute of our time talking about false positives. If we all go down in blazes, I don't care any more," Shein said. Anyway, it seems that the listing is a bit extreme to my taste, but then again I don't have all the facts. But I would like to check into the mental state of a person that uses blars for blocking, after reading the listing criteria. > Of course, if we follow the typical course of these discussions, the > IP will no longer be on the blacklist, and you can tell me that I'm > wrong and that the message actually didn't bounce for that reason. Notice, I didn't claim that you're wrong ;-). But it is quite feasible that the message that the bounce has has an error (not the first time this has happened). -- "I'm really excited by George Bush's latest reason forbombing Iraq: he's running out of patience. And soam I! For some time now I've been really p1ssed offwith Mr Johnson, who lives a couple of doors down thestreet." http://radio.weblogs.com/0114406/2003/03/11.html YIM: reunaesa ICQ: 160631289 AIM: punkkinen MSN: esahi5@hotmail.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 16:33:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA19760 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:33:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SLtdW09820 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:55:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SLtdO09817 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:55:39 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA19724; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:33:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SLr1O09703; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:53:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SLq4O09647 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:52:04 -0500 Received: from infobro.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id QAA19606 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:29:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:31:22 -0500 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:31:20 -0500 Message-ID: <01C2F547.76AC1F30.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'Alan DeKok'" , "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 7.c Mass Mailers, reliability, and lack thereof Organization: Information Brokers, Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:31:10 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit A new requirement for the list from Alan (where the definition, criteria for 'legitimate' are covered by Req 7) > Spam solutions should affect 'legitimate' bulk emailers as little as > possible. Requirement 8) The proposal SHOULD NOT attempt to affect legitimate messaging system uses for bulk mailing. [This may also be covered by Req 3 but IMHO, this is more discreeet in the approach.] -e On Friday, March 28, 2003 7:14 AM, Alan DeKok [SMTP:aland@freeradius.org] wrote: > pattib@gammon.com wrote: > > Legit email marketers are pretty far away from the millions-of- > > addresses CDs ... They don't always follow anti-spam best > > practices, and sometimes they even screw up, but in general, legit > > email marketers will try pretty damned hard not to send mail to > > people who don't want it. > > The 'legitimaate' emails would appear to satisfy the following > criteria: > > a) send a lot of email > b) are willing to publicly state who they are, and why > they're sending the email > c) are willing to remove people from their lists > d) try to have only 'opt-in' lists > > > The amount of mail from bulk emailers who *don't* satisfy all of > those criteria is probably a thousand, to a million times worse than > the amount of mail from bulk emailers who do satisfy those criteria. > > Spam solutions should affect 'legitimate' bulk emailers as little as > possible. But if we can agree on that, the "problem" of email from > bulk emailers is so small that it's irrelevant to the discussion about > spam. > > Alan DeKok. > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 16:33:55 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA19781 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:33:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SLtqP09847 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:55:52 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SLtqO09844 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:55:52 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA19747; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:33:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SLq3O09641; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:52:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SLpeO09612 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:51:40 -0500 Received: from mail-out2.apple.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA19603 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:29:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailgate2.apple.com (A17-129-100-225.apple.com [17.129.100.225]) by mail-out2.apple.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2SLVZsJ001246 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:31:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from scv3.apple.com (scv3.apple.com) by mailgate2.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:31:33 -0800 Received: from plaidworks.com ([17.219.195.56]) by scv3.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h2SLVXd08460; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:31:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Unhelpful "helpful" solutions Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: asrg@ietf.org, Alan DeKok To: Brad Templeton From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <20030328192031.GF12619@main.templetons.com> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:31:28 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>> From: tim@mailkey.com >> > tools. For example, it looks like this user has violated the rule > that > says that autoresponders should not respond to mailing list mail, > except > for well-formatted bounces, which may cause the user to be removed > from the > list. > Worse. Mailkey is a service the user has subscribed to -- it's a whitelisting company, one of many that are springing up. So at some level, you can't blame the user unless you expect him to know the details of how the service operates. Blame the people who wrote it for not following basic protocols, when in fact their job is (or should be) knowing them and getting it right. free service, premium upgrades, and they own your email account, too. what a bargain. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 16:58:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA21030 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:58:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SMKer12335 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:20:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SMKeO12332 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:20:40 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA21026; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:58:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SMICO12123; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:18:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SMHTO12068 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:17:29 -0500 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk (argon.connect.org.uk [193.110.243.33]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA20938 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:55:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 18z1oN-0000K9-00; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 21:54:55 +0000 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Asrg] Proposal for Opt-Out To: "Kee Hinckley" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.4.13] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 193.195.0.101 Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 21:54:55 +0000 > >Consent Expression Component: This involves recipients expressing a > policy > >that gives consent or non-consent for certain types of communications" > > > >So it seems we will have to make these "recomendations". > > Absolutely. I'm saying that we should recommend against opt-out as > means of consent. There are other, much simpler, ways to define > consent. I'm not sure that "simpler" is the right word. Some of the possible applications of consent expression that have been mentioned in the group include opt-out, configuration of up-stream filters and (I'd add) opt-in. It's a key problem - I believe an explicit consent expression mechanism would be a significant *enabling* technology. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 17:01:58 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21096 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:01:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SMNtO12438 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:23:55 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SMNtO12435 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:23:55 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21084; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:01:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SMK6O12271; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:20:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SMJVO12182 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:19:31 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA21006 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:57:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2209836; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:59:24 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20030328203323.I24104@Space.Net> References: <20030327170006.31387.82863.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> <002801c2f495$ddbde7b0$3f6ca8c0@PRESTON> <20030328130320.A29840@Space.Net> <20030328154256.D24104@Space.Net> <20030328203323.I24104@Space.Net> To: Markus Stumpf From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Asrg digest, Vol 1 #133 - 14 msgs Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:37:43 -0500 At 8:33 PM +0100 3/28/03, Markus Stumpf wrote: >And: if a spammer is forced to use your email address to send out the crap >because using totally faked ones is impossible, because we wanted him to >expose that he is unethical, you'll wish he wasn't pushed that hard. The interesting thing from a historical perspective is that forging real email addresses and the domains of third-party companies is far *less* common that it used to be. The major ISPs still get a lot of it, but the days when it was some random company (or somewhere.com) seem to have stopped. Would they come back if we forced authentication? Maybe. But authentication solves a lot of other problems as well. Overall it sounds like a win if we can come up with a scaleable plan. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 17:02:06 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21125 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:02:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SMO3E12456 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:24:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SMO3O12453 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:24:03 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21090; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:01:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SMK4O12255; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:20:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SMJUO12178 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:19:30 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA21004 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:57:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2209835; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:59:23 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20030328195052.H24104@Space.Net> References: <20030327170006.31387.82863.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> <002801c2f495$ddbde7b0$3f6ca8c0@PRESTON> <20030328130320.A29840@Space.Net> <20030328195052.H24104@Space.Net> To: Markus Stumpf From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Asrg digest, Vol 1 #133 - 14 msgs Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:34:32 -0500 At 7:50 PM +0100 3/28/03, Markus Stumpf wrote: >On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 10:41:03AM -0500, Kee Hinckley wrote: >> I think most people have agreed on this list that address >> verification would be useful in preventing fake addresses. It >> wouldn't stop spam, but it would help stuff the spammers into a >> smaller box. > >It wouldn't even reduce the amount of spam. So? I repeat. "It would help stuff the spammers into a smaller box." Smaller box. Easier target for blocking. >Is it just me or why do I get the impression that a lot of people think >that spammers are dumb idiots and that telling them "nanana, you can't >do this anymore" will change a thing? That is not my impression of this list. >I am rather sure they are on this list and watch closely to be prepared >and they are no idiots. Yep. >It shouldn't be too big a problem to combine pairs from their databases >(just like a lot of outlook viruses already do from the addressbook) >and use the same ole algorithms. Yep. Already being done to some extent. One reason why from-whitelisting is a short term solution. >and what I am really missing in the scenarios are e.g. the thousands of >small companies on a dynamic DSL connection that depend on running their >own mailserver, because they are connected to "ISPs" that don't offer That's a flaw with IP-based solutions. As I said. The concept has support, the disagreement is with the implementation. >- think about universities ... will they set up validation mechanisms > for ten thousands of users? They already do. Bad addresses bounce. That's not because the accounts are delivered by the outside mail server. It's because the told the outside mail server what accounts were. But you are missing the main advantage of sender validation. It's not an advantage that helps fight spam immediately. But it *is* one that helps it get deployed. You don't have to deploy it if you don't care about people forging your domain. In other words--the cost of deployment is laid at the feet of the people who care most. >The more we burden the end user (and in this area small/medium companies >qualify as end user) the system will fail, because they won't go through >the hassle. And if they don't do it nobody will. As an ISP I can't change >to a system on 1.1.2004 that is used by 5% of all users and tell my >customers "too bad. And no it won't stop spam but it makes it harder, >and sorry that you cannot talk to your clients any more". And if there >are reasons ISPs can't (easily) migrate, they won't at all. I agree 100% with your deployment arguments. The majority of my messages to this list have been against systems with ridiculous deployment plans. I just don't understand what you consider cost. You are complaining about sender validation. Of all the proposals people have made here, it's one of the ones that has the *smallest* cost. If you don't think that's doable, what exactly do you consider manageable? -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 17:03:13 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21205 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:03:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SMPA412579 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:25:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SMPAO12576 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:25:10 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21174; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:02:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SMK9O12303; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:20:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SMJYO12190 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:19:34 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA21010 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:57:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2209840; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:59:27 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3E849BEE.7070003@americasm01.nt.com> References: <3E849BEE.7070003@americasm01.nt.com> To: "Chris Lewis" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Opt-Out Notes: too complicated, ignoring history Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:45:24 -0500 At 2:01 PM -0500 3/28/03, Chris Lewis wrote: >At the volumes we're seeing, the people who'd actually want take >advantage of the choice of "unfiltered" are vanishingly small. > >Remember the choice here w.r.t. survival is between "controlling >UBE" or preventing it outright. I've got it. Let's modify the SMTP RFC to require that the banner message reject UBE! -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 17:05:54 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21318 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:05:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SMRqr12725 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:27:52 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SMRpO12722 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:27:51 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21307; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:05:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SMK7O12287; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:20:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SMJWO12186 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:19:32 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA21008 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:57:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2209837; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:59:26 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: RE: [Asrg] Opt-Out Notes: too complicated, ignoring history Cc: "'Eric D. Williams'" , "'Brad Templeton'" , John R Levine , william@elan.net, asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:43:51 -0500 At 10:43 AM -0800 3/28/03, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >Slight difference to the wording. > >It should be clear what the person if opting out from. We don't have to >define spam, just the solicitations that they are opting out from. Doesn't that just lead to multiple email lists at the same company? "We know you opted out of information about our mail product. But this is our anti-virus mailing list. We thought you'd be interested in that." (To paraphrase a response I got from marketing at Sendmail when I flamed them. (And yes, later the techies apologized.)) -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 17:07:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21406 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:07:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SMTgg12816 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:29:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SMTgO12813 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:29:42 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21387; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:07:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SMK2O12235; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:20:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SMJRO12169 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:19:27 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA21001 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:56:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2209834; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:59:23 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20030328203743.J24104@Space.Net> References: <20030328154256.D24104@Space.Net> <20030328203743.J24104@Space.Net> To: Markus Stumpf From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Multiple overlapping solutions Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:25:25 -0500 At 8:37 PM +0100 3/28/03, Markus Stumpf wrote: >The more different solutions you will need to work together "to make it >work" the lower are the chances any of these will be adopted, because >the migration pathes will be too complicated or even not working at all. You're assuming that everybody has to install N solutions. It appears that the direction we are heading is: Everybody may install one instance of N different solution types. As to whether this will be adopted over replacing the system with something entirely new, I think the market has already spoken. Content filtering. DNSBLs. Custom blocking. Spam Traps. The market already *is* installing lots of migration patches. Because incremental changes, no matter how horrible from an architectural standpoint, are easier and safer (from a sysadmin standpoint) than wholesale change. This is especially true when there are competing solutions. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 17:11:04 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21574 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:11:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SMX1w13068 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:33:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SMX1O13065 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:33:01 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21531; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:10:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SMPMO12594; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:25:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SMOkO12519 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:24:46 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21160 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:02:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.57] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2SM4Zqd029330; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:04:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:04:35 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Kee Hinckley'" , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'Eric D. Williams'" , "'Brad Templeton'" , John R Levine , william@elan.net, asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Opt-Out Notes: too complicated, ignoring history MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:04:31 -0800 Not if the definition is set bu the maintainer of the opt-out list. There is no way that opt-out lists can work if I have to individually opt out of every list. I am not going to tell each of the List-kiddies who buy a cdrom individually that they can't send me spam. The key here is establishing mechanisms that ease the enforcement of laws. I don't expect that many of the garbage creators will take notice of the opt-out lists but courts will and until Ralsky leave the country and sells all his US assets he is subject to US law, regardless of where he hosts his servers. Phill > At 10:43 AM -0800 3/28/03, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > >Slight difference to the wording. > > > >It should be clear what the person if opting out from. We > don't have to > >define spam, just the solicitations that they are opting out from. > > Doesn't that just lead to multiple email lists at the same company? > "We know you opted out of information about our mail product. But > this is our anti-virus mailing list. We thought you'd be interested > in that." (To paraphrase a response I got from marketing at Sendmail > when I flamed them. (And yes, later the techies apologized.)) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 17:16:14 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21744 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:16:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SMcCa14082 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:38:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SMcBO14079 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:38:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21720; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:15:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SMX8O13103; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:33:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SMWLO13029 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:32:21 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21502 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:09:52 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2SMCFFD014860; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:12:15 -0500 Message-Id: <200303282212.h2SMCFFD014860@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.2 03/21/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Asrg digest, Vol 1 #133 - 14 msgs In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:45:29 PST." References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_-354795880P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:12:15 -0500 --==_Exmh_-354795880P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:45:29 PST, "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" said: > The only Internet protocol that requires a static IP > address is DNS. Even that isn't totally true. 2136 Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE). P. Vixie, Ed., S. Thomson, Y. Rekhter, J. Bound. April 1997. (Format: TXT=56354 bytes) (Updates RFC1035) (Updated by RFC3007) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD) Even the NS RR can point at a dunamic address if you play games with the TTL ;) --==_Exmh_-354795880P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+hMi/cC3lWbTT17ARAphwAKCQNRxkpdkFWN/z9P6Cq2tv936S9gCgxHPB j65gZrKW0nvQYgNJa1EEJww= =LkaC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_-354795880P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 17:24:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22023 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:24:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SMkXT14536 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:46:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SMkXO14533 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:46:33 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22013; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:24:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SMd4O14168; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:39:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SMcMO14103 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:38:22 -0500 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21727 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:15:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 18z2Ax-0002RV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 22:18:15 +0000 To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.4.13] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 193.195.0.101 Message-Id: Subject: [Asrg] Those Dang Subjects Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 22:18:15 +0000 Could those people who read the list digest *please* edit the subject of their replies so as to be meaningful? It's really doing my head in. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 17:27:08 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22072 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:27:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SMn6D14629 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:49:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SMn5O14626 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:49:05 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22064; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:26:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SMf2O14319; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:41:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SMeJO14279 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:40:19 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21828 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:17:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.57] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2SMKBqd001634; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:20:11 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:20:12 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'wayne'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Blacklist blackmail MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:20:10 -0800 >In any case, making a claim that blacklists "are now" charging money >to be added or removed from blacklists is not something that is new. >Nor is this blackmail. Nor did you explain that the reason you posted >your original email was because of a specific problem. I beleive that as a matter of law you are wrong. Extortion statues have been applied to behaviour of that precise type. If threaten to publish or continue publishing information about someone unless they pay you that is considered extortion under English Common Law and most US state laws. It does not matter whether the information is true or false. Specifically - http://resource.lawlinks.com/Content/Legal_Research/US_code/Title_18/title_1 8_41.htm CITE 18 USC Sec. 875 01/26/98 EXPCITE TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I - CRIMES CHAPTER 41 - EXTORTION AND THREATS (d) Whoever, with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to injure the property or reputation of the addressee or of another or the reputation of a deceased person or any threat to accuse the addressee or any other person of a crime, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. The precedent in the MAPS case against Media3 indicates that a blacklisting could injure the reputation of a party. Note that the refusal of an injunction in the MAPS case was on the degree of the injury being sufficient, not the fact of injury. Had the pleading established that the monetary damages were significant the injuction would probably have been issued on the reasoning given. So yes, this type of behavior is criminal extorition, whether or not the statement thrreatened is true or not. A blacklist cannot legally charge people for removal. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 18:02:14 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA23418 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:02:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SNODe17173 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:24:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SNOCO17170 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:24:12 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA23390; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:01:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SNGgO16425; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:16:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SMmZO14609 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:48:35 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22057 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:26:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.57] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2SMSSqd003579; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:28:28 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:28:29 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu'" , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: Asrg digest, Vol 1 #133 - 14 msgs MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:28:27 -0800 OK run a DNS server on a dynamic address. i don't think dynamic DNS is quite THAT dynamic yet. Phill > -----Original Message----- > From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu [mailto:Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu] > Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 5:12 PM > To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip > Cc: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Asrg digest, Vol 1 #133 - 14 msgs > > > On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:45:29 PST, "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" said: > > > The only Internet protocol that requires a static IP > > address is DNS. > > Even that isn't totally true. > > 2136 Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE). P. Vixie, > Ed., S. Thomson, Y. Rekhter, J. Bound. April 1997. > (Format: TXT=56354 > bytes) (Updates RFC1035) (Updated by RFC3007) (Status: PROPOSED > STANDARD) > > Even the NS RR can point at a dunamic address if you play > games with the TTL ;) > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 18:07:10 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA23907 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:07:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SNT9p17392 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:29:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SNT9O17389 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:29:09 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA23847; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:06:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SNKoO17005; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:20:50 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SN8xO16053 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:08:59 -0500 Received: from tom.iecc.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id RAA22589 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:46:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 28124 invoked from network); 28 Mar 2003 17:48:53 -0500 Received: (ofmipd 208.31.42.38); 28 Mar 2003 22:48:31 -0000 Message-ID: From: "John R Levine" To: "Kee Hinckley" Cc: "Anti Spam Research Group" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Opt-Out Notes: too complicated, ignoring history In-Reply-To: Cleverness: None detected MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 28 Mar 2003 17:48:53 -0500 > >It should be clear what the person if opting out from. We don't have to > >define spam, just the solicitations that they are opting out from. > > Doesn't that just lead to multiple email lists at the same company? > "We know you opted out of information about our mail product. But > this is our anti-virus mailing list. We thought you'd be interested > in that." Yes, it does. But if acquaintance spam were the worst problem we had to deal with, we'd be in pretty good shape. Companies who do that very often start getting responses along the line of "opt me out of every list you have, used to have, or ever will have because I'll never do business with you slimeballs again." I've certainly said that to Verisign, multiple times since they are chronically unable to manage their lists, and I know I'm far from the only one to do so. The significant spam problem is UBE from strangers, so it's probably more productive to focus on that. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 18:18:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA25242 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:18:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SNeVR19062 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:40:31 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SNeUO19059 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:40:30 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA25221; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:18:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SNVuO17620; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:31:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SNKMO16931 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:20:22 -0500 Received: from mail005.syd.optusnet.com.au (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA23076 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:57:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from co3001591-a.troy.rollo.name (c18374.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [210.49.142.222]) by mail005.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SN05M06410; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 10:00:05 +1100 Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20030329093933.0268b1a0@> X-Sender: (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , "'wayne'" , asrg@ietf.org From: Troy Rollo Subject: RE: [Asrg] Blacklist blackmail In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 10:00:04 +1100 At 14:20 28/03/03 -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >If threaten to publish or continue publishing information about >someone unless they pay you that is considered extortion under >English Common Law and most US state laws. It does not matter whether >the information is true or false. > >Specifically - > >http://resource.lawlinks.com/Content/Legal_Research/US_code/Title_18/title_1 >8_41.htm >CITE 18 USC Sec. 875 >01/26/98 >EXPCITE TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE > PART I - CRIMES > CHAPTER 41 - EXTORTION AND THREATS > (d) Whoever, with intent to extort from any person, firm, > association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value... This is not helpful since it requires a definition of "extort". There must be "intent to extort" for the provision to operate, which means that the provision itself does not assist in deciding what constitutes extortion. It is probably sufficient for present purposes to point out that the situation is not nearly as simple as you suggest. In offences related to larceny (which includes extortion other than perhaps extortion in public office), there is a particular defence of "claim of right", and in this case, you can even be mistaken about the law as long as you believed you had a legal right to what you are claiming. No doubt this defence could be argued. It's not a good idea for blacklists to make demands for payment for the "service" of removal, but it's not unambiguously illegal. -- Troy Rollo Chairman, CAUBE.AU asrg@troy.rollo.name Executive Director, iCAUCE _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 18:34:11 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA25531 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:34:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2SNuBv19657 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:56:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SNuBO19654 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:56:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA25522; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:33:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SNl9O19319; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:47:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SNkxO19300 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:46:59 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA25351 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:24:29 -0500 (EST) From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2SNQrFD016494 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:26:53 -0500 Message-Id: <200303282326.h2SNQrFD016494@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.2 03/21/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Unhelpful "helpful" solutions In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 28 Mar 2003 07:53:09 EST." References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_-337503136P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:26:52 -0500 --==_Exmh_-337503136P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 07:53:09 EST, Alan DeKok said: > Can I ask the chair to remove this person from the mailing list? > > > From: tim@mailkey.com While we're at it, can we pass the hat to hire a few people from to "explain" to the bozos responsible the concept of only sending *one* notice to each recipient, not one for each piece of mail??? ;) /Valdis (who just got ANOTHER one. Gaak) --==_Exmh_-337503136P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE+hNo8cC3lWbTT17ARAixeAKDGLQ2+gn2AlC0Alr95/qw6sSOh/gCfRQGJ hYwes1+oLAnxJWDgSjEemGU= =g/pN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_-337503136P-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 18:52:26 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA26049 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:52:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2T0ERD20983 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 19:14:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T0EQO20980 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 19:14:26 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA26040; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:51:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T075O20069; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 19:07:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T06BO19984 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 19:06:11 -0500 Received: from mail.enyo.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA25767 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:43:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from [212.9.189.171] (helo=deneb.enyo.de) by mail.enyo.de with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #2) id 18z3Xu-0001no-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:46:02 +0100 Received: from fw by deneb.enyo.de with local (Exim 3.34 #4) id 18z3Xu-00036M-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:46:02 +0100 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Unhelpful "helpful" solutions From: Florian Weimer In-Reply-To: <20030328192031.GF12619@main.templetons.com> (Brad Templeton's message of "Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:20:31 -0800") Message-ID: <87fzp7rr5x.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> User-Agent: Gnus/5.090017 (Oort Gnus v0.17) Emacs/21.2 (gnu/linux) References: <20030328192031.GF12619@main.templetons.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:46:02 +0100 Brad Templeton writes: > Actually, it might be interesting to draft an RFC that simply gathers together > principles already established in other RFCs that might apply to anti-spam > tools. For example, it looks like this user has violated the rule that > says that autoresponders should not respond to mailing list mail, except > for well-formatted bounces, which may cause the user to be removed from the > list. See draft-moore-auto-email-response-00.txt. I don't know what has become of it. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 19:16:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA26542 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 19:16:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2T0cX022409 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 19:38:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T0cXO22406 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 19:38:33 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA26528; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 19:16:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T0UGO21480; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 19:30:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T0TqO21456 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 19:29:52 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA26420 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 19:07:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc01.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2T07EMX026289 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:07:14 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:09:42 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Blacklist blackmail MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:09:39 -0800 > It is probably sufficient for present purposes to point out that the > situation is not nearly as simple as you suggest. OK you go ahead and try it and if you are right you don't go to jail. I think the point is made closely enough to justify calling this type of behavior 'extortion'. Particularly if you want to use the 'didn't know' defense:- > In offences related to > larceny (which includes extortion other than perhaps > extortion in public > office), there is a particular defence of "claim of right", > and in this > case, you can even be mistaken about the law as long as you > believed you > had a legal right to what you are claiming. No doubt this > defence could be > argued. In the UK the favorite dictum the courts like to repeat is that 'ignorance of the law is no excuse'. I think you are incorrect here as to the claim of right applicability, that would be if you thought you owned the good in question. It is unlikely this defense would be available if a letter was sent stating that 1) the listing is disagreed with on [specified] grounds and 2) any demands for payment for de-listing will be considered to be extortion demands. OK so you could claim you didn't believe the notice but the twinkie defense is about as likely to work. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 19:34:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA26762 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 19:34:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2T0ute22810 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 19:56:55 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T0utO22807 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 19:56:55 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA26752; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 19:34:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T0nDO22646; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 19:49:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T0m7O22623 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 19:48:07 -0500 Received: from mail015.syd.optusnet.com.au (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA26653 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 19:25:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from co3001591-a.troy.rollo.name (c18374.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [210.49.142.222]) by mail015.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T0RpH18356; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 11:27:51 +1100 Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20030329111424.026964c0@> X-Sender: (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , asrg@ietf.org From: Troy Rollo Subject: RE: [Asrg] Blacklist blackmail In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 11:27:50 +1100 At 16:09 28/03/03 -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >In the UK the favorite dictum the courts like to repeat is >that 'ignorance of the law is no excuse'. I think you are >incorrect here as to the claim of right applicability, >that would be if you thought you owned the good in question. The "claim of right" defence to larceny and related crimes is an exception to the "ignorantia juris quod quisque scire tenetur non excusat" maxim. >It is unlikely this defense would be available if a letter >was sent stating that 1) the listing is disagreed with on >[specified] grounds and 2) any demands for payment for >de-listing will be considered to be extortion demands. The person sending the letter can consider it whatever they like - it doesn't change how a court will view it. The only relevant mental state is that of the defendant. As I previously indicated, the behaviour impugned is not clearly criminal. That is not the same as saying it's clearly legal, or even as saying that it's clearly not criminal. To reach such a conclusion would require spending more time than I currently have at my disposal. -- Troy Rollo Chairman, CAUBE.AU asrg@troy.rollo.name Executive Director, iCAUCE _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 19:43:16 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA26831 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 19:43:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2T15Ff23012 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 20:05:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T15FO23009 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 20:05:15 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA26827; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 19:42:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T0w2O22856; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 19:58:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T0vZO22837 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 19:57:35 -0500 Received: from zeskia.int.eridani.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA26778 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 19:35:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (soruk@localhost) by zeskia.int.eridani.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.0) with ESMTP id h2T0bRX13317 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:37:27 GMT From: Michael McConnell X-X-Sender: soruk@zeskia.int.eridani.co.uk To: ASRG Subject: Re: Fwd: - RE: [ASRG] PROPOSAL FOR OPT-OUT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Organization: Eridani Star System MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:37:27 +0000 (GMT) On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > speaking of whitelists, someone doesn't have his set up properly for > this list (grin) > > of course, he probably won't get this one, either. An entirely capitals subject line probably didn't help either... (MailStripper picked up on that one, and swung the bias towards it being spam - though that is by no means its only consideration.) > Begin forwarded message: > > > From: tim@mailkey.com > > Date: Fri Mar 28, 2003 9:49:27 AM US/Pacific > > To: chuqui@plaidworks.com > > Subject: RE:- RE: [ASRG] PROPOSAL FOR OPT-OUT > > > > The email you sent to me with the subject line as above has been > > rejected due to the fact that my email account is protected from SPAM > > by MailKey. You are not (yet) on my 'A-list' of approved senders, > > and the mail did not contain a valid MailKey. > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > -- Michael "Soruk" McConnell Eridani Linux -- http://www.eridani.co.uk -- Linux Distros on CD-ROM MailStripper -- http://www.eridani.co.uk/MailStripper -- strips out spam ** A tachyon: A gluon that isn't dry yet. ** _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 20:12:20 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA27410 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 20:12:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2T1YKa24672 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 20:34:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T1YKO24669 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 20:34:20 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA27403; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 20:11:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T1QEO24460; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 20:26:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T1OrO24387 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 20:24:53 -0500 Received: from mr1.ima.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA27251 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 20:02:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.ima.com ([202.75.0.13]) by mr1.ima.com with ESMTP (IMA Internet Exchange 6.0) id 1d5996; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 08:58:36 +0800 Received: from banaue ([172.16.16.9]) by mail.ima.com with ESMTP (IMA Internet Exchange 6.0) id 106ab2; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 08:50:13 +0800 Message-ID: <00f101c2f58e$49a88fe0$091010ac@banaue> From: "Tim Kehres" To: "Vernon Schryver" , References: <02f001c2f512$eaf7ccc0$091010ac@banaue> <200303281518.h2SFIVCA001515@calcite.rhyolite.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Opt-Out Notes: too complicated, ignoring history MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 08:58:18 +0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Vernon, I'm not sure what your point is here. If you are trying to characterize me as a pro-spam activist, you have missed the mark by about 180 degrees. In my previous postings, and which I still contend, the way we use email has changed considerably over the years. What was perfectly acceptable 20, or hey, even 5 years ago is at best a grey area these days in many cases. The definition of what is acceptable, and to whom is a moving target. This is my point. There was even a message to this list in this thread today suggesting that list traffic a user deliberately signed up for could be considered spam or ube. Is this a valid definition for this? I suspect not, but who knows? One thing for sure is that several years back, there is no way that most would categorize it this way. Another point that I'm trying to drive home is that legislation, while it has its place, is not apt to help in this fight, for practical reasons. Again, please don't try to twist this into something it is not - I'm only trying to outline how simple legislation is to circumvent, hence the need for solutions that do not rely solely on it. In a separate message by Brad Templeton today, it was stated that identification of exactly what we are trying to solve here is necessary in order to get going properly. For me at least, this was one of the most positive statements I've seen. With it, I hope we can also define in concrete terms what at least we feel spam/ube is defined to be, so that we can minimize the effects of designing to a moving target. Can we move on from here? If not, and we need to has this out offline, just let me know - I'd hate to see misperceptions get in the way of moving forward. Regards, -- Tim ----- Original Message ----- From: "Vernon Schryver" To: Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 11:18 PM Subject: Re: [Asrg] Opt-Out Notes: too complicated, ignoring history > > From: "Tim Kehres" > > > I'm farily new to this list (but not the issues and problems),... > > See http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/objections/kehres.html > > > Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 20:42:51 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA28232 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 20:42:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2T24qA26416 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 21:04:52 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T24qO26413 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 21:04:52 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA28223; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 20:42:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T1vJO26144; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 20:57:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T1uAO26103 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 20:56:10 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA27907 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 20:33:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18z0SV-00009L-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:28:15 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Multiple overlapping solutions In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 28 Mar 2003 20:37:43 +0100." <20030328203743.J24104@Space.Net> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:28:15 -0500 Markus Stumpf wrote: > The more different solutions you will need to work together "to make it > work" the lower are the chances any of these will be adopted, because > the migration pathes will be too complicated or even not working at all. I understand. But we keep looking for magic solutions, we'll never get anywhere. Any solution, or set thereof, which can be demonstrated to work and to be less costly than current solutions will quickly gain wide-spread adoption. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 20:54:03 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA28411 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 20:54:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2T2G4427590 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 21:16:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T2G4O27587 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 21:16:04 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA28407; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 20:53:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T28AO27304; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 21:08:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T27OO27138 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 21:07:24 -0500 Received: from mr1.ima.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA28300 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 20:44:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.ima.com ([202.75.0.13]) by mr1.ima.com with ESMTP (IMA Internet Exchange 6.0) id 1d59c0; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 09:41:23 +0800 Received: from banaue ([172.16.16.9]) by mail.ima.com with ESMTP (IMA Internet Exchange 6.0) id 106b02; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 09:33:16 +0800 Message-ID: <014d01c2f594$4d7826c0$091010ac@banaue> From: "Tim Kehres" To: "Markus Stumpf" , References: <20030328154256.D24104@Space.Net> <20030328203743.J24104@Space.Net> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Multiple overlapping solutions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 09:41:22 +0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 07:00:09AM -0500, Alan DeKok wrote: > > None of these solutions are proposed in isolation. Can we please > > STOP assuming that any solution will be the ONLY one implemented, and > > attacking it based it's imperfections when used in isolation? > > The more different solutions you will need to work together "to make it > work" the lower are the chances any of these will be adopted, because > the migration pathes will be too complicated or even not working at all. > > \Maex I don't think this is necessarily the case. In fact, I don't personally believe that there is a single one solution that we can apply that will solve the entire problem. For instance, there are things you can do at SMTP connection time (reverse DNS validation, sender/recipient checks, and others that have been mentioned here). These types of checks simply are not practical after receipt. On the other hand, detailed header analysis, content analysis and filtering and such for most systems is not practical to perform during the SMTP session for performance reasons. I believe we have a farily complex problem here to solve. As with most such systems, breaking it down into smaller, more managible components, can often lead to a quicker and better solutions. And there is nothing to say that further down the road many of these smaller solutions can't be combined once the problems and their resolution are better understood. Best Regards, -- Tim _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 20:58:53 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA28504 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 20:58:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2T2Kti27728 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 21:20:55 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T2KtO27725 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 21:20:55 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA28489; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 20:58:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T2D2O27514; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 21:13:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T2C4O27498 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 21:12:04 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA28366 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 20:49:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.57] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2T1ppqd029249; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:51:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:51:52 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Tim Kehres'" , Vernon Schryver , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Opt-Out Notes: too complicated, ignoring history MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:51:50 -0800 > Another point that I'm trying to drive home is that > legislation, while it > has its place, is not apt to help in this fight, for > practical reasons. > Again, please don't try to twist this into something it is > not - I'm only > trying to outline how simple legislation is to circumvent, > hence the need > for solutions that do not rely solely on it. We know. However we would prefer the legislation that gets passed to be as useful as it can be and do as little damage as possible. The DMA is lobbying for pro-SPAM legislation under the guise of rationalizing state spam laws. I particular proposals that would force ISPs to accept any mail sent to them. I doubt any good spam legislation will be passed during a war but that is not going to stop someone trying to do the DMA a favor with a rider in committee. There have already been succefful civil actions against spam senders. A substantial amount of spam is sent by outright criminals and anti-spam laws provide a useful tool for investigators. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 21:13:26 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA28962 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 21:13:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2T2ZSp28179 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 21:35:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T2ZSO28176 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 21:35:28 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA28941; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 21:12:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T2S9O27967; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 21:28:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T2RNO27924 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 21:27:23 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA28666 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 21:04:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.57] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2T27Dqd001665 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:07:13 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:07:13 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: asrg@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [Asrg] More clueless spam bounces Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:07:10 -0800 More clueless bounces going on, tried to tell Troy that the only latin phrase understood in the US these days is 'oderint dum metuant' and I got bounced (see bellow) So why is this clueless, well troy just SENT me a message direct to me so why is the system now bouncing mails sent in response? OK I understand the architectural issue here and that the end-to-end ideology might mandate this type of behavior but the system is not working the way it should. BTW I don't mind if the IETF gives me a definitive statement 'we don't fix that type of stuff', just don't then go and complain when I find somewhere that does fix that sort of stuff and start modifying protocols in ways the IETF does not like. The original message was received at Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:33:07 -0800 (PST) from verisign.com [65.205.251.57] (may be forged) ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- (reason: 550 "We do not accept junk mail. Any attempt to bypass these filters constitutes acceptance of a $5000 fee per message.") ----- Transcript of session follows ----- ... while talking to troy.rollo.name.: >>> DATA <<< 550 "We do not accept junk mail. Any attempt to bypass these filters constitutes acceptance of a $5000 fee per message." 550 5.1.1 ... User unknown <<< 503 valid RCPT command must precede DATA _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 21:15:58 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA29012 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 21:15:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2T2c0529010 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 21:38:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T2c0O29007 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 21:38:00 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA29000; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 21:15:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T2U1O28020; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 21:30:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T2TQO27992 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 21:29:26 -0500 Received: from conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA28757 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 21:06:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from dialup-65.56.40.230.dial1.raleigh1.level3.net ([65.56.40.230] helo=darwin) by conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18z5mT-00025B-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:09:14 -0800 Message-ID: <008301c2f598$36844f30$0100000a@darwin> From: "Paul Tenny" To: References: <000f01c2f0b8$6ba7c140$5880bbd0@kit> <00d401c2f404$f97312f0$0100000a@darwin> Subject: Re: [Asrg] If You Don't Fix It, The Politicians Will MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 21:01:58 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Depends on how much is centralized. If you don't keep a central repository for logins, you could keep one for "registered" servers that follow guidelines, which would allow you to enforce things with them that are best standard practices. I didn't go any further than what I said because nobody seemed interested in discussing it. I'm happy to however, there's an entire world worth of possible options when working with a new system. Centalizing things isn't necessarily bad, and that's not neccesiarly exclusive. Filesharing networks found out that they can work if they are decentralized, but they work *better* with at least some coordination. I suspect the same goes for DNS, if you took away the root servers it'd be almost useless. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kee Hinckley" To: "Paul Tenny" Cc: Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 12:10 AM Subject: Re: [Asrg] If You Don't Fix It, The Politicians Will > At 9:02 PM -0500 3/26/03, Paul Tenny wrote: > >I have actually already suggested such a system. The only differences > >were it did not cost anything, and it was not run by a government. > > > >Reference: > >https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg01565.htm l > > Actually you don't seem to mention who would run it. However, what > you proposed was taking something that is currently highly > distributed and centralizing it. I don't think that's going to fly. > -- > Kee Hinckley > http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering > http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society > > I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept > responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate > everyone else's. > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 21:20:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA29065 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 21:20:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2T2gWD29163 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 21:42:32 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T2gVO29160 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 21:42:31 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA29054; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 21:19:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T2Z7O28149; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 21:35:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T2YaO28122 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 21:34:36 -0500 Received: from mr1.ima.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA28925 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 21:12:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.ima.com ([202.75.0.13]) by mr1.ima.com with ESMTP (IMA Internet Exchange 6.0) id 1d59f5; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 10:09:07 +0800 Received: from banaue ([172.16.16.9]) by mail.ima.com with ESMTP (IMA Internet Exchange 6.0) id 106b32; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 10:00:54 +0800 Message-ID: <016601c2f598$293ec990$091010ac@banaue> From: "Tim Kehres" To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , "'Steven F Siirila'" , "Markus Stumpf" Cc: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , References: Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Asrg digest, Vol 1 #133 - 14 msgs MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 10:08:59 +0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > We need to get beyond mechansisms that rely on listing > dialup blocks etc. There is simply too much hassle involved > getting blocks listed and unlisted etc. Blacklists are > not a cheap solution, maintaining them properly is very > expensive. What happens when someone is assigned an IP > block that has previously been identified as dialup? > how do they even know the listing exists? Similar problems > are being seen with the listing of IP blocks that were > previously 'unassigned' and hijacked by spamers, now > people are being assigned new IP blocks and finding that > they are blacklisted before they ever send a mail. Our home DSL connection has been blacklistsed for a few years now, along with other DSL networks the territory. Personally, given the cheap cost of such connections and the high penetration of such connections in the local community, I think that this is most likely a good thing. It was pretty simple to for us to determine this - when we originally configured our mail servers we got mail back saying we were denied because of the IP address which we originated from. It is a common problem here unfortunately. We have gotten around this problem here and on other networks in other countries by employing a combination of BSMTP for inbound and authenticated SMTP for outbound mail to our head office, effectively tunneling through the ISP. But that can be problematic as some ISP's are now also blocking OUTBOUND smtp from their dialup/DSL pools. I suspect that these numbers will rise as more get clued into trying to combat the spam problems originating from their networks. To add insult to injury, at least in this part of the world (Asia), getting connected with an ISP that provides reliable IP *AND* provides a reliable mail relay can be a daunting task. What you bring up is a significant problem that needs to be addressed. I'm not convinced that this is the right place for it however. On the other hand, it would not be the first time I was wrong... :-) > postmaster@IPaddress is never guaranteed to work. We move > machines arround all the time. This email could go out > via any one of a number of email servers that are hosted > in completely different IP address blocks. Exactly! Best Regards, -- Tim _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 22:06:59 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA29777 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 22:06:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2T3T3531219 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 22:29:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T3T2O31216 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 22:29:02 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA29772; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 22:06:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T3LNO30955; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 22:21:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T3KCO30905 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 22:20:12 -0500 Received: from mr1.ima.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA29617 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 21:57:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.ima.com ([202.75.0.13]) by mr1.ima.com with ESMTP (IMA Internet Exchange 6.0) id 1d5a3b; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 10:54:26 +0800 Received: from banaue ([172.16.16.9]) by mail.ima.com with ESMTP (IMA Internet Exchange 6.0) id 106b98; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 10:46:37 +0800 Message-ID: <01bd01c2f59e$8c6803a0$091010ac@banaue> From: "Tim Kehres" To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , "Vernon Schryver" , References: Subject: Re: [Asrg] Opt-Out Notes: too complicated, ignoring history MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 10:54:42 +0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > We know. However we would prefer the legislation that > gets passed to be as useful as it can be and do as little > damage as possible. The DMA is lobbying for pro-SPAM > legislation under the guise of rationalizing state > spam laws. I particular proposals that would force > ISPs to accept any mail sent to them. I see your point - I was thinking primarily about legislation aimed at the spammers, who most likely would be out of the jurisdiction of the laws, rather than the ISP and carriers that are inside. This indeed would be a very bad thing. > I doubt any good spam legislation will be passed during > a war but that is not going to stop someone trying to > do the DMA a favor with a rider in committee. I'd be more worried about the later - what better time than now to get something pushed through unnoticed? Best Regards, -- Tim _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 23:11:24 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA00883 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:11:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2T4XTQ01986 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:33:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T4XSO01983 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:33:28 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA00869; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:10:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T4UoO01824; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:30:50 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T4TlO01750 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:29:47 -0500 Received: from mail009.syd.optusnet.com.au (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA00834 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:07:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from co3001591-a.troy.rollo.name (c18374.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [210.49.142.222]) by mail009.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T49Nu15086; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:09:23 +1100 Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20030329150740.00bdb9c0@> X-Sender: (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , asrg@ietf.org From: Troy Rollo Subject: Re: [Asrg] More clueless spam bounces In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:09:20 +1100 At 18:07 28/03/03 -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >More clueless bounces going on, tried to tell Troy that the only >latin phrase understood in the US these days is 'oderint dum metuant' >and I got bounced (see bellow) It's not a "clueless bounce". It's a black listing. It's there because Verisign (your employer), is a spammer. Perhaps you are the clueless one for not realising this. -- Troy Rollo Chairman, CAUBE.AU asrg@troy.rollo.name Executive Director, iCAUCE _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 23:11:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA00903 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:11:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2T4XZV02002 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:33:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T4XZO01999 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:33:35 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA00875; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:10:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T4W3O01924; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:32:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T4UcO01811 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:30:38 -0500 Received: from infobro.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id XAA00848 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:08:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:00:00 -0500 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 22:59:53 -0500 Message-ID: <01C2F57D.BE9B2170.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'Brad Templeton'" Cc: "'John R Levine'" , "william@elan.net" , "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Opt-Out Notes: too complicated, ignoring history Organization: Information Brokers, Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 22:44:41 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I am glad that Russell is working on a list of goals, but what about requirements for a solution or a set of solutions that best leverage existing technologies? I look forward to seeing the list, and agree that it is a very worthwhile (I think you're understating Brad), however a do good list of goals will be IMHO a little shy of a clear baseline list of requirements, no? Also, I do not think a solution should ever be limited by any countries legal requirements, and that should in fact be considered during defining the broader set of goals (that is where the goals are best stated). However, I think a proposal for a solution MUST meet some baseline to even be considered and those requirements should be set out to clear the table of the chaff (those in the possible solution set v. those in the whole universe of solutions). my $.02 -e On Friday, March 28, 2003 1:52 PM, Brad Templeton [SMTP:brad@templetons.com] wrote: > > Russell Brand is working on building a list of all the proposed goals that > have been discussed here. Nobody will agree with the complete set but > there should be a core that can be found in it. This is a worthwhile > project, in that I don't think you can take a real stab at solving > a problem until you have a clear common view of what the problem is and > what would constitute a solutions and what constraints (technical and > philosophical and legal) there are on those solutions. > > However, it is fine in this group to bring forward possible solutions, debate > and refine them, and see if they can be made to fit our goals. That > include things like opt-out systems, policy-declaration banners and so on. > > However, it may be the case that in the final light, some of these may be > judged wanting for not adequately meeting some of the goals that have been > expressed, such as facilitating end-user choice, and not depending on > limited jurisdictional laws. (This is not a USA-only organization, nor a USA > only problem, after all.) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 23:11:58 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA00928 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:11:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2T4Y2f02038 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:34:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T4Y2O02035 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:34:02 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA00898; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:11:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T4W1O01892; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:32:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T4UaO01803 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:30:36 -0500 Received: from infobro.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id XAA00844 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:07:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 22:59:42 -0500 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 22:59:39 -0500 Message-ID: <01C2F57D.B5D9EB70.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'asrg@ietf.org'" , "'william@elan.net'" Subject: Requirements - was - RE: [Asrg] Proposal for Opt-Out Organization: Information Brokers, Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 22:04:00 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit William, I guess I did volunteer, so be it ;-). I would appreciate the forwards, thanks. More below... On Friday, March 28, 2003 10:34 AM, william@elan.net [SMTP:william@elan.net] wrote: > > This message I think presents a fundamental problem that I have not seen > > addressed (or at least referred to to-date) in the discussion, perhaps a > We have this on our "Work Items" list and nobody before did it. > I think you just volunteered - congrats and thank you! > > > reading of the archives is in order or a document archive contains such. > There were couple emails early on that I remember that contained > some kind of list of requirements. I'll try to find it out and send to you > and the list to help it out. > Again TIA. > > Requirement 1) The proposal MUST address the issue of RFC821 [or envelope > > protocol] originating MTA/MUA authenticity. > There is actually some difference between authenticity between MTAs and > authenticiy of origin (i.e. so that email headers are not forged). That > is why I put it as #1 & #2. I have to think a little bet to see if I can > find how to fraze requirement for my #2 below. That is why I included MUA, but I don't think message headers can be completely authenticated without signifigant changes to the infrastructure or an additional protocol implementation. If however, we can stipulate on 'authentication' of the originating MTA then we do come close on addressing later issues as in two below, e.g. origination of domains NOT valid for the originating MTAs IP or domain. For isntance we must recognize that the envelope MAIL FROM has nothing to do with the 822-header From: line, that is a simple fact. Not to mention the RCPT TO, I will work on it as a requirement statement and post a proposition. > > > 2. We provide means for mail servers to authenticate in such a way that > > > spammer can not easily change just their domain or their ip and begin > > > sending email again (they'd soon be detected and their mail server > > > blacklisted). > > > > See Requirement 1). > > > > > 3. Law outlaws sending unsolicited commercial email > > > > Requirement 2) The proposal SHOULD be amenable to legislation, in place or > > pending as close as possible. > Good. I don't like wording "pending as close as possible". Just "amenable > to legislation" is enough. I will work up some different wording or just drop the pending/in place. > > Requirement 3) The proposal MUST provide a flexibility for integration with > > > > other ANTI-SPAM (UBE/UCE) approaches [it shouldn't break anything]. > Ok with above Ok. > But there should be SEPARATE requirement that > "Proposal SHOULD NOT break existing email communication infrastructure" Done. > > Requirement 4) The proposal SHOULD provide implementation specifics that > > address the issues of privacy, security and which reflect end use choices, > > of > > either providers or users. > Make it "providers and end-users" Ok. How about MUST instead of SHOULD? > > Requirement 5) The proposal SHOULD/MAY [not sure how strong this would be as > > a > > requirement] include a mechanism for implementation in messaging relay > > systems > > (MX hosts), end use 'post offices' (MTAs), and end node mail recipient > > systems > > (MUAs). Proposals that include only one of these messaging system > > components > > MUST include mechanisms for interaction with the other components. > I'm ok with the above, I did not quite understand why it needed. I think it is needed for the following reasons: 1) We do not want to limit the proposals to a total solution for the problem, so I can change it to an 'either this, that, those or all' requirement statement. 2) If a proposal is a good one but only for a 'single component' of the messaging system (MS) then it should provide for interfaces to other interoperable (at least on paper and from the same requirement framework) solutions. 3) A solution may be for core components (MTAs/MXs) AND also provide a solution set for the final end-user component, BUT not give implementation specifics. This is what is needed I think as a statement to cover those contigencies. > > Requirement 6) The proposal MAY include a method for extension to or > > integration with other protocols, e.g. HTTP, that may be used to relay > > messages. > Because it says "MAY" this can not be part of the REQUIREMENTS. And I do > not see why fraze like that is needed. I agree. I will make a wish list to attach as an appendix or additional section to the requirements proper. > ---- > William Leibzon > Elan Communications Inc. > william@elan.net Regards, -e _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 23:12:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA00942 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:12:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2T4YAA02059 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:34:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T4YAO02056 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:34:10 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA00918; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:11:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T4W4O01948; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:32:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T4UdO01815 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:30:39 -0500 Received: from infobro.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id XAA00850 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:08:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:00:04 -0500 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:00:02 -0500 Message-ID: <01C2F57D.C391E1F0.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'David F. Skoll'" Cc: "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: Notes on Callback SMTP Transmission Organization: Information Brokers, Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 22:59:18 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit AMEN, It does not appear to address the fundamentals and is easily circumvented using easily implemented methods (not the least of which is exploiting relays and/or causing DoS to 'get revenge' on some poor unsuspecting user group. It is well thought through however and to me represents an attempt at addressing of a requirement. IMHO, a requirement that addresses (My requirement #1 in a later thread on this list): The proposal MUST address the issue of RFC821 [or envelope protocol] originating MTA/MUA authenticity. However, after reviewing the draft I would make the following points: + Some of the elements appear to mix RFC822 header functionality with RC821 envelope functionality, is this intended or just begging for yet another revision to 821? + The semantics seemed confusing to me. my $.02 -e On Friday, March 28, 2003 10:40 AM, David F. Skoll [SMTP:dfs@roaringpenguin.com] wrote: > > From: william@elan.net > > Subject: [Asrg] Notes on Callback SMTP Transmission > > > As promised I'm sending you notes on callback tranmission. This notes > > are similar format as verification notes I sent before and in fact I had > > them done together. > > Callback transmission is an interesting idea, but consider: > > 1 - NastySpammer sends millions of connections from thousands of 0wned hosts, > and suddenly poor victim gets a DDoS from all the callbacks from hosts > attempting to receive the purported mail. > > 2 - How does this fix open SMTP relays? An open SMTP relay will presumably > set itself as the host to call back. In fact, how does this interoperate > with SMTP relaying? > > -- > David. > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 23:12:22 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA00956 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:12:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2T4YRu02079 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:34:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T4YRO02076 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:34:27 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA00924; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:11:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T4W2O01908; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:32:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T4UbO01807 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:30:37 -0500 Received: from infobro.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id XAA00846 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:08:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 22:59:47 -0500 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 22:59:43 -0500 Message-ID: <01C2F57D.B8CB6610.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'John R Levine'" Cc: Brad Templeton , "william@elan.net" , "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Opt-Out Notes: too complicated, ignoring history Organization: Information Brokers, Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 22:05:34 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I agree there is tension but that should not mitigate the requirement or cause us to try to much compromise unless it can not be solved (which I think it can). -e On Friday, March 28, 2003 12:31 PM, John R Levine [SMTP:johnl@iecc.com] wrote: > > Requirement 2) The proposal SHOULD be amenable to legislation, in place or > > pending as close as possible. > > > > Requirement 4) The proposal SHOULD provide implementation specifics that > > address the issues of privacy, security and which reflect end use choices, > > of > > either providers or users. > > > > Is there some concurrence on this? > > Sure, so long as you realize there's some tension between the two. > > Regards, > John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for > Dummies", > Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer > Commissioner > "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 23:25:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA01201 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:25:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2T4lcn03255 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:47:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T4lbO03252 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:47:37 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA01189; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:25:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T4jwO03146; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:45:58 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T4iVO03086 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:44:31 -0500 Received: from plaidworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA01120 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:21:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.8/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h2T4O6ZQ024104; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 20:24:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] More clueless spam bounces Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , asrg@ietf.org To: Troy Rollo From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20030329150740.00bdb9c0@> Message-Id: <4745695B-619E-11D7-8191-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 20:24:05 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Friday, March 28, 2003, at 08:09 PM, Troy Rollo wrote: > It's not a "clueless bounce". It's a black listing. It's there because > Verisign (your employer), is a spammer. Perhaps you are the clueless > one for not realising this. > Imminent death of this list predicted. I'm selling tickets. Anyone want popcorn? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Mar 28 23:52:47 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA01536 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:52:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2T5Er204660 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:14:53 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T5ErO04657 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:14:53 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA01528; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:52:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T5D7O04636; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:13:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T5C9O04610 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:12:09 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA01492 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:49:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.57] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2T4psnn000821; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 20:51:54 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 20:51:54 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Troy Rollo'" , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] More clueless spam bounces MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 20:51:54 -0800 It is completely clueless of you to send email to people who you have on your bounce list. You have sent me three emails today directly to me, but you don't want to look at any replies? I would think that most people would recognise that there is a problem when this sort of thing happens... And as has been frequently pointed out, blacklisting does not indicate anything. SPEWS originally listed us because we chose an ISP they decided to dislike, or at least so what little notification they provided indicated. Heck, after pointing out how SPEWS carries on we are probably on that list for however long SPEWS survives. Phill > -----Original Message----- > From: Troy Rollo [mailto:asrg@troy.rollo.name] > Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 11:09 PM > To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip; asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] More clueless spam bounces > > > At 18:07 28/03/03 -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > >More clueless bounces going on, tried to tell Troy that the only > >latin phrase understood in the US these days is 'oderint dum metuant' > >and I got bounced (see bellow) > > It's not a "clueless bounce". It's a black listing. It's > there because > Verisign (your employer), is a spammer. Perhaps you are the > clueless one > for not realising this. > > -- > Troy Rollo Chairman, CAUBE.AU > asrg@troy.rollo.name Executive Director, iCAUCE > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 00:07:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA01710 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:07:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2T5Tce05135 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:29:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T5TcO05132 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:29:38 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA01695; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:07:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T5PAO05039; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:25:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T5OfO04971 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:24:41 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA01644 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:02:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2210626; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:04:30 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20030328205612.GA28881@earth.tc.umn.edu> References: <20030328205612.GA28881@earth.tc.umn.edu> To: Steven F Siirila From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Asrg digest, Vol 1 #133 - 14 msgs Cc: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , "'Steven F Siirila'" , Markus Stumpf , asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:00:36 -0500 At 2:56 PM -0600 3/28/03, Steven F Siirila wrote: >Our rejection messages include a 550 with an embedded URL containing >encrypted information where the user can go to find out why they were >blocked and how they can request an override from our user. I guess I have a bounce message that has several sentences in plain English telling the sender to stop sending email to the address in question. Yet it gets ignored by people. When I ask why (assuming that I can get the person to reply), the common response is: "I didn't recognize the sender (mailer-daemon), and I know I'm not supposed to open mail from people I don't know, so I deleted it." And you expect them to click on an encrypted URL? I think it works for you because you are a university. You're dealing with a user-base that tends to be more technical and less mission-critical. You aren't going to lose customers because of a block. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 00:07:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA01729 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:07:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2T5Tlr05151 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:29:47 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T5TlO05148 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:29:47 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA01700; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:07:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T5P8O05007; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:25:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T5OcO04963 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:24:38 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA01639 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:02:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2210621; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:04:27 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20030329111424.026964c0@> References: <4.3.1.2.20030329111424.026964c0@> To: Troy Rollo From: Kee Hinckley Subject: RE: [Asrg] Blacklist blackmail (NOT) Cc: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:39:14 -0500 Umm. I know I started this thread. But I don't really think it's productive for it to continue. I was simply trying to point out that BLs are not always part of the solution, they can be part of the problem, especially wrt false positives. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 00:07:57 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA01745 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:07:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2T5U3M05179 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:30:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T5U3O05176 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:30:03 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA01706; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:07:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T5P4O04991; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:25:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T5OaO04959 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:24:36 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA01636 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:01:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2210622; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:04:24 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200303282326.h2SNQrFD016494@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> References: <200303282326.h2SNQrFD016494@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Unhelpful "helpful" solutions Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:32:28 -0500 At 6:26 PM -0500 3/28/03, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: >While we're at it, can we pass the hat to hire a few people from ethnic extra-legal entrepreneur group here> to "explain" to the bozos >responsible the concept of only sending *one* notice to each recipient, >not one for each piece of mail??? ;) > >/Valdis (who just got ANOTHER one. Gaak) Yeah, well be thankful you don't post to this group as much as I do. I was actually pissed enough that I've gone to the trouble of getting a mailkey so that I can flame their support email address. (Which, by the way, they do not mail a mailto link on their site, although they do other addresses, and which they specifically say will take a long time to get a reply to... because of demand.) Here was the process. Go to web site. Click on Contact Page. Click on button indicating that you want to talk to them. Enter the email address to which you wish to talk, and the email address from which you will send (twice). On the next page you will see a graphic. Type in the result. On the next page you will be given a number. Send email to support@mailkey.com, with that number somewhere in the subject. In return for all of this work, I get the privilege of reporting several bugs to them. But the truth of the matter is that there is no way I was going to go to all of that trouble just to report that their software is buggy. (BTW, if you have them send one of your messages to you, the resultant email message has an introduction with typos.) The real reason I put up with the garbage was for the pleasure of telling them that they have done an excellent job of demonstrating to this group how *not* to write anti-spam software. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 00:08:04 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA01763 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:08:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2T5UBG05201 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:30:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T5UBO05198 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:30:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA01725; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:07:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T5P9O05023; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:25:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T5OfO04967 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:24:41 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA01642 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:02:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2210623; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:04:28 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: "Jon Kyme" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Opt-In (Was Re: [Asrg] Proposal for Opt-Out) Cc: "ASRG" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:53:42 -0500 At 9:54 PM +0000 3/28/03, Jon Kyme wrote: > > means of consent. There are other, much simpler, ways to define >> consent. > > >I'm not sure that "simpler" is the right word. Some of the possible >applications of consent expression that have been mentioned in the group >include opt-out, configuration of up-stream filters and (I'd add) opt-in. > >It's a key problem - I believe an explicit consent expression mechanism >would be a significant *enabling* technology. The most popular consent mechanism right now is straight opt-in. That requires no additional technology, but has serious problems with proof (anyone can type a random email address on a web site, and anyone often does). The most popular system mentioned in anti-spam circles is probably confirmed opt-in. That also doesn't require any special technology, but I think could be greatly improved by specifying a set of conventions. So let's try. Here's a first quick pass. User == person who has (in theory) requested email Provider == person who will be sending mail 1. User provides email address via some mechanism (phone, web, email...) 2. Provider stores that email address along with documentation of the mechanism. (E.g. date, address and mechanism). 3. Provider sends a brief message to the user stating the following (and only the following): - what they believe the user has consented too - documentation of the initial contact mechanism - an optional web address for confirming - a contact address (web/email and optionally phone) for complaints The message is sent From:/Reply-To: a confirmation address. The envelope From is set to a bounce handler. 4. If User does not not confirm by either replying (From/Reply-To) or clicking on the confirmation url within 30 days, the Provider does one of two things: a. If this is the only contact from User, they *delete* the email address from their database. (Not mark it as do-not send--but Delete it). (Counter point--maybe they should track it to avoid abuse, in which case they'd need to store it (or a hash)). b. If this is a request from an existing User, they mark that user as not wanting any further messages from this list. 5. If the user confirms that they do want the information, they store the confirmation. Possible addition (which requires more software). This relates to a proposal at the Spam Conference (by Praed I believe) that bulk mail should always provide a bonded contact where one can obtain proof of subscription. (This is akin to erotica having to have archives proofing all models were of legal age.) I wouldn't call this proposal something that requires "significant" technology. Most of the pieces are already there. Some list software already has the option of storing all confirmations. What it primarily defines is a process. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 00:08:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA01779 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:08:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2T5UYw05228 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:30:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T5UYO05225 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:30:34 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA01746; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:07:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T5T2O05110; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:29:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T5S3O05074 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:28:03 -0500 Received: from smtp.istop.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA01676 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:05:26 -0500 (EST) From: waltdnes@waltdnes.org Received: from waltdnes.org (ip245-165.tor.istop.com [66.11.165.245]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E74F536AA7 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:07:49 -0500 (EST) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:08:25 -0500 To: ASRG Subject: Re: 5c. Message Status - Re: [Asrg] ASRG work items Message-ID: <20030329050825.GA12226@m400> References: <200303270305.h2R35dca028024@calcite.rhyolite.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:08:25 -0500 On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 09:07:13AM +0000, Jon Kyme wrote [ ...Vernon said... ] > >It's a bad idea because saying "ok, you're ok but no thanks" will get > >you more spam. Any expression sent to almost any mass mailer, no > >matter how legitimate, is likely to be "checked," as in "6 months > >(weeks, days, or hours) ago you said you didn't want to hear everything > >from us. surely you've changed your mind?" [ ...Jon said... ] > Yes maybe - so they consult your consent again. > Is there some problem with this? Yes. It doesn't scale. Imagine several million businesses on this planet "just checking" with you every six months. I don't really see any difference between my inbox overflowing with a thousand spams per day or a thousand "requests-for-you-to-please-opt-in,-pretty-please". To summarize... I'd love to see a truly working "Global opt-out list" where I could say "No" once, and be done with bulk solicitions until such time as I log in and change my prefs. What I do *NOT* want is a system where I have to say "No, no, a thousand times no" every day. Even a system that generates 1000 requests per day that you can ignore is still mailbombing. -- Walter Dnes An infinite number of monkeys pounding away on keyboards will eventually produce a report showing that Windows is more secure, and has a lower TCO, than linux. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 00:16:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA01907 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:16:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2T5ccp06369 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:38:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T5ccO06366 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:38:38 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA01898; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:16:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T5bFO05835; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:37:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T5aEO05359 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:36:14 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA01826 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:13:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2210645; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:16:02 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20030329150740.00bdb9c0@> References: <4.3.1.2.20030329150740.00bdb9c0@> To: Troy Rollo From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] More clueless spam bounces Cc: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:13:57 -0500 At 3:09 PM +1100 3/29/03, Troy Rollo wrote: >At 18:07 28/03/03 -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >>More clueless bounces going on, tried to tell Troy that the only >>latin phrase understood in the US these days is 'oderint dum metuant' >>and I got bounced (see bellow) > >It's not a "clueless bounce". It's a black listing. It's there >because Verisign (your employer), is a spammer. Perhaps you are the >clueless one for not realising this. You know. It's responses like this that really make me understand why most of the ISPs I talk to hate the anti-spam organizations more than the spammers. Let's try two basic principals and work from there. 1. It is extremely rude to bounce email from people on this list. *Especially* people whom you have sent email to. If you have filters that might block email from people on this list, then whitelist the list. If you can't do that, then use a different address. (Can we put something like this on the list's web page?) 2. If you can't say something nice. Don't say anything at all. Sheesh. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 00:26:59 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA02038 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:26:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2T5n6906633 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:49:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T5n6O06630 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:49:06 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA02030; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:26:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T5m5O06599; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:48:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T5lFO06579 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:47:15 -0500 Received: from backbone.midwestcs.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA02004 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:24:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from footbone.midwestcs.com ([206.222.212.237] helo=midwestcs.com) by backbone.midwestcs.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18z8rn-0007if-00 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:26:55 -0600 To: asrg@ietf.org (IRTF Anti-Spam Research Group) Subject: Re: [Asrg] More clueless spam bounces References: <4745695B-619E-11D7-8191-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: wayne In-Reply-To: <4745695B-619E-11D7-8191-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Message-ID: Lines: 14 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanner: exiscan *18z8rn-0007if-00*pNhDUseQ4h2* () Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 28 Mar 2003 23:26:55 -0600 In <4745695B-619E-11D7-8191-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Chuq Von Rospach writes: > > Imminent death of this list predicted. I'm selling tickets. Anyone > want popcorn? *munch* *munch* The IP address that Phillip was using (verisign.com [65.205.251.57]) is listed in block.blars.org as 127.1.0.33. I guess Phillip now has a chance to test his legal theories. -wayne _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 00:29:13 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA02104 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:29:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2T5pK906731 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:51:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T5pKO06728 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:51:20 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA02095; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:28:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T5o2O06683; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:50:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T5nKO06648 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:49:20 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA02035 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:26:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2T5T0GW005331 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 22:29:00 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303290529.h2T5T0GW005331@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 7.c Mass Mailers, reliability, and lack thereof References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 22:29:00 -0700 (MST) > From: "Alan DeKok" > ... > The 'legitimaate' emails would appear to satisfy the following > criteria: > > a) send a lot of email > b) are willing to publicly state who they are, and why > they're sending the email > c) are willing to remove people from their lists > d) try to have only 'opt-in' lists > ... Would most Internet push advertising professionals consider Topica legitimate? I suspect so, in part because Topica uses the Habeas mark for some of their bulk mail. As far as I can tell Topica does not really satisfy (c)--at least not permanently. They certainly do not satisfy (d) for that part of their bulk mail that does not carry the Habeas mark. (I think I've fairly recent Topica spam in my logs that does not carry the Habeas mark.) > The amount of mail from bulk emailers who *don't* satisfy all of > those criteria is probably a thousand, to a million times worse than > the amount of mail from bulk emailers who do satisfy those criteria. > > Spam solutions should affect 'legitimate' bulk emailers as little as > possible. But if we can agree on that, the "problem" of email from > bulk emailers is so small that it's irrelevant to the discussion about > spam. Yes, but as far as I can tell, there are no major bulk mailers that satisfy all four of your criteria. Dell Computers is a poster child for this fact of life. Years after some owners of accounts @rhyolite.com dealt with Dell, opted-out of mail about special offers, and eventually cancelled their @rhyolite.com accounts, Dell started sending those accounts monthly "newsletters" about wonderfully cheap offers. Another example is Qwest. Every few weeks an account I created especially and gave Qwest repair a couple years ago is sent spam by "Qwest partners" flogging business data services. This drivel started about 18 months after the need for that account. I bet that each of the Fortune 5000 is guilty of this sort of thing. I'm not pointing this out to criticize the Qwest, Dell or any other marketing or sales professionals including even Topica, but only to establish a fact of life and human nature that contradicts assumptions or claims common in some areas. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 00:33:55 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA02234 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:33:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2T5u2s06958 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:56:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T5u2O06955 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:56:02 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA02216; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:33:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T5t4O06876; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:55:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T5sLO06817 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:54:21 -0500 Received: from smtp.istop.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA02182 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:31:43 -0500 (EST) From: waltdnes@waltdnes.org Received: from waltdnes.org (ip245-165.tor.istop.com [66.11.165.245]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 0540F36962 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:34:06 -0500 (EST) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:34:42 -0500 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Asrg digest, Vol 1 #133 - 14 msgs Message-ID: <20030329053442.GB12226@m400> References: <20030327170006.31387.82863.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> <002801c2f495$ddbde7b0$3f6ca8c0@PRESTON> <20030328130320.A29840@Space.Net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:34:42 -0500 On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 05:36:34AM -0800, James Lick wrote > On the other hand, I could use such a facility to automatically say > "no" to any address verification for pleasure.com, a domain of mine > which is frequently forged and which I never use on outgoing email. > Bingo, no more spam forged from that domain name. If yahoo, hotmail > and AOL deploy it, you can no longer just randomly generate forged > mail from that. To which, my response was going to be... > More serious aspects of such a system are that it may drive spammers > to forge spam from real addresses instead of fake, and that they > may use such facilities to do address verification or dictionary > attack harvesting. ..bingo. > I would also like to say that I am disappointed in a lot of the > criticisms of spam blocking/prevention techniques. A lot of people > are rejecting systems outright for having one or more flaws, when > the system can still be effective despite those flaws. Rather, > one should evaluate a system not on whether it can be circumvented, > but instead focus on the benefits of making things more difficult > for the spammers. Even if it is just a minor hassle to get around, > it is still causing pain for the spammers. Spammers *WILL* adapt. Spammers may have started off as primitive pond scum, but today they're highly evolved pond scum. If a system can be trivially circumvented, it *WILL* be circumvented. Here's where I disagree with you. You are evaluating a sample of spam in your inbox, and asking "How much will be blocked if I implement rule X?". I feel that you should also ask "How easy is it to circumvent without the consequence of reduced delivery of spam?". The blocking of anonymizing relays can be "circumvented" by not using them, but other avenues of delivery aren't as "good" from the spammer's viewpoint. Forging an existing address instead of a non-existing address is relatively easy. -- Walter Dnes An infinite number of monkeys pounding away on keyboards will eventually produce a report showing that Windows is more secure, and has a lower TCO, than linux. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 00:34:02 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA02253 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:34:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2T5u9B06974 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:56:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T5u9O06971 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:56:09 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA02221; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:33:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T5t9O06908; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:55:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T5suO06828 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:54:56 -0500 Received: from joy.songbird.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA02191 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:32:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from bbprime.brandenburg.com (208.184.79.252.songbird.com [208.184.79.252] (may be forged)) by joy.songbird.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T5YJ726837 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 21:34:19 -0800 From: Dave Crocker X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.63 Beta/6) Personal Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <61186118354.20030328213242@brandenburg.com> To: asrg@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] define spam Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 21:32:42 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Folks, This groups needs to settle on a single, precise, operational definition of "spam". A definition that permits objective, reliable tests for qualification. We might or might not be able to get software to make that assessment, but it at least needs to satisfy what the courts call objective. Unless and until we start treating this topic as a technical activity, we are certain to make no progress, and to consume quite a bit of bandwidth while doing it. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking Sunnyvale, CA USA , _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 00:34:13 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA02277 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:34:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2T5uKv06991 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:56:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T5uKO06988 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:56:20 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA02227; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:33:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T5tAO06924; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:55:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T5svO06832 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:54:57 -0500 Received: from joy.songbird.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA02194 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:32:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from bbprime.brandenburg.com (208.184.79.252.songbird.com [208.184.79.252] (may be forged)) by joy.songbird.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T5YI726834; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 21:34:18 -0800 From: Dave Crocker X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.63 Beta/6) Personal Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <159185930954.20030328212935@brandenburg.com> To: Vernon Schryver CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Opt-Out Notes: too complicated, ignoring history In-Reply-To: <200303281518.h2SFIVCA001515@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <02f001c2f512$eaf7ccc0$091010ac@banaue> <200303281518.h2SFIVCA001515@calcite.rhyolite.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 21:29:35 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Vernon, >> I'm farily new to this list (but not the issues and problems),... VS> See... Vernon -- do you have a response that pertains to the actual content of Tim's posting? No doubt there is a scenario that Tim could initiate that would make it important to know what you think of his past behavior, but I don't see how it relates to the content of his current posting. If we are going to run a discussion where each participant gets to say why we should discount each other poster, because of their deficient character, past sins, or bad style of dress, we are not going to operate very productively. d/ ps. I am sending this as a matter of general principle, but it also happens that I thought the content of Tim's note was pragmatic and useful. -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking Sunnyvale, CA USA , _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 00:34:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA02296 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:34:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2T5ua107018 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:56:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T5uaO07015 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:56:36 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA02249; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:33:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T5t8O06892; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:55:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T5srO06824 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:54:53 -0500 Received: from joy.songbird.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA02188 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:32:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from bbprime.brandenburg.com (208.184.79.252.songbird.com [208.184.79.252] (may be forged)) by joy.songbird.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T5YG726829; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 21:34:16 -0800 From: Dave Crocker X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.63 Beta/6) Personal Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <33185217849.20030328211742@brandenburg.com> To: "Eric D. Williams" CC: "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] cost vs. benefit In-Reply-To: <01C2F53C.465C6B60.eric@infobro.com> References: <01C2F53C.465C6B60.eric@infobro.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 21:17:42 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The list of requirements reminds me just how difficult it is to write requirements. They need to talk in terms of high-level behavior of the system, rather than providing requirements for implementation details. Therefore they need to be general. However if they are too general, they have no meaning. My following comments are not intended to claim or demonstrate that any of your suggested requirements are wrong. (In fact, some of the questions will seem remarkably basis; that's intentional.) I think your list provides a fertile ground for trying to understand what the requirements need to achieve, and on what basis: EDW> Requirement 1) The proposal MUST address the issue of RFC821 [or envelope EDW> protocol] originating MTA/MUA authenticity. You wish to have mechanisms for authentication. Why at the MUA/MTA level? What problem is this solving? Why at the envelope or transfer protocol level, rather than some other, such as content signature? EDW> Requirement 2) The proposal SHOULD be amenable to legislation, in place or EDW> pending as close as possible. As noted, legislation has a minor problem of scope. US laws will not affect a spammer from another country. To the extent that anyone thinks we can enforce the laws of one country on another, we need to assume that none of this will happen anytime soon and possibly not in our lifetime. In any event, we again need to state what problem we see this as solving and what limitations we expect to encounter. EDW> Requirement 3) The proposal MUST provide a flexibility for integration with EDW> other ANTI-SPAM (UBE/UCE) approaches [it shouldn't break anything]. I have no idea what to do with the requirement, at any practical level. There are no standards for email spam suppression, so there is no formal basis for knowing what we might break or must not break. EDW> Requirement 4) The proposal SHOULD provide implementation specifics that EDW> address the issues of privacy, security and which reflect end use choices, of EDW> either providers or users. Again, I have no idea what any of this means. I can't even guess how to apply it to specific work. EDW> Requirement 5) The proposal SHOULD/MAY [not sure how strong this would be as a EDW> requirement] include a mechanism for implementation in messaging relay systems EDW> (MX hosts), end use 'post offices' (MTAs), and end node mail recipient systems EDW> (MUAs). Proposals that include only one of these messaging system components EDW> MUST include mechanisms for interaction with the other components. Please clarify what you mean by "a mechanism for implementation in...". I am guessing you are looking for a system-wide perspective in any specific proposal, but I might be misunderstanding. EDW> Requirement 6) The proposal MAY include a method for extension to or EDW> integration with other protocols, e.g. HTTP, that may be used to relay EDW> messages. Why is this a requirement? What is the concern? EDW> Requirement 7) The proposal SHOULD describe a working definition of EDW> Unsolicited, Solicited, Bulk and other terms used to describe messaging EDW> commonly referred to as SPAM. amen, except that I class precise definitions as a MUST. right now, spam is whatever you choose to define it as, or I choose, or... d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking Sunnyvale, CA USA , _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 00:34:54 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA02311 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:34:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2T5v1t07050 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:57:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T5v1O07047 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:57:01 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA02292; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:34:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T5u1O06947; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:56:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T5tRO06933 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:55:27 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA02199 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:32:49 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2T3jHuY011960; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 19:45:17 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2T3jH2k011956; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 19:45:17 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: "Eric D. Williams" cc: "'David F. Skoll'" , "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: Notes on Callback SMTP Transmission In-Reply-To: <01C2F57D.C391E1F0.eric@infobro.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 19:45:17 -0800 (PST) Callback is not intended to be used by itself as a solution. As with most of my notes, they are intermediate step when I'm evaluating ideas, I look at good and bad in each one and look at more general idea, then I try to mix several ones keeping good and eliminating bad points. So what you saw in notes are more like bricks or building blocks that could be used in the actual proposal. The reason why I posted callback notes is because it has not been considered or discussed before and I did promise two weeks ago to send you these notes (when I sent verification notes). My actual proposal is based on message tracking verification and its briefly described in last two pages of the presentation I'v already posted multiple times, the proposal would verify both 822 header and 821 envelope (actually as you'll see pretty in one other draft soon I'll try to minimize the distinction). Now the answers for callback are below inline > AMEN, > > It does not appear to address the fundamentals Callback is by design design to provide MTA<->MTA verification which is envelope (not headers which is most users see). > and is easily circumvented using > easily implemented methods (not the least of which is exploiting relays Relays can exist but can not be exploited with callback, same for proxies. These are some of the good points that are solved. > and/or causing DoS to 'get revenge' on some poor unsuspecting user > group. Possibbility of DoS is a problem and has to be looked at seriously. > It is well > thought through however and to me represents an attempt at addressing of a > requirement. IMHO, a requirement that addresses (My requirement #1 in > a later thread on this list): > > > The proposal MUST address the issue of RFC821 [or envelope protocol] > originating MTA/MUA authenticity. > > However, after reviewing the draft I would make the following points: > > + Some of the elements appear to mix RFC822 header functionality with RC821 > envelope functionality, is this intended or just begging for yet another > revision to 821? Because of the way callback works it can not address headers and only verifies envelope. The MAIL FROM is from ENVELOPE by design - not from headers. Its absolutly true that most users will see forged headers and consider what is listed in "From:" header to be the sender and this issue must be addressed, just focusing on MAIL FROM is not a solution to spam (which is one of my objections to RMX, other being that it breaks mailing lists). > + The semantics seemed confusing to me. > > > my $.02 > > -e > > > On Friday, March 28, 2003 10:40 AM, David F. Skoll > [SMTP:dfs@roaringpenguin.com] wrote: > > > From: william@elan.net > > > Subject: [Asrg] Notes on Callback SMTP Transmission > > > > > As promised I'm sending you notes on callback tranmission. This notes > > > are similar format as verification notes I sent before and in fact I had > > > them done together. > > > > Callback transmission is an interesting idea, but consider: > > > > 1 - NastySpammer sends millions of connections from thousands of 0wned hosts, > > and suddenly poor victim gets a DDoS from all the callbacks from hosts > > attempting to receive the purported mail. > > > > 2 - How does this fix open SMTP relays? An open SMTP relay will presumably > > set itself as the host to call back. In fact, how does this interoperate > > with SMTP relaying? > > > > -- > > David. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Asrg mailing list > > Asrg@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 00:39:19 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA02363 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:39:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2T61Q207206 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 01:01:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T61QO07203 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 01:01:26 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA02359; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:38:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T5v2O07069; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:57:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T5uSO07007 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:56:28 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA02232 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:33:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2T5aDei006151 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 22:36:13 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303290536.h2T5aDei006151@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: Fwd: - RE: [ASRG] PROPOSAL FOR OPT-OUT References: <200303281820.h2SIKvFD011378@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 22:36:13 -0700 (MST) > From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu > > speaking of whitelists, someone doesn't have his set up properly for > > this list (grin) > > > > of course, he probably won't get this one, either. > > Somebody needs to record the URL of the original msg to the list, so we can > reference it the next time somebody things whitelists are the best thing >since sliced bread and will cure AIDS, the common cold, cancer, and blackheads. > > :) That might be a good point if this nonsense were the only thing that is commonly and reasonably called a "whitelist." It's not, but is instead some kind of challenge-response probably supplemented with a whitelist. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 00:40:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA02384 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:40:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2T62iL07231 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 01:02:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T62hO07228 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 01:02:43 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA02380; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:40:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T614O07192; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 01:01:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T60qO07163 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 01:00:52 -0500 Received: from mail009.syd.optusnet.com.au (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA02352 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:38:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from co3001591-a.troy.rollo.name (c18374.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [210.49.142.222]) by mail009.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T5eRu18610; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:40:28 +1100 Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20030329163805.026a7290@mail> X-Sender: (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 To: Kee Hinckley From: Troy Rollo Subject: Re: [Asrg] More clueless spam bounces Cc: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.1.2.20030329150740.00bdb9c0@> <4.3.1.2.20030329150740.00bdb9c0@> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:40:26 +1100 At 00:13 29/03/03 -0500, Kee Hinckley wrote: >At 3:09 PM +1100 3/29/03, Troy Rollo wrote: >>At 18:07 28/03/03 -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >>>More clueless bounces going on.. >> >>... Perhaps you are the clueless one for not realising this. > >You know. It's responses like this that really make me understand why >most of the ISPs I talk to hate the anti-spam organizations more than the >spammers. Actually, it was rather restrained given that the quoted provocation. >1. It is extremely rude to bounce email from people on this list. >*Especially* people whom you have sent email to. If you have filters that >might block email from people on this list, then whitelist the list. The filter doesn't block email from the list. It blocks on other criteria that would not affect list traffic. >2. If you can't say something nice. Don't say anything at all. All things considered, that *was* the nice version. -- Troy Rollo Chairman, CAUBE.AU asrg@troy.rollo.name Executive Director, iCAUCE _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 00:49:09 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA02483 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:49:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2T6BGE08229 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 01:11:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T6BGO08226 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 01:11:16 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA02476; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:48:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T6A6O08184; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 01:10:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T69DO08150 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 01:09:13 -0500 Received: from mail024.syd.optusnet.com.au (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA02443 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:46:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from co3001591-a.troy.rollo.name (c18374.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [210.49.142.222]) by mail024.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T5mq518907; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:48:52 +1100 Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20030329164120.026a5990@> X-Sender: (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , asrg@ietf.org From: Troy Rollo Subject: RE: [Asrg] More clueless spam bounces In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:48:52 +1100 At 20:51 28/03/03 -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >It is completely clueless of you to send email to people who >you have on your bounce list. You have sent me three emails >today directly to me, but you don't want to look at any replies? Ah, I see. You define "clueless" as "things Phillip Hallam-Baker doesn't like". Call it rude, if you like, but calling it clueless is baseless idiocy (by the way, this is still polite compared to the response your original accusation deserved - want to try to ratchet it up again?). I know the consequences of my choice, and that's the way I want it to operate. And it doesn't affect anybody except people who are willing to work for spammers. My domain, my rules. I don't want email from Versign, period. List traffic - on list traffic, is an exception, primarily because it isn't affected by the same rules, but also for other reasons. >And as has been frequently pointed out, blacklisting does not >indicate anything. SPEWS originally listed us because we chose >an ISP they decided to dislike, or at least so what little >notification they provided indicated. This isn't a third party black list. This is *my* black list based on spam *I* have received from Verisign. Verisign will come off that list (as well as the no doubt tens of thousands of other private black lists its on) approximately when hell freezes over. -- Troy Rollo Chairman, CAUBE.AU asrg@troy.rollo.name Executive Director, iCAUCE _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 01:38:14 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA03175 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 01:38:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2T70L010178 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 02:00:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T70LO10175 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 02:00:21 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA03160; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 01:37:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T6wJO10086; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 01:58:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T6vfO10060 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 01:57:41 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA03143 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 01:35:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2T6bKZP012966 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:37:20 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303290637.h2T6bKZP012966@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Opt-Out Notes: too complicated, ignoring history References: <00f101c2f58e$49a88fe0$091010ac@banaue> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:37:20 -0700 (MST) > From: "Tim Kehres" > I'm not sure what your point is here. If you are trying to characterize me > as a pro-spam activist, you have missed the mark by about 180 degrees. - Your organization sent me unsolicited bulk email as captured in http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/objections/kehres-spam.txt - You claimed it was not spam with your words "We don't deal with unsolicited bulk advertising" and other words in http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/objections/kehres-obj1.txt - I showed it was bulk with substantially identical unsolicited copies others received and reported in http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22ima.%2Bcom%22+group%3A*net-abuse.sightings In your initial message to this list you wrote about vigilanttes running blacklists as if that were a problem that needs to be solved. That cant is too familiar in certain contexts. > In my previous postings, and which I still contend, the way we use email has > changed considerably over the years. What was perfectly acceptable 20, or > hey, even 5 years ago is at best a grey area these days in many cases. Your organization's unsolicited bulk email advertising would have been unacceptable 20 years ago on either Usenet or the NSFNET. It was also unacceptable 5 years ago on the Internet and 2 years ago when it was sent. > The > definition of what is acceptable, and to whom is a moving target. This is > my point. That point is wrong. > There was even a message to this list in this thread today > suggesting that list traffic a user deliberately signed up for could be > considered spam or ube. I don't recall seeing that statement. If it was made, it was wrong. > ... > In a separate message by Brad Templeton today, it was stated that > identification of exactly what we are trying to solve here is necessary in > order to get going properly. For me at least, this was one of the most > positive statements I've seen. With it, I hope we can also define in > concrete terms what at least we feel spam/ube is defined to be, so that we > can minimize the effects of designing to a moving target. I agree that it would be good to get some defintions, or some good words. The word "spam" is a lost cause and permanently ill-defined because advertisers insist it is "that which we don't do" while others say it is "any mail I don't (or even no longer) want." "UBE" is well enough defined. > Can we move on from here? If not, and we need to has this out offline, > just let me know - I'd hate to see misperceptions get in the way of moving > forward. You and I cannot continue offline, because I cannot see any likelihood that ima.com will be removed from http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/spammers-i.html or more accurately, from the sendmail access_DB those pages represent. That access_DB makes it impossible for me to receive private mail from you or other mail from ima.com. However, if you will stop saying things like "UBE is not defined" and related things common in certain circles, then I will pretend ima.com has not sent me unsolicited bulk email advertising. As I've written elsewhere, all big outfits send some spam. Occassional spam puts an outfit beyond the pale only when the outfit claims its unsolicited bulk advertising is not spam, because that suggests it won't try to stop. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 01:51:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA03453 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 01:51:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2T7Dqs21503 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 02:13:52 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T7DpO21500 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 02:13:51 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA03446; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 01:51:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T7CIO20871; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 02:12:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T7B6O20175 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 02:11:06 -0500 Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA03339 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 01:48:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18zAAr-000129-00; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 22:50:41 -0800 To: waltdnes@waltdnes.org cc: ASRG Subject: Re: 5c. Message Status - Re: [Asrg] ASRG work items In-Reply-To: Message from waltdnes@waltdnes.org of "Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:08:25 EST." <20030329050825.GA12226@m400> References: <200303270305.h2R35dca028024@calcite.rhyolite.com> <20030329050825.GA12226@m400> X-face: ?^_yw@fA`CEX&}--=*&XqXbF-oePvxaT4(kyt\nwM9]{]N!>b^K}-Mb9 YH%saz^>nq5usBlD"s{(.h'_w|U^3ldUq7wVZz$`u>MB(-4$f\a6Eu8.e=Pf\ X-image-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/kanga.face.tiff X-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Message-ID: <3976.1048920641@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 22:50:41 -0800 On Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:08:25 -0500 waltdnes wrote: > To summarize... I'd love to see a truly working "Global opt-out list" > where I could say "No" once, and be done with bulk solicitions until > such time as I log in and change my prefs. What I do *NOT* want is a > system where I have to say "No, no, a thousand times no" every day. > Even a system that generates 1000 requests per day that you can ignore > is still mailbombing. I'm uncomfortable with global-queryable state for me in almost any regard. Too reminiscent of a slippery slope. I'd much rather see something at the MX level which can be queried, with the MX config optionally storing state or forwarding the query on to the MUA/LDA (ie an asynchronous query). -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 02:01:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA05297 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 02:01:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2T7Nfo22240 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 02:23:41 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T7NfO22237 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 02:23:41 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA04717; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 02:01:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T7M3O22196; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 02:22:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T7LRO22181 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 02:21:27 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA03566 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 01:58:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2T71An4015274 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:01:10 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303290701.h2T71An4015274@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: Opt-In (Was Re: [Asrg] Proposal for Opt-Out) References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:01:10 -0700 (MST) > From: Kee Hinckley > ... > 4. If User does not not confirm by either replying (From/Reply-To) or > clicking on the confirmation url.... Clicking on confirmation URLs turns out to be a bad idea. Anything that reveals the contents of the message can cause confirmation by bad third parties, or plausibly deniable opt-out pretending to be opt-in. For example, there is a robot that "clicks" on all URLs seen in news.admin.net-abuse.sightings with a very few minutes after your NNTP server transmits. (If you run an HTTP server, you can check this with the obvious test. Except for the IP address, I don't know who or why.) A few days ago I received an unsolicited, probably bulk "confirmation" to some "auction" mailing lists. I censored at least some of the confirmation URLs and reported it to NANAS to make a record in case it was bulk. A day later I received a "welcome" notice from the lists and stuff started flowing. Did I miss one of the URLs in a perfectly innocent confirmation or was the "confirming" just a pretense? You tell me, because I don't know. If you run a mailing list, there is no substitute for a message in your logs with trustworthy Received headers pointing to the subscribing address so that you can defend yourself from idiots crying "SPAM!" to unsubscribe. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 02:05:51 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA09754 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 02:05:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2T7Rwv22593 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 02:27:58 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T7RvO22590 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 02:27:57 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA09214; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 02:05:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T7R3O22352; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 02:27:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T7QQO22331 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 02:26:26 -0500 Received: from smtp.istop.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA07677 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 02:03:48 -0500 (EST) From: waltdnes@waltdnes.org Received: from waltdnes.org (ip245-165.tor.istop.com [66.11.165.245]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4D0C336B23 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 02:06:10 -0500 (EST) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sat, 29 Mar 2003 02:06:45 -0500 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Asrg digest, Vol 1 #133 - 14 msgs Message-ID: <20030329070645.GC12226@m400> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 02:06:45 -0500 On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 12:01:44PM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote > > Have you ever asked them what they think about DUL? > > What will they think about validating services or RMX? From my > > experience 80% won't even understand what you are talking about. > > Clearly the distinction between Dial up lists ceases to have > any utility once everyone is using DSL. Plenty of companies are > legitimately using DSL to support mail servers. DSL has plenty > of capacity for that task - heck not so long ago the whole of CERN > had less bandwidth than my cable provider gives me for my house. You're missing the whole point. It's *NOT* a question of whether the underlying technology is DSL/Cable/two-cans-connected-with-copper-wire. The important point is *STATIC* versus *DYNAMIC* IP addresses, and the accountability issue. If somebody spams from a static IP address, I can block the address, and not have to block anybody else. If the spam comes from a "cloud" of addresses, and is different every day, I have to block the entire cloud. If a business can't get *ONE* static IP address I really have to question their competence. > What is needed is a way for Hotmail to say 'we support system X, > everything else should be rejected'. ..without losing 90% of their customers when they find out that the rest of the planet doesn't talk "HMTP" (Hotmail Mail Transfer Protocol). AOL or MSN *MIGHT* get away with this, because... a) they're big enough b) unlike Yahoo, they have their own internal content. I'm sure that AOL would *LOVE* to go back to the days of their "walled garden". -- Walter Dnes An infinite number of monkeys pounding away on keyboards will eventually produce a report showing that Windows is more secure, and has a lower TCO, than linux. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 02:18:54 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA15500 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 02:18:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2T7f2X23707 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 02:41:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T7f1O23704 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 02:41:01 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA15439; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 02:18:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T7dBO23628; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 02:39:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T7cOO23603 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 02:38:24 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA15188 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 02:15:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h2T7I6731504; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:18:06 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: Dave Crocker Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] define spam Message-ID: <20030329071806.GI23496@main.templetons.com> References: <61186118354.20030328213242@brandenburg.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <61186118354.20030328213242@brandenburg.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:18:06 -0800 On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 09:32:42PM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote: > Folks, > > This groups needs to settle on a single, precise, operational definition > of "spam". A definition that permits objective, reliable tests for > qualification. Actually, our charge is to investigate ways to solve an engineering problem -- servers, pipes and mailboxes overloaded to bursting with unwanted messages, costing resources and damaging the utility of mail. We may or may not need to define spam to do that, but so far I haven't seen much luck. I had always thought the best solution was to take all the major definitions, and then take the _intersection_ of those definitions. Then look at that intersection and say, "how much of the problem does this cover?" And more to the point, "Does this cover enough of it to take back our mailboxes?" The reason to go with an intersection, is that if a message is in this subset, everybody agrees it is spam. They may think that there are other things which are spam of course, but in theory if those are just a tiny fraction of the intersection set, they should be happy. This seems like the logical approach, but it has the curious consequence that the definition it produces is possibly not identical to anybody's specific definition. Remarkably, some people fight a lesser definition than what they prefer, even if they will agree that the spams not in that definition are well under 1% of the total. They feel it is particularly important to get every last one. I'm not sure why, I don't see an engineering goal. I suspect it's because the spammers make us so angry many are not satisfied until they are all crushed. My current impression of the intersection definition is mail that is: Sent as part of a mass mailing, which is to say some person commanded that mail be sent to more than a few hundred people The recipient never solicited the mailing, nor has had voluntary contact with the sender in the past Is commercial (Many people request this in the definition, but usually only if not including the mass mailing component, so this might not stay) The sender has not been asked to stop mailing the recipient If was not directly solicited (ie. is sent due to an existing relationship) the sender adheres to a reasonable and operational system to allow the recipient to ask not to be mailed again (See #4) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 02:27:57 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA15799 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 02:27:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2T7o4T24095 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 02:50:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T7o4O24092 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 02:50:04 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA15791; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 02:27:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T7n6O24043; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 02:49:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T7mEO24009 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 02:48:14 -0500 Received: from plaidworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA15763 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 02:25:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.8/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h2T7RpZQ025983; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:27:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] More clueless spam bounces Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: asrg@ietf.org, "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: Troy Rollo From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20030329164120.026a5990@> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:27:49 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit boy, I'm obscure reference guy today. who will watch the watchers? On Friday, March 28, 2003, at 09:48 PM, Troy Rollo wrote: > -- > Troy Rollo Chairman, CAUBE.AU > asrg@troy.rollo.name Executive Director, iCAUCE _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 02:42:15 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA16077 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 02:42:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2T84Nw24452 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 03:04:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T84MO24449 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 03:04:22 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA16072; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 02:41:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T7v9O24268; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 02:57:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T7u4O24252 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 02:56:04 -0500 Received: from mail011.syd.optusnet.com.au (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA15897 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 02:33:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from co3001591-a.troy.rollo.name (c18374.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [210.49.142.222]) by mail011.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T7ZhL23352; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 18:35:43 +1100 Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20030329183132.026ab3b0@mail> X-Sender: (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 To: Chuq Von Rospach From: Troy Rollo Subject: Re: [Asrg] More clueless spam bounces Cc: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.1.2.20030329164120.026a5990@> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 18:35:42 +1100 At 23:27 28/03/03 -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: >On Friday, March 28, 2003, at 09:48 PM, Troy Rollo wrote: > >>-- >>Troy Rollo Chairman, CAUBE.AU >>asrg@troy.rollo.name Executive Director, iCAUCE > >boy, I'm obscure reference guy today. > >who will watch the watchers? I don't see what you're getting at here. Certainly neither of those roles is free of responsibility (in the sense of being answerable) to others. There is a board of both organisations, and each organisation has a system of membership that the board is answerable to. -- Troy Rollo Chairman, CAUBE.AU asrg@troy.rollo.name Executive Director, iCAUCE _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 02:58:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA16574 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 02:58:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2T8Kpw25787 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 03:20:51 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T8KpO25784 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 03:20:51 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA16545; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 02:58:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T8JLO25731; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 03:19:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T8IJO25692 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 03:18:19 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA16516 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 02:55:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2T7w1GJ021515 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:58:01 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303290758.h2T7w1GJ021515@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] define spam References: <61186118354.20030328213242@brandenburg.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:58:01 -0700 (MST) > From: Dave Crocker > This groups needs to settle on a single, precise, operational definition > of "spam". A definition that permits objective, reliable tests for > qualification. > > We might or might not be able to get software to make that assessment, > but it at least needs to satisfy what the courts call objective. > > Unless and until we start treating this topic as a technical activity, > we are certain to make no progress, and to consume quite a bit of > bandwidth while doing it. That's all true, except that we can't use the word "spam." It is waste of time to try to define it because many unsolicited bulk mail advertisers will always define it as "that which we don't send" while others insist it is "that which we don't want to receive (any more)". It's best to pick a new word or phrase and use that. There are even people who define "UBE" as "that which we don't send even if what we sent was unsolicited and involved substantially identical copies except for salutations." Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 03:16:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA16811 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 03:16:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2T8cqF27023 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 03:38:52 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T8cpO27020 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 03:38:51 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA16807; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 03:16:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T8bEO26298; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 03:37:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T8akO26124 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 03:36:46 -0500 Received: from plaidworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA16770 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 03:14:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.8/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h2T8GSZQ026544 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:16:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] More clueless spam bounces Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) From: Chuq Von Rospach To: ASRG Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20030329183132.026ab3b0@mail> Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:16:27 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Friday, March 28, 2003, at 11:35 PM, Troy Rollo wrote: >> who will watch the watchers? > > I don't see what you're getting at here. no, you don't, do you? But that's okay. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 04:19:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA17500 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 04:19:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2T9fhT30295 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 04:41:43 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T9fgO30292 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 04:41:42 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA17493; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 04:19:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T9dmO30218; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 04:39:48 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T9c4O30185 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 04:38:04 -0500 Received: from joy.songbird.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA17438 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 04:15:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from bbprime.brandenburg.com (208.184.79.252.songbird.com [208.184.79.252] (may be forged)) by joy.songbird.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T9HP731920; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 01:17:25 -0800 From: Dave Crocker X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.63 Beta/6) Personal Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <36198411821.20030329005736@brandenburg.com> To: Brad Templeton CC: Dave Crocker , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] define spam In-Reply-To: <20030329071806.GI23496@main.templetons.com> References: <61186118354.20030328213242@brandenburg.com> <20030329071806.GI23496@main.templetons.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:57:36 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Brad, BT> Sent as part of a mass mailing, which is to say some BT> person commanded that mail be sent to more than BT> a few hundred people if 10,000 separate senders each mail to targeted lists of 50 people, soliciting money, is that not spam? BT> The recipient never solicited the mailing, nor has BT> had voluntary contact with the sender in the past Anyone you have ever had contact with is thereby authorized to send you a solicitation? BT> Is commercial (Many people request this in the definition, BT> but usually only if not including the mass mailing BT> component, so this might not stay) Unsolicited political or religious mailings are acceptable? BT> The sender has not been asked to stop mailing the BT> recipient Everyone gets one free shot at abusing (or, ummm, rather "stuffing") your mailbox? BT> If was not directly solicited (ie. is sent due to BT> an existing relationship) the sender adheres to BT> a reasonable and operational system to allow the BT> recipient to ask not to be mailed again (See #4) ok. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking Sunnyvale, CA USA , _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 04:24:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA17560 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 04:24:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2T9kFJ30410 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 04:46:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T9kFO30407 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 04:46:15 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA17549; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 04:23:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T9ijO30361; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 04:44:45 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T9hIO30318 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 04:43:18 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA17516 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 04:20:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2210907; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 04:23:01 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200303290701.h2T71An4015274@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <200303290701.h2T71An4015274@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Vernon Schryver From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: Opt-In (Was Re: [Asrg] Proposal for Opt-Out) Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 04:00:44 -0500 At 12:01 AM -0700 3/29/03, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > From: Kee Hinckley > >> ... >> 4. If User does not not confirm by either replying (From/Reply-To) or >> clicking on the confirmation url.... > >Clicking on confirmation URLs turns out to be a bad idea. Anything Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I agree that the email reply offers more proof. But then again, I've seen one confirmed-opt-in system treated a *bounce* as confirmation (hey, the subject matched :-). And then of course, there's Microsoft's vacation messages, which go to the wrong address. And our challenge/response friend from yesterday would apparently have automatically confirmed any list anyone sent him a confirmation for. Also, as has been pointed out to me offlist. Average users have serious problems with the whole email confirmation process. But given a URL you get a chance to hold their hand. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 04:24:54 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA17589 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 04:24:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2T9l5o30478 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 04:47:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T9l5O30475 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 04:47:05 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA17576; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 04:24:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T9jYO30389; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 04:45:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T9hJO30322 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 04:43:19 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA17519 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 04:20:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2210909; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 04:23:03 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200303290529.h2T5T0GW005331@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <200303290529.h2T5T0GW005331@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Vernon Schryver From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] 7.c Mass Mailers, reliability, and lack thereof Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 04:03:31 -0500 At 10:29 PM -0700 3/28/03, Vernon Schryver wrote: >As far as I can tell Topica does not really satisfy (c)--at least not >permanently. They certainly do not satisfy (d) for that part of their >bulk mail that does not carry the Habeas mark. (I think I've fairly >recent Topica spam in my logs that does not carry the Habeas mark.) Yes. The Habeas use on Topica is either new, or restricted to confirmed-opt-in lists (which I believe is a Habeas requirement). I've had more than a few Topica lists show up in my inbox unwanted. In fact, my guess is that the reason Topica is currently silently dropping all email from somewhere.com is that they decided that instead of fixing their lists, they'd just remove the complainer. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 04:25:14 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA17604 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 04:25:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2T9lPE30508 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 04:47:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T9lOO30505 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 04:47:24 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA17585; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 04:24:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T9kSO30426; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 04:46:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2T9hKO30326 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 04:43:20 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA17521 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 04:20:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2210902; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 04:23:04 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20030329163805.026a7290@mail> References: <4.3.1.2.20030329150740.00bdb9c0@> <4.3.1.2.20030329150740.00bdb9c0@> <4.3.1.2.20030329163805.026a7290@mail> To: Troy Rollo From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] More clueless spam bounces Cc: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 04:20:40 -0500 At 4:40 PM +1100 3/29/03, Troy Rollo wrote: >>1. It is extremely rude to bounce email from people on this list. >>*Especially* people whom you have sent email to. If you have >>filters that might block email from people on this list, then >>whitelist the list. > >The filter doesn't block email from the list. It blocks on other >criteria that would not affect list traffic. Sorry. I don't buy it. When you sign up for the list, you sign up for conversations with people on the list. Those conversations may be on the list, off the list or (more likely) both. We are here having this discussion because we want to *preserve* this aspect of email--not destroy it. Everyone else whose anti-spam solutions have interfered with the operation of this list has managed to fix the problem or leave. If you're truly looking for solutions, please have the courtesy of doing the same. At 4:48 PM +1100 3/29/03, Troy Rollo wrote: >I know the consequences of my choice, and that's the way I want it >to operate. And it doesn't affect anybody except people who are >willing to work for spammers. I don't suppose it ever occurred to you that some people on this list might be here because they want to ensure that their companies *don't* spam? Chuq. Where's that damn popcorn? -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 05:47:46 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA18708 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 05:47:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2TB9xM02585 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 06:09:59 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TB9xO02582 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 06:09:59 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA18699; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 05:47:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TB8pO02529; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 06:08:51 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TB7cO02469 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 06:07:38 -0500 Received: from mail005.syd.optusnet.com.au (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA18622 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 05:44:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from co3001591-a.troy.rollo.name (c18374.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [210.49.142.222]) by mail005.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TAl4M27603; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:47:04 +1100 Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20030329213147.00bdb1b0@> X-Sender: (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 To: Kee Hinckley From: Troy Rollo Subject: Re: [Asrg] More clueless spam bounces Cc: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.1.2.20030329163805.026a7290@mail> <4.3.1.2.20030329150740.00bdb9c0@> <4.3.1.2.20030329150740.00bdb9c0@> <4.3.1.2.20030329163805.026a7290@mail> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:47:03 +1100 At 04:20 29/03/03 -0500, Kee Hinckley wrote: >Sorry. I don't buy it. When you sign up for the list, you sign up for >conversations with people on the list. This is manifestly false. You sign up for list traffic. There is nothing whatever to require you to accept mail from any particular individual on the list. >Everyone else whose anti-spam solutions have interfered with the operation >of this list has managed to fix the problem or leave. My block has nothing whatsoever to do with the list. On-list traffic is entirely unaffected. >At 4:48 PM +1100 3/29/03, Troy Rollo wrote: >>I know the consequences of my choice, and that's the way I want it to >>operate. And it doesn't affect anybody except people who are willing to >>work for spammers. > >I don't suppose it ever occurred to you that some people on this list >might be here because they want to ensure that their companies *don't* spam? I consider employment with Verisign fundamentally incompatible with honestly seeking a solution to spam in any event, since Verisign's spam problem, like their other major privacy and ethics violations, is a problem going all the way to the top. The company itself is by nature morally bankrupt. In any event, having reviewed other messages from Mr Hallam-Baker to the list, it is clear that he is in major denial on this point. He has repeatedly tried to blame the blocks of Verisign on others, claiming Verisign was blocked because UUNET was (without apparently providing evidence of this and then insisting others provide evidence that this was never the case), when in fact it would be more likely for UUNET to be blocked because of Verisign. Furthermore, he consistently pushes as "the only solution", something that would (if it were even a desirable approach or possible to implement) generate more revenue for his employer. How is this relevant? You suggested his motive for being here, but a motive-based analysis would suggest that his interest is not in stopping spam, but in generating revenue. -- Troy Rollo Chairman, CAUBE.AU asrg@troy.rollo.name Executive Director, iCAUCE _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 07:08:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA19986 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 07:08:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2TCUWw06082 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 07:30:32 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TCUWO06065 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 07:30:32 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA19977; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 07:07:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TCRJO05957; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 07:27:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TCQwO05942 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 07:26:58 -0500 Received: from mail021.syd.optusnet.com.au (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA19940 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 07:04:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from co3001591-a.troy.rollo.name (c18374.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [210.49.142.222]) by mail021.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TC6Vi32498 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:06:33 +1100 Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20030329230112.0269f460@> X-Sender: (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 To: ASRG From: Troy Rollo Subject: Re: [Asrg] More clueless spam bounces In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.1.2.20030329183132.026ab3b0@mail> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:06:30 +1100 At 00:16 29/03/03 -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: >On Friday, March 28, 2003, at 11:35 PM, Troy Rollo wrote: >>>who will watch the watchers? >> >>I don't see what you're getting at here. > >no, you don't, do you? But that's okay. Well, unless you have completely misunderstood the nature of CAUBE.AU and iCAUCE, your comment simply has no bearing on that to which you attempted to relate it, but since your non-elucidations suggests you (despite protestations to the contrary) seem to prefer the ad-hominem, I guess we have to leave it. (And yes, I admit to having used ad-hominems against one poster here, but only in response to a baseless ad-hominem that poster directed at me, and I didn't rely solely on the ad-hominems as you have). -- Troy Rollo Chairman, CAUBE.AU asrg@troy.rollo.name Executive Director, iCAUCE _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 07:39:54 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA20341 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 07:39:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2TD2Ah07508 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 08:02:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TD2AO07505 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 08:02:10 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA20336; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 07:39:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TCx9O07374; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 07:59:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TCwKO07335 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 07:58:20 -0500 Received: from narn.megacity.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA20303 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 07:35:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from megacity.org (hvc-204-210-140-244.hvc.rr.com [204.210.140.244]) (authenticated bits=0) by narn.megacity.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-2) with ESMTP id h2TCbnSq027427 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NOT) for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 07:37:50 -0500 Subject: Re: [Asrg] More clueless spam bounces Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) From: "Derek J. Balling" To: asrg@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <4745695B-619E-11D7-8191-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Message-Id: <44E75EA2-61E3-11D7-9D11-000A27AF5202@megacity.org> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 07:37:57 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Friday, March 28, 2003, at 11:24 PM, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: >> It's not a "clueless bounce". It's a black listing. It's there >> because Verisign (your employer), is a spammer. Perhaps you are the >> clueless one for not realising this. > Imminent death of this list predicted. I'm selling tickets. Anyone > want popcorn? *plops down next to Chuq* Cheezy Poofs, anyone? Seriously, the goals of this list are noble and all, but I think NANAE has a higher S:N ratio. D _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 08:19:15 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA20817 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 08:19:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2TDfUs09811 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 08:41:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TDfUO09808 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 08:41:30 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA20808; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 08:18:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TDbHO09479; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 08:37:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TDa2O08866 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 08:36:02 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA20717 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 08:13:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc02.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2TDFcnn007103; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 05:15:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 05:15:38 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Troy Rollo'" , Kee Hinckley Cc: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] More clueless spam bounces MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 05:15:36 -0800 > In any event, having reviewed other messages from Mr > Hallam-Baker to the > list, it is clear that he is in major denial on this point. He has > repeatedly tried to blame the blocks of Verisign on others, claiming > Verisign was blocked because UUNET was (without apparently providing > evidence of this and then insisting others provide evidence > that this was > never the case), when in fact it would be more likely for UUNET to be > blocked because of Verisign. It would be more likely for the block to be listed for the reason that the blacklist stated, attempting to blackmail us into changing ISPs through intentional 'collateral damage'. > Furthermore, he consistently pushes as "the only solution", > something that > would (if it were even a desirable approach or possible to implement) > generate more revenue for his employer. How is this relevant? > You suggested > his motive for being here, but a motive-based analysis would > suggest that > his interest is not in stopping spam, but in generating revenue. Completely untrue, I have pushed every solution except for those that create as many problems as they try to solve. Read my paper before you make such demonstrably untrue statements. Since you are presenting yourself as the self appointed 'executive director' of what purports to be an international lobbying group on the subject you might want to think about your obnoxious behavior. In particular you might just find that the people you are needlessly antagonizing might have some influence. Hint, who do you think had the idea of a Whitehouse web site in the first place? Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 08:19:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA20831 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 08:19:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2TDfr609828 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 08:41:53 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TDfrO09825 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 08:41:53 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA20813; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 08:19:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TDe2O09769; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 08:40:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TDd6O09721 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 08:39:06 -0500 Received: from maillist.grax.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA20796 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 08:16:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (grax_web1 [127.0.0.1]) by maillist.grax.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85D932C5D5; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 03:18:33 -0600 (CST) From: David Walker Reply-To: asrg@ietf.org Organization: Vorteon, LLC To: Dave Crocker , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] define spam User-Agent: KMail/1.5 References: <61186118354.20030328213242@brandenburg.com> In-Reply-To: <61186118354.20030328213242@brandenburg.com> X-Hockey: Colorado Avalanche MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200303290721.46272@grx> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 07:21:46 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit There are 2 classes of messages we should be investigating. Messages of a commercial or pseudo-commercial nature sent using fake e-mail headers and/or underhanded techniques. Messages of a commercial or pseudo-commercial nature sent using legitimate techniques (no fake headers) or semi-legitimate techniques but sent to individuals who either opted out or never opted in to receiving mails from the sender. I think the fake header e-mail should be a priority of this group and a lower priority should be enforceable opt-in/opt-out lists. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 08:22:51 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA20867 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 08:22:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2TDj6o09915 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 08:45:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TDj5O09912 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 08:45:05 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA20862; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 08:22:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TDi2O09887; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 08:44:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TDhcO09869 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 08:43:38 -0500 Received: from backbone.midwestcs.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA20849 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 08:20:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from footbone.midwestcs.com ([206.222.212.237] helo=midwestcs.com) by backbone.midwestcs.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18zGIf-0000uA-00 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 07:23:09 -0600 To: asrg@ietf.org (IRTF Anti-Spam Research Group) Subject: Re: [Asrg] More clueless spam bounces References: <4.3.1.2.20030329150740.00bdb9c0@> <4.3.1.2.20030329150740.00bdb9c0@> <4.3.1.2.20030329163805.026a7290@mail> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: wayne In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lines: 41 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanner: exiscan *18zGIf-0000uA-00*W.ciYmRTB0.* () Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 29 Mar 2003 07:23:08 -0600 In Kee Hinckley writes: > Sorry. I don't buy it. When you sign up for the list, you sign up > for conversations with people on the list. Those conversations may be > on the list, off the list or (more likely) both. No way! Many popular mailing lists, and it wouldn't surprise me if that includes this list, have spammers who sign up to collect email addresses. My consent to receive list traffic *DOES NOT* transfer to consent to receiving email from anyone who happens to be on the list. I certainly do not want to hear the kinds of "conversations" that spammers would send my way. > Everyone else whose anti-spam solutions have > interfered with the operation of this list has managed to fix the > problem or leave. If you're truly looking for solutions, please have > the courtesy of doing the same. I agree that signing up on the list commits you to making sure you don't interfere with the list (via spam filters or whatever). I have spam filters that I run also. Due to the discussions on this mailing list, I have recently switch back to using DNSBLs at the MTA level instead of the MUA level. If someone sends me email that originates from an open relay used by spammers, they will now likely receive a bounce. Before, they would likely have just received a high score from SpamAssassin and been placed in a mail folder that I don't check very carefully (or often). I think generating a bounce on a false positive is better than silently having the false positive be overlooked. If it really is the consensus of this list that I must turn off my spam filtering or leave the list, please let me know. I will certainly be willing to leave the list. -wayne _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 08:50:58 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA21358 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 08:50:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2TEDDt11537 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 09:13:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TEDDO11534 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 09:13:13 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA21350; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 08:50:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TECFO11469; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 09:12:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TEB8O11435 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 09:11:08 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA21325 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 08:48:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc01.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2TDmE66005073 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 05:48:14 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 05:50:43 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: asrg@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [Asrg] Authentication again Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 05:50:42 -0800 > You know. It's responses like this that really make me understand > why most of the ISPs I talk to hate the anti-spam organizations more > than the spammers. prompted by one of the other threads on the list I took a look at Vernon's pages to find the following: http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/ "Mail from domains on a list of free providers is rejected at rhyolite.com, because of spam claiming to be from them. Rejecting mail supposedly from free mail providers is an extremely effective tactic for avoiding spam or unsolicited bulk mail. " Hmm, so authentication is absolutely no use eh? Just blacklist the whole domain. now lets look at some of the domains in this list. yahoo.com, hotmail.com - Of COURSE everyone from these domains is a spammer freeserve.co.uk - The largest ISP in the UK, you pay by the minute through the local phone toll. Apparently these domains are effective against '90%' of spam. So if you could identify the genuine email sent from these sources and the sources implement rate limiting on egress (most do already) you could block 90% of spam with NO false positives. Of course false positives probably aren't a problem if you only really care about getting email from longstanding netizens with their own email domain. I find it somewhat interesting that the people complaining loudest about solutions that might involve cost are also the people who are quickest to cut off free internet access. Just what is going on here? Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 09:09:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA21654 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 09:09:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2TEWCn12129 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 09:32:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TEWCO12126 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 09:32:12 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA21643; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 09:09:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TEV8O12052; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 09:31:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TEUIO12010 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 09:30:18 -0500 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA21568 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 09:07:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 18zH1n-0003Mg-00; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 14:09:47 +0000 In-Reply-To: <20030329050825.GA12226@m400> Subject: Re: 5c. Message Status - Re: [Asrg] ASRG work items To: From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.4.13] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 193.195.0.101 Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 14:09:47 +0000 > > [ ...Jon said... ] > > Yes maybe - so they consult your consent again. > > Is there some problem with this? > VS> Yes. It doesn't scale. Imagine several million businesses on this VS> planet "just checking" with you every six months. I don't really see VS> any difference between my inbox overflowing with a thousand spams per VS> day or a thousand "requests-for-you-to-please-opt-in,-pretty-please". No - of course it doesn't scale. Who said that your consent can only be consulted by sending an email? Clearly - another mechanism for expressing and consulting consent is desirable. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 09:10:03 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA21676 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 09:10:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2TEWJf12146 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 09:32:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TEWJO12143 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 09:32:19 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA21648; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 09:09:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TEVCO12068; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 09:31:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TEUIO12011 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 09:30:18 -0500 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA21567 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 09:07:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 18zH1q-0003Mu-00; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 14:09:50 +0000 In-Reply-To: <20030329050825.GA12226@m400> Subject: Re: 5c. Message Status - Re: [Asrg] ASRG work items To: From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.4.13] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 193.195.0.101 Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 14:09:50 +0000 > > [ ...Jon said... ] > > Yes maybe - so they consult your consent again. > > Is there some problem with this? > VS> Yes. It doesn't scale. Imagine several million businesses on this VS> planet "just checking" with you every six months. I don't really see VS> any difference between my inbox overflowing with a thousand spams per VS> day or a thousand "requests-for-you-to-please-opt-in,-pretty-please". No - of course it doesn't scale. Who said that your consent can only be consulted by sending an email? Clearly - another mechanism for expressing and consulting consent is desirable. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 09:10:50 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA21703 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 09:10:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2TEX6L12181 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 09:33:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TEX6O12178 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 09:33:06 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA21695; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 09:10:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TEW3O12118; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 09:32:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TEVEO12084 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 09:31:14 -0500 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA21602 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 09:08:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 18zH2n-0003T4-00; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 14:10:49 +0000 In-Reply-To: <20030329050825.GA12226@m400> Subject: Re: 5c. Message Status - Re: [Asrg] ASRG work items To: From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.4.13] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 193.195.0.101 Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 14:10:49 +0000 > > [ ...Jon said... ] > > Yes maybe - so they consult your consent again. > > Is there some problem with this? > > Yes. It doesn't scale. Imagine several million businesses on this > planet "just checking" with you every six months. I don't really see > any difference between my inbox overflowing with a thousand spams per > day or a thousand "requests-for-you-to-please-opt-in,-pretty-please". No - of course it doesn't scale. Who said that your consent can only be consulted by sending an email? Clearly - another mechanism for expressing and consulting consent is desirable. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 09:18:04 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA21785 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 09:18:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2TEeKa13134 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 09:40:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TEeKO13131 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 09:40:20 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA21780; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 09:17:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TEdBO13081; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 09:39:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TEciO13054 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 09:38:44 -0500 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA21772 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 09:15:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 18zH9w-0004Bs-00; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 14:18:12 +0000 In-Reply-To: <61186118354.20030328213242@brandenburg.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] define spam To: "Dave Crocker" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.4.13] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 193.195.0.101 Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 14:18:12 +0000 > Folks, > > > This groups needs to settle on a single, precise, operational definition > of "spam". A definition that permits objective, reliable tests for > qualification. > > We might or might not be able to get software to make that assessment, > but it at least needs to satisfy what the courts call objective. > > Unless and until we start treating this topic as a technical activity, > we are certain to make no progress, and to consume quite a bit of > bandwidth while doing it. > d/ Well (referring to the charter) how about: A communication for which there is no consent given by the intended recipient. done. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 10:42:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA24119 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 10:42:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2TG4Od16541 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 11:04:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TG4OO16537 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 11:04:24 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA24091; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 10:41:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TG2NO16504; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 11:02:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TG1AO16486 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 11:01:10 -0500 Received: from plaidworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA24021 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 10:38:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.8/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h2TFecZQ001131; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 07:40:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] More clueless spam bounces Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: asrg@ietf.org To: "Derek J. Balling" From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <44E75EA2-61E3-11D7-9D11-000A27AF5202@megacity.org> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 07:40:38 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Saturday, March 29, 2003, at 04:37 AM, Derek J. Balling wrote: >> Imminent death of this list predicted. I'm selling tickets. Anyone >> want popcorn? > > *plops down next to Chuq* > > Cheezy Poofs, anyone? > > Seriously, the goals of this list are noble and all, but I think NANAE > has a higher S:N ratio. > Here. I just opened a bag. I'm putting on the video to Monty Python and the Holy Grail. "What do we burn apart from witches?" "More Witches!" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 10:50:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA24280 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 10:50:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2TGD0U17586 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 11:13:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TGD0O17582 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 11:13:00 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA24266; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 10:50:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TGC2O17510; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 11:12:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TGB2O17492 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 11:11:02 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA24237 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 10:48:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2211382; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 10:50:36 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20030329213147.00bdb1b0@> References: <4.3.1.2.20030329163805.026a7290@mail> <4.3.1.2.20030329150740.00bdb9c0@> <4.3.1.2.20030329150740.00bdb9c0@> <4.3.1.2.20030329163805.026a7290@mail> <4.3.1.2.20030329213147.00bdb1b0@> To: Troy Rollo From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] More clueless spam bounces Cc: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 10:49:57 -0500 At 9:47 PM +1100 3/29/03, Troy Rollo wrote: >At 04:20 29/03/03 -0500, Kee Hinckley wrote: >>Sorry. I don't buy it. When you sign up for the list, you sign up >>for conversations with people on the list. > >This is manifestly false. You sign up for list traffic. There is >nothing whatever to require you to accept mail from any particular >individual on the list. I'm sorry that you don't understand the social assumptions implicit in human conversation. However that does not excuse your anti-social behavior. I assume that if we were at a meeting, you would only talk to him while sitting at the table, but spit in his face if he tried to talk with you in the hallway? >>I don't suppose it ever occurred to you that some people on this >>list might be here because they want to ensure that their companies >>*don't* spam? > >I consider employment with Verisign fundamentally incompatible with >honestly seeking a solution to spam in any event, since Verisign's >spam problem, like Thank you for clarifying what I already believed. You aren't interested in solving spam. You're interested in retribution. Of all the companies currently involved in this, and the related JamSpam discussions, Verisign is by no means the worst. JamSpam is *hosted* by Topica. Take a lesson from South Africa, Northern Ireland, Nicaragua and a few other political hot spots. If you want to find a solution, you've got to put the past behind you. Verisign is by no means my favorite company--even before they bought Network Solutions. Ask Phillip what the first message I sent him off-list said. (On second thought, don't ask him. Sorry, I forgot, you can't.) I wouldn't even say that Phillip is my favorite person on this list. But I'm not going to let either of those things get in the way of our finding solutions to spam. If you are, then I'd say you're betraying the trust of your organization. >Furthermore, he consistently pushes as "the only solution", >something that would (if it were even a desirable approach or >possible to implement) generate more revenue for his employer. How >is this relevant? You suggested his motive for being here, but a >motive-based analysis would suggest that his interest is not in >stopping spam, but in generating revenue. It would appear that your motive is "getting even." I'd consider the motive of earning money for Verisign--even if true--potentially far more compatible with the goals of this list than yours. Since you obviously don't give a damn as to whether Phillip has anything worthwhile to say--being blinded by the twelve letters to the left of his at-sign. I suggest that in the future you restrict your messages to this list to ones that do *not* reply (directly or indirectly) to anything he posts to this list. I see that you have continued to send him email throughout this discussion (see the To: and Cc: headers). If nothing else, that's just plain rude. If there's one thing I despise more than spammers, it's spam fighters who lash out at people while hiding behind barriers so that they don't have to read the response. I know why the spammers do it, but you don't have an excuse. S fighters should know better; and they certainly should be held to higher standards. I'm sorry that you are so blind to the damage that you are doing to our cause. And to anyone else still listening. I will attempt to make this my last on-list posting on this subject. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 10:52:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA24315 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 10:52:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2TGF0c17685 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 11:15:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TGF0O17682 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 11:15:00 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA24308; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 10:52:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TGE3O17642; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 11:14:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TGD8O17613 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 11:13:08 -0500 Received: from joy.songbird.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA24274 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 10:50:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from bbprime.brandenburg.com (208.184.79.252.songbird.com [208.184.79.252] (may be forged)) by joy.songbird.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TFqL709820; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 07:52:21 -0800 From: Dave Crocker X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.63 Beta/6) Personal Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <105222467871.20030329073832@brandenburg.com> To: "Jon Kyme" CC: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] define spam In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 07:38:32 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jon, JK> Well (referring to the charter) how about: JK> A communication for which there is no consent given by the intended JK> recipient. I hear that you are the world's expert on ice cream. I want to hire you to help my ice cream manufacturing business. We have never met. I send you an email. The above definition classifies my email as spam. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking Sunnyvale, CA USA , _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 10:55:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA24429 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 10:55:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2TGI4x17753 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 11:18:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TGI4O17750 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 11:18:04 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA24404; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 10:55:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TGH1O17733; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 11:17:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TGG3O17711 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 11:16:03 -0500 Received: from earth.tc.umn.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA24335 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 10:53:13 -0500 (EST) Received: by earth.tc.umn.edu for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 09:55:36 -0600 From: Steven F Siirila To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Blocking dynamic IP ranges Message-ID: <20030329155536.GA28935@earth.tc.umn.edu> References: <20030329070645.GC12226@m400> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030329070645.GC12226@m400> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 09:55:36 -0600 On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 02:06:45AM -0500, waltdnes@waltdnes.org wrote: > On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 12:01:44PM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote > > > > Have you ever asked them what they think about DUL? > > > What will they think about validating services or RMX? From my > > > experience 80% won't even understand what you are talking about. > > > > Clearly the distinction between Dial up lists ceases to have > > any utility once everyone is using DSL. Plenty of companies are > > legitimately using DSL to support mail servers. DSL has plenty > > of capacity for that task - heck not so long ago the whole of CERN > > had less bandwidth than my cable provider gives me for my house. > > You're missing the whole point. It's *NOT* a question of whether the > underlying technology is DSL/Cable/two-cans-connected-with-copper-wire. > The important point is *STATIC* versus *DYNAMIC* IP addresses, and the > accountability issue. If somebody spams from a static IP address, I can > block the address, and not have to block anybody else. If the spam > comes from a "cloud" of addresses, and is different every day, I have to > block the entire cloud. If a business can't get *ONE* static IP address > I really have to question their competence. Precisely. I know many people around here who have DSL with static IP address blocks and their own domain name and reverse DNS. This is residential. I cannot imagine why, then, a legitimate business/organization would have to resort to running an MTA on dynamic IP addresses. Again, this is really a matter of what works for an organization. And for ours, this is just one of many effective "tools" for fighting the onslaught of spam. > -- > Walter Dnes > An infinite number of monkeys pounding away on keyboards will > eventually produce a report showing that Windows is more secure, > and has a lower TCO, than linux. > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg -- Steven F. Siirila Office: Lind Hall, Room 130B Internet Services E-mail: sfs@umn.edu Office of Information Technology Voice: (612) 626-0244 University of Minnesota _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 11:22:53 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24760 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 11:22:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2TGjDE19150 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 11:45:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TGjDO19147 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 11:45:13 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24756; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 11:22:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TGi9O19111; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 11:44:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TGhhO19093 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 11:43:43 -0500 Received: from new.agentzero.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24729 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 11:20:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from [18.90.6.243] (MACLAURIN-FOUR-NINETY-EIGHT.MIT.EDU [18.90.6.243]) by new.agentzero.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2TGLelD028512; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 11:21:40 -0500 Message-Id: <200303291621.h2TGLelD028512@new.agentzero.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20030329155536.GA28935@earth.tc.umn.edu> References: <20030329070645.GC12226@m400> <20030329155536.GA28935@earth.tc.umn.edu> To: Steven F Siirila , asrg@ietf.org From: Jim Youll Subject: Re: [Asrg] Blocking dynamic IP ranges Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 11:21:07 -0500 At 9:55 -0600 3/29/03, Steven F Siirila wrote: >Precisely. I know many people around here who have DSL with static IP address >blocks and their own domain name and reverse DNS. This is residential. >I cannot imagine why, then, a legitimate business/organization would have to >resort to running an MTA on dynamic IP addresses. > >Again, this is really a matter of what works for an organization. And for >ours, this is just one of many effective "tools" for fighting the onslaught >of spam. Just because some can have it, does not mean that all can have it. Legitimate businesses/organizations come in many sizes with varied ability to handle much of anything. If they can only have PPPOE, for example, then what happens with IP and DNS is anybody's guess. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 11:29:24 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24876 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 11:29:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2TGphn19308 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 11:51:43 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TGphO19305 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 11:51:43 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24866; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 11:28:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TGl2O19210; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 11:47:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TGkaO19186 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 11:46:36 -0500 Received: from new.agentzero.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24775 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 11:23:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from [18.90.6.243] (MACLAURIN-FOUR-NINETY-EIGHT.MIT.EDU [18.90.6.243]) by new.agentzero.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2TGOWlD028606; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 11:24:33 -0500 Message-Id: <200303291624.h2TGOWlD028606@new.agentzero.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <105222467871.20030329073832@brandenburg.com> References: <105222467871.20030329073832@brandenburg.com> To: Dave Crocker , "Jon Kyme" From: Jim Youll Subject: Re: [Asrg] define spam Cc: ASRG Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 11:23:28 -0500 At 7:38 -0800 3/29/03, Dave Crocker wrote: >JK> Well (referring to the charter) how about: >JK> A communication for which there is no consent given by the intended >JK> recipient. > >I hear that you are the world's expert on ice cream. I want to hire you >to help my ice cream manufacturing business. We have never met. I send >you an email. > >The above definition classifies my email as spam. Not that it's a solution, but it seems such a person could give blanket consent for potential collaborators or customers to contact him for professional reasons related to ice cream, and if JK happens to be an eccentric ice cream inventor who talks to nobody, then he would presumably not give such consent because he truly does not care to be contacted/hired. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 12:03:52 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25531 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 12:03:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2THQCl21794 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 12:26:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2THQCO21791 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 12:26:12 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25527; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 12:03:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2THOKO21723; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 12:24:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2THNIO21651 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 12:23:18 -0500 Received: from new.agentzero.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25508 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 12:00:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from [18.90.6.243] (MACLAURIN-FOUR-NINETY-EIGHT.MIT.EDU [18.90.6.243]) by new.agentzero.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2TH1FlD029761 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 12:01:15 -0500 Message-Id: <200303291701.h2TH1FlD029761@new.agentzero.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: Message-Id: To: asrg@ietf.org From: Jim Youll Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Subject: [Asrg] Will someone PLEASE remove Tim@mailkey.com? Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 12:02:48 -0500 My Dear God this is annoying. Would someone PLEASE remove this guy from the list? Please? disclaimer: I do not and never have worked for, and barely can spell, Verisign. >From: tim@mailkey.com >Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:55:48 +0000 >X-Priority: 3 (Normal) >To: jim@media.mit.edu >Subject: RE:- RE: [ASRG] BLOCKING DYNAMIC IP RANGES >X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new > >The email you sent to me with the subject line as above has been >rejected due to the fact that my email account is protected from >SPAM by MailKey. You are not (yet) on my 'A-list' of approved >senders, and the mail did not contain a valid MailKey. > >To successfully send the email to me, you need to obtain a MailKey >from the MailKey website. > >A MailKey is a short unique code which will allow the email to be >delivered you simply insert the MailKey anywhere in the subject >line, and re-send the email to me. > >The service is free, is very easy, and should take less than 1 minute to use! > >Please go to >http://www.mailkey.com/pklookup.aspx?to=tim@mailkey.com&from=jim@media.mit.edu >to obtain the MailKey you need. > >To retrieve the email you sent please go to >http://www.mailkey.com/retrievebody.aspx?id=2330 > >If you want to use the free MailKey service to lock out SPAM from >your email account, or find out more about MailKey, please go to >http://www.mailkey.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 12:17:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25769 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 12:17:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2THdq922983 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 12:39:52 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2THdqO22980 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 12:39:52 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25761; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 12:17:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2THc4O22929; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 12:38:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2THbWO22898 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 12:37:32 -0500 Received: from joy.songbird.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25715 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 12:14:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from bbprime.brandenburg.com (208.184.79.252.songbird.com [208.184.79.252] (may be forged)) by joy.songbird.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2THGh712403; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 09:16:44 -0800 From: Dave Crocker X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.63 Beta/6) Personal Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <74227685394.20030329090529@brandenburg.com> To: Jim Youll CC: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] define spam In-Reply-To: <200303291624.h2TGOWlD028606@new.agentzero.com> References: <105222467871.20030329073832@brandenburg.com> <200303291624.h2TGOWlD028606@new.agentzero.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 09:05:29 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jim, >>I hear that you are the world's expert on ice cream. I want to hire you >>to help my ice cream manufacturing business. We have never met. I send >>you an email. >> >>The above definition classifies my email as spam. JY> Not that it's a solution, but it seems such a person could give blanket consent JY> for potential collaborators or customers to contact him for professional JY> reasons related to ice cream, and if JK happens to be an eccentric ice cream JY> inventor who talks to nobody, then he would presumably not give such consent JY> because he truly does not care to be contacted/hired. 1. Multi-level marketing schemes solicit your participation in an activity that can easily be classed at "potential collaboration". Yet most people would class those solicitations as spam. 2. Given that this is a technical research body, how does one go about offering that consent, in a service with 100 million participants, and how does one enforce it? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking Sunnyvale, CA USA , _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 12:31:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA26033 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 12:31:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2THsHp23415 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 12:54:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2THsHO23412 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 12:54:17 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA26028; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 12:31:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2THr4O23383; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 12:53:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2THr0O23336 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 12:53:00 -0500 Received: from new.agentzero.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25983 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 12:30:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from [18.90.6.243] (MACLAURIN-FOUR-NINETY-EIGHT.MIT.EDU [18.90.6.243]) by new.agentzero.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2THUtlD030677; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 12:30:56 -0500 Message-Id: <200303291730.h2THUtlD030677@new.agentzero.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <74227685394.20030329090529@brandenburg.com> References: <105222467871.20030329073832@brandenburg.com> <200303291624.h2TGOWlD028606@new.agentzero.com> <74227685394.20030329090529@brandenburg.com> To: Dave Crocker From: Jim Youll Subject: Re: [Asrg] define spam Cc: ASRG Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 12:32:26 -0500 At 9:05 -0800 3/29/03, Dave Crocker wrote: >Jim, > >>>I hear that you are the world's expert on ice cream. I want to hire you >>>to help my ice cream manufacturing business. We have never met. I send >>>you an email. >>> >>>The above definition classifies my email as spam. > >JY> Not that it's a solution, but it seems such a person could give >blanket consent >JY> for potential collaborators or customers to contact him for professional >JY> reasons related to ice cream, and if JK happens to be an >eccentric ice cream >JY> inventor who talks to nobody, then he would presumably not give >such consent >JY> because he truly does not care to be contacted/hired. > >1. Multi-level marketing schemes solicit your participation in an >activity that can easily be classed at "potential collaboration". Yet >most people would class those solicitations as spam. > >2. Given that this is a technical research body, how does one go about >offering that consent, in a service with 100 million participants, and >how does one enforce it? I said it wasn't a solution, was just pointing out that if you are going to get into the morass of consent, well, there are ways to declare consent, and some workable-or-not technological solutions have already been stated here. Legally, it's possible to define consent generally. If you ring my doorbell a lot, for example, the police can be engaged to make you stop. On the other hand, if you're bringing me some money every time, I won't mind it. As for offering consent, well, we've made it pretty far in civilization with a personal concept of consent/access in every medium but e-mail, so there are means. As far as enforcement goes, the social contract in most places is that government enacts laws that enable civil action, so, "no means no" can be enforced, were it to come to that. Personally, I think that a definition of wanted or unwanted communications is mostly a personal thing. Given that, I feel the most fruitful activity for machinery between message-sender and message-recipient is to help define the character of the message, using info known at those places that's not necessarily known at the recipient end... then disposition can be controlled at or near final delivery. Maybe I would adopt a profile made available by like-minded people, but that's still a personal decision. And that has nothing to do with consent, except that if I personally have sense of what I care to allow, I may encode that policy near me, in a way that doesn't necessarily affect anyone else except when I generate a bounce or a fresh complaint, and thus a new message that's subject to someone else's sense of "consent." - Jim (regretting this reply, because I'll get another annoying message, or several, from tim@mailkey.com, who has never seen any of this, and I did not _consent_ to be hounded by his mailserver until I click the link it wants me to click). _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 12:52:53 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA26248 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 12:52:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2TIFFd24736 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 13:15:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TIFFO24733 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 13:15:15 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA26230; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 12:52:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TIE8O24680; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 13:14:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TIDSO24656 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 13:13:28 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA26213 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 12:50:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc01.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2THoT66021717; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 09:50:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 09:52:58 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Jim Youll'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Will someone PLEASE remove Tim@mailkey.com? MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 09:52:55 -0800 > My Dear God this is annoying. Would someone PLEASE remove this guy > from the list? > Please? Seconded, this guy is sending me more SPAM than the whole of Nigeria. For some reason the emails keep bypassing my spam filters. Perhaps someone could forge an UNSUBSCRIBE to the mailbot? Oh forgot, there is no such thing as forged mails... > disclaimer: I do not and never have worked for, and barely > can spell, Verisign. That is VeriSign, the s is capitalized, don't ask me why, once upon a time there was a company called MicroSoft that did the same thing, try sys 6502 on your Commodore PET... Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 13:20:16 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA26646 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 13:20:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2TIgda26257 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 13:42:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TIgdO26254 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 13:42:39 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA26642; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 13:19:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TIfEO26225; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 13:41:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TIeLO26166 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 13:40:21 -0500 Received: from joy.songbird.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA26552 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 13:17:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from bbprime.brandenburg.com (208.184.79.252.songbird.com [208.184.79.252] (may be forged)) by joy.songbird.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TIJU713965; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 10:19:30 -0800 From: Dave Crocker X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.63 Beta/6) Personal Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <144232110176.20030329101914@brandenburg.com> To: Jim Youll CC: Dave Crocker , ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] define spam In-Reply-To: <200303291730.h2THUtlD030677@new.agentzero.com> References: <105222467871.20030329073832@brandenburg.com> <200303291624.h2TGOWlD028606@new.agentzero.com> <74227685394.20030329090529@brandenburg.com> <200303291730.h2THUtlD030677@new.agentzero.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 10:19:14 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jim, Saturday, March 29, 2003, 9:32:26 AM, you wrote: JY> into the morass of consent, well, there are ways to declare consent, and some JY> workable-or-not technological solutions have already been stated ... JY> As for offering consent, well, we've made it pretty far in JY> civilization with a personal JY> concept of consent/access in every medium but e-mail, so there are JY> means. Given that this is a technical research group, the distinction between workable and non-workable is rather important. If something is believed to be unworkable, it is distracting to discuss it. Noting that other media have developed workable solutions for consent is extremely important. Assuming that they apply to email is dangerous, especially when the physical scope of absolute control for email is uniquely non-existent for so much of email. JY> I feel the most fruitful activity for JY> machinery between JY> message-sender and message-recipient is to help define the character JY> of the message, JY> using info known at those places that's not necessarily known at the JY> recipient end... 1. I do not understand the reference to "known at those places", given that you then say "not necessarily known at the recipient end". 2. How does it help to rely on the sender's defining the character of the message, when the senders are non-cooperative rogue players? JY> And that has nothing to do with consent, except that if I personally JY> have sense of what JY> I care to allow, I may encode that policy near me, Let's assume that there is some way to embody "what you care to allow" in software and some way to detect whether an incoming piece of email conforms to what you care to allow. (The heuristics currently required for such a mechanism are useful but highly flawed.) This leaves us with the problem of massive bandwidth and processing being consumed along the path from the sender to your filter. These resources are not free and they have become a significant problem for ISPs. JY> (regretting this reply, because I'll get another annoying message, or several, JY> from tim@mailkey.com, who has never seen any of this, and I did not JY> _consent_ to be JY> hounded by his mailserver until I click the link it wants me to click). And this is a perfect example of why some recipient-based filtering will remain essential. My own email client let's me easily place an entry into a special address book and discard all mail from anyone in that address book... d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking Sunnyvale, CA USA , _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 13:33:59 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA26853 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 13:33:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2TIuMb26677 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 13:56:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TIuMO26672 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 13:56:22 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA26842; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 13:33:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TIp9O26487; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 13:51:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TIoNO26465 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 13:50:23 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA26742 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 13:27:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h2TITpN09797; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 10:29:51 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: Dave Crocker Cc: Brad Templeton , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] define spam Message-ID: <20030329182951.GA9659@main.templetons.com> References: <61186118354.20030328213242@brandenburg.com> <20030329071806.GI23496@main.templetons.com> <36198411821.20030329005736@brandenburg.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <36198411821.20030329005736@brandenburg.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 10:29:51 -0800 Alas, now we see how hard it is to get consensus on this. > BT> Sent as part of a mass mailing, which is to say some > BT> person commanded that mail be sent to more than > BT> a few hundred people > > if 10,000 separate senders each mail to targeted lists of 50 people, > soliciting money, is that not spam? If the 10,000 people are, as you say, separate, and not caused to do so by one entity, then no, it would not be under this definition. Have we seen a lot of this happening? I think it is vital in this issue not to solve hypotheticals that are not actually taking place, so if you wish to add to the definition (rather than take away, since this is an intersection definition I propose we seek) please let us know what real world experience leads you to feel it needs adding. > > > BT> The recipient never solicited the mailing, nor has > BT> had voluntary contact with the sender in the past > > Anyone you have ever had contact with is thereby authorized to send you > a solicitation? Sure. Again, how much of your "spam" is coming from parties who are not strangers to you? And in this case, how many problems have you had with getting removed from their lists? If you have some numbers, let me know. My own experience is that UBE from parties known to me is rare, and for those parties not to honour a remove request immediately is extremely rare. In fact, I have only had a few instances in the past 5 years of non-immediate removal wrt known parties, and even there it just took a few days longer. And that's with personally receiving several hundred thousand spams, in other words, a non-problem. I am curious as to what numbers others have on this issue. What are yours? > > > BT> Is commercial (Many people request this in the definition, > BT> but usually only if not including the mass mailing > BT> component, so this might not stay) > > Unsolicited political or religious mailings are acceptable? As you can tell from my comment, this one is not mine. Nonetheless, it has been in many definitions that people have put forward. > > > BT> The sender has not been asked to stop mailing the > BT> recipient > > Everyone gets one free shot at abusing (or, ummm, rather "stuffing") > your mailbox? Actually, under this definition, everybody _you_ talk to gets one "free shot." In my experience, this does not create a problem, because the number of people you voluntarily communicate with is inherently limited. Again, I am curious as to the numbers that lead you to your view. Have you seen a significant problem in spam from people you have communicated with in the past? What fraction of your total spam is it? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 13:35:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA26879 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 13:35:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2TIvwW26737 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 13:57:58 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TIvwO26734 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 13:57:58 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA26869; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 13:35:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TIr2O26578; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 13:53:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TIq7O26522 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 13:52:07 -0500 Received: from backbone.midwestcs.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA26767 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 13:29:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from footbone.midwestcs.com ([206.222.212.237] helo=midwestcs.com) by backbone.midwestcs.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18zL75-0001mB-00 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 12:31:31 -0600 To: asrg@ietf.org (IRTF Anti-Spam Research Group) Subject: Re: [Asrg] More clueless spam bounces References: <4.3.1.2.20030329163805.026a7290@mail> <4.3.1.2.20030329150740.00bdb9c0@> <4.3.1.2.20030329150740.00bdb9c0@> <4.3.1.2.20030329163805.026a7290@mail> <4.3.1.2.20030329213147.00bdb1b0@> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: wayne In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lines: 39 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanner: exiscan *18zL75-0001mB-00*uYxAINwk5us* () Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 29 Mar 2003 12:31:28 -0600 In Kee Hinckley writes: > I'm sorry that you don't understand the social assumptions implicit in > human conversation. However that does not excuse your anti-social > behavior. I assume that if we were at a meeting, you would only talk > to him while sitting at the table, but spit in his face if he tried to > talk with you in the hallway? You can check the archive, but Phillip was the first to call someone "clueless". I think you analogy would be closer to "I assume that if we were at a meeting, you would only talk to him while sitting at the table, but spit in his face if he first spit in your face in the hallway?" Spitting in people's faces isn't very nice, even when "he started it". However, you (Ken) might want to try and be more even handed in your lectures. > Of all the companies currently involved in this, and the related > JamSpam discussions, Verisign is by no means the worst. JamSpam is > *hosted* by Topica. A funny story about the JamSpam folks. I looked into signing up on their mailing lists, but I refuse to have to disclose things like my birth date to be use for advertising purposes just to subscribe to a mailing list. I sent email to admin@jamspam.org asking if there was another way to follow the discussions. Unfortunately, the admin@jamspam.org email address apparently ends up eventually going to jamspam-admin@kavi.com which *bounces* with a "Unable to chdir to maildir. (#4.2.1)" error. *sigh* And JamSpam are the folks that think they can make internet email more reliable? -wayne _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 13:39:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA26940 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 13:39:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2TJ22126905 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 14:02:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TJ22O26902 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 14:02:02 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA26927; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 13:39:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TIv3O26720; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 13:57:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TIuWO26690 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 13:56:32 -0500 Received: from backbone.midwestcs.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA26848 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 13:33:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from footbone.midwestcs.com ([206.222.212.237] helo=midwestcs.com) by backbone.midwestcs.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18zLBN-0001ne-00 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 12:35:57 -0600 To: asrg@ietf.org (IRTF Anti-Spam Research Group) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Will someone PLEASE remove Tim@mailkey.com? References: <200303291701.h2TH1FlD029761@new.agentzero.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: wayne In-Reply-To: <200303291701.h2TH1FlD029761@new.agentzero.com> Message-ID: Lines: 18 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanner: exiscan *18zLBN-0001ne-00*PdCy/hSJEqo* () Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 29 Mar 2003 12:35:57 -0600 In <200303291701.h2TH1FlD029761@new.agentzero.com> Jim Youll writes: > My Dear God this is annoying. Would someone PLEASE remove this guy > from the list? > > Please? I have added mailkey.com to my personal blacklist. I now expect to be lectured by Ken about how I don't understand the social assumptions implicit in human conversation and how rude it is to blacklist anyone who is on this mailing list. Ken will probably even tell me that I'm doing this as retribution because it is unlikely that I will ever remove this ban. -wayne _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 13:42:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA26973 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 13:42:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2TJ50M26991 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 14:05:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TJ50O26980 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 14:05:00 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA26968; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 13:42:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TJ02O26831; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 14:00:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TIxGO26776 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 13:59:16 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA26898 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 13:36:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from rmf19 (h00055df0474a.ne.client2.attbi.com[65.96.217.174]) by rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (rwcrmhc51) with SMTP id <20030329183845051006reoae>; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 18:38:46 +0000 From: To: "'Brad Templeton'" , "'Dave Crocker'" Cc: Subject: RE: [Asrg] define spam Keywords: asrg;filename=20030329-133238-036.mht;x-sender=asrg-admin@ietf.org;List-ID=Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF asrg.ietf.org Message-ID: <000a01c2f622$6ea67980$66e237c0@rmf19> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 In-Reply-To: <20030329182951.GA9659@main.templetons.com> Importance: Normal X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 13:38:45 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit There is something fundamentally wrong with defining spam. Spam is whatever the end user thinks is spam. The goal should simply be to give the user tools for dealing with spam more effectively. And more important is semi-spam - all the gray stuff in the middle. Reducing traffic is a technical issue that shouldn't depend on a definition of spam since I can easily imagine other messaging that is voluminous and wanted such as TV programming being sent via email -- that's simply whole-program buffering. Fraud is another issue that should be separated out. Wrapping all this stuff in a tight bundle is what got us into the .COM mess. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 13:46:46 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27050 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 13:46:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2TJ9A627877 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 14:09:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TJ9AO27874 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 14:09:10 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27045; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 13:46:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TJ43O26963; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 14:04:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TJ3qO26948 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 14:03:52 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA26960 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 13:40:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h2TIhAa10036; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 10:43:10 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: Troy Rollo Cc: Kee Hinckley , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] More clueless spam bounces Message-ID: <20030329184310.GC9659@main.templetons.com> References: <4.3.1.2.20030329163805.026a7290@mail> <4.3.1.2.20030329150740.00bdb9c0@> <4.3.1.2.20030329150740.00bdb9c0@> <4.3.1.2.20030329163805.026a7290@mail> <4.3.1.2.20030329213147.00bdb1b0@> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20030329213147.00bdb1b0@> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 10:43:10 -0800 On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 09:47:03PM +1100, Troy Rollo wrote: > At 04:20 29/03/03 -0500, Kee Hinckley wrote: > >Sorry. I don't buy it. When you sign up for the list, you sign up for > >conversations with people on the list. > > This is manifestly false. You sign up for list traffic. There is nothing > whatever to require you to accept mail from any particular individual on > the list. While I would agree that there is nothing that inherently bounds a list to this policy, I believe that the default policy for most lists is that people can reply privately to postings to the list, and I certainly only want to particpate in lists which use such a policy. If you place impediments in replying directly to a list posting, you push people into sending their messages to the entire audience, even when they are not meant for the entire audience. This pointlessly increases the volume of mail on the list to the detriment of all, increases flamewars, and is generally a terrible idea. USENET was actually revolutionary in the days of BBSs in that you could reply to a poster by E-mail and were in fact encouraged to do so. In the early days it was not at all uncommon to get many more e-mail replies to a posting than followups. "Reply to the poster and she'll summarize for the net" was a standard mantra when global posting was expensive and e-mail of course much cheaper in terms of total traffic to the uucp net. This is one of the things spam destroyed. People now are afraid to put their real e-mail in their postings. Sometimes there is none, sometimes you can find it if you dig around in the posting to see it written in a form you must rewrite. It sucks, and spam has done this to us. Let it not do it to this list. I would hope this list would make a policy that if you are not willing to quickly and easily take e-mail replies to your postings on this list, you should not post to the list. You are free to read it. An easy challenge/response to new replyers is fine, but much more than that seems inappropriate. (I don't know the particulars as I haven't mailed Mr. Rollo before. I am about to find out...) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 13:58:19 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27151 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 13:58:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2TJKgu28216 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 14:20:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TJKgO28211 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 14:20:42 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27139; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 13:57:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TJF5O28043; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 14:15:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TJEnO27973 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 14:14:49 -0500 Received: from backbone.midwestcs.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27089 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 13:51:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from footbone.midwestcs.com ([206.222.212.237] helo=midwestcs.com) by backbone.midwestcs.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18zLT3-0001u9-00 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 12:54:13 -0600 To: asrg@ietf.org (IRTF Anti-Spam Research Group) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Is Tim@mailkey.com spamming? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: wayne In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lines: 22 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanner: exiscan *18zLT3-0001u9-00*QMSD2/NgSv2* () Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 29 Mar 2003 12:54:10 -0600 In "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" writes: > > My Dear God this is annoying. Would someone PLEASE remove this guy > > from the list? > > Please? > > Seconded, this guy is sending me more SPAM than the whole of Nigeria. Ok, this might make an interesting test case. Is tim@mailkey.com spamming people? Are we, by all subscribing to this list, consenting to email from others who are on this list? All of the emails from tim@mailkey.com are slightly different, so do they count as bulk? Are these messages commercial? -wayne _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 14:01:48 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA27224 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 14:01:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2TJOBB28327 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 14:24:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TJOBO28324 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 14:24:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA27209; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 14:01:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TJJ1O28144; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 14:19:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TJIbO28118 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 14:18:37 -0500 Received: from new.agentzero.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27101 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 13:55:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from [18.90.6.243] (MACLAURIN-FOUR-NINETY-EIGHT.MIT.EDU [18.90.6.243]) by new.agentzero.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2TIuTlD000883; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 13:56:29 -0500 Message-Id: <200303291856.h2TIuTlD000883@new.agentzero.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <144232110176.20030329101914@brandenburg.com> References: <105222467871.20030329073832@brandenburg.com> <200303291624.h2TGOWlD028606@new.agentzero.com> <74227685394.20030329090529@brandenburg.com> <200303291730.h2THUtlD030677@new.agentzero.com> <144232110176.20030329101914@brandenburg.com> To: Dave Crocker From: Jim Youll Subject: Re: [Asrg] define spam Cc: ASRG Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 13:57:25 -0500 At 10:19 -0800 3/29/03, Dave Crocker wrote: >Jim, > >Saturday, March 29, 2003, 9:32:26 AM, you wrote: >JY> into the morass of consent, well, there are ways to declare >consent, and some >JY> workable-or-not technological solutions have already been stated >... >JY> As for offering consent, well, we've made it pretty far in >JY> civilization with a personal >JY> concept of consent/access in every medium but e-mail, so there are >JY> means. > >Given that this is a technical research group, the distinction between >workable and non-workable is rather important. If something is believed >to be unworkable, it is distracting to discuss it. at the risk of sounding glib, if this is to be a technical research group, it's going to need a tighter mission than what it's diverged into. Globally valid definitions of such context-dependent concepts as "spam" and "consent" probably cannot be written. However, I think it's not ridiculous to say that one could still fairly allow that "spam" (which is slang, not a technical term) for our purposes does mean "messages that arrive without consent" provided that consent is defined only as a matter of personal policy, and left at that. Yeah, I can't write some code to deal with that, but maybe that's okay. And what is "personal" as in "personal policy"? Whose? Any mail server operator, ISP, or recipient along the path that a message travels asserts a personal policy already. Do they care to handle this message? If not, they already can and do reject enroute, e.g. too-large, too many hops, unknown recipient, no-relaying-for-you, mailbox full... >Noting that other media have developed workable solutions for consent is >extremely important. Assuming that they apply to email is dangerous, >especially when the physical scope of absolute control for email is >uniquely non-existent for so much of email. Every other mode of human interaction in the history of civilization has some concept of consent. I think it's over the top to assume that electronic communications are so very different. Consent is a feature of civil law at most places i'm aware of. In the US we recognize "quiet enjoyment". >JY> I feel the most fruitful activity for >JY> machinery between >JY> message-sender and message-recipient is to help define the character >JY> of the message, >JY> using info known at those places that's not necessarily known at the >JY> recipient end... > >1. I do not understand the reference to "known at those places", >given that you >then say "not necessarily known at the recipient end". My ISP's mail server understands, or could understand, some things about the handling of a given message that my mail client does not. For example, how many other messages like this one did it receive in the last 30 minutes? How many of those recipients have already complained? What's happening at other servers regarding messages "like" this? ("Like" seems to call into play sketchy heuristics, but nobody's shown that it absolutely _must_ be that way). >2. How does it help to rely on the sender's defining the character of >the message, when the senders are non-cooperative rogue players? If you cannot punish those who do not cooperate either because they can't be reached or because of spillover to uninvolved parties, you can reward those who do cooperate. (Yes, that's vague. that's one spot to plug in some research) >JY> And that has nothing to do with consent, except that if I personally >JY> have sense of what >JY> I care to allow, I may encode that policy near me, > >Let's assume that there is some way to embody "what you care to allow" >in software and some way to detect whether an incoming piece of email >conforms to what you care to allow. (The heuristics currently required >for such a mechanism are useful but highly flawed.) I'm not projecting anything beyond what's already happening; to a certain extent we already do encode these policies. Some do it by selecting a spam-safe ISP (e.g Earthlink's ad campaign), others by filtering or rules in mail servers or in personal mail-delivery code (my .procmailrc) or in clients (worst place imo). >This leaves us with the problem of massive bandwidth and processing >being consumed along the path from the sender to your filter. These >resources are not free and they have become a significant problem for >ISPs. The greater issue is that e-mail may become unusable. For some, it already has. Deal with that, the other solution will follow naturally. >And this is a perfect example of why some recipient-based filtering will >remain essential. My own email client let's me easily place an entry >into a special address book and discard all mail from anyone in that >address book... I would very much prefer that Mr. "Click the link or my bot will keep mailing you" be subjected to civil enforcement. My interest is in considering the problem from an economic perspective because I think that's the only way workable and solid solutions will ever be found. And I'm not necessarily talking about real money. 1. How can the cost of spamming and of not-spamming be made very disproportionate turned such that good conduct is more productive that bad? 2. Is there a mechanism that can be deployed by personal choice (at the level of a person, a mailbox, a mail server, and/or an ISP) that improves (even marginally) the quality of the adopter's communications, that also has the property that the more who use it, the better it works? Such a thing has a hope of popular adoption. Not much else does, and without popular adoption, a distributed solution (the only thing that can possibly work) will never take hold. This may be seen by some as a holy grail sort of pursuit, but I do feel that we would find, if we started to measure and estimate, that *everyone* needn't adopt such a thing in order to get to really good results. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 14:44:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA27962 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 14:44:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2TK6wc30369 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:06:58 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TK6vO30366 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:06:57 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA27957; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 14:44:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TK1LO30206; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:01:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TK0FO30166 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:00:15 -0500 Received: from mailhost.aix.cc (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA27799 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 14:37:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from wildmlt (unknown [4.36.172.251]) by mailhost.aix.cc (Postfix) with SMTP id 29C3F1D89A0 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 14:37:47 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <00ae01c2f62a$a1128500$1174fea9@aix.cc> From: "M Wild" To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Opt out vs opt in Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 14:37:25 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have been reading the threads on the various opt out proposals. I have a philosophical problem with opt out, to wit, "Why should I have to opt out of something I never asked for in the first place?" We recommend to our customers to *NEVER* respond to a spam email with the exception of requests to "legitimate senders" The decision on what constitutes a legitimate sender is left as an exercise to the customer however the example I give is a company known to you, the mail comes from @example.com and the unsubscribe address is also from @example.com and/or is in the form http://www.example.com/unsubscribe.cgi I also specifically warn against unsubscribes to email addresses at any one of the free email providers (ex. nomoremailxxxx@hotmail.com) or http://999.999.999.999/unsubscribe.cgi My attention is my property. I know what I want to look at and if I'm interested enough I'll actually search it out (I spent about an hour attempting to determine how to subscribe to this list...it is not obvious from the IETF website...or maybe I was having a clueless moment :-/ ) My take is the *ONLY* way a sender should be sending me bulk mail is if I verifiably *ASK* for it...ex. a double opt-in consisting of the request and then a verification reply from me that says "Yes I really asked for this" This does not preclude an individual sender from emailing me out of the blue in response to something they saw that I said. I've invited feedback from the list on a number of issues...that mail, to me *IS* solicited even if I didn't really know who I was soliciting mail from. My judgment is that most folks preference would be don't talk to me unless I ask for it. Opt out violates that principle. Verifiable opt in is needed to address the sites that this email is sent to you because you visited our site or one of our affiliates and requested communications of this type addressed to nobody, daemon or MAILER-DAEMON at my domain. My favorite is spam responses to a personal ad to mailer-daemon...makes me wonder what my mail servers are up to on those lonely nights that I'm wasting a couple hours sleeping. A single or limited number of opt out sites may alleviate this problem but I simply don't have time to opt out from spammera.com and then start receiving mail from spammerb.com...same company. The marketer may say "Well spammera.com *HAS* stopped sending you mail" How does that solve the problem from the ten gazillion others? I think this is opt out's fatal flaw. Regards Mike _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 15:01:09 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA28278 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:01:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2TKNW631577 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:23:32 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TKNWO31574 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:23:32 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA28246; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:00:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TKF4O31368; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:15:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TKEHO31306 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:14:17 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA28028 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 14:51:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2211778; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 14:53:47 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: wayne From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Is Tim@mailkey.com spamming? Cc: asrg@ietf.org (IRTF Anti-Spam Research Group) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 14:45:52 -0500 At 12:54 PM -0600 3/29/03, wayne wrote: >Ok, this might make an interesting test case. > >Is tim@mailkey.com spamming people? No. There is simply a bug in the software he is using. His software, without or without the bug, is extremely anti-social, and is (in my view) grounds for expulsion from this particular list. But that's a social problem specific to challenge/response systems. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 15:01:14 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA28294 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:01:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2TKNbX31595 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:23:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TKNbO31592 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:23:37 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA28252; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:00:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TKF7O31385; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:15:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TKEIO31317 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:14:18 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA28032 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 14:51:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2211774; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 14:53:48 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.1.2.20030329163805.026a7290@mail> <4.3.1.2.20030329150740.00bdb9c0@> <4.3.1.2.20030329150740.00bdb9c0@> <4.3.1.2.20030329163805.026a7290@mail> <4.3.1.2.20030329213147.00bdb1b0@> To: wayne From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] More clueless spam bounces Cc: asrg@ietf.org (IRTF Anti-Spam Research Group) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 14:53:33 -0500 At 12:31 PM -0600 3/29/03, wayne wrote: >You can check the archive, but Phillip was the first to call someone >"clueless". I think you analogy would be closer to "I assume that if No. He called the blacklist of his IP address clueless. Personally I don't take it as a insult when someone calls a decision made by my software "clueless". Nor, for that matter, do I consider "clueless" much of an insult. I probably manage to attain that state several times a day. >A funny story about the JamSpam folks. I looked into signing up on >their mailing lists, but I refuse to have to disclose things like my >birth date to be use for advertising purposes just to subscribe to a >mailing list. I sent email to admin@jamspam.org asking if there was Yes. This is a bit of Topica sliminess. I reached the same conclusion, and while I was composing my flame to Berlind, I got confirmation of being added to the list. If you read Topica's confirmation web page very carefully you'll discover that while they very strongly imply that you won't be subscribed until you fill it out--in fact that don't come out and say that. However it does appear that you can't read the archives without giving up private information. Given that I was subscribing to a list about privacy and spam, I found that particularly ironic. I'm currently attempting to see if we can have the lists moved to a host without these problems (namely, mine). -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 15:01:19 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA28308 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:01:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2TKNhw31611 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:23:43 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TKNhO31608 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:23:43 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA28257; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:00:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TKF8O31401; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:15:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TKEIO31315 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:14:18 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA28029 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 14:51:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h2TJred11553; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 11:53:40 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: wayne Cc: IRTF Anti-Spam Research Group Subject: Re: [Asrg] Is Tim@mailkey.com spamming? Message-ID: <20030329195340.GH9659@main.templetons.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 11:53:40 -0800 On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 12:54:10PM -0600, wayne wrote: > Ok, this might make an interesting test case. > > Is tim@mailkey.com spamming people? Sort of -- but what he's really doing is violating the rule, fairly well established though not RFCd properly, that an autoresponder MUST NOT respond to mail which has a "Precedence: bulk" header. This is not the first time this has come up. Every so often somebody writes a broken Vacation program or other autoresponder which responds to mailing list mail, and everybody who posts to the list gets a response from it, and they all get annoyed, and the person is taken off the list until they get better software. (Or sometimes the list manager realizes they should be putting the Precdence: bulk header on the list mail.) > > Are we, by all subscribing to this list, consenting to email from > others who are on this list? Independent question. Unless otherwise specified, then yes, by POSTING to the list, you are indeed soliciting replies to your postings. Subscribing to the list only solicits mails from the list, of course. The idea that if you send me E-mail (by whatever means, be it directly or a list) that I can't reply to you seems ludicrous to me. If anti-spam thought has led people to that conclusion, it's another sign of the emotional damage spam has caused. Can I auto-reply to you? If I'm the list manager, certainly. If I am a list member, probably not, but it's a purely technical question, not so much a spam one. This question is far older than the spam problem. (Though I will note that the term spam came into its current meaning not to refer to commercial postings but in fact to runaway robot softare which flooded first MUDs, and later USENET. In fact, Monday is the 10th anniversary of the first use of the term "spam" on USENET to refer to a mass posting. In this case, it was Dick Depew's AARM program which went amok and flooded news.admin!) Also coming up (I am going to do a small article) in May is the 25th anniversary of the first E-mail spam, sent by a DEC salesman to everybody on the Arpanet on the west coast.) > > All of the emails from tim@mailkey.com are slightly different, so do > they count as bulk? > > Are these messages commercial? To me that's not relevant, though I know some consider it relevant to spam. Do we even know this guy works at mailkey, or could he just be somebody with a mailbox there. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 15:15:54 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA29669 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:15:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2TKcHd32685 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:38:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TKcHO32682 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:38:17 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA29610; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:15:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TKX6O31800; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:33:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TKWSO31784 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:32:28 -0500 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA29091 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:09:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 18zMgE-0000YT-00; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 20:11:54 +0000 In-Reply-To: <20030329145610.28774.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] define spam To: "John R. Levine" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.4.13] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 193.195.0.102 Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 20:11:54 +0000 >>Well (referring to the charter) how about: >>A communication for which there is no consent given by the intended >>recipient. > > >Hmmn. Is this message spam? I don't have any consent from you on >file. The message of of itself fits the definition. However, it has a context (is part of an ongoing communication with a list - and within the declared ambit of the list) such that it's probably not reasonable to consider it "spam". Next! :-) > >Regards, >John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for >Dummies", >Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer >Commissioner >"More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly. > > -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 15:22:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA29802 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:22:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2TKj6X00463 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:45:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TKj6O00460 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:45:06 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA29788; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:22:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TKe3O00328; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:40:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TKdXO32740 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:39:33 -0500 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA29730 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:16:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 18zMn5-0001Ie-00; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 20:18:59 +0000 In-Reply-To: <105222467871.20030329073832@brandenburg.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] define spam To: "Dave Crocker" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.4.13] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 193.195.0.102 Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 20:18:59 +0000 > Jon, > > > > JK> Well (referring to the charter) how about: > JK> A communication for which there is no consent given by the intended > JK> recipient. > > I hear that you are the world's expert on ice cream. I want to hire you > to help my ice cream manufacturing business. We have never met. I send > you an email. > > The above definition classifies my email as spam. My knowledge of ice-cream manufacturing is rightly world renowned. I'm not sure why you didn't use my published address for this sort of message: contactme@simplythebesticeream.co.uk Then it wouldn't have been spam. Next! :-) -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 15:29:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA29919 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:29:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2TKq4Y00704 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:52:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TKq3O00701 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:52:03 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA29911; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:29:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TKl3O00549; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:47:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TKkNO00525 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:46:23 -0500 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA29819 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:23:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 18zMth-0001up-00; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 20:25:49 +0000 In-Reply-To: <200303291624.h2TGOWlD028606@new.agentzero.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] define spam To: "Jim Youll" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.4.13] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 193.195.0.102 Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 20:25:49 +0000 > Not that it's a solution, but it seems such a person could give blanket > consent > for potential collaborators or customers to contact him for professional > reasons related to ice cream, and if JK happens to be an eccentric ice > cream > inventor who talks to nobody, then he would presumably not give such > consent > because he truly does not care to be contacted/hired. > > Absolutely - yes. Many possible mechanisms for advertising consent before the fact. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 15:48:06 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA00183 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:48:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2TLAUv01993 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:10:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TLAUO01990 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:10:30 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA00168; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:47:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TL5JO01063; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:05:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TL4TO01014 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:04:29 -0500 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA00069 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:41:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 18zNBD-0003UH-00; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 20:43:55 +0000 In-Reply-To: <74227685394.20030329090529@brandenburg.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] define spam To: "Dave Crocker" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.4.13] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 193.195.0.101 Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 20:43:55 +0000 > Given that this is a technical research body, how does one go about > offering that consent, in a service with 100 million participants, and > how does one enforce it? > The group has a charter to which it's profitable to refer from time to time (I'd say). I'm sure working up a mechanism for expressing consent (here I go again) will be difficult - but I think it's a job for the group. It's fairly easy to envisage consent expression propagating up to the ISP or MTA (from individual users) enabling consent to be consulted at a single point for a domain (or set of domains). As for enforcing it, it's not clear that's a purely technical problem. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 15:56:04 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA00298 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:56:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2TLISH02225 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:18:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TLISO02222 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:18:28 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA00274; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:55:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TLD2O02089; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:13:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TLCAO02055 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:12:10 -0500 Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA00208 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:49:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18zNIc-0005BJ-00 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 12:51:34 -0800 To: "ASRG" X-face: ?^_yw@fA`CEX&}--=*&XqXbF-oePvxaT4(kyt\nwM9]{]N!>b^K}-Mb9 YH%saz^>nq5usBlD"s{(.h'_w|U^3ldUq7wVZz$`u>MB(-4$f\a6Eu8.e=Pf\ X-image-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/kanga.face.tiff X-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Message-ID: <19920.1048971094@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence Subject: [Asrg] RCPT TO bundling necessary for proposed solution? Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 12:51:34 -0800 Is RCPT TO bundling (the ability to have multiple RCPT TOs in a single envelope) necessary for the proposed solution, or can (not should) we drop that allowance and thus exploit VERP-like mechanics? -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 16:00:00 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA00358 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:59:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2TLMO802379 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:22:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TLMOO02376 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:22:24 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA00354; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:59:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TLH3O02182; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:17:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TLG9O02152 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:16:09 -0500 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA00234 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:53:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 18zNMV-0004SB-00; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 20:55:35 +0000 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Asrg] define spam To: "John R Levine" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.4.13] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 193.195.0.101 Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 20:55:35 +0000 >> >Hmmn. Is this message spam? I don't have any consent from you on >> >file. >> >> The message of of itself fits the definition. However, it has a context >(is >> part of an ongoing communication with a list - and within the declared >> ambit of the list) such that it's probably not reasonable to consider it >> "spam". > > >I find it hard to think of any circumstance where it's useful to consider >a one-to-one message to be spam. It may be annoying for some other >reason, but without bulk, there's no spam problem. > I'm the naked man in a glass room - I have no way of knowing how many recipients the message has. I can never know I've been spammed? Next! -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 16:01:08 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00418 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:01:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2TLNVF02420 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:23:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TLNVO02417 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:23:31 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00399; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:00:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TLI2O02211; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:18:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TLHBO02191 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:17:11 -0500 Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA00259 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:54:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18zNNE-0005CN-00; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 12:56:20 -0800 To: "Jon Kyme" cc: "Dave Crocker" , "ASRG" Subject: Re: [Asrg] define spam In-Reply-To: Message from "Jon Kyme" of "Sat, 29 Mar 2003 20:43:55 GMT." References: X-face: ?^_yw@fA`CEX&}--=*&XqXbF-oePvxaT4(kyt\nwM9]{]N!>b^K}-Mb9 YH%saz^>nq5usBlD"s{(.h'_w|U^3ldUq7wVZz$`u>MB(-4$f\a6Eu8.e=Pf\ X-image-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/kanga.face.tiff X-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Message-ID: <19986.1048971380@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 12:56:20 -0800 On Sat, 29 Mar 2003 20:43:55 +0000 Jon Kyme wrote: > I'm sure working up a mechanism for expressing consent (here I go > again) will be difficult - but I think it's a job for the group. It's > fairly easy to envisage consent expression propagating up to the ISP > or MTA (from individual users) enabling consent to be consulted at a > single point for a domain (or set of domains). Is there a driving need for the consent acquisition process to be both synchronous and fast? What if it were asynchronous with few guarantees on reply latency? > As for enforcing it, it's not clear that's a purely technical problem. Quite. I tend to see the primary problem as one of making the Bad Guys more like misguided Good Guys who can be accurately targeted and whacked via appropriate real world means. Solving what in essence are social behavioral problems via protocol design is a much bigger ticket that I'm not sure is possible. -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 16:06:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00473 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:06:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2TLT9N02582 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:29:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TLT9O02579 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:29:09 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00464; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:06:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TLO3O02449; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:24:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TLNiO02433 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:23:44 -0500 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00405 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:00:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 18zNTs-0004zM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:03:12 +0000 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Asrg] define spam To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.4.13] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 193.195.0.101 Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:03:12 +0000 >naked man ? glass room ? That last glass of wine may have been too much - apologies. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 16:10:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00538 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:10:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2TLX4w02703 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:33:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TLX4O02700 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:33:04 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00523; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:10:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TLS3O02536; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:28:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TLRkO02517 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:27:46 -0500 Received: from nic-naa.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00447 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:04:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from nic-naa.net (localhost.nic-naa.net [127.0.0.1]) by nic-naa.net (8.12.8/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h2TL3pGL090086; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:03:51 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brunner@nic-naa.net) Message-Id: <200303292103.h2TL3pGL090086@nic-naa.net> To: "Jon Kyme" cc: "Dave Crocker" , "ASRG" , brunner@nic-naa.net Subject: Re: [Asrg] define spam In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 29 Mar 2003 20:43:55 GMT." From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:03:51 -0500 > ... consent expression propagating up to the ISP or MTA > (from individual users) enabling consent to be consulted at a single point > for a domain (or set of domains) ... There exists a grammer, for the purpose (pardon the double ententdre) of expressing the purpose of endpoint identifier data. Coincidently, this grammer contains mechanisms for expressing the temporal property of an instance of policy, as well as the temporal property of the policied data, It contains other constructs that may be relevant, or not. The awkward bit, I suspect, is that the grammer describes data collection, by collectors, not data surrender, by surrenderers. In any event, it can not be used by this group. Eric _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 16:11:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00571 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:11:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2TLY2F02751 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:34:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TLY2O02748 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:34:02 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00564; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:11:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TLT1O02570; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:29:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TLS2O02529 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:28:02 -0500 Received: from mail023.syd.optusnet.com.au (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00452 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:05:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from co3001591-a.troy.rollo.name (c18374.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [210.49.142.222]) by mail023.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TL7Ru23371 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 07:07:27 +1000 Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20030330070348.00bdc100@> X-Sender: (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 To: asrg@ietf.org (IRTF Anti-Spam Research Group) From: Troy Rollo Subject: Re: [Asrg] More clueless spam bounces In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.1.2.20030329163805.026a7290@mail> <4.3.1.2.20030329150740.00bdb9c0@> <4.3.1.2.20030329150740.00bdb9c0@> <4.3.1.2.20030329163805.026a7290@mail> <4.3.1.2.20030329213147.00bdb1b0@> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 07:07:22 +1100 At 14:53 29/03/03 -0500, Kee Hinckley wrote: >At 12:31 PM -0600 3/29/03, wayne wrote: >>You can check the archive, but Phillip was the first to call someone >>"clueless". I think you analogy would be closer to "I assume that if > >No. He called the blacklist of his IP address clueless. The blacklist is on what is obviously my private domain. It can therefore be fairly assumed that *I* put it there. An inanimate thing cannot be "clueless", because a label of cluelessness is a comment about knowledge. It is necessarily directed at the person who has done the action to put that thing in place. This is logic 101 - in fact in a logic course it would usually be given as an example of an ad hominem. -- Troy Rollo Chairman, CAUBE.AU asrg@troy.rollo.name Executive Director, iCAUCE _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 16:44:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA01183 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:44:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2TM79p05239 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:07:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TM79O05228 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:07:09 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA01176; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:44:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TM27O04776; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:02:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TM1EO04745 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:01:14 -0500 Received: from plaidworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA01076 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:38:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.8/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h2TLeTZQ005417; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 13:40:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] More clueless spam bounces Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: wayne , asrg@ietf.org (IRTF Anti-Spam Research Group) To: Kee Hinckley From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <0E6EF936-622F-11D7-963B-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 13:40:27 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Saturday, March 29, 2003, at 11:53 AM, Kee Hinckley wrote: > Yes. This is a bit of Topica sliminess. My topica amusement came when I signed up for the high volume jamspam and posted to it, only to get three (count them) three vacation/OOF messages in reply. I was in the middle of a good rant when I stopped to check, and sure enough, the topica mail list was missing any precedence header at all. So I changed the rant... (eyes rolling. It's not brain surgery. at least, I don't think so) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 16:49:01 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA01258 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:49:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2TMBRh05773 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:11:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TMBRO05770 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:11:27 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA01248; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:48:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TM6HO04867; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:06:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TM5xO04833 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:05:59 -0500 Received: from plaidworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA01173 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:43:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.8/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h2TLjEZQ005464; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 13:45:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Will someone PLEASE remove Tim@mailkey.com? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: asrg@ietf.org (IRTF Anti-Spam Research Group) To: wayne From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 13:45:12 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I have added mailkey.com to my personal blacklist. I now expect to be > lectured by Ken about Oh, great. This place is now a USENET group, and we're having a meta fight over kill files. At the rate this discussion is moving forward, we're about two weeks from "Mr. Watson. Come here. I need you" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 16:49:14 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA01272 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:49:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2TMBe405789 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:11:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TMBeO05786 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:11:40 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA01254; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:48:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TM6EO04851; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:06:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TM5LO04817 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:05:21 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA01160 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:42:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h2TLieL13441; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 13:44:40 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: Jon Kyme Cc: John R Levine , ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] define spam Message-ID: <20030329214440.GM9659@main.templetons.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 13:44:40 -0800 On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 08:55:35PM +0000, Jon Kyme wrote: > I'm the naked man in a glass room - I have no way of knowing how many > recipients the message has. I can never know I've been spammed? > > Next! Really? I must say I have the exact opposite experience. Almost never to I get a spam that I can't immediately identify that it was not written personally for me. That alone of course doesn't prove that it's bulk but it's a remarkably accurate indicator. If you are building a bulk detector to prove bulk (for example to enforce a legal regime) the next step is fairly obvious -- forward any messages you get which _look_ to your fairly accurate intuition as bulk to a common spot, where messages that meet similarity metrics can easily be pooled for confirmation. Of course, that's only if you want to do things based on individual action. Clearly the mail servers for a large body of users can detect bulk the old fashioned way, but getting multiple messages. Brightmail has hundreds of thousands of spamtraps, and detects bulk that way (but also just uses the old fashioned human inspection trick on messages that come to the traps too) And as I have proposed, a set of MXs representing millions of users and pooling data can easily detect bulk by simply looking at delivery volume from network blocks, no need to even look at the content. To my mind, trying to figure if a message was written for me, or is part of a mass mailing, is remarkably easy and accurate. I would be curious to hear if others have had trouble doing so as Mr. Kyme appears to report. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 16:55:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA01418 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:55:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2TMIBO05966 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:18:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TMIAO05963 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:18:10 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA01387; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:55:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TMD5O05856; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:13:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TMCRO05818 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:12:27 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA01287 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:49:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc02.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2TLprnn014231 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 13:51:53 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 13:51:52 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] More clueless spam bounces MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 13:51:51 -0800 > No. He called the blacklist of his IP address clueless. Actually I called the architecture which causes mail to be bounced even though the recipient had just sent an email TO the same address to be clueless. And in point of fact, Troy initiated the insults with his deliberately insulting bounce message. A response to someone that you have just sent mail to is NOT spam, if you send a message to someone you implicitly solicit a reply, end of argument. If Alice sends an email to Bob, Alice should be able to recieve the reply without any further intervention. THAT is the part of the architecture that is 'clueless'. The reason for the blacklisting is irrelevant, Troy has sent five emails to my _personal_ email inbox but does not feel inclined to accept mail from me. I doubt that most people whose email is blacklisted would have the same attitude and if their ISP unilatterally introduced a blocking system of that sort would consider it unacceptable. It is not that difficult to fix, but it does require a more sophisticated conection between the email client and the email server than we have today. In particular the email client needs to be able to direct the filtering of mail as it is downloaded, or the server needs to tag the email in a standardized form the client can act on. Exchange has some of these mail handling semantics, but they are a holdover from the X.400 core of Exchange 5.5. They are not Internet standards (yet). I don't see any reason not to fix problems like this when it is easy and simple to do so. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 17:09:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA01767 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:09:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2TMW4r06613 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:32:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TMW3O06610 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:32:03 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA01760; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:09:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TMR5O06491; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:27:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TMQ5O06469 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:26:05 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA01642 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:03:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.57] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2TM5Vnn015363 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 14:05:31 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 14:05:31 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] More clueless spam bounces MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 14:05:30 -0800 > The blacklist is on what is obviously my private domain. It > can therefore > be fairly assumed that *I* put it there. An inanimate thing cannot be > "clueless", because a label of cluelessness is a comment > about knowledge. > It is necessarily directed at the person who has done the > action to put > that thing in place. This is logic 101 - in fact in a logic > course it would > usually be given as an example of an ad hominem. First off, ad hominem is not a necessarily invalid line of argument, as in 'the claims made by XYZ cannot be believed, he is a known liar and a very bad man'. Ad Hominem was and is accepted as a valid argument for accepting purely factual statements that cannot be assesed in any other way. Read any historical text and you will see one ad hominem argument after another. Secondly, yes inaniate objects can be described as clueless. Most inanimate objects are clueless. In this case I ascribed the cluelessness to the email architecture that divides the client and server operations in a way that neither has sufficient information to operate correctly. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 17:25:59 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02003 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:25:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2TMmPe07732 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:48:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TMmPO07729 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:48:25 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA01993; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:25:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TMh6O07640; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:43:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TMgCO07620 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:42:12 -0500 Received: from joy.songbird.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA01922 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:19:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from bbprime.brandenburg.com (208.184.79.252.songbird.com [208.184.79.252] (may be forged)) by joy.songbird.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TMLC721738; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 14:21:12 -0800 From: Dave Crocker X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.63 Beta/6) Personal Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <945354719.20030329142043@brandenburg.com> To: "Jon Kyme" CC: "Jim Youll" , "ASRG" Subject: Re: [Asrg] define spam In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 14:20:43 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jon, >> Not that it's a solution, but it seems such a person could give blanket >> consent >> for potential collaborators or customers to contact him for professional >> reasons related to ice cream, and if JK happens to be an eccentric ice >> cream >> inventor who talks to nobody, then he would presumably not give such >> consent >> because he truly does not care to be contacted/hired. JK> Absolutely - yes. Many possible mechanisms for advertising consent JK> before the fact. This is a technical forum. Please list any of the technical mechanisms that are reasonable candidates for use, in an environment with 100 million users and tens or hundreds of thousands of independent administrative localities. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking Sunnyvale, CA USA , _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 17:34:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02232 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:34:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2TMv6Q08028 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:57:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TMv6O08025 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:57:06 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02197; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:34:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TMp2O07846; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:51:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TMooO07824 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:50:50 -0500 Received: from mail023.syd.optusnet.com.au (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02053 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:27:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from co3001591-a.troy.rollo.name (c18374.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [210.49.142.222]) by mail023.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TMUBu02986 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 08:30:12 +1000 Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20030330070859.026a4a60@> X-Sender: (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Troy Rollo Subject: RE: [Asrg] More clueless spam bounces In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 08:30:10 +1100 At 05:15 29/03/03 -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >Since you are presenting yourself as the self appointed 'executive >director' of what purports to be an international lobbying group >on the subject Clue 1: I was not self-appointed. I was asked to fill the role - I'd rather somebody else have done it, but so be it. In fact I'm pretty sure the constitution on the web site explains how the appointment is made. (By the way, I only include that information in my signature here for context and disclosure). > you might want to think about your obnoxious >behavior. Clue 2: Glass houses. (Actually I figured this was why you didn't call me rude to begin with, but I guess you're less enlightened about yourself than I previously thought - at least I *know* I'm rude at times). >In particular you might just find that the people you >are needlessly antagonizing might have some influence. Clue 3: Don't overestimate your own importance. >Hint, who >do you think had the idea of a Whitehouse web site in the first >place? Clue 4: Who cares? Namedropping is the last refuge of the insecure and self-important, but of course I didn't need you to do this to realise this about you, since you have also been known use membership affiliation letters after your name, which is a similar indicator. > >Furthermore, he consistently pushes as "the only solution", > > something that > > would (if it were even a desirable approach or possible to implement) > > generate more revenue for his employer. >Completely untrue, I have pushed every solution except for those >that create as many problems as they try to solve. I apologise for saying that you were pushing this as the "only" solution - it was based on a single statement of yours that, when viewed in the context of the whole, has a different character to my initial take. However I do think the substance is fair in that you do seem to turn up on mailing lists whenever there is the possibility of profit to your employer to promote solutions that would yield that profit. This behaviour would not be inconsistent with the belief that part of your job description is to do exactly that. In fact you have even used marketing speak - about the "reasonable rates" Verisign offers. >... Troy initiated the insults with his >deliberately insulting bounce message... I'm sorry you feel personally slighted by a bounce message that relates to your domain being a repeated source of spam, but I fail to understand taking offence at an automated message which, in 99.9% of cases it would have been activated, is entirely accurate. >...The >reason for the blacklisting is irrelevant, Troy has sent >five emails to my _personal_ email inbox but does not feel >inclined to accept mail from me. That's rude, not clueless. I admit to being rude, deal with it. In any event, I try to avoid off-list copies unless: (1) the message I am replying to had off-list copies; and (2) The message retains some relevance to the people who are being copied. Of course this doesn't always occur, but I wouldn't interpret the sending of a private copy of an on-list message to mean any personal intention to send a private copy. >Secondly, yes inaniate objects can be described as clueless. >Most inanimate objects are clueless. If you want to travel down that path, all inanimate objects are clueless, so the comment is utterly redundant unless intended to be directed at the most proximate human actor. >Ad Hominem was and >is accepted as a valid argument for accepting purely factual >statements that cannot be assesed in any other way. True, however yours was not such a case. Kee Hinkley wrote: >Since you obviously don't give a damn as to whether Phillip has anything >worthwhile to say--being blinded by the twelve letters to the left of his >at-sign. Actually, I have been (to the degree reasonable on such a high volume list) paying attention to what he has to say. However I assume that if he has something to say that is worth reading it will be said on-list. >I'd consider the motive of earning money for Verisign--even if >true--potentially far more compatible with the goals of this list than yours. Well there we'll have to differ - like many, I consider anything that gives more power (or even revenue) to Verisign is a bad thing. But of course I also consider anything that sacrifices the availability of anonymity in email to be a bad thing. -- Troy Rollo Chairman, CAUBE.AU asrg@troy.rollo.name Executive Director, iCAUCE _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 17:34:52 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02246 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:34:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2TMvJ208045 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:57:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TMvJO08042 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:57:19 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02214; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:34:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TMp6O07862; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:51:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TMosO07828 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:50:54 -0500 Received: from new.agentzero.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02056 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:27:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.123.194] (h0050e4251179.ne.client2.attbi.com [66.30.24.79]) by new.agentzero.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h2TMSfCu010702; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:28:42 -0500 Message-Id: <200303292228.h2TMSfCu010702@new.agentzero.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <945354719.20030329142043@brandenburg.com> References: <945354719.20030329142043@brandenburg.com> To: Dave Crocker , "Jon Kyme" From: Jim Youll Subject: Re: [Asrg] define spam Cc: "ASRG" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:30:20 -0500 At 14:20 -0800 3/29/03, Dave Crocker wrote: >Jon, > >>> Not that it's a solution, but it seems such a person could give blanket >>> consent >>> for potential collaborators or customers to contact him for professional >>> reasons related to ice cream, and if JK happens to be an eccentric ice >>> cream >>> inventor who talks to nobody, then he would presumably not give such >>> consent >>> because he truly does not care to be contacted/hired. > >JK> Absolutely - yes. Many possible mechanisms for advertising consent >JK> before the fact. > >This is a technical forum. Please list any of the technical mechanisms >that are reasonable candidates for use, in an environment with 100 >million users and tens or hundreds of thousands of independent >administrative localities. These sorts of minute-by-minute challenges are unlikely to lead to anything useful. Why can't you just say that if someone wants to promote the idea of a consent mechanism, that they should announce a research thread and pursue it. I'm not going to sit here and pretend that I can answer an old question with a few minutes of head-scratching just because someone has thrown down the gauntlet. I'm not particularly interested in the topic, however I do seem to subscribe to a more wide interpretation of "consent" than you do... As I mentioned earlier, consent is already implied in the acceptance or rejection of mail at every step of the process already. Perhaps the small "consent" steps that exist now can be better formalized to at least provide more consistent results than are achieved now in a manner that does not require every last mailer on the net to be on board to work. I don't know, really... research and experimentation might tell us something about that. arguing about it probably won't. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 17:59:13 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02532 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:59:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2TNLeX09290 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 18:21:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TNLeO09287 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 18:21:40 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02518; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:58:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TNFLO09119; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 18:15:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TNElO09089 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 18:14:47 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02468 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:51:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h2TMsBb14804; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 14:54:11 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] More clueless spam bounces Message-ID: <20030329225411.GP9659@main.templetons.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 14:54:11 -0800 Once again, let me state that I doubt anybody cares who insulted who first in a flamewar. The rule for flamewars is very simple. It takes two to tango. If one person tries a flamewar on his own, I find that usually he gives up or people killfile/block him. If somebody insults you rather than addressing factual arguments, just let it go. Really. It's amazing how well this works. I know it's hard to do. I know it's hard to stay perfect at it, so I don't expect you to manage every time. But please, manage most of the time. When somebody posts an ad hominem, I think less of the _poster_, not the target. I only start thinking less of the target if the target responds. There is no debate to be had when it gets personal, no point which will be settled. Just walk away. This is an IETF list, so we can't bounce people for responding to flames, but sometimes I sure wish we could. Yes, it's hard. Respond to the flamer in e-mail if this will satisfy you somehow. If they block your email then the world will live if you don't e-mail them. Get on with the facts. "But I have to correct false accusations!" you might say. Well, you actually don't. We're really a lot smarter than we look. We can tell a smear when we see it. If somebody politely calls you a pig fucker, then you can politely deny it, but if he jumps up and down and calls you that, trust us, we don't give it any credit. Please don't tell us who started it. It only makes us think less of you. Let's get back to engineering problems: a) Refine and agree on the statement of the problem. b) Refine and agree on goals to solve the problem and metrics to determine success c) Refine and agree on technical and philosophical constraints on solutions. d) Propose and test solutions to the problem e) Evaluate how well they solve the problem and fit the constraints. f) ... g) Profit! _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 17:59:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02563 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:59:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2TNMBj09336 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 18:22:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TNMBO09329 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 18:22:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02531; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:59:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TNG1O09137; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 18:16:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TNFFO09113 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 18:15:15 -0500 Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02474 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:52:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18zPDT-0005v7-00; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 14:54:23 -0800 To: Chuq Von Rospach cc: Matt Sergeant , Kaitlin Duck Sherwood , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] email pull (was RE: Authentication ) In-Reply-To: Message from Chuq Von Rospach of "Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:23:18 PST." <6662ECE6-5FC0-11D7-83EE-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> References: <6662ECE6-5FC0-11D7-83EE-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> X-face: ?^_yw@fA`CEX&}--=*&XqXbF-oePvxaT4(kyt\nwM9]{]N!>b^K}-Mb9 YH%saz^>nq5usBlD"s{(.h'_w|U^3ldUq7wVZz$`u>MB(-4$f\a6Eu8.e=Pf\ X-image-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/kanga.face.tiff X-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Message-ID: <22760.1048978463@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 14:54:23 -0800 On Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:23:18 -0800 Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > On Wednesday, March 26, 2003, at 10:29 AM, Matt Sergeant wrote: >>> Q: Okay, what's the idea? A: Add something RSS-like to email >>> clients, where the client occasionally (and infrequently) polls >>> "subscribed" sites for new content >> Hopefully Richard Bliss might not mind the credit for this idea going >> elsewhere... http://www.newsgator.com/ (and that's probably not the >> first implementation - just a very nice looking one). > It's not. Credit for RSS stuff probably circles back to Dave Winer, > among others. But the blogs have taken RSS onto their own, and a bunch > of folks are doing interesting things with RSS and that enables people > to do nice things with RSS aggregators. it's just starting to peek > over the horizon for most folks, but it's been building for a year or > more. Fascinating stuff. Absolutely. I'm using Aaron's rss2email setup (as locally hacked) to dump RSS feeds into my mail spool and thus thru procmail for key word/signal/interest/etc filing. Very neat stuff. > It helps mitigate one of my biggest gripes about the high volume > discussion list, as well as enable people to keep an eye on what I > call "2nd tier" lists -- the interruption of e-mail being a push > technology, and the reality that most e-mail lists don't warrant being > pushed into people's eyeballs. With RSS, people can choose to pull > things on their schedule. Ultimately, I hope/expect the two > technologies to merge to allow people to manage their information > streams to their preferences. I view this not as a transport problem, but a filtering and presentation problem. It doesn't matter how or when the data gets to my system in general terms, it matters how and when it is brought to my attention, and what tools I have to readily pace and present that data to me. Computers have all the time in the world and utter freedom to handle scheduling asynchronously from me. I see no reason I need to build automated systems wrapped around my archaic notions of time when that's a UI/presentation/MVC problem. >> I think it's an excellent idea, but not something we can force on >> list sources. It's also worth noting that it's only for one-way >> communication, so it doesn't help mailing lists. > Oh, sure it does. A bunch of us on the mailman dev lists hashed out > this stuff months ago, and one of us (out of the foxhole, Lawrence) > actually went an implemented a system that seems really pretty > good. Eeek! > With Mailman as your email core, and web archives (based around > MHonarc) and RSS, you have a nice distribution setup. He then grafted > TDMA onto the front end, effectively whitelisting all of his mail > lists. So on the return mail, you can either subscribe, or you can go > through a challenge/response to get your message posted. Some rapid high points, if you want details, ask: 1) Lists are run thru Mailman. This is significant only in the degree and extent that TMDA directly supports reading Mailman subscriber lists. 2) List traffic is archived via MHonArc which generates PHP pages (see http://www.kanga.nu/archives/) The PHP pages have a reply feature which generates messages with proper In-Reply-To and References headers, as well as properly quoted messages bodies. See: http://www.kanga.nu/archives/Meta-L/2001Q2/msg00134.php for an example of a message written this way. 3) TMDA is setup in front of all lists, and all role addresses, using the subscriber rosters for the lists as de facto whitelists. TMDA then passes all subscriber mails straight thru to the list, but mail from non-subscribers is held until confirmed (at which point you can whitelist or not). Results: No more problems with posters from non-subscribed addresses. They have a subscription to _GET_ mail and to define an allowed posting address. They can (trivially) define additional allowed posting addresses by just posting from them and confirming the post to get on the whitelist. You're now essentially back in the old days of the 1980s when we could safely run open lists. Almost all SPAM disappears. They don't confirm. How much is all? I used to get 50+ spam per day per role address, and that's not counting virus mail. Since installing this TMDA-based system its down to single digits in the last year for spam and virus mail together for ALL my role addresses combined.. > either way, no spam, no moderator intervention, and users don't have > to go through the hassle of subscribing to post occasionally, > especially if they read it via RSS or web. I haven't yet exported my list archives as an RSS feed. That's coming. The current approach which is still in dev is: Mailman list gated bi-directionally to moderated local newsgroup. NNTP access is available with the spool containing the entire history of the list (list members who want to data mine love this idea) TMDA in front of the lists and inn2 etc as above. Searchable web archives of newsgroup ala GMane (well, different implementation). Posting from web archives ala above. Export of web archives via RSS/RDF with built-in URLs to the Reply-To pages on the web archives. Something I'm currently actively considering doing is having a TMDA-filter in front of inn2 and rewriting all messages as they are requested. Background: TMDA allows for a number of special address types, the most useful of which (for me) are: -- Dated addresses which work for only a defined period, after which they fall back to confirmation required, or auto-discard. -- Sender addresses which work only for the specified sender address after which they fall back to confirmation required or auto-discard. What I'm considering is using TMDA to generate dated addresses to replace all the email addresses in messages at request time (leaving GECOS fields intact). The dated addresses would then auto-forward to the original address within the date rage, and drop back to confirmation required outside the date range. > It was one of the things that started changing my mindset on > whitelists, seeing how they could really enable open but secure > communication channels without the increasingly bizarre "anti spam" > restrictions us mail-list geeks have been coming up with to try to > keep the spammers at bay. I have a couple thousand list members that have been subjected to my experiments with TMDA. As they are primarily online game designers, they're a rather technically savvy audience, even if not a terribly Internet or email savvy group. In the last year plus since deploying the above (not the rewrites, the list fronting etc) I've had zero complaints or accusations of its being too complex, too invasive, too confusing, or too difficult. In fact, I've received multiple compliments, especially from my less technical members as to how easy and obvious the process is. Background stats for the last year plus: To date I've had ~40 addresses confirm thru TMDA. 8 valid posts from 7 different addresses were not confirmed. Breakdown: -- Four reposted their messages from already confirmed/subscribed addresses. -- In one case a misconfigured mail systems at his ISP put an invalid Return-Path on his messages so the TMDA confirmation queries bounded. -- One stated that he'd reconsidered his message after reading it in the confirmation request, and had decided to not post it. -- In the final case the domain fell off the net before I was able to query/investigate. Almost a dozen members have exclaimed at various lengths how easy, simple, etc the system was (a few had previously stated how concerned they were by it -- none that had expressed such a prior concern, didn't also exclaim its simplicity and ease). Total number of spam and virus email caught by the system in the last year without human intervention or attention: more than 130,000. Total number of spammers who successfully confirmed thru TMDA: One. To handle I merely moved her address (richannm@attbi.com for those interested) from the whitelist to the blacklist. > Using TDMA basically kills any chance of forged header mail getting > through, so suddenly, your armed camp of a mail list doesn't need all > that barbed wire any more. This is partially due to TMDA authenticating on envelope AND From:. > there was some talk of adding these features to Mailman down the road, > but it's still in talk stage. But he's got it up and running, and it > works, and one of these days, I plan on going down that same path. Those that want to experiment I run a list expressly for this purpose: test@kanga.nu. Email there and you'll receive a confirmation message etc. > It really shows what whitelists can do once you get over the "how dare > you ask ME for ID?" mental state -- and yes, it took me a while to get > over it, too... But once I did, I realized whitelists could make > various aspects of life much easier on all side, especially compared > to fuzzy gif schemes and all that other stuff. I don't like non-automatic whitelist methods for interpersonal mail. Making sure that my message gets thru to JoeBlow in general is just not that important to me. However for discussion groups and more formalised settings its very much worth it to me. I want that message to get to the list, and thus the list populace, while I may not care in particular whether that weird Chuq guy gets it or not. That's one of the reason I'd like to see a recipient-specific MUA and MTA agnostic consent token system which allows revocation without sender consent. That's one of the reasons I asked the RCPT TO bundling question. If we drop RCPT TO bundling and use TMDA-like sender-specific consent tokens which have to be expressed in a mail header for automatic receipt... Think about it. The subscription handshake with a list or marketing division automatically acquires and maintains the consent token. The recipient can at any time revoke the token, or any tokens relating to a sender address. Tokens can be date limited and can automagically be updated/renewed by the same acquisition method, etc etc etc. All that's needed is a little bit of email robot support in the MUA, perhaps some complicity from the LDA and/or MTA for efficiency, and some not-very-hard UI work for the users. The other thing I'd like to see is a way to make the Received: header trail validly auditable, but I haven't finished working that idea thru my noggin yet. However, were it done and sufficiently widely deployed it would effectively identify the sources of spam (in the network sense) for appropriate real-world targeting (I don't believe that spam can be handled with purely technical solutions as the definition of spam is explicitly subjective). > Lawrence, want to explain your stuff in more detail and point people > at where they can find out more? Err, umm, as in more than the above? There's a HOWTO I wrote which is in the Mailman user FAQ (http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py) which I think got picked up by the TMDA FAQ as well (haven't checked), my MHonArc RCs, scripts and PHP bits are available at ftp.kanga.nu, and err, my consulting rates are reasonable and I'm susceptible to flattery. -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 18:05:20 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA02856 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 18:05:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2TNRmI09586 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 18:27:48 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TNRlO09583 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 18:27:47 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA02804; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 18:04:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TNL2O09268; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 18:21:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TNKvO09237 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 18:20:57 -0500 Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02504 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:57:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18zPJD-0005x6-00; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:00:19 -0800 To: Troy Rollo cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] More clueless spam bounces In-Reply-To: Message from Troy Rollo of "Sun, 30 Mar 2003 08:30:10 +1100." <4.3.1.2.20030330070859.026a4a60@> References: <4.3.1.2.20030330070859.026a4a60@> X-face: ?^_yw@fA`CEX&}--=*&XqXbF-oePvxaT4(kyt\nwM9]{]N!>b^K}-Mb9 YH%saz^>nq5usBlD"s{(.h'_w|U^3ldUq7wVZz$`u>MB(-4$f\a6Eu8.e=Pf\ X-image-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/kanga.face.tiff X-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Message-ID: <22883.1048978819@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:00:19 -0800 On Sun, 30 Mar 2003 08:30:10 +1100 Troy Rollo wrote: > But of course I also consider anything that sacrifices the > availability of anonymity in email to be a bad thing. Please clarify. Do you limit that to human identity, or both human and network identity? I largely suspect that the problem per se can't be handled until/unless we have full audit trails which can be tracked backward to the point where a given message entered the "mail network". The trust metrics involved can be pretty soft -- the primary NO GO zone for me is removing the autonomous decentralised peer-to-peer nature of SMTP, or its store-and-forward characteristics. I'd like to preserve deliberate anonymity, but I'm willing for those cases to be clearly visible (big flashing neon signs, "THE AUTHOR MADE THIS ANONYMOUS" etc). -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 18:23:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA04069 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 18:23:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2TNk4c11074 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 18:46:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TNk3O11071 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 18:46:03 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA04051; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 18:23:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TNd5O10772; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 18:39:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TNcZO10748 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 18:38:35 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA03920 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 18:15:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2TNHtAA004857 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:17:55 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303292317.h2TNHtAA004857@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] More clueless spam bounces References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:17:55 -0700 (MST) > From: Kee Hinckley > ... > Sorry. I don't buy it. When you sign up for the list, you sign up > for conversations with people on the list. Those conversations may > be on the list, off the list or (more likely) both. We are here > having this discussion because we want to *preserve* this aspect of > email--not destroy it. Everyone else whose anti-spam solutions have > interfered with the operation of this list has managed to fix the > problem or leave. If you're truly looking for solutions, please have > the courtesy of doing the same. > ... NO! Your reasoning would require removal of blocks against Cyberpromo and Alan Ralsky's many domains should Spamford or Ralsky subscribe to this list. When I sign up to any source of bulk mail, I only sign up for that particular stream of mail from that particular source. I do not sign up for anything else, no matter what any third party might think, even if that third party provides content that is published in the list. When I give a comemrcial outfit permission to send me mail, I don't give permission to all of their suppliers to contact me. Subscribing to a newsletter does not give all advertisers and contributors to the newsletter the right to contact you "privately." Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 18:25:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA04114 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 18:25:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2TNm5U11152 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 18:48:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TNm5O11148 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 18:48:05 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA04105; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 18:25:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TNg2O10928; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 18:42:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TNf6O10899 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 18:41:06 -0500 Received: from mail023.syd.optusnet.com.au (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA04000 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 18:18:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from co3001591-a.troy.rollo.name (c18374.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [210.49.142.222]) by mail023.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TNKSu24225 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 09:20:29 +1000 Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20030330091417.026b8e80@mail> X-Sender: (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Troy Rollo In-Reply-To: <22883.1048978819@kanga.nu> References: <4.3.1.2.20030330070859.026a4a60@> <4.3.1.2.20030330070859.026a4a60@> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [Asrg] Anonymity Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 09:20:28 +1100 At 15:00 29/03/03 -0800, J C Lawrence wrote: >On Sun, 30 Mar 2003 08:30:10 +1100 >Troy Rollo wrote: > > > But of course I also consider anything that sacrifices the > > availability of anonymity in email to be a bad thing. > >Please clarify. Do you limit that to human identity, or both human and >network identity? That would be human identity - network anonymity is (currently) problematic except in reasonably controlled situations (like anonymous relays, which can deal with the worst of the problems, but tend to be inconvenient for casual use). Having said that, it may be that as things progress and it becomes more common for the network identity to be capable of being associated with the human identity, then this needs to be also capable of being treated anonymously, or at least of limiting the externally visible identity so that a person is identifiable only as somebody in a reasonably large group. -- Troy Rollo Chairman, CAUBE.AU asrg@troy.rollo.name Executive Director, iCAUCE _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 18:43:52 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA04419 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 18:43:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2U06LR11476 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:06:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U06KO11473 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:06:20 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA04415; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 18:43:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U007O11385; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:00:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2TNxkO11340 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 18:59:47 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA04318 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 18:36:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2TNdAPR006566 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:39:10 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303292339.h2TNdAPR006566@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Is Tim@mailkey.com spamming? References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:39:10 -0700 (MST) > From: wayne > ... > Is tim@mailkey.com spamming people? > > Are we, by all subscribing to this list, consenting to email from > others who are on this list? > > All of the emails from tim@mailkey.com are slightly different, so do > they count as bulk? > > Are these messages commercial? Some commentators to the contrary, "commercial" is not a suitable part of any definition of "spam" that the IETF/IRTF can consider, because it is impossible for computers or even people to consistently decide whether a message is "commercial." The word "spam" is also not useful, because it is impossible to get the world to agree on a definition. However, the messags from tim@mailkey.com are clearly both unsolicited and bulk. Because I've white-listed this mailing list, I've had to take other steps to deal with the tim@mailkey.com UBE. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 18:49:01 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA04474 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 18:49:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2U0BUH12356 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:11:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U0BTO12353 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:11:29 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA04470; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 18:48:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U052O11456; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:05:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U043O11429 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:04:03 -0500 Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA04392 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 18:41:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18zPyp-0006B7-00; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:43:19 -0800 To: Vernon Schryver cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] More clueless spam bounces In-Reply-To: Message from Vernon Schryver of "Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:17:55 MST." <200303292317.h2TNHtAA004857@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <200303292317.h2TNHtAA004857@calcite.rhyolite.com> X-face: ?^_yw@fA`CEX&}--=*&XqXbF-oePvxaT4(kyt\nwM9]{]N!>b^K}-Mb9 YH%saz^>nq5usBlD"s{(.h'_w|U^3ldUq7wVZz$`u>MB(-4$f\a6Eu8.e=Pf\ X-image-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/kanga.face.tiff X-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Message-ID: <23752.1048981399@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:43:19 -0800 On Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:17:55 -0700 (MST) Vernon Schryver wrote: > When I sign up to any source of bulk mail, I only sign up for that > particular stream of mail from that particular source. I do not sign > up for anything else, no matter what any third party might think, even > if that third party provides content that is published in the list. While that may be what you intend to do, that is not apparent from your actions, and even more so, that is not implied by the information you reveal should you post to that list. This is simple information theory stuff. In the general case when you post to the forum you reveal yourself, willy nilly, to all the members of that forum at that time, and (very likely) everybody who may every find or discover that forum for the rest of time (archives and associative bleed being what they are). Those are the explicit audiences to whom you've provided your contact data. If that doesn't describe what you want to do, then DON'T DO THAT. Attempting to retroactively assign riders or etiquette contracts regarding your provided data is unlikely to work. If that's really what you want to do, then participate via a contract address that is limited to the sender of that forum (eg a TMDA sender address). Then the data you reveal matches the contract you wish that data used under. Note: Such an approach makes it difficult to fork a thread off-list. -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 19:31:27 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA05000 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:31:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2U0rvc14270 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:53:57 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U0ruO14262 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:53:56 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA04972; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:30:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U0lXO14111; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:47:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U0ksO14048 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:46:54 -0500 Received: from infobro.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id TAA04919 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:23:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:24:36 -0500 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:24:37 -0500 Message-ID: <01C2F628.D61A5590.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'Dave Crocker'" Cc: "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] define spam Organization: Information Brokers, Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:24:24 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit AMEN - a kick-start from Brad. On Friday, March 28, 2003 4:25 PM, Brad Templeton [SMTP:brad@templetons.com] wrote: There are many components in the various definitions of spam out there, and proposals can be created to deal with these sub-components, and thus become tools for people to build tools to attack their vision of what spam is. Amongst those sub components are: Bulk(volume) vs. Person to Person Subscribed (Explicitly, directly solicited) vs. Unsubscribed Reply vs. Origination Existing Relationship vs. Stranger These are all components of spam definitions which we can work with without laying down a spam definition. Some other components much harder to define are: Parameters of implicit solicitation Degrees of existing relationship Now this was presented as an argument for why we can't define 'spam' but I think it is these terms exactly that must be defined to get to a workable solution. -e On Saturday, March 29, 2003 12:33 AM, Dave Crocker [SMTP:dhc@dcrocker.net] wrote: > Folks, > > This groups needs to settle on a single, precise, operational definition > of "spam". A definition that permits objective, reliable tests for > qualification. > > We might or might not be able to get software to make that assessment, > but it at least needs to satisfy what the courts call objective. > > Unless and until we start treating this topic as a technical activity, > we are certain to make no progress, and to consume quite a bit of > bandwidth while doing it. > d/ > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > Sunnyvale, CA USA , > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 19:31:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA05014 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:31:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2U0s2o14292 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:54:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U0s1O14289 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:54:01 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA04982; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:30:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U0lNO14078; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:47:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U0kqO14039 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:46:52 -0500 Received: from infobro.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id TAA04915 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:23:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:24:31 -0500 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:24:30 -0500 Message-ID: <01C2F628.D230E660.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'Dave Crocker'" Cc: "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] cost vs. benefit Organization: Information Brokers, Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:16:01 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit All; I could not agree more with Dave here. It is difficult to cobble a list of requirements and NOT implementation specifics (especially for me ;) concerning any solution that may be proposed in this, a multi faceted, problem. Giving some context for the list below before moving forward consider the list a paper-man (not even a strawman yet) list of requirements(?) generally intended to glean some of the thought processes I have derived from reading previous postings after joining the list. I really appreciate the input, and perhaps for a short time we can marry a thread of discussion on the issue of requirements and join that with a critical view of the current and on-going research into approaches, while moving forward. I also agree that it is much more granular in some cases or over-reaching in others then is required, but as I revise it I hope we can draw some consensus on key solution requirements, so the bandwidth of this discussion becomes more manageable. And, yes, hopefully it will give of some basis point of origination for evaluating the proposals and whether they meet our consensus "model" of a solution. Some enlightenment on my treatment of this issue. I will use X.400 nomenclature to describe the infrastructure components AND some common internet application protocol semantics to describe how many of the elements interact (e.g. MX, MAIL FROM, etc.) I will attempt not to confuse anyone, I am sure most are familiar with these terms. To wit: MTA = Message Transfer Agent (classic mail servers, e.g., exim, sendmail, etc.) MTS = Message Transfer System (the entire infrastructure) MS = Message Store (a post office MTA, ok?) MUA = Mail User Agent (your typical end-user mail software, e.g. Eudora, Outlook, Hotmail web app, etc.) On Saturday, March 29, 2003 12:18 AM, Dave Crocker [SMTP:dhc@dcrocker.net] wrote: > > The list of requirements reminds me just how difficult it is to write > requirements. They need to talk in terms of high-level behavior of the > system, rather than providing requirements for implementation details. > Therefore they need to be general. However if they are too general, > they have no meaning. > > My following comments are not intended to claim or demonstrate that any > of your suggested requirements are wrong. (In fact, some of the > questions will seem remarkably basis; that's intentional.) I think your > list provides a fertile ground for trying to understand what the > requirements need to achieve, and on what basis: > > > EDW> Requirement 1) The proposal MUST address the issue of RFC821 [or envelope > EDW> protocol] originating MTA/MUA authenticity. > > You wish to have mechanisms for authentication. Why at the MUA/MTA > level? What problem is this solving? Why at the envelope or transfer > protocol level, rather than some other, such as content signature? > Noted. Why at the MUA/MTA level? -- What I picked up from the various threads and my own experience is that a traditional way of dealing with 'spam' is to attempt authentication of the originating/sending MTA or MUA (in the case of MTA/MS providers) and block that MTA or MUA from transferring further messages into the MTS. My sense is that the case for many is to review 822 header information and attempt to authenticate using that, then establish authorization rules, others may attempt some type of reverse address mapping authentication on connection to validate stated identity (HELO/EHLO server.anywhere.net) and then process authorization based on some rules. Integral to each of these methodologies is some form of authentication of the origination point. What problem is this solving? - The attempt is to solve the problem of forgery of origination information so that, in either case, the rules established are effective for either MTA or MUA origination. Why at the envelope or transfer protocol level, rather than some other such as content signature? - I agree that this should not be so detailed that it describes a method for the process, but it sets a bar on solving the issue at the earliest point of entry into the MTS. Revision: Req. 1) The proposal MUST address the issue of originator or originating MTA/MUA authentication. > > EDW> Requirement 2) The proposal SHOULD be amenable to legislation, in place or > EDW> pending as close as possible. > > As noted, legislation has a minor problem of scope. US laws will not > affect a spammer from another country. To the extent that anyone thinks > we can enforce the laws of one country on another, we need to assume > that none of this will happen anytime soon and possibly not in our > lifetime. In any event, we again need to state what problem we see this > as solving and what limitations we expect to encounter. What problem is this solving? - This requirement attempts to address the issue of marrying a technical solution with public policy or community consensus on acceptable use. Revision: Req. 2) The proposal SHOULD be congruent with community consensus on acceptable use of the MTS. > > EDW> Requirement 3) The proposal MUST provide a flexibility for integration with > EDW> other ANTI-SPAM (UBE/UCE) approaches [it shouldn't break anything]. > > I have no idea what to do with the requirement, at any practical level. > There are no standards for email spam suppression, so there is no formal > basis for knowing what we might break or must not break. What problem is this solving? - The requirement attempted to address the issue of interoperation with other methods that conform with this list of requirements. Revision: Req. 3) Tabled. > EDW> Requirement 4) The proposal SHOULD provide implementation specifics that > EDW> address the issues of privacy, security and which reflect end use choices, of > EDW> either providers or users. > > Again, I have no idea what any of this means. I can't even guess how to > apply it to specific work. What problem is this solving? - This requirement is for the proposal to provide in its description or methodology a 'device' or 'process' that allows user control of parameters that govern certain operational aspects such as privacy, security. The parameters could be set either by end users or providers. Revision: Req. 4) Tabled. > > EDW> Requirement 5) The proposal SHOULD/MAY [not sure how strong this would be as a > EDW> requirement] include a mechanism for implementation in messaging relay systems > EDW> (MX hosts), end use 'post offices' (MTAs), and end node mail recipient systems > EDW> (MUAs). Proposals that include only one of these messaging system components > EDW> MUST include mechanisms for interaction with the other components. > > Please clarify what you mean by "a mechanism for implementation in...". > I am guessing you are looking for a system-wide perspective in any > specific proposal, but I might be misunderstanding. What problem is this solving? - 1) We do not want to limit the proposals to a total system-wide solution for the problem, so I can change it to an 'either this, that, those or all' requirement statement; 2) If a proposal is a good one but only for a 'single component' of the messaging system (MTS) then it should provide for interfaces to other interoperable solutions (at least on paper for a start and from the same requirement framework); 3) A solution may be for core components (MTAs) AND also provide a solution set for the final end-user component (MUA), BUT not give implementation specifics. This is what is needed I think as a statement to cover those contingencies. Revision: Req. 5) Proposals that do not cover all components of the MTS MUST include an interface description for use of other components. > > EDW> Requirement 6) The proposal MAY include a method for extension to or > EDW> integration with other protocols, e.g. HTTP, that may be used to relay > EDW> messages. > > Why is this a requirement? What is the concern? > What problem is this solving? - None, extensibility to other protocols for MTS e.g. MSMQ. Revision: Req. 6 - moved) Add a 'wish list' as an appendix to the requirements list, or as a considerations section. > EDW> Requirement 7) The proposal SHOULD describe a working definition of > EDW> Unsolicited, Solicited, Bulk and other terms used to describe messaging > EDW> commonly referred to as SPAM. > > amen, except that I class precise definitions as a MUST. right now, > spam is whatever you choose to define it as, or I choose, or... > What problem is this solving? - This attempts to solicit a consensus set of semantics to 'SPAM' (which is an archaic term). I choose the term 'working definition' because I think as we converge on precise definitions we may go through some changes. I choose SHOULD because I was using a soft mallet. Revision: Req. 7) The proposal MUST describe in precise definitions terminology used to identify messaging commonly referred to as "SPAM". Requirement 8) The proposal SHOULD NOT attempt to affect legitimate messaging system uses for bulk mailing. [This may also be covered by Req 3 but IMHO, this is more discreeet in the approach.] What problem is this solving? - Attempts to address the problems associated with legitimate uses of the MTS. This seems redundant. Revision: Dropped. Result from this approach: Revision: Req. 1) The proposal MUST address the issue of originator or originating MTA/MUA authentication. Revision: Req. 2) The proposal SHOULD be congruent with community consensus on acceptable use of the MTS. Revision: Req. 3) Tabled. Revision: Req. 4) Tabled. Revision: Req. 5) Proposals that do not cover all components of the MTS MUST include an interface description for use of other components. Revision: Req. 6 - moved) Add a 'wish list' as an appendix to the requirements list, or as a considerations section. Revision: Req. 7) The proposal MUST describe in precise definitions terminology used to identify messaging commonly referred to as "SPAM". Revision: Req. 8) Dropped - redundant. > > d/ > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > Sunnyvale, CA USA , Regards, -e _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 19:31:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA05028 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:31:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2U0sDG14310 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:54:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U0sCO14307 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:54:12 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA04996; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:31:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U0lVO14094; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:47:31 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U0krO14044 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:46:53 -0500 Received: from infobro.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id TAA04917 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:23:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:24:33 -0500 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:24:34 -0500 Message-ID: <01C2F628.D4934060.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'Brad Templeton'" Cc: "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] cost vs. benefit Organization: Information Brokers, Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:18:01 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks for the input Brad. On Friday, March 28, 2003 4:25 PM, Brad Templeton [SMTP:brad@templetons.com] wrote: > On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 03:11:10PM -0500, Eric D. Williams wrote: > > Thanks Dave. :-) > > > > Requirement 1) The proposal MUST address the issue of RFC821 [or envelope > > protocol] originating MTA/MUA authenticity. > > Hmm. I would venture that that is just one tool against spam, and not a > necessary one. A working group on email authentication really is an > independent issue. I would consider this a MAY, not a MUST. > > Again, this is an implementation approach, not a goal. Or rather, if SMTP > envelope authentication is a goal in and of itself, it's not a goal of > this RG, which is researching solutions to the spam problem. > > > > > Requirement 2) The proposal SHOULD be amenable to legislation, in place or > > pending as close as possible. > > Also a MAY. Legislation is inherently local. This is an international > engineering body. We can provide tools to help a general legislative > framework where it might exist, but we should not do anything specific to > local laws like U.S. laws. And be very wary of "pending" legislation. > There's always tons of "pending" legislation that doesn't have a snowball's > chance of passing, and it would be a serious error to design protocols with > any attention to it. > > > > > Requirement 3) The proposal MUST provide a flexibility for integration with > > > > other ANTI-SPAM (UBE/UCE) approaches [it shouldn't break anything]. > > It is required not to break any existing and adopted RFCs but I can see no > reason why it should be constrained by various anti-spam tools out there. > For example, there are now many challenge/response systems out there and I > fully expect that any effort to standardize such activity (for example a > new SMTP response) would possibly break some of them. > > > > Requirement 4) The proposal SHOULD provide implementation specifics that > > address the issues of privacy, security and which reflect end use choices, > > of > > either providers or users. > > Russell is working on a much more detailed list for debate of such goals and > constraints which I am sure we will go over in detail. > > > > Requirement 5) The proposal SHOULD/MAY [not sure how strong this would be as > > a > > requirement] include a mechanism for implementation in messaging relay > > systems > > (MX hosts), end use 'post offices' (MTAs), and end node mail recipient > > systems > > (MUAs). Proposals that include only one of these messaging system > > components > > MUST include mechanisms for interaction with the other components. > > You're getting way to deep into implementation details for a statement of > goals. > > The broad goal is that whatever is proposed should work within the context > of existing mail transport mechanisms (which of course include MUAs, MTAs, > outgoing relays and incoming relays) > > > > Requirement 6) The proposal MAY include a method for extension to or > > integration with other protocols, e.g. HTTP, that may be used to relay > > messages. > > Not sure what you are mean here. We MAY propose any system that will > address > the spam problem, of course. IS there something specific about HTTP you have > in mind. > > > > Requirement 7) The proposal SHOULD describe a working definition of > > Unsolicited, Solicited, Bulk and other terms used to describe messaging > > commonly referred to as SPAM. > > An important goal for some applications, though based on experience, not one > I think we'll accomplish. > > Indeed, any proposal that is of the form, "Mail which meets the [definition > of > spam] shall do this, or shall not do that" needs such a definition. > > Proposals that instead rely simply on new rules for bulk mail (which I think > we can successfully define) could exist without a definition of spam itself. > > There are many components in the various definitions of spam out there, and > proposals can be created to deal with these sub-components, and thus become > tools for people to build tools to attack their vision of what spam is. > Amongst > those sub components are: > Bulk(volume) vs. Person to Person > Subscribed (Explicitly, directly solicited) vs. Unsubscribed > Reply vs. Origination > Existing Relationship vs. Stranger > These are all components of spam definitions which we can work with without > laying down a spam definition. Some other components much harder to define > are: > Parameters of implicit solicitation > Degrees of existing relationship > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 19:32:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA05051 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:32:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2U0t9Q14360 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:55:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U0t9O14357 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:55:09 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA05045; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:32:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U0n5O14163; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:49:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U0mVO14135 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:48:31 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA04933 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:25:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (h005018086b3b.ne.client2.attbi.com[66.31.45.164]) by rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (rwcrmhc52) with SMTP id <2003033000273705200n5g8oe>; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:27:40 +0000 X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas Subject: Re: [Asrg] email pull (was RE: Authentication ) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: mathew In-Reply-To: To: asrg@ietf.org X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to . X-Image-Url: http://meta.ATH0.com/photos/MailPictures/meta@pobox.com Message-Id: <64E8345A-6246-11D7-AF44-00039380F1B6@pobox.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:27:31 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wednesday, Mar 26, 2003, at 21:16 US/Eastern, Kee Hinckley wrote: > At 8:54 PM -0500 3/26/03, mathew wrote: >> This goes back to the suggestion from myself and others, earlier on. >> >> Once you've moved the mailing list traffic to an RSS-like "pull" >> system, you take the next step, and move all e-mail traffic to it. >> >> Now for someone to send you e-mail, they send you the bare URL of >> their RSS feed from them to you. > > Pull is a great idea, and if we can persuade mailing list operators to > offer it as a choice, that's great. > > But it's not email. It doesn't have a number of the necessary > attributes for person-to-person email. > - it requires a server that is up all the time So does conventional e-mail. With current e-mail systems, I fail to get the mail if my messaging server (at my ISP) is down. With e-mail pull, I fail to get the mail if the sender's messaging server (at his ISP) is down. In addition, I won't get mail from people I don't know that I need to poll unless my messaging server at my ISP is up. A small tradeoff in reliability, but one I think I'd take to cut spam. I mean, the web often requires that both my ISP and the appropriate web site have their servers operational when I want to read a web page. Yet people still use the web. > - it requires storing outgoing email for an indefinite amount of time The current system requires storing incoming e-mail for an indefinite amount of time. Both of these are the whole point of the system. The whole idea is to move the storage, uptime and network requirements to the sender's messaging server, so that it's easier to take action against abuse, and so that server operators suffer direct consequences if they fail to secure their systems. > - it completely the destroys the go-online, fetch, go-offline model Not really. It just means that my mail client would go online, fetch my e-mail from a dozen different systems instead of just one, then disconnect. mathew _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 19:36:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA05100 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:36:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2U0x6b14457 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:59:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U0x6O14454 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:59:06 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA05086; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:36:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U0r2O14238; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:53:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U0q2O14216 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:52:02 -0500 Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA04944 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:29:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18zQjK-0006R2-00; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:31:22 -0800 To: Troy Rollo cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Anonymity In-Reply-To: Message from Troy Rollo of "Sun, 30 Mar 2003 09:20:28 +1100." <4.3.1.2.20030330091417.026b8e80@mail> References: <4.3.1.2.20030330070859.026a4a60@> <4.3.1.2.20030330070859.026a4a60@> <4.3.1.2.20030330091417.026b8e80@mail> X-face: ?^_yw@fA`CEX&}--=*&XqXbF-oePvxaT4(kyt\nwM9]{]N!>b^K}-Mb9 YH%saz^>nq5usBlD"s{(.h'_w|U^3ldUq7wVZz$`u>MB(-4$f\a6Eu8.e=Pf\ X-image-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/kanga.face.tiff X-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Message-ID: <24739.1048984282@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:31:22 -0800 On Sun, 30 Mar 2003 09:20:28 +1100 Troy Rollo wrote: > At 15:00 29/03/03 -0800, J C Lawrence wrote: >> On Sun, 30 Mar 2003 08:30:10 +1100 Troy Rollo >> wrote: >>> But of course I also consider anything that sacrifices the >>> availability of anonymity in email to be a bad thing. >> Please clarify. Do you limit that to human identity, or both human >> and network identity? > That would be human identity - network anonymity is (currently) > problematic except in reasonably controlled situations (like anonymous > relays, which can deal with the worst of the problems, but tend to be > inconvenient for casual use). Gotcha. > Having said that, it may be that as things progress and it becomes > more common for the network identity to be capable of being associated > with the human identity, then this needs to be also capable of being > treated anonymously, or at least of limiting the externally visible > identity so that a person is identifiable only as somebody in a > reasonably large group. Okay, so at what level do those anonymising methods need to be implemented? Should they be generic and wide spread, endemic to the protocol stack as it were (and is now), or, like for instance the current mixmaster setup, is it acceptable if there is a fairly limited number of methods of anonymising mail, which requires some hoop jumping, but if those hoops are jumped the mail is efficiently (and obviously) anonymous? My temptation is to make anonymous mail difficult but not impossible, and in particular to explicitly limit the number of vectors by which anonymous mail can enter the network while being recognised as, "acceptable". More simply I suspect it would be a Good Thing if we removed (almost) all possibility of accidental/unintentional anonymous mail, leaving the forms that are truly anonymous both deliberate and limited. -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 19:41:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA05145 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:41:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2U144m14686 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 20:04:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U144O14683 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 20:04:04 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA05140; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:41:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U134O14658; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 20:03:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U123O14629 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 20:02:03 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA05126 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:39:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (h005018086b3b.ne.client2.attbi.com[66.31.45.164]) by rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (rwcrmhc53) with SMTP id <20030330004125053005krj3e>; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:41:25 +0000 X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Notes on Callback SMTP Transmission Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: mathew In-Reply-To: To: asrg@ietf.org X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to . X-Image-Url: http://meta.ATH0.com/photos/MailPictures/meta@pobox.com Message-Id: <55ECDAC2-6248-11D7-AF44-00039380F1B6@pobox.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:41:24 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Friday, Mar 28, 2003, at 10:39 US/Eastern, David F. Skoll wrote: > 1 - NastySpammer sends millions of connections from thousands of 0wned > hosts, and suddenly poor victim gets a DDoS from all the callbacks > from hosts attempting to receive the purported mail. That's really no different from the same person having the 0wned hosts directly DDoS the victim, or having the 0wned hosts send out ping packets with the victim's IP address. Already illegal most places, and the spammer already has the capability, so the proposal isn't making anything worse. I think that objecting to a proposal because it allows bad guys to mount an attack they can already mount is a bit nit-picky. mathew _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 20:03:59 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA05423 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 20:03:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2U1QUE16000 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 20:26:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U1QUO15997 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 20:26:30 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA05417; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 20:03:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U1PAO15951; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 20:25:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U1O1O15903 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 20:24:01 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA05339 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 20:00:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (h005018086b3b.ne.client2.attbi.com[66.31.45.164]) by rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (rwcrmhc51) with SMTP id <2003033001032305100eakkre>; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 01:03:23 +0000 X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas Subject: Re: [Asrg] More clueless spam bounces Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: mathew In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20030329164120.026a5990@> To: asrg@ietf.org X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to . X-Image-Url: http://meta.ATH0.com/photos/MailPictures/meta@pobox.com Message-Id: <678E275B-624B-11D7-AF44-00039380F1B6@pobox.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 20:03:23 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Saturday, Mar 29, 2003, at 00:48 US/Eastern, Troy Rollo wrote: > My domain, my rules. I don't want email from Versign, period. List > traffic - on list traffic, is an exception, primarily because it isn't > affected by the same rules, but also for other reasons. Well, that's all fine, and I think that Verisign sucks too... However, do you really not see how perverse it is to send personal e-mail to people at Verisign, when you've already decided that you don't want to hear from them, and when any e-mail that comes from them will only annoy you? The whole idea of putting someone in a spam filter and then continuing to e-mail him is just silly. It's like kids in a playground shouting insults and then sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "Nyaah nyaah nyaah can't hear you!" mathew _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 20:48:48 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA06054 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 20:48:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2U2BKu18598 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:11:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U2BJO18595 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:11:19 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA06049; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 20:48:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U29MO18530; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:09:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U28JO18452 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:08:19 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA06012 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 20:45:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2U1ld8t021171 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 18:47:39 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303300147.h2U1ld8t021171@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] More clueless spam bounces References: <64E8345A-6246-11D7-AF44-00039380F1B6@pobox.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 18:47:39 -0700 (MST) > From: J C Lawrence > > When I sign up to any source of bulk mail, I only sign up for that > > particular stream of mail from that particular source. I do not sign > > up for anything else, no matter what any third party might think, even > > if that third party provides content that is published in the list. > > While that may be what you intend to do, that is not apparent from your > actions, and even more so, that is not implied by the information you > reveal should you post to that list. This is simple information theory > stuff. "Information theory stuff" is stuff and nonsense in this context. If you want to talk about Shannon's work and so forth, we could, but such talk would have nothing to do with the charter of this mailing list or this digression. > In the general case when you post to the forum you reveal yourself, > willy nilly, to all the members of that forum at that time, and (very > likely) everybody who may every find or discover that forum for the rest > of time (archives and associative bleed being what they are). Those are > the explicit audiences to whom you've provided your contact data. If > that doesn't describe what you want to do, then DON'T DO THAT. > Attempting to retroactively assign riders or etiquette contracts > regarding your provided data is unlikely to work. > ... That position is indistinguishable from spammers who claim that publishing an address is tantamount to soliciting anything they care to send you, until you opt-out, and that any future publication of your contact information is a new request to be spammed back to the 19th Century. Please note that I am not saying you are a spammer, but only that those words express perfectly the position of spammers that they have the right to spam you if you don't hide your address. I think subscribing or contributing to a mailing list amounts to nothing more than subscribing or contributing to a mailing list. In the absense of explicit agreement to the contrary, subscribing to a mailing list does not solicit any mail from anyone except from that mailing list. It is reasonable for a stranger to assume that you at least tolerate non-bulk, polite, private messages on any topic that the sender reasonably believes interests you. That the sender infers your interest from a web page, netnews article, mailing list submission, business card, roadside sign, or mental telepathy is irrelevant. Submitting something to a mailing list does not grant anyone any right to send you mail that they would not already have without your submission. However, that permission can be assumed to extend only to non-bulk, polite message and only in the absense of knowledge to the contrary. That permission to send mail to you be withdrawn at any time with no more notice than an SMTP status message or an email message. > Note: Such an approach makes it difficult to fork a thread off-list. There are cases where the only discussions that are possible are public because there is insufficient mutual regard for private discussions. Despite such problems, public discussions can be fruitful. Public statements do not obligate you to private discussions with anyone. To put it another way, if you think your response to someone's public remark is inapprorpriate for the public forum, then you should consider the possibility that you shouldn't make it in private. In yet other words, are you really advocating the notion that I must receive bulk noise about keys because I've subscribed to this mailing list? If so, what about urgent messages about escrow accounts in Nigeria? Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 20:50:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA06074 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 20:50:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2U2CbX18624 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:12:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U2CbO18621 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:12:37 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA06069; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 20:49:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U2B1O18575; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:11:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U2AuO18561 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:10:56 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA06043 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 20:47:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h2U1oCN18574; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:50:12 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: J C Lawrence Cc: Troy Rollo , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Anonymity Message-ID: <20030330015012.GS9659@main.templetons.com> References: <4.3.1.2.20030330070859.026a4a60@> <4.3.1.2.20030330070859.026a4a60@> <4.3.1.2.20030330091417.026b8e80@mail> <24739.1048984282@kanga.nu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <24739.1048984282@kanga.nu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:50:12 -0800 On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 04:31:22PM -0800, J C Lawrence wrote: > On Sun, 30 Mar 2003 09:20:28 +1100 > My temptation is to make anonymous mail difficult but not impossible, > and in particular to explicitly limit the number of vectors by which > anonymous mail can enter the network while being recognised as, > "acceptable". More simply I suspect it would be a Good Thing if we > removed (almost) all possibility of accidental/unintentional anonymous > mail, leaving the forms that are truly anonymous both deliberate and > limited. Would it not be sufficient simply to assure anonymous mail can not be sent in large volumes? That is what most anonymous remailers do to avoid being used as spam gateways today. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 20:55:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA06143 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 20:55:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2U2I3Z18732 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:18:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U2I3O18729 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:18:03 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA06136; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 20:55:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U2H2O18716; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:17:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U2GJO18701 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:16:19 -0500 Received: from smtp.istop.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA06122 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 20:53:15 -0500 (EST) From: waltdnes@waltdnes.org Received: from waltdnes.org (ip245-165.tor.istop.com [66.11.165.245]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 798CD36A4A for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 20:55:40 -0500 (EST) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sat, 29 Mar 2003 20:56:13 +4300 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: 5c. Message Status - Re: [Asrg] ASRG work items Message-ID: <20030330015613.GA13927@m400> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 20:56:13 -0500 On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 12:55:45PM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote > For example on 9/11 someone could have sent a broadcast to all RIM > pagers in the US with emergency information, I doubt it would have > been unwanted in many cases. And what would it have accomplished that CNN couldn't ? Asides from tying up bandwidth which could've been used by people to let relatives know they were safe ? > The word indiscriminate is of course subjective, just like the term spam. > However a salesperson that sends messages to 10,000 existing customers can > hardly be considered indiscriminate, Except that some of them will quickly become ex-customers. > nor is a salesperson who sends targetted messages to 100 sales prospects, Most participants in this group seem to be male. Therefore, ads for penis enlargement, meet-lonely-women, and viagra would definitely be "targetted messages" by your criteria. > nor is a message with a CFP for an anti-spam conference sent to > this list. It would be on-topic for this group. -- Walter Dnes An infinite number of monkeys pounding away on keyboards will eventually produce a report showing that Windows is more secure, and has a lower TCO, than linux. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 20:59:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA06228 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 20:59:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2U2M9E18869 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:22:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U2M9O18866 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:22:09 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA06171; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 20:59:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U2L4O18844; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:21:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U2K3O18814 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:20:03 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA06162 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 20:56:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18zSFz-0000QU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:09:11 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 7.c Mass Mailers, reliability, and lack thereof In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 28 Mar 2003 22:29:00 MST." <200303290529.h2T5T0GW005331@calcite.rhyolite.com> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:09:11 -0500 Vernon Schryver wrote: > Yes, but as far as I can tell, there are no major bulk mailers that > satisfy all four of your criteria. Then they have an opportunity to learn how to sell to potential customers in a friendly manner. > I'm not pointing this out to criticize the Qwest, Dell or any other > marketing or sales professionals including even Topica, but only to > establish a fact of life and human nature that contradicts assumptions > or claims common in some areas. So my statement about "legitimate" bulk emailers doesn't include Fortune 500 companies. Too bad for them. Others have noted corporate opposition to anti-spam laws, which says to me that those corporations are knowingly and intentionally engaging in unfriendly and soon-to-be illegal behaviour. ASRG should be about solving the spam problem, not about punishing Ralsky while Fortune 500 companies do the same thing. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 21:03:04 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA06297 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:03:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2U2PYi18964 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:25:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U2PYO18961 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:25:34 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA06289; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:02:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U2O2O18917; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:24:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U2N3O18891 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:23:03 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA06243 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:00:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2U22Ofx022696 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:02:24 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303300202.h2U22Ofx022696@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] More clueless spam bounces References: <678E275B-624B-11D7-AF44-00039380F1B6@pobox.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:02:24 -0700 (MST) > From: mathew > ... > The whole idea of putting someone in a spam filter and then continuing > to e-mail him is just silly. It's like kids in a playground shouting > insults and then sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "Nyaah > nyaah nyaah can't hear you!" Did the other person send mail to the gentleman at Verisign? I guessed from context that the only private mail was from the Verisign employee to the other person, probably consisting of additional, private copies of the Verisign employee's public messages. Is that guess wrong? If that guess is right, wouldn't it be best for everyone to stop sending those duplicate copies? Sending extra private copies of one's words when one knows they are unwelcome seems like the equivalent of trying to scream them over "Nyaah nyaah nyaah can't hear you!" chanting, and so worse than the chanting. That seems particularly true in this mailing list where consent to receive mail is a central issue. For decades I've felt that extra, private copies of one's public words suggest an unseemly belief that their importance that justifies heroic efforts to ensure they are not lost. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 21:05:18 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA06326 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:05:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2U2RnS19033 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:27:49 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U2RmO19030 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:27:48 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA06317; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:04:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U2Q2O18999; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:26:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U2PsO18977 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:25:54 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA06295 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:02:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 18zSLf-0000Qk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:15:03 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] define spam In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:18:06 PST." <20030329071806.GI23496@main.templetons.com> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:15:03 -0500 Brad Templeton wrote; > I had always thought the best solution was to take all the major definitions, > and then take the _intersection_ of those definitions. Then look at that > intersection and say, "how much of the problem does this cover?" And more > to the point, "Does this cover enough of it to take back our mailboxes?" It's a good start. > Remarkably, some people fight a lesser definition than what they prefer, even > if they will agree that the spams not in that definition are well under 1% > of the total. They feel it is particularly important to get every last one. > I'm not sure why, I don't see an engineering goal. It allows people to believe they're still working against the problem, while not having to actually do anything involving real "work". "Every journey begins with a single step." > Is commercial (Many people request this in the definition, > but usually only if not including the mass mailing > component, so this might not stay) Only crazy people spend money to send out thousands of messagesm and don't expect a monetary return. They're usually fairly easy to track down, because of this. They're also a tiny part of the spam problem. Witness the crazies on Usenet, years before Cantor & Siegel. The problems they caused were annoying, but they didn't cause the furor resulting from the first "spam" message. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 21:22:11 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA06496 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:22:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2U2igi20220 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:44:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U2igO20217 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:44:42 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA06490; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:21:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U2h6O20193; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:43:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U2gpO20179 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:42:51 -0500 Received: from smtp.istop.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA06478 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:19:49 -0500 (EST) From: waltdnes@waltdnes.org Received: from waltdnes.org (ip245-165.tor.istop.com [66.11.165.245]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id C795B36A37 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:22:12 -0500 (EST) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:22:50 +4300 To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <20030330022250.GB13927@m400> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Subject: [Asrg] It's not spam, it's ooga-booga... Was: 5c. Message Status Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:22:50 -0500 On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 01:34:26PM -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote > going down the rabbit hole of defining this stuff, I make a hard > delineation between: > > 1) spam, which in my mind are those idiots that send stuff fraudulently > with forged return addresses and all that other stuff. > > 2) legitimate marketing stuff, where the real issue is a consent issue, > not a fraud issue. I don't consent to 1) and I don't consent to 2). I do not see any difference. > I think the issues of "solving spam" and "dealing with e-marketing > consent issues" are skew. One is shutting down fraudulent operations, > the other is regulating legitimate businesses who's practices might or > might not be up to snuff. But they tend to get lumped together, Waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, flies like a duck, it *IS* a duck. A pearl of wisdom from "The Rules of Spam"... Sharp's Corollary: Spammers attempt to re-define "spamming" as that which they do not do. > They're separate issues, needing separate solutions. I realize there's > a segment that thinks all e-marketing is by definition spam, but the > moderate position understands it's not. And no, I'm not excusing badly > build e-marketing systems, not at all. but the amount of hassle they > cause is nothing compared to the spam that's fraudulently stuffed down > out throats every day. And the solutions are different. The *ONLY* difference is that the people behind "legitimate marketing stuff" make campaign contributions, and there's less liklihood of the "legitimate" spam advertising stuff that's blatantly illegal. Folks, it's about *CONSENT* not *CONTENT*. > Worse, the e-marketing stuff keeps getting dumped onto the same > bonfire by the "burn witches! more witches!" crowd, which basically > derails the process from allowing anyone to focus on solving the > first, major problem. It's *ALL* non-consensual e-marketing. Whether it's a guy in a suit or a guy in sleazy spamhaus makes no difference. Fraud-artists at Enron are really no different from a career criminal kiting cheques. -- Walter Dnes An infinite number of monkeys pounding away on keyboards will eventually produce a report showing that Windows is more secure, and has a lower TCO, than linux. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 21:28:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA06554 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:28:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2U2p4420378 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:51:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U2p4O20375 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:51:04 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA06542; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:28:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U2o2O20340; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:50:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U2nxO20313 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:49:59 -0500 Received: from mail011.syd.optusnet.com.au (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA06530 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:26:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from co3001591-a.troy.rollo.name (c18374.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [210.49.142.222]) by mail011.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U2TIL14040 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 12:29:18 +1000 Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20030330122732.00c024e0@> X-Sender: (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Troy Rollo Subject: Re: [Asrg] More clueless spam bounces In-Reply-To: <200303300202.h2U22Ofx022696@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <678E275B-624B-11D7-AF44-00039380F1B6@pobox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 12:29:16 +1000 At 19:02 29/03/03 -0700, Vernon Schryver wrote: >Did the other person send mail to the gentleman at Verisign? I guessed >from context that the only private mail was from the Verisign employee >to the other person, probably consisting of additional, private copies >of the Verisign employee's public messages. Is that guess wrong? There were some copies of on-list messages, but no strictly private messages. >For decades I've felt that extra, private copies of one's public words >suggest an unseemly belief that their importance that justifies heroic >efforts to ensure they are not lost. I think that's a little over the top, but yes, I would normally regard private copies as unnecessary, except in limited circumstances. -- Troy Rollo Chairman, CAUBE.AU asrg@troy.rollo.name Executive Director, iCAUCE _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 21:47:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA06757 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:47:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2U3AB521503 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:10:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U3ABO21500 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:10:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA06752; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:47:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U393O21474; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:09:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U38LO21453 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:08:21 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA06733 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:45:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc02.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2U2lenn004964 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 18:47:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 18:47:39 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: 5c. Message Status - Re: [Asrg] ASRG work items MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 18:47:34 -0800 > And what would it have accomplished that CNN couldn't ? Asides from > tying up bandwidth which could've been used by people to let relatives > know they were safe ? Try getting CNN in the aftermath of an earthquake when the power is out. > > nor is a salesperson who sends targetted messages to 100 > sales prospects, > > Most participants in this group seem to be male. Therefore, ads for > penis enlargement, meet-lonely-women, and viagra would definitely be > "targetted messages" by your criteria. No, some of us don't suffer from the problems these products purport to cure and if we did we would not buy quack remedies sold in this fashion. So yes, the messages are indiscriminate. They are sent in the knowledge that they will be unwanted by the vast majority of the people receiving them. We could use that as an alternative definition if you like, a message is spam if the sender knows or should know that there is a very high probability that the recipient will not want to receive it. I don't like that quite as much though because it allows weasel room for our friend tim@mailkey.spam and folk who send email to private, off-list addresses and don't bother to accept replies. I worked out that if the remedies actually worked as promised and I bought and used all the products spammed to me over a year a certain part of my anatomy would be the size of the empire state building. as for the breast enlargement products, has anyone seen Woody Allen's film Sleeper? > > nor is a message with a CFP for an anti-spam conference sent to > > this list. > > It would be on-topic for this group. Exactly, it would be discriminating, but sending the same announcement to the IPSEC list would not be on topic. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 22:08:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA06939 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:08:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2U3V2121990 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:31:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U3V2O21987 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:31:02 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA06935; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:07:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U3TMO21935; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:29:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U3SxO21914 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:28:59 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA06927 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:05:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.57] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2U38Jnn007139 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:08:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:08:18 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] More clueless spam bounces MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:08:18 -0800 > Did the other person send mail to the gentleman at Verisign? Yes, he did, on five occasions at the last count. Mail sent to pbaker@verisign.com is treated very differently by my mail processing here to mail sent to the list. A mail sent to the list will only show up on my exchange account, a mail sent to my personal email will go to my Rim pager. > I guessed > from context that the only private mail was from the Verisign employee > to the other person, probably consisting of additional, private copies > of the Verisign employee's public messages. Is that guess wrong? Actually I was sending an off list comment about their lobbying work, looking to see if coordination might be possible. But at this stage I have come to a conclusion about Troy's organization. > If that guess is right, wouldn't it be best for everyone to stop > sending those duplicate copies? Actually that is another issue, which I mentioned under 'lets fix mailing lists'. The problem as I see it is that there should be three options for mailing list messages, reply to the original author, reply to the list and reply to all. The ad-hoc mailing lists that accumulate through mailing list reply-to start to get very annoying. This is something that can be addressed through a BCP draft. > For decades I've felt that extra, private copies of one's public words > suggest an unseemly belief that their importance that justifies heroic > efforts to ensure they are not lost. Sometimes it is useful to know that everyone will get the reply, for example some people may be CC'd who are not on the list. This can lead to a whole series of sticky problems, how to fix that one without revealing whether someone is on the list or creating a relay? Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 22:14:53 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA07056 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:14:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2U3bPb22823 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:37:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U3bPO22820 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:37:25 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA07044; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:14:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U3a2O22086; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:36:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U3ZPO22065 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:35:25 -0500 Received: from smtp.istop.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA06994 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:12:22 -0500 (EST) From: waltdnes@waltdnes.org Received: from waltdnes.org (ip245-165.tor.istop.com [66.11.165.245]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 5B4B5369B7 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:14:45 -0500 (EST) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:15:23 +4300 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Asrg digest, Vol 1 #133 - 14 msgs Message-ID: <20030330031523.GC13927@m400> References: <20030328201120.GC24992@earth.tc.umn.edu> <20030328211814.K24104@Space.Net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030328211814.K24104@Space.Net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:15:23 -0500 On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 09:18:14PM +0100, Markus Stumpf wrote > If the DSL provider charges extra bucks for use of their mailserver ..and the customer is a cheap bastard ? > or doesn't have a mailserver at all and the client of a customer > of yours (we're an ISP) tells your customer "manage to receive my > email or I'll cancel the contract" what would you tell your customer? The concept of an alleged "ISP" that provides neither a mailserver nor a static IP address boggles the mind. If you were the only "ISP" in town, your customer would have to purchase service from another provider elsewhere who would allow them to either ssh-tunnel or smtp-auth to their mail server. > How many of your own customers can you afford to loose because of that? How about providing your customers with the service they need ? That tends to keep customers loyal. -- Walter Dnes An infinite number of monkeys pounding away on keyboards will eventually produce a report showing that Windows is more secure, and has a lower TCO, than linux. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 22:16:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA07095 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:16:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2U3dFQ23035 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:39:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U3dFO23032 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:39:15 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA07081; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:16:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U3c2O22986; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:38:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U3baO22939 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:37:36 -0500 Received: from pink.rahul.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA07049 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:14:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from mauve.rahul.net (mauve.rahul.net [66.237.72.25]) by pink.rahul.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E62CE2FE1A for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:16:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by mauve.rahul.net (Postfix, from userid 4188) id DB9972B57A; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:16:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from mauve.rahul.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mauve.rahul.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB1642B579 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:16:52 -0800 (PST) To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] It's not spam, it's ooga-booga... Was: 5c. Message Status From: pattib@gammon.com In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:22:50 EST." <20030330022250.GB13927@m400> Message-Id: <20030330031652.DB9972B57A@mauve.rahul.net> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:16:51 -0800 > I don't consent to 1) and I don't consent to 2). I do not see any >difference. Ah, but some people *do* consent to 2), and they would like to receive the weekly cheez-wiz recipes that they've otped into. > The *ONLY* difference is that the people behind "legitimate marketing >stuff" make campaign contributions, and there's less liklihood of the >"legitimate" spam advertising stuff that's blatantly illegal. Folks, >it's about *CONSENT* not *CONTENT*. False. The difference is that legitimate email marketers try pretty hard to only send mail to people who want to receive it. Just because you don't want to know what's on sale over at piggly wiggly doesn't mean that I don't. In fact, I subscribe to somewhere between one and two dozen separate email marketing streams right now. Legitimate honest-to-goodness email marketers exist, and while they aren't always perfect, they can do a pretty damned good job. I can count on one hand the number of unsolicited messages I've received from Digital Impact in the last few years, for example, and I never got a single piece from my former employer. That's not just because I worked there... none of their clients ever brought in a dirty list that I was on. I consider that quite remarkable, since my various email addresses have been well-publicized over the years. An opt-in email marketer who tries very hard never to send unsolicited email, and who responds promptly and correctly if there is an occasional screw-up, is not a spammer. I will grant you, however, that there's a decent-sized grey area in between hot-teen-lolitas spammers and the best of the bunch. -Patti _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 22:25:47 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA07188 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:25:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2U3mJZ23297 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:48:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U3mJO23294 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:48:19 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA07177; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:25:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U3l5O23251; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:47:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U3kiO23218 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:46:44 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA07169 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:23:40 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2U1aTuY028131 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:36:29 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2U1aTtJ028127 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:36:29 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] define spam In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:36:29 -0800 (PST) From NOIE (Australian Goverment) Study on Spam: " Spam- Towards a Working Definition Spam is the common reference to unsolicited bulk electronnc messages, usually electronic mail messages but increasingly SMS messages (text messages delivered to mobile phones), that are transmitted to a large number of recipients who have not requested those messages. They are usually - but not necessarily commercial in nature; ie, they generally promote or sell products or services. The bulk of spam messages also share one or more of the following characteristics: - they are sent in a largely untargeted and indiscriminate manner, often by automated means - they include or promote illegal or offensive content - their purpose is fraudulent or otherwise deceptive - they could collect personal information in breach of the National Privacy Principles (the recent extensions of the Privacy Act to business) - they are sent in a manner that disguises the originator; eg, from an Internet address other than that shown in the message as received, often involving the unauthorised use of an innocent third party's e-mail server; - they do not offer a working address to which recipients may send messages opting-out of receiving further unsolicited messages. While such characteristics are not essential to whether a message should be regarded as "unsolicited" or sent in "bulk", most commentators would probably not regard as spam direct marketing communications with all the following characteristics: - they do not include promote or include illegal content; - they are not deceptive in any way that would breach common law or statute law - they do not collect or use personal information in breach of the NPPs - they are sent to recipients who have dealt voluntarily with the sender before and, on the basis of that existing relationship, can reasonably be assumed by the sender as prepared to accept messages of the type being sent (ie, the messages would not be unexpected). " The entire study is available at, hope it helps: http://www.noie.gov.au/projects/confidence/Improving/Spam/Interim_Report/Interim-report.PDF Also I'm currently reviewing all ASRG messages in archive for this first month preparing to make summary of work (its organized in same structure as work items list sent by paul) consisting mostly of links to some archived messages. It should be ready early next week and I'll post a link to that. There are already several messages I identified that are from "What is SPAM" discussions (note - I'v only reviewed 10% of archive so far - we really had lots of messages being posted first few days...): What is SPAM?. - Various discussions and definitions: (see last part of email): https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg00026.html https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg00171.html - Discussions of definitions based on consent: https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg00155.html - On definition of SPAM as "Unsolicited Bulk Email": https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg00109.html https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg00128.html - Defintion from Brad Templeton's essays: https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg00075.html http://www.templetons.com/brad/spume/define.html ---- William Leibzon Elan Communications Inc. william@elan.net _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 22:30:27 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA07240 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:30:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2U3r0b23442 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:53:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U3r0O23438 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:53:00 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA07227; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:29:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U3q2O23398; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:52:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U3plO23372 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:51:47 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA07209 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:28:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2212571; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:31:09 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <200303291701.h2TH1FlD029761@new.agentzero.com> To: wayne From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Will someone PLEASE remove Tim@mailkey.com? Cc: asrg@ietf.org (IRTF Anti-Spam Research Group) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:55:38 -0500 At 12:35 PM -0600 3/29/03, wayne wrote: >I have added mailkey.com to my personal blacklist. I now expect to be >lectured by Ken about how I don't understand the social assumptions >implicit in human conversation and how rude it is to blacklist anyone >who is on this mailing list. Ken will probably even tell me that I'm >doing this as retribution because it is unlikely that I will ever >remove this ban. Now all we need to do is find this mysterious "Ken" and let him know. But if Tim's contribution to this list has been human conversation, then so is the neighbor's car alarm going off all night. Just make sure you don't bounce his auto-replies--these guys probably send responses to MAILER-DAEMON as well. :-) -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 22:30:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA07256 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:30:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2U3rCW23458 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:53:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U3rCO23455 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:53:12 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA07233; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:30:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U3q3O23414; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:52:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U3poO23376 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:51:50 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA07211 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:28:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2212583; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:31:10 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <105222467871.20030329073832@brandenburg.com> References: <105222467871.20030329073832@brandenburg.com> To: Dave Crocker From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] define spam Cc: "Jon Kyme" , ASRG Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:59:56 -0500 At 7:38 AM -0800 3/29/03, Dave Crocker wrote: >Jon, > > >JK> Well (referring to the charter) how about: >JK> A communication for which there is no consent given by the intended >JK> recipient. > >I hear that you are the world's expert on ice cream. I want to hire you >to help my ice cream manufacturing business. We have never met. I send >you an email. > >The above definition classifies my email as spam. Where did you get my email address? Did you also send that message to one thousand other experts on ice cream? Unfortunately consent is even harder to define than spam. Very much dependent on context and implicit assumptions. We started down the "let's define spam" path on this list a week or so ago and then gave up. I think that was wise. How about another approach. Define what the problem with spam is--and then instead of focusing on defining the specifics of spam, focus on solutions to the problems that spam (and possibly other email) causes. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 22:32:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA07291 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:32:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2U3t2P23528 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:55:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U3t2O23523 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:55:02 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA07284; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:31:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U3s1O23495; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:54:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U3rDO23471 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:53:13 -0500 Received: from tom.iecc.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id WAA07238 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:30:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 15311 invoked from network); 29 Mar 2003 22:32:33 -0500 Received: (ofmipd 208.31.42.38); 30 Mar 2003 03:32:11 -0000 Message-ID: From: "John R Levine" To: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" Subject: Re: [Asrg] define spam In-Reply-To: Cleverness: None detected MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 29 Mar 2003 22:32:33 -0500 > >I find it hard to think of any circumstance where it's useful to consider > >a one-to-one message to be spam. It may be annoying for some other > >reason, but without bulk, there's no spam problem. > > I'm the naked man in a glass room - I have no way of knowing how many > recipients the message has. I can never know I've been spammed? Of course you can. It doesn't take much intelligence to tell an actual individual message from a human from faux personalized junk mail. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 22:39:07 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA07382 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:39:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2U41eT23750 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:01:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U41eO23747 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:01:40 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA07377; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:38:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U406O23710; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:00:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U3xhO23650 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:59:43 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA07352 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:36:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h2U3d0P20315; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:39:00 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: Alan DeKok Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] define spam Message-ID: <20030330033900.GU9659@main.templetons.com> References: <20030329071806.GI23496@main.templetons.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:39:00 -0800 On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 09:15:03PM -0500, Alan DeKok wrote: > > Is commercial (Many people request this in the definition, > > but usually only if not including the mass mailing > > component, so this might not stay) > > Only crazy people spend money to send out thousands of messagesm and > don't expect a monetary return. They're usually fairly easy to track > down, because of this. They're also a tiny part of the spam problem. > Witness the crazies on Usenet, years before Cantor & Siegel. The > problems they caused were annoying, but they didn't cause the furor > resulting from the first "spam" message. > Actually, that's not true. I regularly receive spam whose motive is charity (please help my dying kid) or political and even sometimes religious. In addition, a significant number of spams I recieve are not commercial at all, but illegal for other reasons. They tell me somebody wants to transfer 32 MILLION DOLLARS from Nigeria into my bank account. It's not an ad of any type, just a confidence trick. Thus I am not sure if commercial can fit in the definition or not. I just know a number of people put it in. I think the primary reason they do so is they look at the problem from a legal perspective, and incorrectly believe that they will have a better chance of passing a law regulating commercial spam than one regulating all of it. (See Cincinatti vs. Discovery Network for why the supreme court ruled this may be a mistaken impression.) Myself, I am loathe to regulate of filter mail based on what it says rather than how it is sent, but again, I include this because others have pushed for it. If they all want to disclaim it, it need not be listed. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 22:54:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA07626 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:54:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2U4HCx24878 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:17:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U4HBO24875 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:17:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA07590; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:54:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U4G9O24860; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:16:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U4F6O24820 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:15:06 -0500 Received: from infobro.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id WAA07572 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:52:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:52:38 -0500 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:52:37 -0500 Message-ID: <01C2F645.E52DB730.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'Dave Crocker'" , "'Jim Youll'" Cc: "'ASRG'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] define spam Organization: Information Brokers, Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:52:26 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Saturday, March 29, 2003 1:19 PM, Dave Crocker [SMTP:dhc@dcrocker.net] wrote: > Jim, ... > > 2. How does it help to rely on the sender's defining the character of > the message, when the senders are non-cooperative rogue players? > That I think is an integral issue, if we are attempting to define 'spam' then we should not get into a definition of content description. Jim and Dave you accurately point out that one man's garbage is another man's treasure but I don't see how this approaches a definition of what 'spam' is. I think I will give it try. SPAM - 1. Messaging in the MTS which violates best current practices for MTA providers to assure proper canonical representation of it's originator. 2. A message that does not reflect accurate information for its originator or that is transmitted with simulated information nominally used to trace origination [that's a tight squeeze as it ignores incorrect configurations]. 3) A message with fraudulent tracking information that is in fact flawed at origination to obfuscate its origin. SPAMMER - A user, company or other end entity that engages in introducing SPAM into the MTS. I think these may be a start because they do not address intent or content of the message sent, quantity sent, transport used or who receives it. to me the basic problem is you have problems applying any effective filters or blocks against it because of the improper information used to construct it. > JY> And that has nothing to do with consent, except that if I personally > JY> have sense of what > JY> I care to allow, I may encode that policy near me, > > Let's assume that there is some way to embody "what you care to allow" > in software and some way to detect whether an incoming piece of email > conforms to what you care to allow. (The heuristics currently required > for such a mechanism are useful but highly flawed.) > > This leaves us with the problem of massive bandwidth and processing > being consumed along the path from the sender to your filter. These > resources are not free and they have become a significant problem for > ISPs. > > > JY> (regretting this reply, because I'll get another annoying message, or > several, > JY> from tim@mailkey.com, who has never seen any of this, and I did not > JY> _consent_ to be > JY> hounded by his mailserver until I click the link it wants me to click). That's hilarious :-) > And this is a perfect example of why some recipient-based filtering will > remain essential. My own email client let's me easily place an entry > into a special address book and discard all mail from anyone in that > address book... And the definition above I think respects that policy boundary with the additional qualification that it's efficacy is only as good as the information you base your decision upon. > > d/ > -- my $.02 -e _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 22:54:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA07640 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:54:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2U4HGH24903 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:17:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U4HGO24900 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:17:16 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA07597; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:54:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U4G4O24841; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:16:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U4F5O24816 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:15:05 -0500 Received: from infobro.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id WAA07570 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:52:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:52:29 -0500 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:52:29 -0500 Message-ID: <01C2F645.E02172E0.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'Hallam-Baker, Phillip'" , "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Authentication again Organization: Information Brokers, Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:12:52 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Phill, You hit an interesting point, for me, in this post - though not intentionally I think. In the example you cite the issue is not the provider of service at all it is the choice of the recipient MTA manager. And 'spam' origination from the providers you listed in the post is not the problem either, it seems in fact to be the 'use of illegitimate/forged addressing' so that the majority of 'spam' originating from who knows where is passed by 90% of filters because most managers do not block the free mail services. Blocking at the 822 level is indeed troublesome as information is so easily forged. Policy edge MTAs, I think need a common method to 'qualify' and yes authenticate sending entities to compare to this managers choice of methods. Until then I think most would agree that deepest "Recieved by" headers are a best bet, at least better than "From:" headers or last hop "Recieved by" which are the most easily forged. -e On Saturday, March 29, 2003 8:51 AM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip [SMTP:pbaker@verisign.com] wrote: > > > You know. It's responses like this that really make me understand > > why most of the ISPs I talk to hate the anti-spam organizations more > > than the spammers. > > prompted by one of the other threads on the list I took a look at Vernon's > pages to find the following: > > http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/ > "Mail from domains on a list of free providers is rejected at rhyolite.com, > because of spam claiming to be from them. Rejecting mail supposedly from > free mail providers is an extremely effective tactic for avoiding spam or > unsolicited bulk mail. " > > Hmm, so authentication is absolutely no use eh? Just blacklist the whole > domain. now lets look at some of the domains in this list. > > yahoo.com, hotmail.com - Of COURSE everyone from these > domains is a spammer > freeserve.co.uk - The largest ISP in the UK, you > pay by the minute through the local phone toll. > > Apparently these domains are effective against '90%' of spam. So if you > could identify the genuine email sent from these sources and the sources > implement rate limiting on egress (most do already) you could block 90% of > spam with NO false positives. > > Of course false positives probably aren't a problem if you only really care > about getting email from longstanding netizens with their own email domain. > > I find it somewhat interesting that the people complaining loudest about > solutions that might involve cost are also the people who are quickest to > cut off free internet access. Just what is going on here? > > Phill > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 22:59:47 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA07725 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:59:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2U4MLu25105 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:22:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U4MLO25102 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:22:21 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA07683; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:59:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U4L5O25086; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:21:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U4KFO25044 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:20:15 -0500 Received: from smtp.istop.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA07674 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:57:11 -0500 (EST) From: waltdnes@waltdnes.org Received: from waltdnes.org (ip245-165.tor.istop.com [66.11.165.245]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 0B6A836961; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:59:35 -0500 (EST) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:00:13 +4300 To: william@elan.net Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Proposal for Opt-Out Message-ID: <20030330040013.GD13927@m400> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:00:13 -0500 On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 12:47:59PM -0800, william@elan.net wrote > 1. Commercial emailers agree to general classification of email based on > subject of what is being advertised (i.e. for example adult, internet > services, other service, electronic goods, sports goods, etc) > 5. When commercial mailer wants to send somebody an email, they check dns > for that domain and obtain id of the agency. They have to contact the > agency and got authorization to use its services (probably pay them too) > and agency needs to verify whatever it can about the commecial mailer. > Once verified commercial mailer is granted authorized access to agencie's > database and can verify email addresses. You're effectively saying that an advertiser is going to blast out to the adresses on a "Millions CD", and there'll be an on-the-fly listwashing conducted. If the sender doesn't already have confirmation from individual users that they want the mailing, it *IS* spam. > 7. When commecial mail operator is sending email, they HAVE TO > include special header in the email And the "special header in the email" will be in the DATA: block, and can only be parsed if you accept the entire email. Oh, did I mention that broadband ISPs in Canada now surcharge extra if you exceed your monthly bandwidth quota ? Accepting the email, even if it is discarded immediately, counts on your quota. In other words, it can cost actual money. -- Walter Dnes An infinite number of monkeys pounding away on keyboards will eventually produce a report showing that Windows is more secure, and has a lower TCO, than linux. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 23:14:07 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA07883 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:14:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2U4aGm25494 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:36:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U4aGO25491 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:36:16 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA07867; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:13:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U4XlO25360; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:33:47 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U4V4O25312 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:31:04 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA07835 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:07:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2212662; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:10:24 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <64E8345A-6246-11D7-AF44-00039380F1B6@pobox.com> References: <64E8345A-6246-11D7-AF44-00039380F1B6@pobox.com> To: mathew From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] email pull (was RE: Authentication ) Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:48:25 -0500 At 7:27 PM -0500 3/29/03, mathew wrote: >>But it's not email. It doesn't have a number of the necessary >>attributes for person-to-person email. >>- it requires a server that is up all the time > >So does conventional e-mail. With current e-mail systems, I fail to >get the mail if my messaging server (at my ISP) is down. With e-mail >pull, I fail to get the mail if the sender's messaging server (at >his ISP) is down. In addition, I won't get mail from people I don't >know that I need to poll unless my messaging server at my ISP is up. >A small tradeoff in reliability, but one I think I'd take to cut >spam. Currently you have a single point of failure that is close to you on the network. It's down infrequently, and when it is, you simply wait and it comes up. With pull you are relying on the availability of dozens, hundreds or even thousands (depending on how much email you get) of different servers scattered across the world. You go from a situation where all of your email is there most of the time, to one where some of your email is never there most of the time. >I mean, the web often requires that both my ISP and the appropriate >web site have their servers operational when I want to read a web >page. Yet people still use the web. Different expectations of service, and different scale. I get mail from far more servers than I surf in a given day. >>- it requires storing outgoing email for an indefinite amount of time > >The current system requires storing incoming e-mail for an >indefinite amount of time. Nope. Only until the end user picks it up. > >Both of these are the whole point of the system. The whole idea is >to move the storage, uptime and network requirements to the sender's >messaging server, so that it's easier to take action against abuse, >and so that server operators suffer direct consequences if they fail >to secure their systems. I understand that that is the goal. However you need to look not just at what it does to spammers, but what it does to normal mail users. And what it does in that case is make email delivery less reliable. >>- it completely the destroys the go-online, fetch, go-offline model > >Not really. It just means that my mail client would go online, fetch >my e-mail from a dozen different systems instead of just one, then >disconnect. No. You go online. Get a list of different email systems, decide which ones you want to fetch, and then go online again to fetch them. And that points out the biggest flaw of the system. Not only have you not stopped the spammers (sure, they need to find a host somewhere, or lots of hosts, but that's not that big a deal). But you've made it *way* harder for me to tell whether something is spam. The initial "you have mail" message doesn't provide enough information. I can no longer use content filters on it. Instead I have to go try and fetch it. The spammer is sure to have an overloaded server, so now I'm not only going to try and fetch it--but try multiple times! -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 23:21:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA08080 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:21:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2U4iDt26472 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:44:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U4iDO26469 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:44:13 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA08075; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:21:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U4h8O26437; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:43:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U4gXO26414 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:42:33 -0500 Received: from smtp.istop.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA08032 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:19:28 -0500 (EST) From: waltdnes@waltdnes.org Received: from waltdnes.org (ip245-165.tor.istop.com [66.11.165.245]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 18E5436974; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:21:52 -0500 (EST) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:22:30 +4300 To: pattib@gammon.com Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 7.c Mass Mailers, reliability, and lack thereof Message-ID: <20030330042230.GE13927@m400> References: <20030328173200.9BD5A2B58C@mauve.rahul.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030328173200.9BD5A2B58C@mauve.rahul.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:22:30 -0500 On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 09:31:59AM -0800, pattib@gammon.com wrote > The start of this thread was someone who lumped in genuine opt-in > marketing email with millions-of-addresses-on-CD spammers. I wanted > to show that they are two very different things. I started the thread, and no, I did *NOT* lump in "genuine opt-in marketing email". I'm talking about "opt-out marketing email", which up til now has meant saying "No, no, a thousand times no". I wouldn't mind a one-shot "global opt-out" that really worked, but that seems to be a tooth-fairy-land idea. -- Walter Dnes An infinite number of monkeys pounding away on keyboards will eventually produce a report showing that Windows is more secure, and has a lower TCO, than linux. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 23:32:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA08218 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:32:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2U4tDB26833 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:55:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U4tDO26830 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:55:13 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA08212; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:32:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U4sAO26773; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:54:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U4rnO26752 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:53:49 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA08185 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:30:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h2U4X2u21345; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 20:33:02 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: pattib@gammon.com Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <20030330043302.GV9659@main.templetons.com> References: <20030330022250.GB13927@m400> <20030330031652.DB9972B57A@mauve.rahul.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030330031652.DB9972B57A@mauve.rahul.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Subject: [Asrg] Consent Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 20:33:02 -0800 > > The *ONLY* difference is that the people behind "legitimate marketing > >stuff" make campaign contributions, and there's less liklihood of the > >"legitimate" spam advertising stuff that's blatantly illegal. Folks, > >it's about *CONSENT* not *CONTENT*. This phrase may be the crux of one large division in the anti-spam community. There are a number of people who do believe it's about consent. If they simply meant "explicit consent", it would be something which could be the subject of debate, but unfortunately when I have seen this used it is always about a fairly unspecified sort of implicit consent, whose definition varies from person to person. Now, that alone would be reason to avoid trying to work in terms of consent, but there is a much greater fundamental flaw with this concept. One which will shock some anti-spam folks at first. In free societies, you don't need advance consent to communicate with somebody else. Consent can be rescinded, as in "go away" but it is always on by default. And since, on the internet, there is _no_ communication without use of the private property of the other party to the communication, it means you don't need advance consent to use somebody else's property to communicate with them. We have declared many times we don't have a right to be annoyed, only a right not be harassed. To define communication without advance consent as some sort of offence would turn our definitions of a free society and an open communications system upside-down. If somebody gave you a URL, you could not click on it without knowing if the web host consented to you clicking on it. If you got a referral where I told you to e-mail my friend, you could not mail him for fear you did not have his consent. And If I want to mail you to flame you about how stupid the opinion you posted on your web site is, well, who would suspect you give your consent to be flamed? In our society you can, by default, go up to somebody on the street and talk to them. That is sometimes annoying, but it's a right we actually fight hard to protect. You can send them postal mail, without their consent. It is always assumed to exist in advance. It can be rescinded -- through restraining orders, harassment charges, blockages at the post office etc. but it is always on by default. People can even come onto your private land to come to talk to you unless you explicitly mark it no trespassing. So because consent would be incredibly difficult to define, and it's a bad idea to bring it into the spam definition, I respectfully submit that other courses should be followed. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 23:33:27 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA08241 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:33:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2U4u2d26875 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:56:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U4u2O26872 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:56:02 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA08235; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:32:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U4t6O26815; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:55:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U4s3O26761 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:54:03 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA08196 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:30:57 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2U2hquY028867 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 18:43:52 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2U2hqSn028863 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 18:43:52 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Proposal for Opt-Out Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 18:43:52 -0800 (PST) > > 1. Commercial emailers agree to general classification of email based on > > subject of what is being advertised (i.e. for example adult, internet > > services, other service, electronic goods, sports goods, etc) > > > 5. When commercial mailer wants to send somebody an email, they check dns > > for that domain and obtain id of the agency. They have to contact the > > agency and got authorization to use its services (probably pay them too) > > and agency needs to verify whatever it can about the commecial mailer. > > Once verified commercial mailer is granted authorized access to agencie's > > database and can verify email addresses. > > You're effectively saying that an advertiser is going to blast out > to the adresses on a "Millions CD", and there'll be an on-the-fly > listwashing conducted. If the sender doesn't already have confirmation > from individual users that they want the mailing, it *IS* spam. Not on-the-fly - reread the proposal, it says that they need to clear their database prior to mailing if possible (up to one month prior is allowed). And this is intended as global opt-out, after the the fact they you gave some advertiser your email address. > > 7. When commecial mail operator is sending email, they HAVE TO > > include special header in the email > > And the "special header in the email" will be in the DATA: block, and > can only be parsed if you accept the entire email. Oh, did I mention > that broadband ISPs in Canada now surcharge extra if you exceed your > monthly bandwidth quota ? Accepting the email, even if it is discarded > immediately, counts on your quota. In other words, it can cost actual > money. The system is intended to be used by MTAs not by MUAs (though this is still an option), so email would be discarded if the encrypted hash is not available and either never reaches MUA or is placed is possible-spam folder. As for header being part of DATA block and that being difficulty for some MTAs, we'll talk about this point again in 15-20 days when I'm ready to submitone particular draft I'm working on. -- William Leibzon Elan Communications Inc. william@elan.net _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Mar 29 23:36:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA08324 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:36:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2U4xA827012 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:59:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U4xAO27009 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:59:10 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA08315; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:36:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U4w7O26972; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:58:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U4vfO26956 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:57:41 -0500 Received: from infobro.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id XAA08286 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:34:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:36:02 -0500 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:36:03 -0500 Message-ID: <01C2F64B.F674E030.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'Jon Kyme'" , Dave Crocker Cc: ASRG Subject: RE: [Asrg] define spam Organization: Information Brokers, Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:34:20 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I do not think 'consent' really has anything to do with a definition of 'spam' in the context of this problem. I feel that consent with respect to messaging is TOTALLY subjective and what a real definition addresses is the issue of policy or 'consent' enforcement after solicitation. I think enforcement comes via the technical solution we come up with. -e On Saturday, March 29, 2003 3:44 PM, Jon Kyme [SMTP:jrk@merseymail.com] wrote: > > Given that this is a technical research body, how does one go about > > offering that consent, in a service with 100 million participants, and > > how does one enforce it? > > > > The group has a charter to which it's profitable to refer from time to time > (I'd say). I'm sure working up a mechanism for expressing consent (here I > go again) will be difficult - but I think it's a job for the group. It's > fairly easy to envisage consent expression propagating up to the ISP or MTA > (from individual users) enabling consent to be consulted at a single point > for a domain (or set of domains). As for enforcing it, it's not clear > that's a purely technical problem. > > > > > > > -- > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 30 00:00:58 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA08706 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:00:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2U5NX928699 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:23:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U5NWO28696 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:23:32 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA08698; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:00:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U5MAO28611; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:22:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U5LIO28550 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:21:18 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA08642 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:58:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2212762; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:00:38 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: "John R Levine" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] define spam Cc: "Jon Kyme" , "ASRG" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:55:14 -0500 At 10:32 PM -0500 3/29/03, John R Levine wrote: > > >I find it hard to think of any circumstance where it's useful to consider >> >a one-to-one message to be spam. It may be annoying for some other >> >reason, but without bulk, there's no spam problem. >> >> I'm the naked man in a glass room - I have no way of knowing how many >> recipients the message has. I can never know I've been spammed? > >Of course you can. It doesn't take much intelligence to tell an actual >individual message from a human from faux personalized junk mail. Exhibit 1. A message asking to be added to my mailing list. Spam was simply the URL in the .signature. I would have fallen for it but they went a touch too far and included a picture as well. Exhibit 2. A message to abuse complaining about spam. The spam was the message that they were "complaining" about. Exhibit 3. Message asking me to attend a conference. (You've probably seen these.) -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 30 00:01:47 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA08737 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:01:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2U5OMu28756 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:24:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U5OMO28753 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:24:22 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA08730; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:01:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U5N6O28655; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:23:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U5MZO28626 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:22:35 -0500 Received: from maillist.grax.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA08652 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:59:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (grax_web1 [127.0.0.1]) by maillist.grax.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FB002C5D5; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:01:42 -0600 (CST) From: David Walker Reply-To: asrg@ietf.org Organization: Vorteon, LLC To: Kee Hinckley , wayne Subject: Re: [Asrg] Will someone PLEASE remove Tim@mailkey.com? User-Agent: KMail/1.5 Cc: asrg@ietf.org (IRTF Anti-Spam Research Group) References: <200303291701.h2TH1FlD029761@new.agentzero.com> In-Reply-To: X-Hockey: Colorado Avalanche MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200303292304.57945@grx> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:04:57 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I did and they do. (I only bounced one so I don't know if this thing loops) On Saturday 29 March 2003 06:55 pm, Kee Hinckley wrote: > At 12:35 PM -0600 3/29/03, wayne wrote: > >I have added mailkey.com to my personal blacklist. I now expect to be > >lectured by Ken about how I don't understand the social assumptions > >implicit in human conversation and how rude it is to blacklist anyone > >who is on this mailing list. Ken will probably even tell me that I'm > >doing this as retribution because it is unlikely that I will ever > >remove this ban. > > Now all we need to do is find this mysterious "Ken" and let him know. > > But if Tim's contribution to this list has been human conversation, > then so is the neighbor's car alarm going off all night. > > Just make sure you don't bounce his auto-replies--these guys probably > send responses to MAILER-DAEMON as well. :-) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 30 00:02:00 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA07884 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:14:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2U4aIp25510 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:36:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U4aIO25507 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:36:18 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA07872; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:13:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U4ZAO25404; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:35:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U4V5O25316 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:31:05 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA07838 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:08:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2212658; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:10:25 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <0E6EF936-622F-11D7-963B-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> References: <0E6EF936-622F-11D7-963B-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> To: Chuq Von Rospach From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] More clueless spam bounces Cc: wayne , asrg@ietf.org (IRTF Anti-Spam Research Group) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:57:08 -0500 At 1:40 PM -0800 3/29/03, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: >My topica amusement came when I signed up for the high volume >jamspam and posted to it, only to get three (count them) three >vacation/OOF messages in reply. I was in the middle of a good rant >when I stopped to check, and sure You aborted the rant? Then maybe I should finish the one I was about to send. >enough, the topica mail list was missing any precedence header at all. So I I don't see that the Precedence header is required for the rant. A vacation notice is a notice of non-delivery. It should go to the envelope from. (Never mind that it shouldn't go to any message that doesn't list you in the headers--but that part doesn't have an RFC to back it up.) -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 30 00:02:00 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA07885 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:14:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2U4aYu25527 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:36:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U4aYO25524 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:36:34 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA07877; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:13:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U4ZLO25420; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:35:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U4V6O25320 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:31:06 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA07841 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:08:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2212650; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:10:27 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200303292317.h2TNHtAA004857@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <200303292317.h2TNHtAA004857@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Vernon Schryver From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] More clueless spam bounces AND social contracts Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:07:29 -0500 At 4:17 PM -0700 3/29/03, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > Sorry. I don't buy it. When you sign up for the list, you sign up > > for conversations with people on the list. Those conversations may >NO! > >Your reasoning would require removal of blocks against Cyberpromo and Alan >Ralsky's many domains should Spamford or Ralsky subscribe to this list. Should they engage in the conversation of this list (as opposed to sending spam), then I would say "yes". But if you would like an escape hatch--I have no problem with not replying to messages from people. And the sender can't tell the difference between not replying and dropping on the floor. So there's your out. Rude, yes. But not a slap in the face. ----- In a desperate attempt to bring this conversation somewhat on topic. I will point out that this conversation is so emotional for precisely the same reason that discussions of spam are emotional. We are discussing social contracts. We have certain expectations about communication. These are based on our real life experiences, and our virtual life experiences. There are cultural differences as well. I seriously doubt that it's a coincidence that the people I've seen supporting my case are people whom I've seen on the net for the past twenty years. Our expectations are different. Normally you only run into these types of social disagreements when you literally have cultural conflicts. We are in the unusual position of trying to patch a virtual culture. Think how you would feel if someone came in and gave you a new set of rules for when you should and shouldn't say hello to people on the street. Told you whether or not you were allowed to say thank you. Or put communications restrictions on people in the real world similar to the ones we are creating the virtual world. "Hello Mr. Smith. How are you..." "Sorry, if you want to talk to me, first you have to pay me ten cents." Is it any wonder that this is an emotional process? -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 30 00:08:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA08852 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:08:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2U5VGd28988 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:31:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U5VFO28985 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:31:15 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA08847; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:08:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U5UAO28941; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:30:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U5TmO28916 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:29:48 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA08821 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:06:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) id h2U594rL017197 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:09:04 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303300509.h2U594rL017197@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] More clueless spam bounces AND social contracts Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:09:04 -0700 (MST) > From: Kee Hinckley > > Your reasoning would require removal of blocks against Cyberpromo and Alan > > Ralsky's many domains should Spamford or Ralsky subscribe to this list. > Should they engage in the conversation of this list (as opposed to > sending spam), then I would say "yes". How do I know whether Ralsky has subscribed? Whenever I subscribe to a mailing list, do you say I should remove all spam defenses in case Ralsky has already subscribed and wants to send some private non-spam? Should every new subscriber to a list post an announcement so that current subscribers can lower filters? What if Ralsky subscribes, engages in the conversation of this list, and continues to spam? As far as I can tell, your reasoning requires that I permanently turn off my defenses against his spam so that he can send me private mail related to the list. Perhaps you'll answer that I'm only required to turn off my defenses from the time I subscribe until his next spew. I wouldn't like that, because I think that I should never turn off my defenses for the mere possibility of receiving non-spam from him. Whatever your reasoning really says instead of my guesses, it seems awfully complicated. I think it all becomes simple, clear, predictable, and even polite if subscribing to public mail grants permission only to the list reflector, and that all other permissions and consents remain unchanged. Sending private mail is almost always less polite than silence. I think expecting strangers to listen to you or presuming to take offense at having strangers slam doors in your face is more rude than the door slamming. The only bad thing of separating subscribing to mailing lists from granting free-passes in spam filters is the shock and horror of people who don't (or refuse to) realize how their own reputations or the reputations of their employers preceed them. The shock, horror, and anger of people who have discovered that their reputations are not what they hoped is familiar, predictable, and understandable. Such is life. Note again that I'm not saying that people should not send private, polite, non-bulk mail to the public addresses of a stranger if they reasonably believe that the stranger might be interested. If they have reason to think otherwise (e.g. by virtue of sending from a widely blacklisted domain name), they should not be surprised to meet a slammed door. In any case, they have no standing to take offense at a slammed door. Every stranger has the right to say "go away" to anyone at any time without any explanation, and not be considered "rude" or violating some sort of new superhypeway etiquette. Consent to receive mail is always determined by the target! This etiquette rule that requires listening to all private mail in order to subscribe to a list is news to me, and I've been receiving email as "vjs" since 1968, albeit not via SMTP until the last 20 years. Do the filters on the main IETF list currently against at least one person violate this new etiquette rule? What about the IETF-Censored list? Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 30 00:22:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA09000 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:22:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2U5iqb30125 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:44:52 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U5iqO30122 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:44:52 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA08989; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:21:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U5hJO30077; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:43:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U5gtO30054 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:42:55 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA08963 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:19:48 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2U3WfuY029374; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:32:41 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2U3WfT5029370; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:32:41 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: Vernon Schryver cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] More clueless spam bounces AND social contracts In-Reply-To: <200303300509.h2U594rL017197@calcite.rhyolite.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:32:41 -0800 (PST) I generally agree with you - if you engage in discussion on the list, there is no requirements that you talk to the same person offlist. However for the benifits of this list's subscribers (and because this maillist usually puts original poster's address in "cc:" and you end up sending email reply both to them and to the list), I think you should let through any email that is a reply to previous asrg email even if it comes directly from subscriber to your emailbox (i'm afraid the only way to do it is by subject and whitelist subjects that have [Asrg] in them), if you really do not want to, then at least do not bounce these emails (/dev/null them if you want) On Sat, 29 Mar 2003, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > From: Kee Hinckley > > > > Your reasoning would require removal of blocks against Cyberpromo and Alan > > > Ralsky's many domains should Spamford or Ralsky subscribe to this list. > > > Should they engage in the conversation of this list (as opposed to > > sending spam), then I would say "yes". > > How do I know whether Ralsky has subscribed? Whenever I subscribe to > a mailing list, do you say I should remove all spam defenses in case > Ralsky has already subscribed and wants to send some private non-spam? > > Should every new subscriber to a list post an announcement so that > current subscribers can lower filters? > > What if Ralsky subscribes, engages in the conversation of this list, > and continues to spam? As far as I can tell, your reasoning requires > that I permanently turn off my defenses against his spam so that he > can send me private mail related to the list. Perhaps you'll answer > that I'm only required to turn off my defenses from the time I subscribe > until his next spew. I wouldn't like that, because I think that I > should never turn off my defenses for the mere possibility of receiving > non-spam from him. > > Whatever your reasoning really says instead of my guesses, it seems > awfully complicated. I think it all becomes simple, clear, predictable, > and even polite if subscribing to public mail grants permission only > to the list reflector, and that all other permissions and consents > remain unchanged. Sending private mail is almost always less polite > than silence. I think expecting strangers to listen to you or presuming > to take offense at having strangers slam doors in your face is more > rude than the door slamming. > > The only bad thing of separating subscribing to mailing lists from > granting free-passes in spam filters is the shock and horror of people > who don't (or refuse to) realize how their own reputations or the > reputations of their employers preceed them. The shock, horror, and > anger of people who have discovered that their reputations are not what > they hoped is familiar, predictable, and understandable. Such is life. > > > Note again that I'm not saying that people should not send private, > polite, non-bulk mail to the public addresses of a stranger if they > reasonably believe that the stranger might be interested. If they > have reason to think otherwise (e.g. by virtue of sending from a widely > blacklisted domain name), they should not be surprised to meet a > slammed door. In any case, they have no standing to take offense at > a slammed door. Every stranger has the right to say "go away" to > anyone at any time without any explanation, and not be considered > "rude" or violating some sort of new superhypeway etiquette. > > Consent to receive mail is always determined by the target! > > This etiquette rule that requires listening to all private mail in order > to subscribe to a list is news to me, and I've been receiving email as > "vjs" since 1968, albeit not via SMTP until the last 20 years. Do the > filters on the main IETF list currently against at least one person > violate this new etiquette rule? What about the IETF-Censored list? > > > Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 30 00:23:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA09024 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:23:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2U5kHD30200 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:46:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U5kHO30197 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:46:17 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA09019; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:23:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U5j7O30169; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:45:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U5isO30139 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:44:54 -0500 Received: from tom.iecc.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id AAA08994 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:21:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 22407 invoked from network); 30 Mar 2003 00:24:11 -0500 Received: (ofmipd 208.31.42.38); 30 Mar 2003 05:23:49 -0000 Message-ID: From: "John R Levine" To: "Kee Hinckley" Cc: "Anti Spam Research Group" Subject: Re: [Asrg] define spam In-Reply-To: Cleverness: None detected MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 30 Mar 2003 00:24:10 -0500 > Exhibit 1. > > A message asking to be added to my mailing list. Spam was simply the > URL in the .signature. I would have fallen for it but they went a > touch too far and included a picture as well. Did they actually want to get on your list, or was the return address a fake? I've seen some pretty egregious wallpaper in legit mail. > Exhibit 2. > > A message to abuse complaining about spam. The spam was the message > that they were "complaining" about. Seen some of those, never had much trouble figuring them out. > Exhibit 3. > > Message asking me to attend a conference. (You've probably seen these.) Indeed. They struck me as instantly spamous because of the lack of any plausible reason they'd invite me. (I may be famous, but I'm not THAT famous.) I can certainly imagine situations where spam could masquerade as individual messages well enough to fool some people, but I don't see that as a big problem. So long as most of the recipients can figure out that it's spam, any negative feedback scheme we invent will still work. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner "A book is a sneeze." - E.B. White, on the writing of Charlotte's Web _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 30 00:26:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA09095 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:26:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2U5nHK30312 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:49:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U5nHO30309 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:49:17 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA09088; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:26:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U5m6O30262; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:48:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U5lKO30226 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:47:20 -0500 Received: from mail022.syd.optusnet.com.au (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA09065 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:24:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from co3001591-a.troy.rollo.name (c18374.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [210.49.142.222]) by mail022.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U5QXd22639 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 15:26:34 +1000 Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20030330144508.00c008c0@> X-Sender: (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Troy Rollo Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent In-Reply-To: <20030330043302.GV9659@main.templetons.com> References: <20030330031652.DB9972B57A@mauve.rahul.net> <20030330022250.GB13927@m400> <20030330031652.DB9972B57A@mauve.rahul.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 15:26:33 +1000 At 20:33 29/03/03 -0800, Brad Templeton wrote: >In free societies, you don't need advance consent to communicate with >somebody else. Consent can be rescinded, as in "go away" but it is always >on by default. This is not entirely accurate. In common law jurisdictions, no amount of consent or withdrawal of consent can affect the right to communicate per se. If you are in public, somebody can yell at you all they like, subject to any statutes to the contrary (such as statutes establishing public order offences), and you can't do anything about it. On the other hand, if you are on your own land, and somebody is yelling at you in such a way that it interferes with your use of the land (complications arise here), then the person doing the yelling commits a nuisance, and if they refuse to stop you are legally entitled to slap them around until they do stop (of course I wouldn't recommend this approach because in an individual case you may be mistaken about the extent of their act and the extent of your right to abate). >And since, on the internet, there is _no_ communication without use of the >private property of the other party to the communication, it means you don't >need advance consent to use somebody else's property to communicate with >them. Now here you come closer - when you use the private property of another you do need consent to use the property, but the consent is implied in the cases you appear to be worried about. Elsewhere, YMMV, for example in Scotland there appears to be no requirement for consent to merely use another person's chattels. >To define communication without advance consent as some sort of offence >would turn our definitions of a free society and an open communications system >upside-down. Well yes, if you mean "all communication", but it's not an "all or nothing" rule. Implied consent as understood by the law deals very well with this. To determine what is covered by implied consent you look at: a. What is necessary for the function of society in the circumstances; b. What is accepted by society; and c. What can reasonably be inferred by the actions of the possessor of the property. These are not necessarily exclusive factors. There may be other relevant factors in individual cases, but these factors cover most everyday situations, and the factors in individual cases will often be referable back to one or more of these. For example, in the case of email, the fact that SMTP as a protocol demonstrates a design centred on person to person messages and another protocol (NNTP) demonstrates a design centred on broadcast messages (even having substantially the same message format) would be a relevant factor for determining what is necessary, and what can be inferred. For example, having an open shop front entails implied consent to enter for the purpose of shopping, but if you enter for the purpose of shoplifting, you enter as a trespasser. If you enter for the purpose of soliciting customers to your nearby competing shop, you also enter as a trespasser. The implied consent is not an unbounded consent to enter, but is a consent limited to the purpose that is in that case necessary, accepted, and reasonably inferred. In the case of a private residence, there is implied consent to enter via a marked path to knock on the front door, but if you enter for the purposes of breaking in, or if the path goes past the main bedroom window and you enter for the purpose of peeping, then you trespass as soon as you set foot on the private land. > If somebody gave you a URL, you could not click on it without >knowing if the web host consented to you clicking on it. This is clearly within the scope of implied consent, because it is (a) necessary, (b) accepted, and (c) reasonably inferred by the actions in putting up a web site. >If you got a referral where I told you to e-mail my friend, you could not >mail him for fear you did not have his consent. Person to person email is clearly within the scope of implied consent and testing against the three criteria clearly indicates that this would be so. > And If I want to mail you to flame you about how stupid >the opinion you posted on your web site is, well, who would suspect you give >your consent to be flamed? This one is a little more difficult. Arguments on the "necessity" of this could go either way. It is probable that inference from conduct would go against, since most people don't like to be flamed. The acceptance test would suggest that society accepts the need to infer implied consent for flames, although this may vary depending on the free speech beliefs of the particular society. I would come down on the side of personal flames being within the scope of implied consent, even though the recipient probably doesn't want them. >it is always on by default. People can even come onto your private land to >come to talk to you unless you explicitly mark it no trespassing. "No trespassing" is probably insufficient for this purpose. The sign would have to make it clear that implied consent is withdrawn, or withdrawn for a particular class. For example, "No hawking" clearly withdraws consent for door-to-door salespeople, but "No trespassing" per se is redundant, since if there is consent (even implied consent) there is no trespass. >So because consent would be incredibly difficult to define, and it's a bad >idea to bring it into the spam definition If you define spam as "unsolicited bulk", then it fails the necessity, acceptance and inference tests. If you define spam as "unsolicited commercial" (such that an individual message is spam), then you are in a less certain area. All three criteria can be argued either way, and I suspect acceptance is diminishing over time. I would still come down on the side of "unsolicited commercial" but "personal" as being within the scope of implied consent. -- Troy Rollo Chairman, CAUBE.AU asrg@troy.rollo.name Executive Director, iCAUCE _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 30 00:33:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA09200 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:33:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2U5uEb30537 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:56:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U5uEO30534 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:56:14 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA09187; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:33:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U5tKO30511; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:55:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U5sSO30460 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:54:28 -0500 Received: from infobro.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id AAA09173 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:31:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:31:59 -0500 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:32:00 -0500 Message-ID: <01C2F653.C7681200.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'mathew'" , "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: Notes on Callback SMTP Transmission Organization: Information Brokers, Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:18:48 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I think the point is that the attack may result from a mis-configured MTA that loops on the 'spam' or soem other anomaly, I don't think it would take a malicious user to do it, I will look again (because I like the idea of call back). -e On Saturday, March 29, 2003 7:41 PM, mathew [SMTP:meta@pobox.com] wrote: > On Friday, Mar 28, 2003, at 10:39 US/Eastern, David F. Skoll wrote: > > 1 - NastySpammer sends millions of connections from thousands of 0wned > > hosts, and suddenly poor victim gets a DDoS from all the callbacks > > from hosts attempting to receive the purported mail. > > That's really no different from the same person having the 0wned hosts > directly DDoS the victim, or having the 0wned hosts send out ping > packets with the victim's IP address. Already illegal most places, and > the spammer already has the capability, so the proposal isn't making > anything worse. > > I think that objecting to a proposal because it allows bad guys to > mount an attack they can already mount is a bit nit-picky. > > > mathew > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 30 00:33:46 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA09214 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:33:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2U5uMw30553 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:56:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U5uMO30550 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:56:22 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA09192; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:33:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U5tAO30495; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:55:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U5sSO30456 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:54:28 -0500 Received: from infobro.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id AAA09171 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:31:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:31:57 -0500 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:31:58 -0500 Message-ID: <01C2F653.C5D2CC00.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'Jim Youll'" , Dave Crocker , Jon Kyme Cc: ASRG Subject: RE: [Asrg] define spam Organization: Information Brokers, Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:54:10 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Saturday, March 29, 2003 5:30 PM, Jim Youll [SMTP:jim@media.mit.edu] wrote: > At 14:20 -0800 3/29/03, Dave Crocker wrote: > >Jon, > > > >>> Not that it's a solution, but it seems such a person could give blanket > >>> consent > >>> for potential collaborators or customers to contact him for professional > >>> reasons related to ice cream, and if JK happens to be an eccentric ice > >>> cream > >>> inventor who talks to nobody, then he would presumably not give such > >>> consent > >>> because he truly does not care to be contacted/hired. > > > >JK> Absolutely - yes. Many possible mechanisms for advertising consent > >JK> before the fact. > > > >This is a technical forum. Please list any of the technical mechanisms > >that are reasonable candidates for use, in an environment with 100 > >million users and tens or hundreds of thousands of independent > >administrative localities. > > These sorts of minute-by-minute challenges are unlikely to lead to anything > useful. Why can't you just say that if someone wants to promote the idea > of a consent mechanism, that they should announce a research thread and > pursue it. I think they will. Personally, what I am getting is a sense that every body is talking about there own pet solutions and framework for describing the problem and no one is trying to scratch their head and write down the issues and derive the solution (or solution sets); I do not think if you can successfully describe consent in a technically bounded context then you can not prove a solution is viable for further research. At least that's what I think (not know). I don't particularly think this Anti-Spam RG is a commiseration society but a technical forum. Yeah, consent is a 'concept' we all agree has some perception impact and drives what many 'feel' is spam but can it be quantified to such an exeunt that we can formulate a technical solution. > I'm not going to sit here and pretend that I can answer an old question with > a few minutes of head-scratching just because someone has thrown down > the gauntlet. > I don't see that myself. > I'm not particularly interested in the topic, however I do seem to subscribe > to a more wide interpretation of "consent" than you do... As I mentioned earlier, consent is > already implied in the acceptance or rejection of mail at every step of the process > already. Are you referring to the 'consent' of an MTA to 'accept' a message for storage or relay? I call that policy. > Perhaps the small "consent" steps that exist now can be better formalized to > at least provide more consistent results than are achieved now in a manner that does > not require every last mailer on the net to be on board to work. I don't know, really... > research and experimentation might tell us something about that. arguing about it > probably won't. my $.02 -e _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 30 01:54:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA09870 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 01:54:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2U7HIW12180 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 02:17:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U7HGO12177 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 02:17:17 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA09866; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 01:54:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U7FSO12109; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 02:15:28 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U7EMO12072 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 02:14:22 -0500 Received: from plaidworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA09842 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 01:51:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.8/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h2U6rQZQ010934; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:53:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] email pull (was RE: Authentication ) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: asrg@ietf.org To: mathew From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <64E8345A-6246-11D7-AF44-00039380F1B6@pobox.com> Message-Id: <4DB4BF96-627C-11D7-963B-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:53:24 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Saturday, March 29, 2003, at 04:27 PM, mathew wrote: > With e-mail pull, I fail to get the mail if the sender's messaging > server (at his ISP) is down. Or if the network between us is down, or if the server is overloaded because someone who didn't know any better something to everyone in his address book 100 times. If someone forwards the mail, who's server is responsible for it? What server (if any) keeps the message for future reference? What if it's a person who never deletes his e-mail? Or reads it 1000 times (DOS attack?). How long does a server have to keep a message to be read? What if the message is forwarded? what if the person posts a URL to access it to slashdot? How does e-mail pull work in large environments where you have round robins, load forwarders, and large strings of MX relays today? How about through firewalls? I hate to say it, but email pull seems like a bad idea with a lot of complexity for questionable improvement. It might make more sense if it could be stored until I tell my server to go and get it from your server, but even then, how does that scale? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 30 01:55:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA09909 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 01:55:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2U7IGo12210 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 02:18:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U7IGO12207 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 02:18:16 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA09892; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 01:55:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U7H7O12169; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 02:17:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U7GaO12148 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 02:16:36 -0500 Received: from plaidworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA09863 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 01:53:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.8/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h2U6tdZQ010952; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:55:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] More clueless spam bounces Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: asrg@ietf.org (IRTF Anti-Spam Research Group), wayne To: Kee Hinckley From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <9CCCB0A6-627C-11D7-963B-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:55:37 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I disagree. But I agree it's open to discussion. I think this is a rabbit hole like whether lists should carry a coerced reply-to, so I won't go there, since I don't think there is a right answer the way things are implemented these days. On Saturday, March 29, 2003, at 07:57 PM, Kee Hinckley wrote: > I don't see that the Precedence header is required for the rant. A > vacation notice is a notice of non-delivery. It should go to the > envelope from. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 30 01:59:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA09938 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 01:59:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2U7MJT12802 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 02:22:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U7MIO12799 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 02:22:18 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA09934; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 01:59:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U7L9O12764; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 02:21:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U7KCO12745 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 02:20:12 -0500 Received: from plaidworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA09926 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 01:57:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.8/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h2U6xEZQ011012; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:59:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: pattib@gammon.com, asrg@ietf.org To: Brad Templeton From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <20030330043302.GV9659@main.templetons.com> Message-Id: <1D2C2741-627D-11D7-963B-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 22:59:13 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit mark me down for agreeing with every word Brad says here... On Saturday, March 29, 2003, at 08:33 PM, Brad Templeton wrote: _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 30 02:06:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA16734 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 02:06:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2U7TEC13374 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 02:29:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U7TEO13371 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 02:29:14 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA16194; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 02:06:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U7SAO13320; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 02:28:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U7RBO13016 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 02:27:11 -0500 Received: from plaidworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA14184 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 02:04:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.8/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h2U76FZQ011067; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:06:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] define spam Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: Dave Crocker , "Jon Kyme" , ASRG To: Kee Hinckley From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <182C423C-627E-11D7-963B-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:06:14 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I think it's trivial to define consent. I tell you to go away, you go away. You don't come back in three months to see if I'm still mad at you, you don't change your corporation name and contact me as a new entity, you go away. Consent is easy, at the base of it. What's missing is a standard way to communicate consent, as well as a standard way to define consent expectations (i.e., no generally accepted way to put up a "no solicitors" sign on your front door.). The lack of that no solicitors sign doesn't give you the right to walk into the living room to talk to me, but it does mean you can knock. If the sign is there and you still knock, silly you. On the other hand, spammers are about consent the way burglars are about knocking. Since there's no consent model spammers will ever follow, it won't solve the spam problem, and solving any other problem doesn't matter until the spam problem is solved. (it won't be solved by lumping everyone in as spammers, either, but that seems to be, increasingly, the attitude I see on this list. Oh, well) On Saturday, March 29, 2003, at 04:59 PM, Kee Hinckley wrote: > Unfortunately consent is even harder to define than spam. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 30 02:27:22 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA21961 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 02:27:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2U7o1a14761 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 02:50:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U7o0O14747 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 02:50:00 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA21947; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 02:26:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U7mIO14699; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 02:48:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U7l9O14666 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 02:47:09 -0500 Received: from plaidworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA21904 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 02:23:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.8/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h2U7QGZQ011264; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:26:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] define spam Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: ASRG To: "Eric D. Williams" From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <01C2F653.C5D2CC00.eric@infobro.com> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:26:14 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Saturday, March 29, 2003, at 08:54 PM, Eric D. Williams wrote: > and no one is trying to scratch their head and write down the issues > and derive > the solution (or solution sets); there have been some small attempts. They haven't gotten traction. Part of the problem is that this group can't agree one what problem it's trying to solve. Or even that there are multiple problems that need to be solved, and to choose one. Every time it tries, it gets sidetracked back into arguments over what needs to be solved. Aspects of the problem are REALLY TOUGH TO SOLVE. So the discussion keeps shifting off to solvable problems (mass marketers vs. spammers, consent models vs. stopping spam), even though they are (except to a tiny activitist group) a small part of the problem. People are, effectively, afraid to try to fix the spam problem because it's hard work, hasn't succeeded to date, unclear how to do it, and might not succeed. It's natural to migrate to something more tractable and easier to deal with -- the problem is, if you're seeing this iceberg bearing down on you, pulling our the brass polish because you know how to spiffy things up isn't the answer. There are personality conflicts. boy howdy, are there personality conflicts. and people are letting those conflicts and their private agendas interfere with the overall workings of this group. and there are people who are convinced that their vision of the problem, or their vision of the solution, are the real things that need to be addressed, and they are pushing those agendas to the exclusion of what anyone else thinks and without much interest or willingness in other viewpoints, much less collaboration or compromise. (this is the "let's all agree to do it my way" problem). And between all of these issues, the attempts to actually get much accomplished gets lost in the noise. I've just about given up, I think the dogmatic viewpoints and personality conflicts have likely doomed this group unless people will check their egos at the door and act professionally. My worry is, these people think they are. But this place makes a great case study of how tough the problem is and why the net's done such a poor job of dealing with the problem. We're how many years into it? and we're still arguing what the problem is. and there's no end in sight. this place also makes a great case study why ultimately these issues will be (and are, as we speak) moving out of the tech community increasingly into the political world, and why decisions will move from the geeks and administrators to the politicians and lawyers and management. And since marketing organizations know how to talk to politicians and geeks generally disdain them, guess who's voices will be heard? You may not like the DMA, but they know how to deal with Congress. And as long as people in this forum see the e-marketers as a foe to be fought instead of an ally to work with to solve the bigger problem (spam), those forces will stay divided and the one with political savvy will end up setting the legislation and political agendas. 'cause you may not want to believe it, but the e-marketing worlds sees the spammers as enemies, not the people in this group. Except for the ones who've declared war on emarketers, of course. but next time someone says "keep the politicians out of it and let the geeks solve the problem!" think about how well the geeks have solved it in this forum... _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 30 02:37:11 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA22241 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 02:37:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2U7xon15138 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 02:59:50 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U7xnO15135 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 02:59:49 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA22236; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 02:36:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U7t7O14971; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 02:55:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U7sQO14918 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 02:54:26 -0500 Received: from plaidworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA22065 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 02:31:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.8/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h2U7XPZQ011359; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:33:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] define spam Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: asrg@ietf.org To: william@elan.net From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:33:24 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Saturday, March 29, 2003, at 05:36 PM, william@elan.net wrote: > " > Spam- Towards a Working Definition > FWIW, here's MY definition of spam. I want to take content completely out of it to the greatest extent possible. Spam is email where there is not legitimate attempt to allow receivers to define their consent agreement, or no legitimate attempt to honor it. spam is that stuff that tries to hide it's consent agreement with me through forged identification, tries to prevent me from changing that consent agreement through fraudulent or missing return communication paths, or ignores those change requests and doesn't intend to honor them if I do actually get a request to them. Spam has nothing to do with content. It has everything to do with not allowing me to stop receiving it. How they prevent me from changing my consent agreement is irrelevant; that they prevent me from changing it makes it spam. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 30 02:48:55 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA22462 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 02:48:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2U8BZ216289 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 03:11:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U8BYO16286 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 03:11:34 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA22430; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 02:48:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U849O15274; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 03:04:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U83tO15251 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 03:03:55 -0500 Received: from plaidworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA22295 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 02:40:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.8/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h2U7h8ZQ011461; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:43:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] More clueless spam bounces Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: asrg@ietf.org To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <3F5F2CBE-6283-11D7-963B-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:43:07 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Saturday, March 29, 2003, at 07:08 PM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > Actually that is another issue, which I mentioned under 'lets > fix mailing lists'. The problem as I see it is that there should be > three options for mailing list messages, reply to the original > author, reply to the list and reply to all. > Mailman 2.1 has put some significant work in this area. By supporting the List-* headers, it makes reply/reply-all/reply-list possible, if only mail clients would support it. The information is now there. its' also gone a step further, and allows users to "opt out" of the message from the list if the list sees that address in the To: or CC: lines, so that the user will end up only getting one copy, thus (mostly) ending that argument.... _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 30 02:49:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA22509 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 02:49:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2U8CCS16339 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 03:12:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U8CBO16336 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 03:12:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA22477; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 02:49:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U887O16197; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 03:08:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U87PO15856 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 03:07:25 -0500 Received: from plaidworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA22359 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 02:44:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.8/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h2U7kQZQ011493; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:46:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Will someone PLEASE remove Tim@mailkey.com? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: Kee Hinckley , wayne To: asrg@ietf.org From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <200303292304.57945@grx> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:46:24 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit me, I 4xxed the domain in my access file. I hope it amuses them when they notice. On Saturday, March 29, 2003, at 09:04 PM, David Walker wrote: > I did and they do. > (I only bounced one so I don't know if this thing loops) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 30 03:11:20 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA22952 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 03:11:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2U8Y0916923 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 03:34:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U8Y0O16920 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 03:34:00 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA22941; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 03:10:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U8TKO16824; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 03:29:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U8OnO16691 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 03:24:49 -0500 Received: from nic-naa.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA22819 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 03:01:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from nic-naa.net (localhost.nic-naa.net [127.0.0.1]) by nic-naa.net (8.12.8/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h2U80iGL092119; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 03:00:44 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brunner@nic-naa.net) Message-Id: <200303300800.h2U80iGL092119@nic-naa.net> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: william@elan.net cc: asrg@ietf.org, brunner@nic-naa.net In-Reply-To: Message from william@elan.net of "Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:36:29 PST." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine Subject: [Asrg] Collecting normative definitions Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 03:00:44 -0500 <> Thanks for the NOIE (gov of oz) Study text. Folks with access to other policy-wonk texts, please post pointers, or meta-pointers. TiA _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 30 03:14:14 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA23009 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 03:14:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2U8arU17000 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 03:36:53 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U8arO16997 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 03:36:53 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA22999; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 03:13:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U8TaO16840; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 03:29:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U8P8O16711 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 03:25:08 -0500 Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA22825 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 03:01:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18zXnb-0008LK-00; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:04:15 -0800 To: Brad Templeton cc: Troy Rollo , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Anonymity In-Reply-To: Message from Brad Templeton of "Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:50:12 PST." <20030330015012.GS9659@main.templetons.com> References: <4.3.1.2.20030330070859.026a4a60@> <4.3.1.2.20030330070859.026a4a60@> <4.3.1.2.20030330091417.026b8e80@mail> <24739.1048984282@kanga.nu> <20030330015012.GS9659@main.templetons.com> X-face: ?^_yw@fA`CEX&}--=*&XqXbF-oePvxaT4(kyt\nwM9]{]N!>b^K}-Mb9 YH%saz^>nq5usBlD"s{(.h'_w|U^3ldUq7wVZz$`u>MB(-4$f\a6Eu8.e=Pf\ X-image-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/kanga.face.tiff X-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Message-ID: <32073.1049011455@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:04:15 -0800 On Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:50:12 -0800 Brad Templeton wrote: > On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 04:31:22PM -0800, J C Lawrence wrote: > Would it not be sufficient simply to assure anonymous mail can not be > sent in large volumes? Is that the function of a protocol definition, or of policy and configuration at a protocol-supporting node? > That is what most anonymous remailers do to avoid being used as spam > gateways today. Quite, and rather my point. -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 30 03:28:10 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA23156 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 03:28:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2U8omt18100 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 03:50:48 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U8omO18097 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 03:50:48 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA23150; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 03:27:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U8nHO18063; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 03:49:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U8mvO18026 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 03:48:57 -0500 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA23134 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 03:25:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 18zYAi-0006eP-00; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 09:28:08 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20030329214440.GM9659@main.templetons.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] define spam To: "Brad Templeton" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.4.13] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 158.152.118.31 Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 09:28:08 +0100 > On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 08:55:35PM +0000, Jon Kyme wrote: > > I'm the naked man in a glass room - I have no way of knowing how many > > recipients the message has. I can never know I've been spammed? > > > > Next! > > > Really? I must say I have the exact opposite experience. Almost never > to I get a spam that I can't immediately identify that it was not written > personally for me. That alone of course doesn't prove that it's bulk > but it's a remarkably accurate indicator. > Brad, there's a question mark at the end there. I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear - it's now the morning and the coffee is starting to kick in. My point was that I don't need a measure of bulkiness to (personally) categorise a message as spam. And neither do you. We're in agreement on this. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 30 03:32:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA23234 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 03:32:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2U8tFk18237 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 03:55:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U8tEO18234 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 03:55:14 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA23230; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 03:32:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U8s6O18170; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 03:54:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U8rVO18152 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 03:53:31 -0500 Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA23189 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 03:30:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18zYF0-0008SP-00; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:32:34 -0800 To: Vernon Schryver cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] More clueless spam bounces In-Reply-To: Message from Vernon Schryver of "Sat, 29 Mar 2003 18:47:39 MST." <200303300147.h2U1ld8t021171@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <64E8345A-6246-11D7-AF44-00039380F1B6@pobox.com> <200303300147.h2U1ld8t021171@calcite.rhyolite.com> X-face: ?^_yw@fA`CEX&}--=*&XqXbF-oePvxaT4(kyt\nwM9]{]N!>b^K}-Mb9 YH%saz^>nq5usBlD"s{(.h'_w|U^3ldUq7wVZz$`u>MB(-4$f\a6Eu8.e=Pf\ X-image-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/kanga.face.tiff X-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Message-ID: <32512.1049013154@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:32:34 -0800 On Sat, 29 Mar 2003 18:47:39 -0700 (MST) Vernon Schryver wrote: >> From: J C Lawrence >> While that may be what you intend to do, that is not apparent from >> your actions, and even more so, that is not implied by the >> information you reveal should you post to that list. This is simple >> information theory stuff. > "Information theory stuff" is stuff and nonsense in this context. I'll disagree as I find it critical to the accurate definition and design of protocols. > If you want to talk about Shannon's work and so forth, we could, but > such talk would have nothing to do with the charter of this mailing > list or this digression. I don't see the discussion of IF as on-topic for this list, but its applications to the topics of this list most certainly are. >> In the general case when you post to the forum you reveal yourself, >> willy nilly, to all the members of that forum at that time, and (very >> likely) everybody who may every find or discover that forum for the >> rest of time (archives and associative bleed being what they are). >> Those are the explicit audiences to whom you've provided your contact >> data. If that doesn't describe what you want to do, then DON'T DO >> THAT. Attempting to retroactively assign riders or etiquette >> contracts regarding your provided data is unlikely to work. ... > That position is indistinguishable from spammers who claim that > publishing an address is tantamount to soliciting anything they care > to send you, until you opt-out, and that any future publication of > your contact information is a new request to be spammed back to the > 19th Century. True, and that's part of my point. I may not like or agree with the view, and its certainly not one I practice, but their logic is sound. The only difference between the two positions are arbitrary OOB value decisions that are not demonstrated by the data in any fashion. More simply, wouldn't a system which does state (or enforce) the expectations of the poster be better than the current please-guess-nicely approach? We already know that we are dealing with people who are not operating on the same social assumptions and mores as we, and that we have no direct method of either communicating our expectations in a manner such that they'll be honored, or in making them use our data in the manner we wish. It seems inescapable that the appropriate response is to provide data which only operates within the expectations/contracts we desire. > Please note that I am not saying you are a spammer, but only that > those words express perfectly the position of spammers that they have > the right to spam you if you don't hide your address. Thanks. I get enough of that as a list operator. > I think subscribing or contributing to a mailing list amounts to > nothing more than subscribing or contributing to a mailing list. In > the absense of explicit agreement to the contrary, subscribing to a > mailing list does not solicit any mail from anyone except from that > mailing list. I was careful in my original text to distinguish between joining a list and posting to a list. The former case I firmly believe to be a properly protected state (and is something I'm very careful of on my lists due to a number of situations where the simple fact that someone is subscribed is uncomfortably revealing). The latter (posting) is far less clear without applying cultural arbitraries as discussed above. > It is reasonable for a stranger to assume that you at least tolerate > non-bulk, polite, private messages on any topic that the sender > reasonably believes interests you. That the sender infers your > interest from a web page, netnews article, mailing list submission, > business card, roadside sign, or mental telepathy is irrelevant. > Submitting something to a mailing list does not grant anyone any right > to send you mail that they would not already have without your > submission. Aye, there's the social corollary to the protocol rule of, 'Be conservative in what you emit and generous in what you accept', to the end of, "Post messages which others can experience easily, and be willing to experience any message." However, I see that as a tangent to tool-building for a solution. >> Note: Such an approach makes it difficult to fork a thread off-list. > There are cases where the only discussions that are possible are > public because there is insufficient mutual regard for private > discussions. Despite such problems, public discussions can be > fruitful. > Public statements do not obligate you to private discussions with > anyone. No, but it is easy (if not valid) to assume a social structure which defines that a participant in public discussion may be reasonably approached for private discussion. > In yet other words, are you really advocating the notion that I must > receive bulk noise about keys because I've subscribed to this mailing > list? If so, what about urgent messages about escrow accounts in > Nigeria? Social etiquette versus technical contract. Teaching manners, let alone cultural models and expectations is not easy as it assumes a context which is frequently not present. Don't enforce your mores on a group to which they don't apply. BTW: On that score don't expect me to stop ranting against top posting, or to allow it on any of my lists. I pick limits on where I live up to what I write. Geeks, and this encludes me, tend to readily compartmentalise their lives and interests. Thus they view their behaviour and activities on List-X as distinct and effectively unrelated to their behaviour and activities on List-Y, and they in turn deconstruct and compartmentalise the social expectations and mores which relate to those sub-divisions in the same way. Problem is that the majority of the rest of humanity doesn't tend to work that way. Hang out on some non0-technical lists on Yahoo or Topica for a while. Right or wrong (I'd argue that is a style point) they take a much more whole-person approach wherein a person's participation on the list is holistic, and involved more or less all of that individual, warts, off-topic oddities, and all. As such game lists have regular discussions on baby diaper selection, teen-pop idol bra cup size, IRS legitimacy urban legends, and fauz virus warnings. However, this is getting way off topic. Problem. Definition. Solution. Implementation. -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 30 03:40:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA23351 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 03:40:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2U93NL18847 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 04:03:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U93NO18844 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 04:03:23 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA23341; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 03:40:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U92CO18568; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 04:02:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U916O18512 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 04:01:06 -0500 Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA23317 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 03:37:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18zYMP-0008TC-00; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:40:13 -0800 To: william@elan.net cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] define spam In-Reply-To: Message from william@elan.net of "Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:36:29 PST." References: X-face: ?^_yw@fA`CEX&}--=*&XqXbF-oePvxaT4(kyt\nwM9]{]N!>b^K}-Mb9 YH%saz^>nq5usBlD"s{(.h'_w|U^3ldUq7wVZz$`u>MB(-4$f\a6Eu8.e=Pf\ X-image-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/kanga.face.tiff X-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Message-ID: <32561.1049013613@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:40:13 -0800 On Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:36:29 -0800 (PST) william wrote: > From NOIE (Australian Goverment) Study on Spam: " Spam- Towards a > Working Definition (utterly non-argumentatively) My working definition is purely subjective: SPAM is email from people we don't know, and/or don't want to know, offering us things we don't want (to know about). Its a nice subjective definition, which in turn reveals why attempts at useful objective definitions which can be enforced mb mechanism and machinery have failed. In turn that defines what we're (presumably) trying to do with this group: prevent abuse of mail systems by those people we don't know and/or don't want to know, offering us things we don't want (to know about). "Abuse" would seem the key word. I don't see much reason to worry about spammers who don't forge mail headers and who have valid MXes -- we have plenty pf large and accurate clubs to beat sense into their heads once we know who they are. The one's we're actually interested in are the ones who abuse the system: who exploit open relays, who forge mail (deliberately or via KLEZ-style virii), or who otherwise deliberately attempt to circumvent our controls and get that mail from people we don't know...etc...in front of our eyeballs. Okay, so we're trying to catch the crooks. The good guys either fully play by the rules, or make themselves clearly visible and thus targetable by playing by the rules (valid headers, MXes, etc). Its the guys who are attempting to lie, cheat, and finagle, to break the systen, that we're interested in. Or, more simply: we're interested in that population of mail users we can safely trust to be untrustworthy. That tends to suggest a standard police/law vs criminal arms race, and the history of SPAM techniques to date pretty clearly shows that in Victorian splendor. > Also I'm currently reviewing all ASRG messages in archive for this > first month preparing to make summary of work... Excellent. Your notes to date have been most useful and thought provoking. -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 30 03:46:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA23420 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 03:46:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2U99JL19807 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 04:09:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U99IO19804 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 04:09:18 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA23412; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 03:46:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U988O19781; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 04:08:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U97HO19439 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 04:07:17 -0500 Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA23394 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 03:44:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18zYSA-0008Uh-00; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:46:10 -0800 To: Kee Hinckley cc: Vernon Schryver , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] More clueless spam bounces AND social contracts In-Reply-To: Message from Kee Hinckley of "Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:07:29 EST." References: <200303292317.h2TNHtAA004857@calcite.rhyolite.com> X-face: ?^_yw@fA`CEX&}--=*&XqXbF-oePvxaT4(kyt\nwM9]{]N!>b^K}-Mb9 YH%saz^>nq5usBlD"s{(.h'_w|U^3ldUq7wVZz$`u>MB(-4$f\a6Eu8.e=Pf\ X-image-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/kanga.face.tiff X-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Message-ID: <32654.1049013970@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:46:10 -0800 On Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:07:29 -0500 Kee Hinckley wrote: > Normally you only run into these types of social disagreements when > you literally have cultural conflicts. We are in the unusual position > of trying to patch a virtual culture. Umm, that was true before September. Its definitely not true any more. We now have several quite different virtual cultures. That's been part of the problem. Not only is it an impedance mismatch between cultures, but the definition of the cultures involved, as well as their number has been changing under our feet. -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 30 03:58:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA23545 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 03:58:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2U9LNB20046 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 04:21:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U9LNO20043 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 04:21:23 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA23522; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 03:58:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U9K9O20026; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 04:20:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U9JOO19974 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 04:19:24 -0500 Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA23517 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 03:56:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18zYeB-00007B-00; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:58:35 -0800 To: Chuq Von Rospach cc: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] More clueless spam bounces In-Reply-To: Message from Chuq Von Rospach of "Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:43:07 PST." <3F5F2CBE-6283-11D7-963B-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> References: <3F5F2CBE-6283-11D7-963B-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> X-face: ?^_yw@fA`CEX&}--=*&XqXbF-oePvxaT4(kyt\nwM9]{]N!>b^K}-Mb9 YH%saz^>nq5usBlD"s{(.h'_w|U^3ldUq7wVZz$`u>MB(-4$f\a6Eu8.e=Pf\ X-image-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/kanga.face.tiff X-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Message-ID: <444.1049014715@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:58:35 -0800 On Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:43:07 -0800 Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > On Saturday, March 29, 2003, at 07:08 PM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >> Actually that is another issue, which I mentioned under 'lets fix >> mailing lists'. The problem as I see it is that there should be three >> options for mailing list messages, reply to the original author, >> reply to the list and reply to all. > Mailman 2.1 has put some significant work in this area. By supporting > the List-* headers, it makes reply/reply-all/reply-list possible, if > only mail clients would support it. The information is now there. Minor correction: The RFC 2369 etc headers (list-*) have been supported by Mailman though most (all?) of v2.0.x (couple years now), as well as the current v2.1. This is not new stuff for Mailman. -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 30 04:10:52 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA23724 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 04:10:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2U9XVX24899 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 04:33:31 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U9XVO24896 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 04:33:31 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA23718; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 04:10:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U9WKO24882; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 04:32:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2U9VUO24859 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 04:31:30 -0500 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA23699 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 04:08:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 18zYpu-0000wC-00; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 10:10:42 +0100 In-Reply-To: <945354719.20030329142043@brandenburg.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] define spam To: "Dave Crocker" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.4.13] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 158.152.118.31 Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 10:10:42 +0100 > Jon, > > > >> Not that it's a solution, but it seems such a person could give > blanket > >> consent > >> for potential collaborators or customers to contact him for > professional > >> reasons related to ice cream, and if JK happens to be an eccentric ice > >> cream > >> inventor who talks to nobody, then he would presumably not give such > >> consent > >> because he truly does not care to be contacted/hired. > > JK> Absolutely - yes. Many possible mechanisms for advertising consent > JK> before the fact. > > > This is a technical forum. Please list any of the technical mechanisms > that are reasonable candidates for use, in an environment with 100 > million users and tens or hundreds of thousands of independent > administrative localities. > This is a technical forum - and the point you raise is valid. Accordingly, discussion of the requirements for such a mechanism in this group is appropriate *before* a detailed proposal for a mechanism is made. I would think. I don't belive a group like this need be restricted to the presentation of (largely) fully-formed proposals and comment thereon. There's a lot of work that needs to be done *before* that stage is reached. If you don't want to be part of that effort - that's your choice. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 30 04:47:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA24078 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 04:47:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2UAAE027050 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 05:10:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UAAEO27047 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 05:10:14 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA24070; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 04:47:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UA9EO27016; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 05:09:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UA8oO26996 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 05:08:50 -0500 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA24039 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 04:45:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 18zZPz-0003i5-00; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 10:47:59 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20030330043302.GV9659@main.templetons.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent To: "Brad Templeton" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.4.13] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 158.152.118.31 Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 10:47:59 +0100 > >In free societies, you don't need advance consent to communicate with >somebody else. Consent can be rescinded, as in "go away" but it is always >on by default. Arrgh - freedom of speech! interesting field - look out for cowpats. You may not need advance consent to attempt to initiate a communication. A: "Knock, knock..." But for the communication to proceed consent is required... B: "Go away" > >And since, on the internet, there is _no_ communication without use of the >private property of the other party to the communication, it means you >don't >need advance consent to use somebody else's property to communicate with >them. We have declared many times we don't have a right to be annoyed, >only >a right not be harassed. > That's a non sequitur. You might just as easily turn it around: Because you don't have a right to use someones private property without their consent, you don't have a right to communicate with them. I can't believe that there's anywhere where my right to "free speech" gives me the right to stage a political demonstration in your kitchen. This is not a profitable line of argument. >To define communication without advance consent as some sort of offence >would turn our definitions of a free society and an open communications >system >upside-down. If somebody gave you a URL, you could not click on it without >knowing if the web host consented to you clicking on it. If you got a >referral >where I told you to e-mail my friend, you could not mail him for fear you >did >not have his consent. And If I want to mail you to flame you about how >stupid >the opinion you posted on your web site is, well, who would suspect you >give >your consent to be flamed? > >In our society you can, by default, go up to somebody on the street and >talk to them. That is sometimes annoying, but it's a right we actually >fight hard to protect. You can send them postal mail, without their >consent. >It is always assumed to exist in advance. It can be rescinded -- through >restraining orders, harassment charges, blockages at the post office etc. >but >it is always on by default. People can even come onto your private land to >come to talk to you unless you explicitly mark it no trespassing. > >So because consent would be incredibly difficult to define, and it's a bad >idea >to bring it into the spam definition, I respectfully submit that other >courses should be followed. >_______________________________________________ >Asrg mailing list >Asrg@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 30 05:03:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA24336 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 05:03:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2UAQMW27559 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 05:26:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UAQMO27556 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 05:26:22 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA24331; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 05:03:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UAPAO27508; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 05:25:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UAOKO27474 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 05:24:20 -0500 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA24300 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 05:01:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 18zZf1-0004tq-00; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 11:03:31 +0100 In-Reply-To: <01C2F64B.F674E030.eric@infobro.com> Subject: Re: RE: [Asrg] define spam To: "Eric D. Williams" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.4.13] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 158.152.118.31 Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 11:03:31 +0100 > I do not think 'consent' really has anything to do with a definition of > 'spam' > in the context of this problem. I feel that consent with respect to > messaging > is TOTALLY subjective and what a real definition addresses is the issue > of > policy or 'consent' enforcement after solicitation. I think enforcement > comes > via the technical solution we come up with. > > OK, consent is subjective. Definition of spam is subjective. These are not blockers. Classification of a message is not impossible. (There are many deployed systems that do this with varying degrees of "accuracy") Expression of a subjects preferences is not beyond us. We don't need to define spam. All we will ever need to do is say that "this set of message classes does | doesn't have consent for delivery to this subject." -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 30 05:16:52 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA24481 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 05:16:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2UAdXu28609 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 05:39:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UAdXO28606 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 05:39:33 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA24477; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 05:16:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UAcIO28583; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 05:38:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UAbrO28565 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 05:37:53 -0500 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA24446 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 05:14:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 18zZs6-000629-00; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 11:17:02 +0100 In-Reply-To: <182C423C-627E-11D7-963B-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] define spam To: "Chuq Von Rospach" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.4.13] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 158.152.118.31 Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 11:17:02 +0100 > > On the other hand, spammers are about consent the way burglars are > about knocking. Since there's no consent model spammers will ever > follow, it won't solve the spam problem, and solving any other problem > doesn't matter until the spam problem is solved. > You're asuming that the only entities that can consult consent are the message originators. OK - I'll admit defeat - I have to write some kind of draft for a consent mechanism. "...I may be some time" (Laurence Oates). -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 30 08:01:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA26379 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 08:01:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2UDOFi03343 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 08:24:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UDOFO03340 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 08:24:15 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA26364; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 08:00:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UDIiO03198; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 08:18:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UDHoO03167 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 08:17:50 -0500 Received: from sokol.elan.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA26313 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 07:54:34 -0500 (EST) From: william@elan.net Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2UB7d9v001966; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 03:07:39 -0800 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h2UB7d4r001962; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 03:07:39 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: J C Lawrence cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] define spam In-Reply-To: <32561.1049013613@kanga.nu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 03:07:39 -0800 (PST) > > Also I'm currently reviewing all ASRG messages in archive for this > > first month preparing to make summary of work... I'v dropped an idea to do a summary, best I'll be able to do is to pinpoint the most interesting messages that have either summary of some kind, list of important points or a proposal and these are being put into structured list of discussion points - summary you'll have to do on your own by comparing the messages. And this will take longer then I thought, I'v already reviewed 500 messages and still I'm only on March 5th! Will be good if I'm done with list archives by end of coming week (i.e. already in April). > Excellent. Your notes to date have been most useful and thought > provoking. Thank you. > -- > J C Lawrence > ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. > claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? > http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 30 09:12:10 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA27109 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 09:12:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2UEYv906379 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 09:34:57 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UEYvO06376 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 09:34:57 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA27104; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 09:11:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UEXPO06333; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 09:33:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UEW5O06297 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 09:32:05 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA27062 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 09:08:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) id h2UEB6Ag017871 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 07:11:06 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303301411.h2UEB6Ag017871@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] define spam References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 07:11:06 -0700 (MST) > From: "John R Levine" > ... > I can certainly imagine situations where spam could masquerade as > individual messages well enough to fool some people, but I don't see that > as a big problem. So long as most of the recipients can figure out that > it's spam, any negative feedback scheme we invent will still work. Yes. The fact each of us has probably been fooled once, twice, three or even more times does not change the fact that anyone and everyone who should be allowed an unsupervised mail account can and does bulk mail from single, isolated samples with better than 99.9% accuracy. The famous legal saying that hard cases make bad law applies to laws against spam as well as technical defenses. It is a major mistake to try to make laws or computers against spam absolutely perfect. Any law or computer defense that even approaches being a perfect spam filter has catatrophic unintended consequences. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 30 09:24:24 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA27235 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 09:24:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2UElBK07485 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 09:47:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UElBO07482 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 09:47:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA27228; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 09:23:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UEkCO07463; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 09:46:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UEj4O07436 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 09:45:04 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA27217 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 09:21:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc01.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2UELe66015733 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 06:21:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 06:24:10 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: asrg@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [Asrg] Bounce criteria... Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 06:24:08 -0800 > > Should they engage in the conversation of this list (as opposed to > > sending spam), then I would say "yes". > > How do I know whether Ralsky has subscribed? Whenever I subscribe to > a mailing list, do you say I should remove all spam defenses in case > Ralsky has already subscribed and wants to send some private non-spam? No, but if you send an email to ralsky rather than the list the email infrastructure should not automatically filter out the reply on the basis of a block on the IP block Ralsky is in. Nor should you create bounce messages in this case, its spam. If you don't want to read the message fine, but sending autoresponses to someone sending you have decided not to read is schoolyard nerner-nerner type stuff. The problem with security is that it is very easy to solve if you define the problem to be an easy one rather than solving the real problem. If you don't care about false positives then go ahead and block all email from freeserve.co.uk, even though pretty much everyone in the UK who is on the Internet has at least one account with freeserve, virgin or another 'free' provider. The reason that spamers choose these domains as flags of convenience is because there are so many legitimate users. The argument I am making here is that email should not be bounced or discarded on the information from the MTA alone. Furthermore perhaps people could explain why it is necessary to have bounce messages in an alleged 'end-to-end' architecture. I can see the need for the four server model, but why do we have to cope with people with chains of fifteen relays? I think that a lot of the problems we are having here are due to the imposition of a pseudo-intelligent store and forward architecture rather than true end to end. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 30 10:09:58 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA28754 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 10:09:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2UFWjb09424 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 10:32:45 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UFWiO09421 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 10:32:44 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA28683; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 10:09:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UFVHO09399; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 10:31:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UFUDO09370 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 10:30:13 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA28334 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 10:06:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) id h2UF9G8d024433 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 08:09:16 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303301509.h2UF9G8d024433@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] define spam References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 08:09:16 -0700 (MST) > From: Chuq Von Rospach > ... > FWIW, here's MY definition of spam. I want to take content completely > out of it to the greatest extent possible. > > Spam is email where there is not legitimate attempt to allow receivers > to define their consent agreement, or no legitimate attempt to honor it. > > spam is that stuff that tries to hide it's consent agreement with me > through forged identification, tries to prevent me from changing that > consent agreement through fraudulent or missing return communication > paths, or ignores those change requests and doesn't intend to honor > them if I do actually get a request to them. > ... As written, that is a bad definition, because it allows and even encourages literally hundreds millions of advertisers to individually ask you to opt-out. If DMA members and fellow travelers would allow and honor a global, individual address opt-out mechanism, then their spam would be irritating but tolerable. The DMA's previous opt-out efforts have shown they will always fight such a thing, just as they are now fighting the national telemarketing do-not-call list. They know that as soon as such a list existed, common tools for creating accounts would sprout "check boxes" or other buttons that add new addresses to the global opt-out list. (Please, no nitpicking about my blurring of distinctions among various direct marketing and telemarketing assocations.) ] From: J C Lawrence ] ... ] In turn that defines what we're (presumably) trying to do with this ] group: prevent abuse of mail systems by those people we don't know ] and/or don't want to know, offering us things we don't want (to know ] about). "Abuse" would seem the key word. I don't see much reason to ] worry about spammers who don't forge mail headers and who have valid ] MXes -- we have plenty pf large and accurate clubs to beat sense into ] their heads once we know who they are. ... That is mistaken for more than one reason. One is that there are too many hundreds of millions (100,000,000) of organizations that do not forge mail headers, have valid MX DNS RRs (or plain A RRs), to be "known" in any practical sense. In the U.S. alone there something like 20,000,000 corporations. At least 1% of them could reasonably ask you to opt-out or have a rogue, about to be fired salescritter that decides that a push advertising campaign might let the salescritter "meet plan", keep its job, and couldn't make things worse. Another reason is that the major clubs against unsolicited bulk mail from the Fortune 50,000,000 are too coarse. It is impractical to block spam from Dell Computers by IP address or domain name without blocking all mail from Dell Computers. That coarse blocking is completely unworkable for all except the tiny minority of kooks like me who so object to junk U.S.Postal Service that we've sent complaints in pre-paid envelopes. The only defenses against that sort of spam that I know of are automated body filters such as the DCC. I am not worried about the current flood of spam with genuinely forged headers (i.e. not merely using free provider drop-boxes) or other tricks including "hash busters." The DMA will soon finish passing laws in all major jurisdictions that criminalize header forgery as the first step in saving "push advertising". (The other jurisdictions can be blacklisted by IP address.) ... Please stop talking about the wondersof mechanisms that are not email (i.e. advertising). They may be much better than email, but they are irrelevant and off-topic here. We are supposed to be dealing with email spam. If fixing the email spam problem is hopeless, then perhaps a new IRTF or IETF group will be created to consider replacements for SMTP. It would make sense to advertise such a new group or mailing list here several times. Still, we are about fixing email spam, not the wonderful additions to Mailman to support something other than email. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 30 10:17:58 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29334 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 10:17:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2UFei610421 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 10:40:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UFeiO10418 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 10:40:44 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29326; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 10:17:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UFdKO10358; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 10:39:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UFcVO10316 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 10:38:31 -0500 Received: from joy.songbird.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29217 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 10:15:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from bbprime.brandenburg.com (208.184.79.252.songbird.com [208.184.79.252] (may be forged)) by joy.songbird.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UFHJ718982 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 07:17:19 -0800 From: Dave Crocker X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.63 Beta/6) Personal Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <3766348353.20030330071716@brandenburg.com> To: "ASRG" Subject: Re: [Asrg] define spam In-Reply-To: <200303292228.h2TMSfCu010702@new.agentzero.com> References: <945354719.20030329142043@brandenburg.com> <200303292228.h2TMSfCu010702@new.agentzero.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 07:17:16 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>This is a technical forum. Please list any of the technical mechanisms ... JY> These sorts of minute-by-minute challenges are unlikely to lead to anything JY> useful. Why can't you just say that if someone wants to promote the idea JY> of a consent mechanism, that they should announce a research thread and JY> pursue it. There are approximately and infinite number of ideas that can be suggested. We have limited resources and only a few idea are likely to be productive. If an idea has not had enough thought behind it, to strongly suggest that pursuing the idea will be productive, then it should not be pursued. When someone suggests that an idea be pursued, they have a responsibility to offer its technical basis. Otherwise, it is just a random thought with almost no chance of being useful. These "minute-by-minute challenges" are being offered in response to minute-by-minute "requirements". This is a difficult topic and productive work on it requires respecting its difficulty. An idea that sounds good must also have enough technical basis accompanying it to demonstrate that it might be productive for this group to pursue. KH> We started down the "let's define spam" path on this list a week or KH> so ago and then gave up. I think that was wise. KH> How about another approach. Define what the problem with spam KH> is--and then instead of focusing on defining the specifics of spam, KH> focus on solutions to the problems that spam (and possibly other KH> email) causes. I think that is a fine idea. I don't care whether we define spam or another term, but we MUST have an objective, technical definition of the problem we are working on. Agreeing on an objective, technical description of the problem's EFFECT sounds like an excellent approach. Otherwise each of us is trying to solve a different problem. Now for the bad news: The description needs to have enough technical meat to permit us to pursue it with some change of success. For example, saying something generic, like "prevent delivery of mail the recipient does not want to get" is not going to get us anywhere productive. --- Hmmmm. It occurs to me that I keep saying that this problem requires multiple components to the "solution". No one thing is going to fix the problem. Perhaps we need a cascading sequence of definitions, starting from the most simple and mechanical, up to one that is quite general. The simple one permits a simple mechanism that will be easy to build, will work reliably, but eliminate only a percentage of the problem mail. Each definition becomes more general, and leads to a mechanism that is more general, and less reliable, but has some utility. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking Sunnyvale, CA USA , _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 30 10:28:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29534 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 10:28:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2UFpTe10749 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 10:51:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UFpTO10746 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 10:51:29 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29514; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 10:28:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UFoEO10721; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 10:50:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UFncO10693 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 10:49:38 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29495 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 10:26:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) id h2UFScT0026257 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 08:28:38 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303301528.h2UFScT0026257@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Bounce criteria... References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 08:28:38 -0700 (MST) > From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" > ... > > How do I know whether Ralsky has subscribed? Whenever I subscribe to > > a mailing list, do you say I should remove all spam defenses in case > > Ralsky has already subscribed and wants to send some private non-spam? > > No, but if you send an email to ralsky rather than the list the email > infrastructure should not automatically filter out the reply on the basis > of a block on the IP block Ralsky is in. > ... There is no excuse for bouncing private responses to private messages. One or two can be accidents or mistakes, but if you block Ralsky, then you should not send to Ralsky (or Verisign). > The problem with security is that it is very easy to solve if you > define the problem to be an easy one rather than solving the real > problem. If you don't care about false positives then go ahead and > block all email from freeserve.co.uk, even though pretty much > everyone in the UK who is on the Internet has at least one account > with freeserve, virgin or another 'free' provider. The reason that > spamers choose these domains as flags of convenience is because > there are so many legitimate users. > ... If the number of users were the reason for the popularity of free providers among spammers, then AOL would have more spammers than the most popular providers of free spam drop boxes. (Hotmail is not most popular in the spam I see.) The reasons spammers use free provider drop-boxes are that free provider drop-boxes are free, spammers can have almost as many drop-boxes as they want (up to tens of thousands until recently), and there are no consequences for network abuse involving free provider drop-boxes except the loss of individual drop-boxes. The blacklist documented in http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/freemail.html has an extremely low false positive rate for mail that is sent toward rhyolite.com and other domains that eventually reach my mailbox. I think there has been a single false positive in 2003 for all of the (quite few but >1) users @rhyolite.com, and that case involves a literally forged netscape.net address adopted by someone trying to hide her real address from spammers. That is much better than 99.9% accuracy and better than the underlying failure rate of SMTP email. I don't know that my U.K. correspondents have taken special steps to avoid my filters, but I have good reasons to doubt it. Perhaps I don't correspond to with "pretty much everyone in the UK." Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 30 10:37:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29753 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 10:37:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2UG0Ir11105 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 11:00:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UG0IO11102 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 11:00:18 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29741; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 10:36:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UFxBO11023; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 10:59:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UFwUO10997 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 10:58:30 -0500 Received: from new.agentzero.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29659 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 10:35:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.123.194] (h0050e4251179.ne.client2.attbi.com [66.30.24.79]) by new.agentzero.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h2UFZpCu009992; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 10:35:53 -0500 Message-Id: <200303301535.h2UFZpCu009992@new.agentzero.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3766348353.20030330071716@brandenburg.com> References: <945354719.20030329142043@brandenburg.com> <200303292228.h2TMSfCu010702@new.agentzero.com> <3766348353.20030330071716@brandenburg.com> To: Dave Crocker , "ASRG" From: Jim Youll Subject: Re: [Asrg] define spam Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 10:37:30 -0500 At 7:17 -0800 3/30/03, Dave Crocker wrote: > >>This is a technical forum. Please list any of the technical mechanisms >... >JY> These sorts of minute-by-minute challenges are unlikely to lead >to anything >JY> useful. Why can't you just say that if someone wants to promote the idea >JY> of a consent mechanism, that they should announce a research thread and >JY> pursue it. > > >There are approximately and infinite number of ideas that can be >suggested. We have limited resources and only a few idea are likely to >be productive. > >If an idea has not had enough thought behind it, to strongly suggest >that pursuing >the idea will be productive, then it should not be pursued. I don't think i can agree with that. I'd rather see some evidence first than trying to pass judgement about someone's idea. If there's an idea here, maybe the best thing is to reply with suggestions. If it's been proposed before, then don't debate it, send the poster back to do some reading and if you have pointers, offer them. The issue at hand in this thread was something about "consent" and frankly, there seems to be no consensus here. If someone(s) believe that "consent" can be codified and made to work, then send them off to work on it for awhile and then come back to tell us what they've learned. >When someone suggests that an idea be pursued, they have a >responsibility to offer its technical basis. >Otherwise, it is just a random thought with almost no chance of being >useful. >These "minute-by-minute challenges" are being offered in response to >minute-by-minute "requirements". This is a difficult topic and >productive work on it requires respecting its difficulty. These minute-by-minute challenges are serving only to increase the rate of minute-by-minute responses. I'll say it again... If someone thinks they've got a good solution, they need to be sent off to work on it. >An idea that sounds good must also have enough technical basis >accompanying it to demonstrate that it might be productive for this >group to pursue. And where will that technical basis come from? From going off to work on it and coming back with results. >I think that is a fine idea. I don't care whether we define spam or >another term, but we MUST have an objective, technical definition of the >problem we are working on. Agreeing on an objective, technical >description of the problem's EFFECT sounds like an excellent approach. > >Otherwise each of us is trying to solve a different problem. I think it will be more useful to define some problems. The problem is not "spam exists"... the problem seems to be something about too many undesired messages hitting ISPs and their customers, which messages can't be made to stop using current art, or something. I don't think you're going to define much with specificity... each of the possible "solutions" approaches a subset of what we recognize as the "spam problem" - let the solution writer state what problem he is trying to solve. >Hmmmm. It occurs to me that I keep saying that this problem requires >multiple components to the "solution". No one thing is going to fix the >problem. > >Perhaps we need a cascading sequence of definitions, starting from the >most simple and mechanical, up to one that is quite general. The simple >one permits a simple mechanism that will be easy to build, will work >reliably, but eliminate only a percentage of the problem mail. Each >definition becomes more general, and leads to a mechanism that is more >general, and less reliable, but has some utility. I think that will lead to a cascade of arguments about definitions. If there will be many solutions to many problems, they probably will not fit neatly together. Use the list to hook up people who believe in/against some approach, hook them up so they can work together, send them off to work on it and invite them to come back when there's something defensible to show. Only then will it be useful to look at what they've got and pass judgement on whether it's useful generally, and whether it's compatible with other bits of solution. I haven't read even one of the multi-page back-of-envelope "solutions" that have been posted here. May I also suggest that a proper use for this group would be to define the features and data that must be present for any proposed solution or research to be taken seriously? eg: - what must change for this to work - what is the impact on those who don't have it - in/compatibility with existing infrastructure - results of test against some standard corpus - analysis of adaptations and workarounds - simulation where appropriate or just debate what spam means til yer pink and gelatinous in the face. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 30 11:22:09 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA00442 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 11:22:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2UGivx14021 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 11:44:57 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UGivO14018 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 11:44:57 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA00420; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 11:21:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UGhQO13976; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 11:43:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UGgBO13909 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 11:42:11 -0500 Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA00392 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 11:18:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18zfYY-0001vM-00; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 08:21:14 -0800 To: william@elan.net cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] define spam In-Reply-To: Message from william@elan.net of "Sun, 30 Mar 2003 03:07:39 PST." References: X-face: ?^_yw@fA`CEX&}--=*&XqXbF-oePvxaT4(kyt\nwM9]{]N!>b^K}-Mb9 YH%saz^>nq5usBlD"s{(.h'_w|U^3ldUq7wVZz$`u>MB(-4$f\a6Eu8.e=Pf\ X-image-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/kanga.face.tiff X-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Message-ID: <7399.1049041274@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 08:21:14 -0800 On Sun, 30 Mar 2003 03:07:39 -0800 (PST) william wrote: > I'v dropped an idea to do a summary, best I'll be able to do is to > pinpoint the most interesting messages that have either summary of > some kind, list of important points or a proposal and these are being > put into structured list of discussion points - summary you'll have to > do on your own by comparing the messages. > And this will take longer then I thought, I'v already reviewed 500 > messages and still I'm only on March 5th! Will be good if I'm done > with list archives by end of coming week (i.e. already in April). Aye, I'd worried about the work load involved. Fair dinkum. Even the above is a significant value add, especially if you can quote URLs into the archives (MessageIDs are the next best for me). -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 30 11:42:08 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA00686 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 11:42:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2UH4v614698 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 12:04:57 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UH4vO14695 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 12:04:57 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA00669; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 11:41:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UH3EO14654; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 12:03:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UH2vO14623 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 12:02:57 -0500 Received: from plaidworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA00654 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 11:39:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.8/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h2UGfnZQ017225; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 08:41:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] define spam Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: "Eric D. Williams" , "ASRG" To: "Jon Kyme" From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <803639A7-62CE-11D7-995A-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 08:41:48 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sunday, March 30, 2003, at 02:03 AM, Jon Kyme wrote: > OK, consent is subjective. Definition of spam is subjective. > > These are not blockers. > they don't need to be. In this forum, and in the larger fight this forum has been trying to get a handle on, they have been. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 30 11:45:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA00724 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 11:45:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2UH8Kx15568 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 12:08:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UH8KO15565 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 12:08:20 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA00713; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 11:45:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UH7AO14969; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 12:07:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UH6gO14752 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 12:06:42 -0500 Received: from plaidworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA00707 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 11:43:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.8/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h2UGjcZQ017269; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 08:45:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] define spam Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: "ASRG" To: "Jon Kyme" From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <0887084E-62CF-11D7-995A-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 08:45:37 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I am? I don't think I've really attempted to define it in any way, other than one simplistic analogy. In truth, there are going to be both individual and organizational consent issues ("no solicitors" on the front door, in a gated community; companies don't allow solicitors to walk among the cubes of their company). I can refuse consent on an individual basis ("No thank you, please leave") or to the company that hires the solicitors ("no call lists"), or perhaps to organizations that manage multi-organization consent issues. On Sunday, March 30, 2003, at 02:17 AM, Jon Kyme wrote: > You're asuming that the only entities that can consult consent are the > message originators. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 30 11:48:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA00803 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 11:48:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2UHBNS15713 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 12:11:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UHBNO15710 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 12:11:23 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA00796; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 11:48:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UHAAO15655; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 12:10:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UH9nO15627 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 12:09:49 -0500 Received: from plaidworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA00776 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 11:46:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.8/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h2UGmeZQ017303; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 08:48:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] define spam Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: asrg@ietf.org To: Vernon Schryver From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <200303301509.h2UF9G8d024433@calcite.rhyolite.com> Message-Id: <74CA49E6-62CF-11D7-995A-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 08:48:38 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sunday, March 30, 2003, at 07:09 AM, Vernon Schryver wrote: > As written, that is a bad definition, because it allows and even > encourages literally hundreds millions of advertisers to individually > ask you to opt-out. right now, that's still an improvement over the status quo. Until we GET to that point, trying to deal with that kind of consent issue doesn't really matter. and your numbers blow the issue well out of proportion. Potentially, ever person in China could choose to call my house to wish me happy birthday, too. I don't propose legislation to prevent it. You're trying to turn e-marketers into spammers again, Vernon, and merging the two problems into one. that's a failed strategy, and I won't go there. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 30 12:32:20 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA01334 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 12:32:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2UHtAD17962 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 12:55:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UHtAO17959 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 12:55:10 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA01319; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 12:31:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UHrVO17846; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 12:53:31 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UHqlO17738 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 12:52:47 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA01276 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 12:29:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) id h2UHVjUv011856 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 10:31:45 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303301731.h2UHVjUv011856@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] define spam References: <74CA49E6-62CF-11D7-995A-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 10:31:45 -0700 (MST) > From: Chuq Von Rospach > > As written, that is a bad definition, because it allows and even > > encourages literally hundreds millions of advertisers to individually > > ask you to opt-out. > > right now, that's still an improvement over the status quo. Until we > GET to that point, trying to deal with that kind of consent issue > doesn't really matter. and your numbers blow the issue well out of > proportion. If you look at the numbers from outside a job in the nascent "legitimate" spam industry, you see that would be worse than the status quo. There are only about 1500 serious spammers today. When they are terminated by governments and the obvious criminal associations fade from bulk mail offers, we will have at least 1-3 dozen daily important offers and opt-out "requests" from the Fortune 50,000,000. As I've said more than once including in the message that Mr. Von Rospach partly quoted, I think the solution for the current problem of fly by night and criminal spammers will come from governments, and that solution will make problems related to other sorts of "e-marketers" worse. There are more than 20,000,000 corporations registered in the U.S. At least 1% of them might reasonably send you one opt-out request per year. That would put 54 opt-out requests into your mailbox every day. That is a significantly higher spam-load than many and I think most end-users suffer today. "Legitimate" spammers would be happy to send us as much unsolicited and unwanted junk email as we now get in paper. I receive 1 to 2 dozen pieces of paper junk every day. I do not want the same in my email box. > Potentially, ever person in China could choose to call my > house to wish me happy birthday, too. I don't propose legislation to > prevent it. That is silly, irrelevant nonsense. > You're trying to turn e-marketers into spammers again, Vernon, and > merging the two problems into one. that's a failed strategy, and I > won't go there. I think Mr. Von Rospach knows that is a gross misrepresentation of my positions. If you are an "e-marketer," there are more than two spam problems. However, for most of us, there is only one spam problem, large amounts of junk in our mailboxes. We will require more than one solution for the parts of the problem, but the problem is solitary. There are many sorts of "e-marketers," and many are not spammers. Some are spammers flogging sexual performance enhancements while others want to sell computers. Some spammers use forged headers and try to hide, while other spammers are completely up-front and open. Some "e-marketers" are members in good standing of the DMA and others have had their efforts interrupted by being involuntary guests of state and local governments. Some "e-marketers" make honest efforts to avoid sending spam, while others that I think are DMA members are the opposite. I keep mentioning spam from Dell Computers, but I consider Dell one of the reasonably careful "e-marketers." American Express and Verisign/NetworkSolutions (before or after that merger and divorce) are examples of unvarnished corporate spammers among "e-marketers." Dell is an example of the fact that absolutely every large outfit will occassionally err and send spam. (perhaps I'm wrong; I've also had problems with unsolicited FAX ads from Dell.) Only organiziations that are too small to have any turnover in their marketing and sales organizations can hope to never make a mistake. Contrary to some kooks and to Mr. Von Rospach's efforts to tar those of us who do not like unsolicited bulk email advertising, that does not imply that all outfits are spammers any more than the fact that everyone breaks traffic laws makes all of us convicted felons or even merely reckless drivers. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 30 13:48:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA02491 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 13:48:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2UJBWP23249 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 14:11:32 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UJBWO23246 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 14:11:32 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA02486; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 13:48:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UJ9OO23127; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 14:09:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UJ8WO23080 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 14:08:32 -0500 Received: from infobro.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA02436 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 13:45:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 13:47:15 -0500 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 13:47:18 -0500 Message-ID: <01C2F6C2.E1147DA0.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'Chuq Von Rospach'" , "william@elan.net" Cc: "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: RE: [Asrg] define spam Organization: Information Brokers, Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 13:23:52 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I agree, I only add that it does not matter how many or what the nature of distribution is, only that the parameters of establishing or terminating the 'consent agreement' have been invalidated by a rouge player (the 'spammer'). -e On Sunday, March 30, 2003 2:33 AM, Chuq Von Rospach [SMTP:chuqui@plaidworks.com] wrote: > > On Saturday, March 29, 2003, at 05:36 PM, william@elan.net wrote: > > > " > > Spam- Towards a Working Definition > > > > FWIW, here's MY definition of spam. I want to take content completely > out of it to the greatest extent possible. > > Spam is email where there is not legitimate attempt to allow receivers > to define their consent agreement, or no legitimate attempt to honor it. > > spam is that stuff that tries to hide it's consent agreement with me > through forged identification, tries to prevent me from changing that > consent agreement through fraudulent or missing return communication > paths, or ignores those change requests and doesn't intend to honor > them if I do actually get a request to them. > > Spam has nothing to do with content. It has everything to do with not > allowing me to stop receiving it. How they prevent me from changing my > consent agreement is irrelevant; that they prevent me from changing it > makes it spam. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 30 14:10:27 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA02705 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 14:10:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2UJXKk23801 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 14:33:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UJXJO23798 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 14:33:19 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA02696; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 14:09:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UJVGO23716; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 14:31:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UJUpO23681 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 14:30:51 -0500 Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA02679 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 14:07:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18ziBc-0002w7-00; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 11:09:44 -0800 To: Vernon Schryver cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] define spam In-Reply-To: Message from Vernon Schryver of "Sun, 30 Mar 2003 08:09:16 MST." <200303301509.h2UF9G8d024433@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <200303301509.h2UF9G8d024433@calcite.rhyolite.com> X-face: ?^_yw@fA`CEX&}--=*&XqXbF-oePvxaT4(kyt\nwM9]{]N!>b^K}-Mb9 YH%saz^>nq5usBlD"s{(.h'_w|U^3ldUq7wVZz$`u>MB(-4$f\a6Eu8.e=Pf\ X-image-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/kanga.face.tiff X-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Message-ID: <11290.1049051384@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 11:09:44 -0800 On Sun, 30 Mar 2003 08:09:16 -0700 (MST) Vernon Schryver wrote: >> From: J C Lawrence >> In turn that defines what we're (presumably) trying to do with this >> group: prevent abuse of mail systems by those people we don't know >> and/or don't want to know, offering us things we don't want (to know >> about). "Abuse" would seem the key word. I don't see much reason to >> worry about spammers who don't forge mail headers and who have valid >> MXes -- we have plenty pf large and accurate clubs to beat sense into >> their heads once we know who they are. ... > That is mistaken for more than one reason. One is that there are too > many hundreds of millions (100,000,000) of organizations that do not > forge mail headers, have valid MX DNS RRs (or plain A RRs), to be > "known" in any practical sense. In the U.S. alone there something > like 20,000,000 corporations. At least 1% of them could reasonably > ask you to opt-out or have a rogue, about to be fired salescritter > that decides that a push advertising campaign might let the > salescritter "meet plan", keep its job, and couldn't make things > worse. > Another reason is that the major clubs against unsolicited bulk mail > from the Fortune 50,000,000 are too coarse. It is impractical to > block spam from Dell Computers by IP address or domain name without > blocking all mail from Dell Computers. That coarse blocking is > completely unworkable for all except the tiny minority of kooks like > me who so object to junk U.S.Postal Service that we've sent complaints > in pre-paid envelopes. The only defenses against that sort of spam > that I know of are automated body filters such as the DCC. While true, I do not see that as a problem that can be solved by technical constraints. To get noticeable traction on that larger problem needs non-technical methods; legal supports, DMA opt-out lists with penalties, etc. Its not resolvable purely at the transport or protocol level. However the problems of rogue spammers who forge, exploit, and cheat can be better far constrained and defined than is allowed by the current system, which in turn allows the application of non-technical problem resolutions (law suits, public lynching, nuclear weaponry, etc), and its that latter space I'm interested in. More simply: If we do wish to resolve those non-technical problems, then this list has the wrong audience and wrong membership. > I am not worried about the current flood of spam with genuinely forged > headers (i.e. not merely using free provider drop-boxes) or other > tricks including "hash busters." I am. We differ. > The DMA will soon finish passing laws in all major jurisdictions that > criminalize header forgery as the first step in saving "push > advertising". (The other jurisdictions can be blacklisted by IP > address.) Sadly the other jurisdictions can be fairly accurately defined as !=America (tho in a few years that may expand to != (America + EuropeanUnion). While I'm glad that some find that an interesting problem space, I'm not one of them. > They may be much better than email, but they are irrelevant and > off-topic here. I'll merely note that recognition and analysis of protocols that do not exhibit or allow the problem we see under SMTP can be useful. -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 30 14:39:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03032 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 14:39:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2UK2Y625372 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 15:02:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UK2YO25369 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 15:02:34 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03006; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 14:39:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UK1NO25326; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 15:01:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UK0uO25292 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 15:00:56 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA02977 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 14:37:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h2UJdo509392; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 11:39:50 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: Troy Rollo Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent Message-ID: <20030330193950.GC8632@main.templetons.com> References: <20030330031652.DB9972B57A@mauve.rahul.net> <20030330022250.GB13927@m400> <20030330031652.DB9972B57A@mauve.rahul.net> <4.3.1.2.20030330144508.00c008c0@> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20030330144508.00c008c0@> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 11:39:50 -0800 On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 03:26:33PM +1000, Troy Rollo wrote: > At 20:33 29/03/03 -0800, Brad Templeton wrote: > c. What can reasonably be inferred by the actions of > the possessor of the property. You make a number of good points, so let me drop to the other problem I pointed out with consent issues, which is the difficult technical challenge of finding a way to figure out consent when we have all sorts of vague definitions of implied consent, and so many different preferences among individuals as to what consents they wish to give. Even in this group we have seen many people express different views over what they think is spam, vs. mail they think they have implicitly consented to receive. Just this week we've debated the suggestion that if you post to a mailing list you consent to replies to your messages from others, but not to automatic replies from broken bots, and possibly not to off-topic replies -- for example most would say that posting here doesn't allow me to reply to them to offer them cheap blue sex pills. I see it as intractable to define a mechanism for definition of advance consent. As in, "I don't know who you are or what your message is about but I rescind consent in advance if it meets criteria X." If we could come up with a language that workably described all the "X" people are interested in which could also be handled well by people mailing material that might meet criteria X, that would be interesting but I don't hold much hope for such a language. > > that SMTP as a protocol demonstrates a design centred on person to person > messages and another protocol (NNTP) demonstrates a design centred on > broadcast messages (even having substantially the same message format) Unfortunately bulk mail has a long history, predating even newsgroups by many years. I have gone down this course before, but I can't escape the conclusion that bulk mail is considered one of the legitimate uses of mail. How can we as we discuss it on a mailing list? However, it is definitely secondary. > > This is clearly within the scope of implied consent, because it is (a) > necessary, (b) accepted, and (c) reasonably inferred by the actions in > putting up a web site. Unfortunately it is not so "clear" as there are many court cases about this, about issues such as deep linking, inlining and spidering in various forms. People want to give consent to some (google) but not to others (shopping bots or deep linkers) and so on. If only this were clear. > > Person to person email is clearly within the scope of implied consent and > testing against the three criteria clearly indicates that this would be so. I thinks so but again, I have seen many in the anti-spam community offer extreme definitions which include person to person mail. CAUCE, a fairly major organization in the anti-spam community, has pushed its lobbying efforts around single e-mails from the start, and so have many others. It is alas, not clear. > This one is a little more difficult. Arguments on the "necessity" of this > could go either way. It is probable that inference from conduct would go > against, since most people don't like to be flamed. The acceptance test > would suggest that society accepts the need to infer implied consent for > flames, although this may vary depending on the free speech beliefs of the > particular society. I think you aptly demonstrate the technological impossiblity of making a protocol based way to define advance consent. Rescinded consent is of course much easer (and implementable at the endpoint) A blacklist is rescinded consent -- if only blacklists didn't have all their other problems. > > "No trespassing" is probably insufficient for this purpose. The sign would > have to make it clear that implied consent is withdrawn, or withdrawn for a > particular class. For example, "No hawking" clearly withdraws consent for > door-to-door salespeople, but "No trespassing" per se is redundant, since > if there is consent (even implied consent) there is no trespass. These signs rely on being in human natural languages. So people have a wide scope on what they can put on the sign, and it is handled by another natural intelligence. No such luck in SMTP. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 30 14:50:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03265 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 14:50:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2UKDZg26524 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 15:13:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UKDZO26521 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 15:13:35 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03259; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 14:50:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UKBeO26427; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 15:11:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UK84O26324 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 15:08:04 -0500 Received: from plaidworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03146 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 14:44:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.8/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h2UJkrZQ019864; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 11:46:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] define spam Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: asrg@ietf.org To: Vernon Schryver From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <200303301731.h2UHVjUv011856@calcite.rhyolite.com> Message-Id: <5A24E23E-62E8-11D7-995A-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 11:46:51 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sunday, March 30, 2003, at 09:31 AM, Vernon Schryver wrote: > (perhaps I'm wrong; Nah. not possible. But I've had my say, I won't rehash it again. but when people start posturing by doign things like saying "Mr. Von Rospach", it's clear the discussion is actually over, anyway. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 30 15:34:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA05062 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 15:34:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2UKvNZ29028 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 15:57:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UKvMO29025 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 15:57:22 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA05058; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 15:33:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UKmbO28677; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 15:48:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UKj5O28576 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 15:45:05 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA04934 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 15:21:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) id h2UKO38Q002189 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 13:24:03 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303302024.h2UKO38Q002189@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] define spam References: <11290.1049051384@kanga.nu> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 13:24:03 -0700 (MST) > From: J C Lawrence > ... > > in pre-paid envelopes. The only defenses against that sort of spam > > that I know of are automated body filters such as the DCC. > > While true, I do not see that as a problem that can be solved by > technical constraints. To get noticeable traction on that larger > problem needs non-technical methods; legal supports, DMA opt-out lists > with penalties, etc. Its not resolvable purely at the transport or > protocol level. I may be biased, but I disagree. The DCC is works best against unsolicited bulk email from corporations and others that don't try to hide or fail to hide sufficently. It is currently working to the tune of millions of spam/day and at what some users claim is better than 95% effectiveness. If you don't know what I'm talking about, then if I could suggest that you look around for technical mechanisms including Brightmail, Postini, Cloudmark, Pyzor, and the DCC without being offensive, I would. > However the problems of rogue spammers who forge, > exploit, and cheat can be better far constrained and defined than is > allowed by the current system, which in turn allows the application of > non-technical problem resolutions (law suits, public lynching, nuclear > weaponry, etc), and its that latter space I'm interested in. I have not seen in this list or elsewhere any useful technical mechanisms to deal with "rogue" spammers that really forge headers (as opposed to using temporary drop-boxes) or do other illegal things (illegal in many jurisdictions). - Mechanisms that involve new authentication or authorization mechanisms cannot and will not work any better than the old and well established mechanisms based on IP addresses, domain names, PGP keys, and commercial and self-signed certificates. - mechanisms that are less than X% effective until at least X% of users utilize them for X >= 0.2% are hopeless. It will always be extremely difficult to get 1,000,000 people to use any new anti-spam or email mechanisms that do not benefit them significantly. If I didn't already know, I would have learned from the DCC that the first million users are hard even for a system that is 80% effective from the first. Once you have a million users, you have only 0.2% of the on-line population. If your threshold of effectivenewss is 10%, not even getting AOL to apply your mechanism will work. - almost all spammers are easily identifable to people with minimal technical clues. That fact has not helped us use lynching, bombs, etc. against them. What good have lynching and so forth been so far? How are they relevant to this mailing list? > More simply: If we do wish to resolve those non-technical problems, then > this list has the wrong audience and wrong membership. That's true, but it is also true that it is a waste of time to consider technical solutions that are obviously useless because of non-technical issues such as thresholds. Design by wishful thinking was popular in the Dot-Com era and has always been popular in Usenet, but it is always useless and less profitable than other autoerotic exercises. > ... > > The DMA will soon finish passing laws in all major jurisdictions that > > criminalize header forgery as the first step in saving "push > > advertising". (The other jurisdictions can be blacklisted by IP > > address.) > > Sadly the other jurisdictions can be fairly accurately defined as > !=America (tho in a few years that may expand to != (America + > EuropeanUnion). While I'm glad that some find that an interesting > problem space, I'm not one of them. I'm not sure what you're saying. If you are saying that no progess is being made on laws against spam in Europe and the U.S., then you are mistaken. The progress is slow, but quite significant. See http://www.spamlaws.com/ If you agree that laws in Developed World are arriving, then are you saying that stopping spam from organizations in the Developed World would not be a major improvement? Note that as far as the law is concerned, spam sent via distant computers or networks is still "from" the developed world if it is on behalf of Developed World outfits. Lawyers and congresscritters don't know about and so aren't fooled by IP routing, TCP proxies, or SMTP relays. I certainly do not find working on laws an "interesting problem space." It's possible the IRTF could effectively recommend laws, but I doubt it. I know I'm not lawyer enough (or at all) to write laws. > > They may be much better than email, but they are irrelevant and > > off-topic here. > > I'll merely note that recognition and analysis of protocols that do not > exhibit or allow the problem we see under SMTP can be useful. Many things are useful, but most of them have nothing to do with stopping email spam. This mailing list is about stopping email spam. Until someone proves that requires stopping SMTP email, we are constrained to deal with STMP. It might be right that SMTP must be replaced because of spam or other reasons (I don't agree), but such discussions are more irrelevant and off-topic here than whether SPEWS ever blocked all of UUNET (never happened) or whether I influence SPEWS (I don't). Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 30 15:41:57 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA05205 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 15:41:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2UL4qJ29465 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 16:04:52 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UL4qO29462 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 16:04:52 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA05198; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 15:41:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UKuWO29010; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 15:56:32 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UKrBO28829 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 15:53:11 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA05019 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 15:29:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) id h2UKW7rB003162 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 13:32:07 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303302032.h2UKW7rB003162@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] define spam References: <5A24E23E-62E8-11D7-995A-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 13:32:07 -0700 (MST) > Cc: asrg@ietf.org > To: Vernon Schryver > From: Chuq Von Rospach > On Sunday, March 30, 2003, at 09:31 AM, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > > (perhaps I'm wrong; > > Nah. not possible. > > But I've had my say, I won't rehash it again. but when people start > posturing by doign things like saying "Mr. Von Rospach", it's clear the > discussion is actually over, anyway. A minor point of order or style: I get formal when I'm trying to avoid unintended insults. Yes, this message is also noise. My excuse is that I really think that getting formal is sometimes good and necessary. When you can't seem to avoid someone's name and are having a "mutual regard" problem, you usually add insult by being informal. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 30 18:19:11 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA08540 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 18:19:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2UNg8F06929 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 18:42:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UNg8O06926 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 18:42:08 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA08528; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 18:18:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UNY2O05912; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 18:34:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2UNUGO05829 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 18:30:16 -0500 Received: from plaidworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA07475 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 18:06:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.8/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h2UN90ZQ022452 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 15:09:00 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed From: Chuq Von Rospach To: ASRG Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <9681268C-6304-11D7-995A-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Fwd: Returned mail: see transcript for details Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 15:08:58 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I do so love it when people pull these games in the middle of a private conversation. Now I'm convinced this group has shown why groups like this won't solve the problem. And I think he proves my belief the insult was intentional. Begin forwarded message: > From: Mail Delivery Subsystem > Date: Sun Mar 30, 2003 1:28:08 PM US/Pacific > To: > Subject: Returned mail: see transcript for details > > The original message was received at Sun, 30 Mar 2003 13:27:54 -0800 > (PST) > from dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186] > > ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- > > (reason: 550 5.7.1 REJECT go away: Sent to DCC) > > ----- Transcript of session follows ----- > ... while talking to calcite.rhyolite.com.: >>>> DATA > <<< 550 5.7.1 REJECT go away: Sent to DCC > 554 5.0.0 Service unavailable > Reporting-MTA: dns; plaidworks.com > Arrival-Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 13:27:54 -0800 (PST) > > Final-Recipient: RFC822; vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com > Action: failed > Status: 5.7.1 > Remote-MTA: DNS; calcite.rhyolite.com > Diagnostic-Code: SMTP; 550 5.7.1 REJECT go away: Sent to DCC > Last-Attempt-Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 13:28:08 -0800 (PST) > > From: Chuq Von Rospach > Date: Sun Mar 30, 2003 1:27:53 PM US/Pacific > To: Vernon Schryver > Subject: Re: [Asrg] define spam > > > > On Sunday, March 30, 2003, at 12:32 PM, Vernon Schryver wrote: > >> A minor point of order or style: I get formal when I'm trying to >> avoid unintended insults. >> > > that's okay, I felt it was intentional all along. I'm still of that > mind. > > > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 30 19:39:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA09991 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 19:39:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2V12Zd10785 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 20:02:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2V12ZO10782 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 20:02:35 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA09987; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 19:39:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2V0soO10466; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 19:54:50 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2V0p7O10341 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 19:51:07 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA09808 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 19:27:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2216272; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 19:29:58 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200303300509.h2U594rL017197@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <200303300509.h2U594rL017197@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Vernon Schryver From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] More clueless spam bounces AND social contracts Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 17:54:54 -0500 At 10:09 PM -0700 3/29/03, Vernon Schryver wrote: >Whatever your reasoning really says instead of my guesses, it seems >awfully complicated. I think it all becomes simple, clear, predictable, What I expect people on a list to do is what they'd do if they were in a room together. If you stop thinking of things in technical terms, and think of them in social terms, then the rules are quite simple. And if you discover you've accidentally dissed someone, then I would expect you to apologize and not do it in the future. If you don't want to do that, fine. But recognize that it's at the very least rude, and quite possibly counter productive to the goals of the list. If you want to continue the conversation, please respond to me off list--as this topic is far afield. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 30 22:33:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11966 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 22:33:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2V3uf419999 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 22:56:41 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2V3ueO19996 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 22:56:40 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11956; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 22:33:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2V3mPO19791; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 22:48:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2V3iBO19704 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 22:44:11 -0500 Received: from xuxa.iecc.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id WAA11843 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 22:20:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 10196 invoked by uid 100); 30 Mar 2003 22:23:02 -0500 Message-ID: <20030331032302.10195.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) To: chuqui@plaidworks.com In-Reply-To: <182C423C-627E-11D7-963B-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] The consent continuum Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 30 Mar 2003 22:23:02 -0500 >I think it's trivial to define consent. It's hard because it's not a binary flag, it's a continuum. At one end, Chuq can send me any mail he wants. I know him well enough to be confident that anything he's going to send me will be OK with me. At the other end, I have told Verisign many times that I don't want them to send me any mail, for any reason, ever. I just reminded them of that last week when they sent me a message saying "we know you told us to go away forever, but did you change your mind?" I don't care if they notice my house burning down or find my wallet on the street containing a million dollars in cash, I don't want to hear about it from them. Those are easy. The hard part is the limited consent we all give to bulk mailers. There's a company in Virginia that sends me one or two messages a year saying "do you want to send your sister the same ham you sent her last year?" That message is fine. If they sent me an occasional message saying "we're now selling peanut-fed smoked squid, on special this month for $99.95", that would be OK, too. But the more the volume cranks up and the farther they get from the original point of the communication, the more strained the consent gets. Where it gets tough is in co-registration, when they say "would you like to get occasional messages from our carefully screened affiliate organizations?" which some people haven't yet figured out means "you won't believe how many low-lifes there are that'll pay us 3 cents per address for our list." Once you've done that, you're screwed because even if you tell the original contact to stop, there's never a mechanism to pass the revocation through to the hundreds of other people to whom the address has been directly or indirectly sold. I've had to abandon at least one address because I didn't notice that the place to whom I gave it did co-reg. The most infamous case of this is Michael Rathbun's "Nadine" story, about an address provided once to a co-reg site by a woman who typed it wrong, and the incredible number of places it's ended up. So I think we can make some general rules about consent, but it's no likelier that we can define it rigorously than we can define spam rigorously. Some suggestions: * No consent is needed for one-to-one mail, although of course you can tell individuals to go away. * Consent for bulk mail has to be given in a context where both parties understand what kind and amount of bulk mail it means. Again, the receipient has to be able to make it stop. * Repurposing consent can't happen. If I give you an address for one purpose, i.e., mail about ham, you can't then send me mail about travel packages to pork farming country. The line between what's a normal variation of the original purpose and what's repurposing is a semantic one that we can argue about forever, but I suspect that in most cases where repurposing is an issue, it'll be obvious. -- John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl, Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 30 22:44:18 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA12076 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 22:44:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2V47MU20734 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 23:07:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2V47MO20731 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 23:07:22 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA12072; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 22:43:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2V3xiO20084; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 22:59:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2V3uqO20020 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 22:56:52 -0500 Received: from smtp.istop.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11961 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 22:33:17 -0500 (EST) From: waltdnes@waltdnes.org Received: from waltdnes.org (ip245-165.tor.istop.com [66.11.165.245]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 69086369DA for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 22:35:42 -0500 (EST) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sun, 30 Mar 2003 22:36:23 +4300 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] It's not spam, it's ooga-booga... Was: 5c. Message Status Message-ID: <20030331033623.GA14814@m400> References: <20030330022250.GB13927@m400> <20030330031652.DB9972B57A@mauve.rahul.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030330031652.DB9972B57A@mauve.rahul.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 22:36:23 -0500 On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 07:16:51PM -0800, pattib@gammon.com wrote > > I don't consent to 1) and I don't consent to 2). I do not see any > >difference. > > Ah, but some people *do* consent to 2), and they would like to receive > the weekly cheez-wiz recipes that they've otped into. That's the "human-shield effect" that some e-marketers rely on. Outfits like PennMedia/Shagmail and Topica send newsletters/whatever to known unconfirmed lists. Like you said, there are some people who do subscribe to them, but others who don't want the stuff still end up getting it. The sending outfits rely on the fact that the few willing subscribers will complain if their ISPs blocking them outright. When you get *THE SAME CONTENT FROM THE SAME IP ADDRESS* being sent to both willing and unwilling recipients, it becomes more difficult to block. This tends to happen most often with "advertiser-supported" newsletters, where the number of "subscribers" determines how much the mailing company gets paid by advertisers. > > The *ONLY* difference is that the people behind "legitimate marketing > >stuff" make campaign contributions, and there's less liklihood of the > >"legitimate" spam advertising stuff that's blatantly illegal. Folks, > >it's about *CONSENT* not *CONTENT*. > > False. The difference is that legitimate email marketers try pretty > hard to only send mail to people who want to receive it. Just because > you don't want to know what's on sale over at piggly wiggly doesn't > mean that I don't. In fact, I subscribe to somewhere between one and > two dozen separate email marketing streams right now. And I'm sure that you're not interested in a mailing list on the CRUX distro of linux, plus various other stuff that I subscribe to. I *OPTED IN* to those lists, versus havimg to *OPT OUT* of a gazillion others. And if e-marketers adopted *OPT-IN*, we wouldn't have today's problems. > Legitimate honest-to-goodness email marketers exist, and while they > aren't always perfect, they can do a pretty damned good job. Unfortunately, they're damn hard to find. Companies that have a real product to sell, and do things in-house, tend to be better. The hired guns, who get lists of target addresses from customers, aren't in a position to verify the lists. > I can count on one hand the number of unsolicited messages I've > received from Digital Impact in the last few years, for example, Does that include all the following aliases? merchantmail.net m0.net digital-impact.com digitalimpact.com digitalimpact.net merchantmail.com emailexchange.net emarketingscience.com responsiblemail.com mm3.net mm4.net mm5.net mm6.net mm7.net mm8.net mm9.net Now why would they send out their stuff under an assumed name, or several assumed names? People are known by the company they keep. Digital Impact is a member of the ESP ("Email Service Providers") coalition. Who are these people? According to their press release at http://www.networkadvertising.org/NAIESPRelease.pdf > Current membership in the ESP Coalition includes all of the major > companies in the email service provider industry: Digital Impact, > DoubleClick, Experian, iMakeNews, Aptimus, Avenue A, BlueHornet > Networks, Britemoon, Cheetahmail, Clickaction, eDialog, Eversave, > ExactTarget, GotMarketing, MindShare Design, Roving Software, Topica, > Virtumundo, and Yesmail. This is an honour roll of past residents of MAPS RBL, some of whom have used their money and their lawyers to sue their way out of the RBL. Not exactly a glowing recommendation. > An opt-in email marketer who tries very hard never to send unsolicited > email, and who responds promptly and correctly if there is an > occasional screw-up, is not a spammer. The problem is that there are tons of opt-out marketers who claim to be opt-in. Here is a scenario that has been repeated too many times in NANAE (news.admin.net-abuse.email)... CR = Company Representative NI = NANAE inhabitants Company rep comes to NANAE CR> Wahhhh, wahhh, we've been blacklisted. Why ? NI> Because you spam. Begin loop (repeats several times) CR> No we don't. NI> Yes you do. End loop CR> But, but, but, we're double-opt-in, blah, blah, blah NI> (A NANAE inhabitant, who happens to be a sysadmin, trots out logs of repeated attempts over the years by the company to deliver email ads to postmaster@, abuse@, domain admin contact, and a slew of non-existant addresses) Explain that. CR> (Comes back a couple of days later) But, but, but, our customer that we emailed those out for *SAID* those were double-opt-in addresses NI> And the National Enquirer says... CR> (Comes back a couple of days later) But, but, but, the guy who sold our customer the list of addresses *SAID* they were double-opt-in NI> And the National Enquirer says... If I sound cynical, yes I am. I've seen this finger-pointing garbage as often as a teacher hears "the dog ate my homework". And I'm just as likely to believe it. E-marketers' reputations are badly damaged, and they will *NOT* get the benefit of the doubt. > I will grant you, however, that there's a decent-sized grey area in > between hot-teen-lolitas spammers and the best of the bunch. One more time... it's about *CONSENT*, not *CONTENT*. I don't care what the unwanted garbage in my inbox is. -- Walter Dnes An infinite number of monkeys pounding away on keyboards will eventually produce a report showing that Windows is more secure, and has a lower TCO, than linux. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 30 23:01:09 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA12361 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 23:01:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2V4OBU21723 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 23:24:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2V4OBO21720 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 23:24:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA12348; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 23:00:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2V4FeO21491; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 23:15:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2V4CDO21375 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 23:12:13 -0500 Received: from smtp.istop.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA12164 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 22:48:40 -0500 (EST) From: waltdnes@waltdnes.org Received: from waltdnes.org (ip245-165.tor.istop.com [66.11.165.245]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B8E8136A02; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 22:51:04 -0500 (EST) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sun, 30 Mar 2003 22:51:46 +4300 To: william@elan.net Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Proposal for Opt-Out Message-ID: <20030331035145.GB14814@m400> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 22:51:45 -0500 On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 06:43:52PM -0800, william@elan.net wrote > > And the "special header in the email" will be in the DATA: block, > > and can only be parsed if you accept the entire email. Oh, did I > > mention that broadband ISPs in Canada now surcharge extra if you > > exceed your monthly bandwidth quota ? Accepting the email, even if > > it is discarded immediately, counts on your quota. In other words, > > it can cost actual money. > The system is intended to be used by MTAs not by MUAs (though this > is still an option), so email would be discarded if the encrypted > hash is not available and either never reaches MUA or is placed is > possible-spam folder. > > As for header being part of DATA block and that being difficulty for > some MTAs, we'll talk about this point again in 15-20 days when I'm > ready to submitone particular draft I'm working on. Please re-read what I said... "Accepting the email, even if it is discarded immediately, counts on your quota.". It has to be accepted to read the DATA: block. You did say "special header in the email" and headers are in the DATA: block; period, end of story. Assuming that you were unclear about what you meant, there are two other possible options... 1) Some extension (or maybe even total re-write) of the SMTP protocol 2) Funky hash encoding in the MAIL FROM: and/or the RCPT: blocks -- Walter Dnes _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 30 23:03:08 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA12389 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 23:03:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2V4QBj21777 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 23:26:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2V4QBO21774 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 23:26:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA12380; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 23:02:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2V4IFO21539; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 23:18:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2V4CsO21408 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 23:12:54 -0500 Received: from lanshark.lmi.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA12186 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 22:49:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from vaio.marketfire.com (66-117-128-11.rdsl.lmi.net [66.117.128.11]) by lanshark.lmi.net (8.12.7/8.12.7) with ESMTP id h2V3piEl026481 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 19:51:44 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20030330191545.02e46840@pop3.norton.antivirus> X-Sender: no X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Mark H Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_708290766==_.ALT" Subject: [Asrg] OT - real spam Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 19:44:18 -0800 --=====================_708290766==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Ok - I realize this is slightly off topic. Maybe a lot off topic. But..... I was at the San Mateo Fairgrounds today (in Northern Cal.). There was a large bright blue portable food wagon. On top was a _giant_ can of Spam. At least 10 or 12 feet tall. The truck side was labeled as the SpamMobile. Playing over loudspeakers was a recorded spiel about the benefits and history of Spam (no Python songs). And... they were giving away free samples (no, I didn't try any). This is the real stuff - not some of that fake spam that comes over a wire. They were also promoting their web site - www.spam.com Just thought you might like to know.... mh --=====================_708290766==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Ok - I realize this is slightly  off topic. Maybe a  lot off topic. But.....

I was at the San Mateo Fairgrounds today (in Northern Cal.).

There was a large bright blue portable food wagon. On top was a _giant_ can of Spam. At least 10 or 12 feet tall.  The truck side was labeled as the SpamMobile.

Playing over loudspeakers was a recorded spiel about the benefits and history of Spam (no Python songs). And... they were giving away free samples (no, I didn't try any).

This is the real stuff - not some of that fake spam that comes over a wire. 

They were also promoting their web site - www.spam.com


Just thought you might like to know....



mh



 --=====================_708290766==_.ALT-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 30 23:56:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA13209 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 23:56:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2V5Jab24744 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 00:19:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2V5JaO24741 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 00:19:36 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA13203; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 23:56:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2V5BCO24547; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 00:11:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2V576O23764 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 00:07:06 -0500 Received: from infobro.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id XAA12937 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 23:43:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 23:44:00 -0500 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 23:44:04 -0500 Message-ID: <01C2F716.3F369C80.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'Jon Kyme'" Cc: "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Consent Organization: Information Brokers, Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 14:14:29 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sunday, March 30, 2003 4:48 AM, Jon Kyme [SMTP:jrk@merseymail.com] wrote: > > > >In free societies, you don't need advance consent to communicate with > >somebody else. Consent can be rescinded, as in "go away" but it is always > >on by default. > > > Arrgh - freedom of speech! interesting field - look out for cowpats. > > You may not need advance consent to attempt to initiate a communication. > > A: "Knock, knock..." > > But for the communication to proceed consent is required... > > B: "Go away" > I think that is the point, this is not a freedom of speech issue. I disagree with your premise, respectfully. > > > > >And since, on the internet, there is _no_ communication without use of the > >private property of the other party to the communication, it means you > >don't > >need advance consent to use somebody else's property to communicate with > >them. We have declared many times we don't have a right to be annoyed, > >only > >a right not be harassed. > > > > That's a non sequitur. You might just as easily turn it around: Because you > don't have a right to > use someones private property without their consent, you don't have a right > to communicate with them. I don't think so, a non sequitur would have to involve some element that was unrelated to the premise, in this case the technical framework of the network is (at its base) such a construction as was presented. So no I do not agree that is a non sequitur. > I can't believe that there's anywhere where my right to "free speech" gives > me the right to stage a political demonstration in your kitchen. There is your right to ask to give a demonstration where ever, and my right to refuse to allow you to give it in my kitchen. But that is I think a little far off of the path that was being presented as a case for using consent as a basis for a solution (although it is an integral element in enforcement of any solution). my $.02 -e > > This is not a profitable line of argument. > > > > > >To define communication without advance consent as some sort of offence > >would turn our definitions of a free society and an open communications > >system > >upside-down. If somebody gave you a URL, you could not click on it without > >knowing if the web host consented to you clicking on it. If you got a > >referral > >where I told you to e-mail my friend, you could not mail him for fear you > >did > >not have his consent. And If I want to mail you to flame you about how > >stupid > >the opinion you posted on your web site is, well, who would suspect you > >give > >your consent to be flamed? > > > >In our society you can, by default, go up to somebody on the street and > >talk to them. That is sometimes annoying, but it's a right we actually > >fight hard to protect. You can send them postal mail, without their > >consent. > >It is always assumed to exist in advance. It can be rescinded -- through > >restraining orders, harassment charges, blockages at the post office etc. > >but > >it is always on by default. People can even come onto your private land to > >come to talk to you unless you explicitly mark it no trespassing. > > > >So because consent would be incredibly difficult to define, and it's a bad > >idea > >to bring it into the spam definition, I respectfully submit that other > >courses should be followed. > >_______________________________________________ > >Asrg mailing list > >Asrg@ietf.org > >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > > > > > > > > -- > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Mar 30 23:59:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA13275 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 23:59:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2V5Mb524867 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 00:22:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2V5MbO24864 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 00:22:37 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA13266; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 23:59:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2V5EBO24614; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 00:14:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2V577O23801 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 00:07:07 -0500 Received: from infobro.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id XAA12939 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 23:43:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 23:44:03 -0500 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 23:44:06 -0500 Message-ID: <01C2F716.40D7C960.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'Jon Kyme'" , "'Dave Crocker'" Cc: "'ASRG'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] define spam Organization: Information Brokers, Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 14:14:34 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sunday, March 30, 2003 4:11 AM, Jon Kyme [SMTP:jrk@merseymail.com] wrote: > This is a technical forum - and the point you raise is valid. Accordingly, > discussion of the requirements for such a mechanism in this group is > appropriate *before* a detailed proposal for a mechanism is made. I would > think. > > I don't belive a group like this need be restricted to the presentation of > (largely) fully-formed proposals and comment thereon. > There's a lot of work that needs to be done *before* that stage is reached. > If you don't want to be part of that effort - that's your choice. > > I don't think that is what a 'technical mechanism' is, with all due respect, this thread is/was about a technical model for a consent mechanism not a fully formed model or proposal for dealing with 'spam' or whatever. What it seems Dave was getting at was that we need to stay focused on getting to a canonical representation of the basis issues and not continuing to discuss things from 'our points of view'. We need this in order to converge on a solution set in each of the many areas we are dealing with. -e On Sunday, March 30, 2003 4:11 AM, Jon Kyme [SMTP:jrk@merseymail.com] wrote: > > Jon, > > > > > > >> Not that it's a solution, but it seems such a person could give > > blanket > > >> consent > > >> for potential collaborators or customers to contact him for > > professional > > >> reasons related to ice cream, and if JK happens to be an eccentric ice > > >> cream > > >> inventor who talks to nobody, then he would presumably not give such > > >> consent > > >> because he truly does not care to be contacted/hired. > > > > JK> Absolutely - yes. Many possible mechanisms for advertising consent > > JK> before the fact. > > > > > > This is a technical forum. Please list any of the technical mechanisms > > that are reasonable candidates for use, in an environment with 100 > > million users and tens or hundreds of thousands of independent > > administrative localities. > > > > This is a technical forum - and the point you raise is valid. Accordingly, > discussion of the requirements for such a mechanism in this group is > appropriate *before* a detailed proposal for a mechanism is made. I would > think. > > I don't belive a group like this need be restricted to the presentation of > (largely) fully-formed proposals and comment thereon. > There's a lot of work that needs to be done *before* that stage is reached. > If you don't want to be part of that effort - that's your choice. > > > > > > -- > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 00:01:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA13389 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 00:01:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2V5OXN24956 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 00:24:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2V5OXO24953 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 00:24:33 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA13363; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 00:00:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2V5GrO24675; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 00:16:53 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2V578O23833 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 00:07:08 -0500 Received: from infobro.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id XAA12941 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 23:43:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 23:44:05 -0500 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 23:44:09 -0500 Message-ID: <01C2F716.423FBDD0.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'Jon Kyme'" Cc: "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: RE: [Asrg] define spam Organization: Information Brokers, Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 14:14:47 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I agree, but there is a caveat as well, that one may not successfully class all messages in the universe of messaging, thus it is a question (to me) of how much does it get me and how effective will it be given the effective bandwidth I am resisting. Send 100 'classed as spam' messages toward my policy boundary and I am probably fine. Send 100,000 mixed classed, un-classed messages and what am I dealing with? What about one un-classed, has the system broken or is that my acceptable 'spam' threshold? I don't know and as I said, generally I think we can converge on consensus, but I do not agree that a precise definition of spam will break that consensus. Besides that, I think in your last sentence you are describing a policy enforcement mechanism based upon a precise (or im-precise, or subjective) definition of a 'class' of messages. -e On Sunday, March 30, 2003 5:04 AM, Jon Kyme [SMTP:jrk@merseymail.com] wrote: > > I do not think 'consent' really has anything to do with a definition of > > 'spam' > > in the context of this problem. I feel that consent with respect to > > messaging > > is TOTALLY subjective and what a real definition addresses is the issue > > of > > policy or 'consent' enforcement after solicitation. I think enforcement > > comes > > via the technical solution we come up with. > > > > > > > OK, consent is subjective. Definition of spam is subjective. > > These are not blockers. > > Classification of a message is not impossible. > (There are many deployed systems that do this with varying degrees of > "accuracy") Expression of a subjects preferences is not beyond us. > > We don't need to define spam. All we will ever need to do is say that > > "this set of message classes does | doesn't have consent for delivery to > this subject." > > > > > > > -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 00:04:14 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA13452 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 00:04:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2V5RIx25082 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 00:27:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2V5RIO25079 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 00:27:18 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA13437; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 00:03:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2V5JIO24728; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 00:19:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2V579O23854 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 00:07:09 -0500 Received: from infobro.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id XAA12943 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 23:43:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 23:44:07 -0500 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 23:44:11 -0500 Message-ID: <01C2F716.43AC9440.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'Chuq Von Rospach'" , Jon Kyme Cc: ASRG Subject: RE: [Asrg] define spam Organization: Information Brokers, Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 23:28:07 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Correct. There can also be objective descriptions. On Sunday, March 30, 2003 11:42 AM, Chuq Von Rospach [SMTP:chuqui@plaidworks.com] wrote: > > On Sunday, March 30, 2003, at 02:03 AM, Jon Kyme wrote: > > > OK, consent is subjective. Definition of spam is subjective. > > > > These are not blockers. > > > > they don't need to be. In this forum, and in the larger fight this > forum has been trying to get a handle on, they have been. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 00:07:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA13648 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 00:07:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2V5Uab25255 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 00:30:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2V5UaO25252 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 00:30:36 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA13625; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 00:07:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2V5M2O24832; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 00:22:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2V57AO23893 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 00:07:10 -0500 Received: from infobro.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id XAA12945 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 23:43:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 23:44:09 -0500 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 23:44:13 -0500 Message-ID: <01C2F716.44E9A820.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'Vernon Schryver'" , "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: RE: [Asrg] define spam Organization: Information Brokers, Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 23:43:07 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sunday, March 30, 2003 12:32 PM, Vernon Schryver [SMTP:vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com] wrote: > > From: Chuq Von Rospach > > > > As written, that is a bad definition, because it allows and even > > > encourages literally hundreds millions of advertisers to individually > > > ask you to opt-out. > > > > right now, that's still an improvement over the status quo. Until we > > GET to that point, trying to deal with that kind of consent issue > > doesn't really matter. and your numbers blow the issue well out of > > proportion. ... > There are more than 20,000,000 corporations registered in the U.S. > At least 1% of them might reasonably send you one opt-out request per > year. That would put 54 opt-out requests into your mailbox every day. > That is a significantly higher spam-load than many and I think most > end-users suffer today. > > "Legitimate" spammers would be happy to send us as much unsolicited > and unwanted junk email as we now get in paper. I receive 1 to 2 dozen > pieces of paper junk every day. I do not want the same in my email box. > But that is a false argument. It would be prohibitive for every company to at first commission a project to reach everyone and then embark on such a project. Every company is not going to do that and the millions-CD is not going to cut it (even in the current climate) because of the rudimentary 'protections' that are deployed. So no I don't agree to that premise it seems (and IMHO is) a non-starter to consider. I could be wrong but I don't think numbers of requests for a consent agreement is even the issue, it is whether the agreement is ultimately enforceable (whatever shape that takes). To me in the end it is about being sure I CAN stop it. > I think Mr. Von Rospach knows that is a gross misrepresentation of > my positions. It doesn't matter if he does, from my point of view NONE of our...or should I say only a consensus view is what really matters do you think there is not some reason to stipulate to the concept of consent based on perceived recipient response to the marketing mail (or blatant spam or whatever, e.g. relationship,...). > If you are an "e-marketer," there are more than two spam problems. > However, for most of us, there is only one spam problem, large amounts > of junk in our mailboxes. We will require more than one solution for > the parts of the problem, but the problem is solitary. I do not care what it is as long as I know it can be effectively controlled at a policy boundary defined by me. Notice I said controlled and not stopped. I think you are talking about control as well, of any type of communication that is within the context of our work. -e _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 00:42:16 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA14313 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 00:42:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2V65LU27355 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 01:05:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2V65KO27352 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 01:05:20 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA14303; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 00:41:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2V5vkO27063; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 00:57:46 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2V5sUO26932 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 00:54:30 -0500 Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA14175 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 00:30:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18zruu-0000dG-00; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 21:33:08 -0800 To: Vernon Schryver cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] define spam In-Reply-To: Message from Vernon Schryver of "Sun, 30 Mar 2003 13:24:03 MST." <200303302024.h2UKO38Q002189@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <11290.1049051384@kanga.nu> <200303302024.h2UKO38Q002189@calcite.rhyolite.com> X-face: ?^_yw@fA`CEX&}--=*&XqXbF-oePvxaT4(kyt\nwM9]{]N!>b^K}-Mb9 YH%saz^>nq5usBlD"s{(.h'_w|U^3ldUq7wVZz$`u>MB(-4$f\a6Eu8.e=Pf\ X-image-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/kanga.face.tiff X-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Message-ID: <2432.1049088788@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 21:33:08 -0800 On Sun, 30 Mar 2003 13:24:03 -0700 (MST) Vernon Schryver wrote: > From: J C Lawrence >> While true, I do not see that as a problem that can be solved by >> technical constraints. To get noticeable traction on that larger >> problem needs non-technical methods; legal supports, DMA opt-out >> lists with penalties, etc. Its not resolvable purely at the >> transport or protocol level. > I may be biased, but I disagree. I don't consider a "solution" which defines and validates an arms race as either a valid solution, or "traction". That's a leaky bandaide at best and bucket with a hole with 'Liza aboard a lifeboat at worst. > The DCC... The DCC is a fine and respectable tool. It, like SpamAssassin, bayesian filtering, etc, are bandaides. They might be very good bandaides (I'm rather pleased with some of my own bandaides), but that doesn't change what they are. Heuristics do not make a protocol definition, they make for better guesses, in this case against a target which doesn't want to be guessed and has full transparency into the guessing methods and criteria. > If you don't know what I'm talking about, then if I could suggest that > you look around for technical mechanisms including Brightmail, > Postini, Cloudmark, Pyzor, and the DCC without being offensive, I > would. Sure, I'm familiar with them and even use a few today. None of them change the rules of the game. >> However the problems of rogue spammers who forge, exploit, and cheat >> can be better far constrained and defined than is allowed by the >> current system, which in turn allows the application of non-technical >> problem resolutions (law suits, public lynching, nuclear weaponry, >> etc), and its that latter space I'm interested in. > I have not seen in this list or elsewhere any useful technical > mechanisms... "Useful" is a subjective adjective. > ... to deal with "rogue" spammers that really forge headers (as > opposed to using temporary drop-boxes) or do other illegal things > (illegal in many jurisdictions). That's hardly a promise of future behaviour. > - Mechanisms that involve new authentication or authorization > mechanisms cannot and will not work any better than the old and well > established mechanisms based on IP addresses, domain names, PGP keys, > and commercial and self-signed certificates. Then perhaps the correct approach is to extend those methods. > - mechanisms that are less than X% effective until at least X% of > users utilize them for X >= 0.2% are hopeless. It will always be > extremely difficult to get 1,000,000 people to use any new anti-spam > or email mechanisms that do not benefit them significantly. There are levels of probability and realism. Its a scalar function. If you wish to stay with the 100% gang please state so up front AOL and Co are the 800lb gorillas. SPAM is a many multi-million dollar a year problem to them,; in operational costs, in customer churn costs, in customer retension costs, etc. Were we to come up with a reasonable, well defined and demonstrably effective address I suspect we might find them flexing their standards enforcement muscles. Its certainly to their advantage to, and could easily be argued as being part of their responsibility to their stockholders... (The idea of AOL being in the actively driving seat is scary) > If your threshold of effectivenewss is 10%, not even getting AOL to > apply your mechanism will work. So all is useless? > - almost all spammers are easily identifable to people with minimal > technical clues. I've not found that true, not in the network sense, not in the sense of containment of injection and not in the sense of prevention of receipt. Perhaps I'm missing clues. > That fact has not helped us use lynching, bombs, etc. against them. We may know who the human is. That will help when and as the laws you later mention progress. What we don't recognize are the messages as specifically his or specifically forged that human injects at the time of injection, those messages as they are wandering the network, or even (generally) as they hit an LDA. If we could recognise any of those things in a machine auditable and verifiable fashion we'd be in a considerable better position. -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 00:44:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA14344 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 00:44:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2V681Q28231 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 01:08:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2V681O28228 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 01:08:01 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA14338; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 00:44:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2V60XO27165; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 01:00:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2V5udO27028 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 00:56:39 -0500 Received: from smtp.istop.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA14218 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 00:33:03 -0500 (EST) From: waltdnes@waltdnes.org Received: from waltdnes.org (ip245-165.tor.istop.com [66.11.165.245]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id A0D3F36A54 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 00:35:27 -0500 (EST) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 31 Mar 2003 00:36:09 -0500 To: ASRG list Message-ID: <20030331053609.GC14814@m400> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Subject: [Asrg] 5.b NODE Opt-whatever idea Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 00:36:09 -0500 I'm calling it "Opt-whatever", because it'll be opt-out if the default is set on, or opt-in if the default is set off. First let's look at a few problems with current e-marketing... 1) It does not scale. SMTP was designed as a low-volume one-to-one medium, and breaks down when e-marketers attempt broadcast on it. See http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,50455,00.html for an example > Blocking the spam-sending ISPs hasn't alleviated all of the > problems. Refusing massive amounts of attempted connections also > puts a strain on servers, in some cases bogging the system down in > much the same way as a sustained denial-of-service attack. > > "British ISP UXN found that simply blocking China Telecom wasn't > enough because UXN's mail servers still had to deal with hundreds of > connection requests per minute from Chinese mail servers," Linford > said. "UXN had to actually firewall China Telecom's IP range from > connecting to UXN's mail servers to stop the mass of connections > from clogging UXN's mail service." We're not talking a few unwanted pornsite spams in your inbox here. We're talking about a sustained Denial of Service attack. This is the same as snotty-nosed-fourteen-year-old-electronic-juvenile-delinquents bringing down eBay with a DDOS attack. 2) Item 1) might be partially addressed by carefully collating all recipients by email address, and using one long RCPT: for each ISP. The obvious problems are... - buffer limits in different MTAs. You'd have to use the lowest common denominator, which reduces the effectiveness of the solution - lots of recipients to an email is often used as a spamsign to trigger filtering/blocking - my personal domain is "waltdnes.org". You'd have to do an MX lookup to realize that email to me should be grouped with email to "clss.net". That works today. Next week, it could change. 3) Authentication is a problem. Every spam nowadays seems to claim that you opted in. We need something that an ISP can trust in a complaint, and something that a subscriber will trust to really unsubscribe them, rather than confirming a live address. 4) People may want one particular newsletter. But they are afraid a) the sender may decide to send them other, unwanted, stuff b) the sender or the opt-out-list maintainer may sell their email address The NODE proposal ================= NODE is "Network Of Distributed Exploders". - It will consist of mailing list software at each ISP - An e-marketer will send one copy of a message to a central server that in turn will send one copy to each ISP. This should be done via smtp-auth, and the receiving ISP may filter to allow only specific IP address(es) this access. Since the ISP receives only one copy, we've addressed problem 1) without the barriers that 2) runs into. - Each subscriber will subscribe/unsubscribe *LOCALLY* to their ISP's local version of the mailing lists. Since the ISP presumably knows when you're logged on, and with which IP address, item 3) authentication is no longer a problem. - Since the user's email address is not handed out to anyone but the ISP (who already knows it anyways) item 4) disappears as an issue. - The ISP would presumably run a weekly cron job to gather aggregate statistics on the subscribers to each list and email the results to the central server. Advertisers want to know that they're hitting their target market. -- Walter Dnes _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 01:12:04 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA14984 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 01:12:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2V6ZAf29334 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 01:35:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2V6ZAO29331 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 01:35:10 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA14964; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 01:11:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2V6QfO28830; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 01:26:41 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2V6ClO28371 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 01:12:47 -0500 Received: from backbone.midwestcs.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA14377 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 00:49:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from footbone.midwestcs.com ([206.222.212.237] helo=midwestcs.com) by backbone.midwestcs.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18zsCf-0003I4-00 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 23:51:29 -0600 To: asrg@ietf.org (IRTF Anti-Spam Research Group) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent References: <20030330022250.GB13927@m400> <20030330031652.DB9972B57A@mauve.rahul.net> <20030330043302.GV9659@main.templetons.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: wayne In-Reply-To: <20030330043302.GV9659@main.templetons.com> Message-ID: Lines: 34 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanner: exiscan *18zsCf-0003I4-00*xKfA9u0S3xU* () Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 30 Mar 2003 23:51:29 -0600 In <20030330043302.GV9659@main.templetons.com> Brad Templeton writes: > There are a number of people who do believe it's about consent. [... ] > > In free societies, you don't need advance consent to communicate with > somebody else. Consent can be rescinded, as in "go away" but it is always > on by default. I don't know many people who define spam as mearly "unsolicited email". They usually add things like "bulk" or "commercial" to the requirements. > In our society you can, by default, go up to somebody on the street and > talk to them. That is sometimes annoying, but it's a right we actually > fight hard to protect. There are restrictions on how you can "talk" to people. You can't talk in an intimidating way. You can't use a megaphone. Political speech has far more protections than commercial speech. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. The nature of email is that it is extremely cheap to send. In order to preserve the usefulness of email, people can only receive a certain number of emails per day and that means there has to be some prioritizing. Even if there is a legal right to send UBE and/or UCE, people are still going to try hard to filter it out. They have to. There are just so many minutes in the day. -wayne _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 01:29:21 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA15311 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 01:29:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2V6qRN30778 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 01:52:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2V6qRO30775 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 01:52:27 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA15302; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 01:28:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2V6j5O30511; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 01:45:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2V6iDO30462 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 01:44:13 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA15149 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 01:20:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) id h2V6MuhM010433 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 23:22:56 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303310622.h2V6MuhM010433@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] define spam References: <01C2F716.44E9A820.eric@infobro.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 23:22:56 -0700 (MST) > From: "Eric D. Williams" > ... >But that is a false argument. It would be prohibitive for every company to at >first commission a project to reach everyone and then embark on such a project. >Every company is not going to do that and the millions-CD is not going to cut >it (even in the current climate) because of the rudimentary 'protections' that > are deployed. There are now many outfits that promise to do all of the work for fees that are cheap compared to a small ad in the Yellow Pages, not to mention compared to radio or print advertising. When the current fraudulent spammers are finally squashed by governments, there will more outfits selling more or less legitimate email advertising campaigns than now sell web page design. > So no I don't agree to that premise it seems (and IMHO is) a > non-starter to consider. I could be wrong but I don't think numbers of >requests for a consent agreement is even the issue, I would probably complain, but would lack standing to object to half a dozen requests for consent agreement per year. Do you disagree? On the other hand, one consent request per year per outfit in parts of the computer business that I've been involved in would be many times the spam that now gets past my filters. > it is whether the agreement > is ultimately enforceable (whatever shape that takes). To me in the end it is > about being sure I CAN stop it. There is only a little spam that you cannot stop once you know about it. IP address and envelope and SMTP client domain name filters are extremely effective on all spam that you've seen before except spam that tries hard to hide. Other mechanisms clean up most of the rest. If your set of filters are leak more than one spam per day, you should fire your filter vendors and hire better. I'm trying to say that in practice, the various sorts of filters currently give you a lot of power to enforce the consent agreement. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 01:47:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA15649 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 01:47:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2V7Adh04815 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 02:10:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2V7AcO04812 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 02:10:38 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA15633; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 01:47:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2V737O31607; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 02:03:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2V72tO31561 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 02:02:55 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA15534 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 01:39:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) id h2V6fgaq012106 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 23:41:42 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303310641.h2V6fgaq012106@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] define spam References: <2432.1049088788@kanga.nu> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 23:41:42 -0700 (MST) > From: J C Lawrence > ... > > If your threshold of effectivenewss is 10%, not even getting AOL to > > apply your mechanism will work. > > So all is useless? Things that do not have obviously and immediate good effects simply do not get deployed voluntarily. The only way you could get a mechanism with a 10% threshold deployed is a law requiring it. Even a law is not be certain to produce 10% deployment without clear and immediate benefits for the first 9%. I hope you agree a law would certainly be a bad thing. Anything that has as an 80% deployement threshold to produce 80% spam filtering effectiveness is completely useless even with government help. There is no longer a single government with enough power, and never will be again until and unless the net is near death or the world's political landscape is very different. As far as I can tell, the proposals that have deployment thresholds for 80% effectiveness have them closer to 80% deployment than 10%. > ... > We may know who the human is. That will help when and as the laws you > later mention progress. What we don't recognize are the messages as > specifically his or specifically forged that human injects at the time > of injection, those messages as they are wandering the network, or even > (generally) as they hit an LDA. If we could recognise any of those > things in a machine auditable and verifiable fashion we'd be in a > considerable better position. You seem to be among the many who assume something I think is false. That is that most spam is "forged" in any meaningful sense of that word. I think that the laws against header forgery have convinced most spammers to use sender addresses that they own, albeit often only for a little while. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 02:22:52 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA27979 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 02:22:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2V7k0t12822 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 02:46:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2V7jxO12819 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 02:45:59 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA27958; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 02:22:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2V7cLO12323; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 02:38:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2V7KoO10342 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 02:20:50 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA15829 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 01:57:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) id h2V6xZh3013184 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 23:59:35 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303310659.h2V6xZh3013184@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Fwd: Returned mail: see transcript for details References: <9681268C-6304-11D7-995A-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 23:59:35 -0700 (MST) > From: Chuq Von Rospach > I do so love it when people pull these games in the middle of a private > conversation. There was no private conversation, but only a private flamewar somewhat related to our public exchanges and about "silly questions," "silliness," and wastes of time. It consisted of three messages from Mr. Von Rospach including the rejected message and one from me. If he had not tried to revive the private flamewar despite my silence, he would never have known I had deployed a mechanical aid to help me deal appropriately (i.e. silently) with our problem. This little drama is related to the spam problem. There is a component of human nature that hates purposefully not being heard. Senders of bulk advertising are often irrationally upset about being filtered. See the several daily threads in news.admin.net-abuse.email with "SPEWS" in subject lines. Consider the anger of the gentleman from Verisign at SPEWS despite the probably insignificant effect on Verisign's communications of any SPEWS listing. Look at the spam that tries so hard to get around a little spam filtering that it cannot be decoded by any MUA, but only by a human who knows enough about HTML and spam to guess what the spammer was trying to do. Any even moderately effective spam solution evokes irrational efforts by advertisers to get around it. On the other hand, per-sender opt-out or any other communicating of consent to senders works with only some senders, and generally only with senders that try hard not to send to you in the first place. This is not technical in the sense of network protocols or the logarithm problem in finite fields, but it is technical in the sense that fixing spam must be. Human nature is relevant technical information. > Now I'm convinced this group has shown why groups like this won't solve > the problem. I'm not sure, but if you really believe that, I suspect it contains a germ of a plan to let you "go do something useful now." > And I think he proves my belief the insult was intentional. If I knew which of my words in which of my messags he took as insults, I would either appologize or affirm them as the plain truth. But "let's not and say we did." Could we please do something productive like agree on definitions term? I like the notion of defining more than one term to replace "spam," so that we might break out of the cycles of "Look at my perfect spam solution"--"No, it's useless because it doesn't fix all of what I define as spam." With different words for the differing notions of "spam," those cycles might cease. The word "spam" cannot be defined, but its varients can be. I think all three of (1) unsolicited, (2) bulk, and (3) unsolicited bulk email can be defined. How about words or phrases that suggest notions of "spam" other than UBE? Perhaps unsolicited commercial email? "E-marketing email"? Even "opt-out" needs refining. I think Mr. Von Rospach has meant "per-sender opt-out" when he recently wrote "opt-out," but perhaps he meant "global, per recipeint once per year (or forever?) opt-out" Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 03:21:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA29138 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 03:21:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2V8iq016948 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 03:44:52 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2V8iqO16945 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 03:44:52 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA29106; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 03:21:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2V8bCO16094; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 03:37:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2V8a8O15876 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 03:36:08 -0500 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA29001 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 03:12:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 18zuRR-0007ZB-00; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 09:14:53 +0100 In-Reply-To: <01C2F716.3F369C80.eric@infobro.com> Subject: Re: RE: [Asrg] Consent To: "Eric D. Williams" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.4.13] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 172.25.243.3 Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 09:14:53 +0100 > > > > > >And since, on the internet, there is _no_ communication without use of > the > > >private property of the other party to the communication, it means you > > >don't > > >need advance consent to use somebody else's property to communicate > with > > >them. We have declared many times we don't have a right to be annoyed, > > >only > > >a right not be harassed. > > > > > > > That's a non sequitur. You might just as easily turn it around: Because > you > > don't have a right to > > use someones private property without their consent, you don't have a > right > > to communicate with them. > > > I don't think so, a non sequitur would have to involve some element that > was > unrelated to the premise, in this case the technical framework of the > network > is (at its base) such a construction as was presented. So no I do not > agree > that is a non sequitur. Non sequitur n. An inference which does not *follow* from the premises. (not "unrelated") It's possible (as demonstrated) to infer the contrary from the same premises. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 03:57:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA29707 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 03:57:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2V9KKl19386 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 04:20:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2V9KKO19383 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 04:20:20 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA29697; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 03:56:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2V9BUO19028; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 04:11:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2V9AHO18968 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 04:10:17 -0500 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA29564 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 03:46:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 18zuyS-0004DV-00; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 09:49:00 +0100 In-Reply-To: <01C2F716.423FBDD0.eric@infobro.com> Subject: Re: RE: RE: [Asrg] define spam To: "Eric D. Williams" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.4.13] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 172.25.243.3 Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 09:49:00 +0100 > Besides that, I think in > your > last sentence you are describing a policy enforcement mechanism based > upon a > precise (or im-precise, or subjective) definition of a 'class' of > messages. > Yes, kind of. A mechanism has to rely on the classification tools available at the classifying entity. This allows for a universal definition in terms of local classifications, and avoids the (probably impossible) question of how to create a single universal definition of a "spam message". Given a few terms universally accepted ("acceptable", "unacceptable", "neither") and classification "engines" which need not be well-known, transparent or reliable. You can get classifications like: "messages classified as unacceptable by billy-bigarms-patent-spam-detector". "messages with senders on the recipients blacklist" "messages originating-from-smtp-client-ip(10.0.2.3)" etc... Obviously, enforcement can only be performed by entities with access to the engines specified. This is a "good thing". > > > > Classification of a message is not impossible. > > (There are many deployed systems that do this with varying degrees of > > "accuracy") Expression of a subjects preferences is not beyond us. > > > > We don't need to define spam. All we will ever need to do is say that > > > > "this set of message classes does | doesn't have consent for delivery > to > > this subject." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 07:28:10 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA04502 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 07:28:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2VCpNK32150 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 07:51:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VCpNO32147 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 07:51:23 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA04495; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 07:27:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VCnfO32073; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 07:49:41 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VCmOO32034 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 07:48:24 -0500 Received: from new.agentzero.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA04459 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 07:24:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.123.194] (h0050e4251179.ne.client2.attbi.com [66.30.24.79]) by new.agentzero.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h2VCPHCu015729 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 07:25:18 -0500 Message-Id: <200303311225.h2VCPHCu015729@new.agentzero.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: Message-Id: To: asrg@ietf.org From: Jim Youll Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Subject: [Asrg] Admin: Tim Smith is TRYING to be unsubscribed - someone take care of this? Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 07:27:10 -0500 OK, so he wants to be unsubscribed. Will someone take care of this? >X-Sent: 31 Mar 2003 06:51:26 GMT >X-Sender: tim@deansmithmail.com@mail.deansmithmail.com >Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 07:50:25 +0100 >To: jim@media.mit.edu >From: Tim Dean-Smith >Subject: Attempted to unsubscribe >X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new > > >Jim, >I have attempted 4 times now to unsubscribe. >(See below.) >In the meantime, I have added you to my list of accepted senders, so >at least you will not get any more bounce backs. >Truly sorry about this - I had no idea that was how that list >functioned i.e. that the incoming mails came from the members of the >list, not the .eitf.org. >I hope the list administrator picks up on my requests. >Tim. > > > > > >>To: asrg-request@ietf.org >>From: Tim Dean-Smith >>Subject: help >> >> >>Help. >>Please unsubcribe me from your list urgently. >>I have tried twice to do this using the unsubscribe instructions >>you gave out. >>My email box is causing bounces to your distribution list - I added >>ietf.org as a permitted sender, but the mails come in from the >>other members of the list, so they all get bounced back. >>Please can you unsubscribe me urgently. >>Thank you. >>Tim. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 07:38:01 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA04657 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 07:38:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2VD1Fp32530 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 08:01:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VD1FO32526 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 08:01:15 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA04651; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 07:37:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VD04O32479; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 08:00:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VCxQO32426 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 07:59:26 -0500 Received: from moebius2.Space.Net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id HAA04623 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 07:35:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 76708 invoked by uid 1013); 31 Mar 2003 12:38:06 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: waltdnes@waltdnes.org Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Asrg digest, Vol 1 #133 - 14 msgs Message-ID: <20030331143806.A68710@Space.Net> References: <20030328201120.GC24992@earth.tc.umn.edu> <20030328211814.K24104@Space.Net> <20030330031523.GC13927@m400> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20030330031523.GC13927@m400>; from waltdnes@waltdnes.org on Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 10:15:23PM -0500 Organization: SpaceNet AG, Muenchen, Germany X-PGP-Fingerprint: 66 F3 75 79 01 D0 B8 5F 1A C7 77 88 4A B6 70 DF Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:38:06 +0200 On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 10:15:23PM -0500, waltdnes@waltdnes.org wrote: > > If the DSL provider charges extra bucks for use of their mailserver > ..and the customer is a cheap bastard ? No, not necessarily, but with the "hype" of the last few years and everybody telling people "Internet is cheap" or "Internet is free" customers don't get the point that if they pay 50 bucks for a flat connection why they should pay additonal 15 bucks for using a mailserver. But managing a line and a router is cheap compared to running a mailserver that handles about 0.1% of the same traffic. > The concept of an alleged "ISP" that provides neither a mailserver nor > a static IP address boggles the mind. If you were the only "ISP" in > town, your customer would have to purchase service from another provider > elsewhere who would allow them to either ssh-tunnel or smtp-auth to > their mail server. Subcontractors is the answer. Buy a contingent of 10000 DSL lines from your Telco (and in Germany there are *lots* of towns, where you have no choice, which Carrier to use) and arrange a special prize. Sell it with a marginal earning and no service at all. All you provide is the contract. Customers will like it, because it is so cheap. And a lot will use hotmail, yahoo and others for email. As the carrier disconnects the line once within 24 hours, they can't have a "static" IP address. Whether you call this an ISP not not is a matter of definition, but most would probably call it an ISP. Now, if you want to have our own outgoing mailserver on such a line you have to deliver directly as your "provider" doesn't have a smarthost. If the IP block is on a DUL DNSBL you're lost. > > How many of your own customers can you afford to loose because of that? > > How about providing your customers with the service they need ? That > tends to keep customers loyal. We do. But if a company is connected via an above described "ISP" and you block their emails to your customer, because of the DUL DNSBL and they tell your customers they will terminate the contract with him, if they can't reach him via email you have two choices: a) keep the DNSBL and loose your customer b) turn off the DNSBL and keep the customer How many of your own (and especially bigger) customers can you afford to loose because a) these times? \Maex -- SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0 Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 "The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 08:28:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA05819 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 08:28:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2VDpji03655 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 08:51:45 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VDpjO03652 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 08:51:45 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA05802; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 08:27:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VDoLO03601; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 08:50:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VDnfO03558 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 08:49:41 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id IAA05778 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 08:25:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 10275 invoked from network); 30 Mar 2003 13:24:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO startechgroup.co.uk) (10.2.100.157) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 30 Mar 2003 13:24:32 -0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed From: Matt Sergeant To: asrg@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] March spam ratio Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:28:32 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Just an FYI for those interested in stats: MessageLabs spam ratio for March 2003: 36.3% (an increase of 29.3% on the February figure). Matt. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 09:48:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA07921 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 09:48:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2VFC1L09530 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:12:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VFC1O09527 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:12:01 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA07901; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 09:48:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VF9MO09437; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:09:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VF8uO09388 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:08:56 -0500 Received: from joy.songbird.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA07854 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 09:45:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from bbprime.brandenburg.com (208.184.79.252.songbird.com [208.184.79.252] (may be forged)) by joy.songbird.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VElH731280 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 06:47:17 -0800 From: Dave Crocker X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.63 Beta/6) Personal Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <29150470905.20030331063919@brandenburg.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] March spam ratio In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 06:39:19 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Folks, MS> MessageLabs spam ratio for March 2003: 36.3% (an increase of 29.3% on MS> the February figure). Here is a proposal: This is supposed to be a technical discussion group. If someone is going to place some tidbit of information into the group, other than their own opinion, I propose that they should offer substantiation for the tidbit. In the case of statistics, a citation to its source and/or a discussion of how it was obtained. That way we will have some ability to assess the tidbit, rather than being expected to accept it blindly. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking Sunnyvale, CA USA , _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 10:24:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA11007 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:24:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2VFlu512421 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:47:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VFluO12418 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:47:56 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA10986; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:24:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VFkAO12216; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:46:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VFj6O12154 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:45:06 -0500 Received: from backbone.midwestcs.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA10853 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:21:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from footbone.midwestcs.com ([206.222.212.237] helo=midwestcs.com) by backbone.midwestcs.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 19018I-0005LZ-00 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 09:23:34 -0600 To: asrg@ietf.org (IRTF Anti-Spam Research Group) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Fwd: Returned mail: see transcript for details References: <9681268C-6304-11D7-995A-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> <200303310659.h2V6xZh3013184@calcite.rhyolite.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: wayne In-Reply-To: <200303310659.h2V6xZh3013184@calcite.rhyolite.com> Message-ID: Lines: 21 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanner: exiscan *19018I-0005LZ-00*1ooaoOdFQVI* () Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 31 Mar 2003 09:23:34 -0600 In <200303310659.h2V6xZh3013184@calcite.rhyolite.com> Vernon Schryver writes: > This little drama is related to the spam problem. There is a component > of human nature that hates purposefully not being heard. Senders of > bulk advertising are often irrationally upset about being filtered. I agree, and more importantly, *learning* that you are purposely not being heard. I think this is why things like DNSBLs used to bounce email and the challenge-response systems get so much flak about false positives, where systems that silently /dev/null false positives gets far less attention. DNSBLs in particular publish their information, so you can check that you are indeed listed, while you can't test content filters. Ignorance of a false positive may be bliss, but it isn't a good thing. -wayne _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 10:28:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA11211 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:28:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2VFpxD12699 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:51:59 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VFpxO12696 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:51:59 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA11194; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:28:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VFn3O12510; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:49:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VFmOO12447 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:48:24 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA11001 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:24:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2219853 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:27:01 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200303310659.h2V6xZh3013184@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <9681268C-6304-11D7-995A-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> <200303310659.h2V6xZh3013184@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Fwd: Returned mail: see transcript for details Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:26:54 -0500 At 11:59 PM -0700 3/30/03, Vernon Schryver wrote: >This little drama is related to the spam problem. There is a component >of human nature that hates purposefully not being heard. Senders of >bulk advertising are often irrationally upset about being filtered. You skipped from "humans" to "senders of bulk advertising" very nicely there. You weren't cutting off a sender of bulk advertising. You've also missed the other side of that obvious statement--purposefully not hearing someone is considered socially rude. I've had people do that to me more than once--typically after accusing me of spamming or some other activity that I didn't do. Someone else on the list put that behavior in exactly the context it belongs. "Nah, nah... I can't hear you!" Typically with fingers in ears and tongue sticking out. The word you are looking for is "juvenile." This whole conversation has been very educational. Several times now we have seen people using tools meant for stopping spammers, as a way of stopping normal human conversation. And they are doing so without even the common courtesy of notifying their correspondent. In the real world you would say, "I'm sorry, I don't want to talk about this any more," or "This will be my last message on this subject." If the correspondent continues to respond, then you ignore them. But somewhere along the line the hardcore spam fighters have gotten so used to blocking messages that they believe it's socially acceptable to just bounce people's email when they feel like it. They have a hammer, and they've decided to use it on anything that looks like a nail. If this is going to be typical of people's use of anti-spam tools then I think we should give some serious thought to the UI of such tools. For instance, our product doesn't currently bounce messages, but files them in a junk folder. We've recently added an "unsubscribe" feature for mailing lists and other mail where we are reasonably confident that the return address is valid. So rather than doing an outright bounce, we first give you the option of sending mail to the sender (and we'll track the results to see if it works) asking them to stop sending you email. If we add the ability to outright bounce email, I think I'll make that initial "unsubscribe" option mandatory. In other words, I'll make the software enforce social standards. "Thou shalt not bounce people's email without first asking them to stop sending." It's common courtesy--but apparently it's not as common as it should be. When we're evaluating spam solutions I think it would be worth while to consider whether or not the follow a normal social path for communications. I think that's a large part of my hatred for challenge/response of any kind. It's extremely unpleasant to spend a considerable amount of time composing a message, researching a problem or doing some other amount of work, put it all together into a note to someone, and then have them come back and say, "Sorry, I'm not going to listen to you until you do something I want first." That's the kind of response I expect from my kids--not an adult. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.messagefire.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 10:38:27 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA11578 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:38:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2VG1jr13349 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:01:45 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VG1jO13346 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:01:45 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA11552; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:37:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VFxEO13164; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:59:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VFwBO13074 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:58:11 -0500 Received: from matt-dev.int.star.co.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA11403 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:34:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 18083 invoked from network); 30 Mar 2003 15:32:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO startechgroup.co.uk) (10.2.100.157) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 30 Mar 2003 15:32:59 -0000 Subject: Re: [Asrg] March spam ratio Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: asrg@ietf.org To: Dave Crocker From: Matt Sergeant In-Reply-To: <29150470905.20030331063919@brandenburg.com> Message-Id: <9CC6BCB6-638E-11D7-934C-0003939CB5D8@startechgroup.co.uk> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:36:59 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Monday, Mar 31, 2003, at 15:39 Europe/London, Dave Crocker wrote: > MS> MessageLabs spam ratio for March 2003: 36.3% (an increase of 29.3% > on > MS> the February figure). > > Here is a proposal: > > This is supposed to be a technical discussion group. If someone is > going to place some tidbit of information into the group, other than > their own opinion, I propose that they should offer substantiation for > the tidbit. > > In the case of statistics, a citation to its source and/or a discussion > of how it was obtained. > > That way we will have some ability to assess the tidbit, rather than > being expected to accept it blindly. Wouldn't it be more sane to ask people to check the archives for that poster? *sigh* Anyway, I'll comply: This is just spam detected for our customers (about 1.3m users across the globe). So some has got through (about 92-98% accuracy is usual). Spam is detected by a variety of means, but most spam is detected via heuristics (and no I'm not proposing this as a long term solution to spam - I'm merely posting the figures here for research/analysis purposes). Further details available on http://www.messagelabs.com/viruseye (will be updated to the March edition later today). _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 10:51:25 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA12096 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:51:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2VGEhb15080 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:14:43 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VGEhO15077 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:14:43 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA12079; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:50:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VG9rO14655; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:09:53 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VG8PO14497 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:08:25 -0500 Received: from earth.tc.umn.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA11784 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:44:35 -0500 (EST) Received: by earth.tc.umn.edu for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 09:47:01 -0600 From: Steven F Siirila To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] cost vs. benefit Message-ID: <20030331154701.GA21264@earth.tc.umn.edu> References: <01C2F628.D230E660.eric@infobro.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <01C2F628.D230E660.eric@infobro.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 09:47:01 -0600 On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 07:16:01PM -0500, Eric D. Williams wrote: > are familiar with these terms. To wit: > > MTA = Message Transfer Agent (classic mail servers, e.g., exim, sendmail, etc.) > MTS = Message Transfer System (the entire infrastructure) > MS = Message Store (a post office MTA, ok?) > MUA = Mail User Agent (your typical end-user mail software, e.g. Eudora, > Outlook, Hotmail web app, etc.) Don't forget: MSA = Message Submission Agent (typically runs on port 587) -- Steven F. Siirila Office: Lind Hall, Room 130B Internet Services E-mail: sfs@umn.edu Office of Information Technology Voice: (612) 626-0244 University of Minnesota _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 10:51:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA12111 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:51:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2VGEoh15104 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:14:50 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VGEnO15101 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:14:49 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA12089; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:51:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VGB8O14830; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:11:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VGAhO14776 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:10:43 -0500 Received: from chimta03.algx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA11930 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:46:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from JHS ([67.92.23.74]) by chimmx03.algx.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.10 (built Jan 23 2003)) with SMTP id <0HCM0038DEM77K@chimmx03.algx.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 09:49:19 -0600 (CST) From: Jason Hihn To: Asrg Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] How to defeat spam that uses encryption? Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:49:19 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT If I were a spammer (I am not) I'd start encrypting messages to throw off content filtering. Public keys are easily obtainable and are readily associated with good email addresses. Also, but not quite as complex: A few years ago, I 'invented*' a way to encode a whole web page as a long string. This string is a variable in JavaScript. When it's opened, a function is applied to the string where it's decoded contents are written to the browser. Imagine a simple ROT13 decoder. What's more is Bayesian filtering would fail because the spammer can invent pads, and ROT bases, thereby inventing new 'words' in the dictionary all the time. Just a thought of what's to come... * I probably wasn't the first, but I never found anything like it elsewhere on the web at the time I did it. Originally it was to hide content from hosting services (or browsers, a la secret key pad entered into a form or JavaScript prompt.)- they'd actually have to view it in a JS enabled browser. 'Grep'ing the file wouldn't work. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 11:27:19 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA13016 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:27:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2VGoC217375 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:50:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VGoCO17372 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:50:12 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12989; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:26:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VGmBO17286; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:48:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VGldO17258 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:47:39 -0500 Received: from moebius2.Space.Net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA12940 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:23:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 1315 invoked by uid 1013); 31 Mar 2003 16:26:13 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Fwd: Returned mail: see transcript for details Message-ID: <20030331182613.B89572@Space.Net> References: <9681268C-6304-11D7-995A-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> <200303310659.h2V6xZh3013184@calcite.rhyolite.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: ; from nazgul@somewhere.com on Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 10:26:54AM -0500 Organization: SpaceNet AG, Muenchen, Germany X-PGP-Fingerprint: 66 F3 75 79 01 D0 B8 5F 1A C7 77 88 4A B6 70 DF Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 18:26:13 +0200 On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 10:26:54AM -0500, Kee Hinckley wrote: > correspondent. In the real world you would say, "I'm sorry, I don't > want to talk about this any more," or "This will be my last message > on this subject." If the correspondent continues to respond, then In the real world I simply turn around and go away. In the real world I have never said "This will be my last message on this subject." The virtual world expression is to press 'd' on the keyboard. In the real world, if he doesn't stop offending, I have different choices, just like in the virtual world. Adding his address to a block is one of them. In contradiction to the real world I can do this on my own and don't need a judge to establish the block. And: in the real world I may decide to sit at a table with people and talk with them to serve a special purpose. That does not mean I have/will talk with them outside the meeting room. I have the same right to do this in the virtual world and "spitting them in the face" is not the correct analogy, "ignoring them" or "rejecting them" is. Discussing topics in a meeting room with 500 people, doesn't mean I have to dicuss with everyone personally. And I have more than once refused to talk with someone (who/whose opinion) I don't like (for various reasons) from the same meeting room after the meeting. And I reserve the same right for email communication. The reasons are up to me and as a private person in a communication to another private person I don't even have to explain the reasons. And someone else argued that "in the good old days in USENET" one responded privately and one person summarized. This never happend with and is not appropriate for /discussion/ groups. If I start a query in this group for pointers to articles about spam prevention it is a good idea to ask them to be sent to me privately and I'll summarize. That means the list doesn't have to handle 100 always the same messages from different people listing the same article. For discussion and for finding a consensus "mail me and I'll summarize" is pretty much useless, so, for this group it is pretty much useless to discuss per private emails, as is Cc:ing 20 people that are on the list and as is "top posting" (I got the previous article, thanks, I still have it if I can't, but usually I can remember things I have read for the next 2-3 hours at least, no need to send the unaltered 10 KB article again and writing 2 lines of nonsense above). [Kee: this is /not/ about you, although I am replying to your message, it is a general statement to the mail discipline on this list and IMHO shows how much some members on the list care about the "useless mail traffic" that we all want to avoid - at least I thought this is what this group is about]. \Maex -- SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0 Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 "The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 11:34:46 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA13363 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:34:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2VGw4a17758 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:58:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VGw4O17755 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:58:04 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA13320; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:34:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VGu4O17633; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:56:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VGtAO17538 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:55:10 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA13149 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:31:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) id h2VGXiLt019739 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 09:33:44 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303311633.h2VGXiLt019739@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Fwd: Returned mail: see transcript for details References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 09:33:44 -0700 (MST) > From: wayne > > This little drama is related to the spam problem. There is a component > > of human nature that hates purposefully not being heard. Senders of > > bulk advertising are often irrationally upset about being filtered. > > I agree, and more importantly, *learning* that you are purposely not > being heard. Exactly. It should also be noted that there is a part of human nature that likes to announce deafness, or shout "I can't hear you" with fingers in ears instead of walking away. Or send "spam LARTS" to spammers. E.g. should I have used "DISCARD" instead of "REJECT" in my filter? > I think this is why things like DNSBLs used to bounce email and the > challenge-response systems get so much flak about false positives, > where systems that silently /dev/null false positives gets far less > attention. DNSBLs in particular publish their information, so you can > check that you are indeed listed, while you can't test content > filters. Not so. Body filters can also announce or keep quiet about their effects with bounces or SMTP status codes like any DNS blacklists. For example, you can tell sendmail to discard quiently based on access_DB or DNS blacklist, and a sendmail body filter can generate a 5yz or 4yz rejection. You can't test a DNSBL that is set to "discard." You can test a body filter that is not configured to be silent or misleading by sending a test message to a known bad address and looking at the result. > Ignorance of a false positive may be bliss, but it isn't a good > thing. Says who, the spammer or the spam target? My point is that whether a mail sender cares about a false positive is completely secondary to whether the mail target wants. If the mail target does not care about false positives and wants to keep them secret, then so be it, no matter what the sender might wish. That is the basis of the spam problem. Senders think they have rights that supercede the inclinations of targets. Any effective spam defense must explicitly deprecated all rights of mail senders (except perhaps copyrights) and must also assume that many mail senders are malicious. If many mail senders were not malicious, there would be no opposition to global opt-out lists (including per-domain), even solicited mail advertising would have "Subject: ADV" tags, and you would not need to opt-out of newsletters every 6 months, Thus, back to my claim that communicating consent to mail senders is a bad idea. Some mail senders would honor expressions of consent, but most will not. Proof of that "most" is that solicited mail advertising does not carry "Subject: ADV" tags. If most advertisers really wanted to honor recipient consent, they would go out of their way to label their missives to give their targets many ways to implement their consent. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 11:38:16 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA13509 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:38:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2VH1YZ18038 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:01:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VH1YO18035 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:01:34 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA13487; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:37:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VGxrO17886; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:59:53 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VGtwO17578 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:55:58 -0500 Received: from infobro.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA13194 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:32:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:33:43 -0500 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:33:47 -0500 Message-ID: <01C2F779.64E68E50.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'Jon Kyme'" Cc: ASRG Subject: RE: RE: RE: [Asrg] define spam Organization: Information Brokers, Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:30:12 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Monday, March 31, 2003 3:49 AM, Jon Kyme [SMTP:jrk@merseymail.com] wrote: > > Besides that, I think in your last sentence you are describing > > a policy enforcement mechanism based upon a precise (or im-precise, > > or subjective) definition of a 'class' of messages. > > > > Yes, kind of. A mechanism has to rely on the classification tools available > at the classifying entity. This allows for a universal definition > in terms of local classifications, and avoids the (probably impossible) > question of how to create a single universal definition of a "spam > message". > > Given a few terms universally accepted ("acceptable", "unacceptable", > "neither") and classification "engines" which need not be well-known, > transparent or > reliable. > You can get classifications like: > "messages classified as unacceptable by > billy-bigarms-patent-spam-detector". > "messages with senders on the recipients blacklist" > "messages originating-from-smtp-client-ip(10.0.2.3)" > etc... > > Obviously, enforcement can only be performed by entities with access to the > engines specified. This is a "good thing". I agree. So is there consensus here on the idea that enforcement make take many forms that are based on the principle of an identifiable construction (class) against which the policy may be applied/checked? > > > > > > Classification of a message is not impossible. > > > (There are many deployed systems that do this with varying degrees of > > > "accuracy") Expression of a subjects preferences is not beyond us. > > > > > > We don't need to define spam. All we will ever need to do is say that > > > > > > "this set of message classes does | doesn't have consent for delivery > > to > > > this subject." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 11:38:50 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA13539 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:38:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2VH28I18070 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:02:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VH28O18067 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:02:08 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA13525; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:38:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VGxpO17870; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:59:51 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VGtuO17574 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:55:56 -0500 Received: from infobro.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA13192 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:32:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:33:38 -0500 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:33:41 -0500 Message-ID: <01C2F779.618513D0.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'Vernon Schryver'" , "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: RE: [Asrg] define spam Organization: Information Brokers, Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:19:28 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Monday, March 31, 2003 1:23 AM, Vernon Schryver [SMTP:vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com] wrote: > > From: "Eric D. Williams" > > > ... > >But that is a false argument. It would be prohibitive for every company to > >at first commission a project to reach everyone and then embark on such a > >project. Every company is not going to do that and the millions-CD is not going to cut > >it (even in the current climate) because of the rudimentary 'protections' > >that are deployed. > > There are now many outfits that promise to do all of the work for > fees that are cheap compared to a small ad in the Yellow Pages, > not to mention compared to radio or print advertising. When the > current fraudulent spammers are finally squashed by governments, > there will more outfits selling more or less legitimate email > advertising campaigns than now sell web page design. > That may be true, but I think we agree on the basis point, at least in principal. I understand and hopefully don't understate the issue you present. I want to stress that although it will most likely remain a 'pain' for recipients the marketing material the framework for rescinding or establishing consent agreements is important. > > >So no I don't agree to that premise it seems (and IMHO is) a > >non-starter to consider. I could be wrong but I don't think numbers of > >requests for a consent agreement is even the issue, > > I would probably complain, but would lack standing to object to half > a dozen requests for consent agreement per year. Do you disagree? No, I do not. I think we agree. I am not sure what the threshold is or should be (and don't think that can be defined except subjectively). > On the other hand, one consent request per year per outfit in parts > of the computer business that I've been involved in would be many > times the spam that now gets past my filters. Or maybe it wouldn't change at all and you would (based on other pertinent factors) still receive <1 consent request. > >it is whether the agreement is ultimately enforceable (whatever > >shape that takes). To me in the end it is about being sure I CAN stop it. > > There is only a little spam that you cannot stop once you know about > it. IP address and envelope and SMTP client domain name filters are > extremely effective on all spam that you've seen before except spam > that tries hard to hide. Other mechanisms clean up most of the rest. > If your set of filters are leak more than one spam per day, you should > fire your filter vendors and hire better. > > I'm trying to say that in practice, the various sorts of filters > currently give you a lot of power to enforce the consent agreement. > I certainly agree, that is what I meant by rudimentary 'protections', albeit a trade-off so to speak to accepting the premise of a consent request and the ability to enforce the subsequent agreement. -e _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 11:49:08 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA13945 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:49:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2VHCQq19739 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:12:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VHCQT19736 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:12:26 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA13936; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:48:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VH9rT19596; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:09:53 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VH2MO18091 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:02:22 -0500 Received: from moebius2.Space.Net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA13531 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:38:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 3667 invoked by uid 1013); 31 Mar 2003 16:40:57 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] March spam ratio Message-ID: <20030331184057.C89572@Space.Net> References: <29150470905.20030331063919@brandenburg.com> <9CC6BCB6-638E-11D7-934C-0003939CB5D8@startechgroup.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <9CC6BCB6-638E-11D7-934C-0003939CB5D8@startechgroup.co.uk>; from msergeant@startechgroup.co.uk on Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 04:36:59PM +0100 Organization: SpaceNet AG, Muenchen, Germany X-PGP-Fingerprint: 66 F3 75 79 01 D0 B8 5F 1A C7 77 88 4A B6 70 DF Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 18:40:57 +0200 On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 04:36:59PM +0100, Matt Sergeant wrote: > Further details available on http://www.messagelabs.com/viruseye (will > be updated to the March edition later today). These are virus statistics. I can't see any spam statistics there. \Maex -- SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0 Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 "The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 11:51:49 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA14070 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:51:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2VHF7r20000 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:15:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VHF7T19997 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:15:07 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA14049; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:51:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VHDUT19828; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:13:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VH7ST19055 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:07:28 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA13731 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:43:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.57] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2VGk2nn015412; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 08:46:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 08:46:02 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Jason Hihn'" , Asrg Subject: RE: [Asrg] How to defeat spam that uses encryption? MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 08:46:01 -0800 > If I were a spammer (I am not) I'd start encrypting messages > to throw off > content filtering. Public keys are easily obtainable and are readily > associated with good email addresses. We have not seen this to date but it is certainly a possibility, one that cannot be fully addressed within the straghtjacket of pretending SMTP is an end-to-end architecture. The purpose of S/MIME encryption is to provide strong end-to-end encryption. There are actually a large number of customers who can't use that and so it is not unusual to see configurations where a mail proxy either has the private decryption key or checks to see whether all encrypted mail is encrypted under an escrowed key. Stock brokers cannot by law use end-to-end encryption for reasons that become clear during the Enron and dotCom bubble market investigations. In the military any use of encryption has to be controlled. You don't want people sending classified info to the enemy. These are edge cases however, in many cases you really do want true end-to-end. For example in a lawyers or doctor's office. A non edge case is a device that does not have end to end capability like my Rim pager. Here the problem is the combination of constrained bandwidth and processing power. On the other hand the protocols employed in this case are highly customized and don't require standards. There are two issues here: 1) The need to block DoS levels of spam at the perimeter 2) The need to use client side information to block spam What is needed is a richer communication channel between the MUA and MTA. In particular the client needs to be able to send feedback to the mail server 'this is spam' or 'this is needed'. Then the mail gateway can respond differently to floods of mail from the same IP which in some cases may be legitimate and in others may not. For example, Congress changes it's mail server IP address. Suddenly the Whitehouse gets a deluge of email from a new source. Ham or Spam? This is a very tricky one because once that pornography has got onto the mail server it is part of the record and deleting it is a criminal offense that can lead to a congressional witch hunt. > Also, but not quite as complex: > A few years ago, I 'invented*' a way to encode a whole web > page as a long > string. This string is a variable in JavaScript. No active code of any sort should ever be run unless it is from an authenticated source. HTTP pull constitutes a weak form of authentication, SMTP push does not. In practice though these schemes leave a signal that is far more distinct than the appearance of certain words, in the same way that F-R-E-E is far more likely to indicate a spam than free. > Just a thought of what's to come... That sort of thing is already happening. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 11:53:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA14111 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:53:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2VHGnk20071 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:16:49 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VHGnT20068 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:16:49 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA14104; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:53:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VHF4T19991; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:15:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VHEwT19970 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:14:58 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA14021 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:51:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc01.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2VGp166012966 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 08:51:01 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 08:53:31 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Fwd: Returned mail: see transcript for details MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 08:53:30 -0800 > I think that's a large part > of my hatred for challenge/response of any kind. It's extremely > unpleasant to spend a considerable amount of time composing a > message, researching a problem or doing some other amount of work, > put it all together into a note to someone, and then have them come > back and say, "Sorry, I'm not going to listen to you until you do > something I want first." That's the kind of response I expect from > my kids--not an adult. The part I really find annoying here is the way these people say 'I have had very little complaints'. Thats like Dogbert's IT department that responds to 'I can't get onto the net' with 'send in a request by email'. Of course you hear no complaints when you refuse to listen to them. I have had direct mail from people with these schemes requesting some piece of info or a favor and then had the reply bounced. I send arround 2000 messages a year from my VeriSign account alone which go to something like 300 distinct recipients. There is no way I am going to answer 300 callbacks. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 11:55:06 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA14151 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:55:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2VHIOD20129 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:18:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VHIOT20126 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:18:24 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA14140; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:54:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VHDcT19896; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:13:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VHArT19663 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:10:53 -0500 Received: from backbone.midwestcs.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA13880 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:47:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from footbone.midwestcs.com ([206.222.212.237] helo=midwestcs.com) by backbone.midwestcs.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1902TJ-0005sO-00 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:49:21 -0600 To: asrg@ietf.org (IRTF Anti-Spam Research Group) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Fwd: Returned mail: see transcript for details References: <9681268C-6304-11D7-995A-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> <200303310659.h2V6xZh3013184@calcite.rhyolite.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: wayne In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lines: 57 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanner: exiscan *1902TJ-0005sO-00*/B3J0CH88Qw* () Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 31 Mar 2003 10:49:19 -0600 In Kee Hinckley writes: > At 11:59 PM -0700 3/30/03, Vernon Schryver wrote: > >This little drama is related to the spam problem. There is a component > >of human nature that hates purposefully not being heard. Senders of > >bulk advertising are often irrationally upset about being filtered. > > You skipped from "humans" to "senders of bulk advertising" very nicely > there. "Senders of bulk advertising" are humans also. > Several times now we have seen people using tools meant for stopping > spammers, as a way of stopping normal human conversation. And they > are doing so without even the common courtesy of notifying their > correspondent. In the real world you would say, "I'm sorry, I don't > want to talk about this any more," or "This will be my last message on > this subject." The bounce message from the block *was* a "I'm sorry, I don't want to talk to you any more" message. Ok, maybe it wasn't as polite as it should be, but it is the same thing. > If this is going to be typical of people's use of anti-spam tools then > I think we should give some serious thought to the UI of such tools. Yes, UI issues of spam filter need much more attention paid to them. In particular, bounce messages are often far more confrontational, cryptic and impolite than they should be. One of the things that following this list has convinced me of is that if you are going to block email, you should try very hard to make the sender's MTA generate the bounce. (You certainly shouldn't just /dev/null the email.) Even if the sender's MTA doesn't generate particularly friendly or understandable bounce messages, at least it will be consistent and there is chance that it will be in the right language. > I think that's a large part of my hatred for > challenge/response of any kind. I think a large part of the objections to challenge-response systems can be eliminated by only generating a challenge if a reasonably good spam filter detects it as probable spam. Most personal emails would make it through unchallenged. In the case that a challenge is generated, you can give specific reasons why sender's email looks like spam. Different types of challenges could be generated depending on how spammy the email looks. -wayne _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 11:56:19 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA14210 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:56:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2VHJbR20188 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:19:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VHJbT20184 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:19:37 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA14192; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:55:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VHH2T20102; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:17:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VHGoT20084 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:16:50 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA14105 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:53:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) id h2VGtO8v021456 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 09:55:24 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303311655.h2VGtO8v021456@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] How to defeat spam that uses encryption? References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 09:55:24 -0700 (MST) > From: Jason Hihn > If I were a spammer (I am not) I'd start encrypting messages to throw off > content filtering. Public keys are easily obtainable and are readily > associated with good email addresses. Many spammers encode their efforts as quoted-printable, base64, or even both (never mind the MIME RFCs and MUA behavior). However, the stuff must still be deccode or decrypted at zillions of targets or spamming is wasted effort. If it can be decoded to show to a human, then it can first be decoded for a filter. > Also, but not quite as complex: > A few years ago, I 'invented*' a way to encode a whole web page as a long > string. This string is a variable in JavaScript. When it's opened, a > function is applied to the string where it's decoded contents are written to > the browser. Imagine a simple ROT13 decoder. What's more is Bayesian > filtering would fail because the spammer can invent pads, and ROT bases, > thereby inventing new 'words' in the dictionary all the time. > > Just a thought of what's to come... > ... That's all old hat. The anti-spam counter is to apply the insight that wrecks most content management schemes. That insight is that it must be made intelligible to humans, and that which is intelligible to humans can be recorded and analyzed. Some current spam filters spend more or less effort render the HTML/Javascript/wathever before filtering. The counter to that is to send spam that harder to analyze. For example, last year some stock-fraud spam was purely graphical, such as URLs of pictures of text. The counter to that is for filters to recognize naughty URLs. And so forth. As others have said, this is a never ending cycle. The 6 years I've been running content analyzing filters have convinced me that the advantage lies with the defense. Techically, I think it should be easier to evade filters. I've never built a filter that wouldn't be easier to evade than to operate. Spammers are always slow and behind. Why? Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 12:04:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA14624 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:04:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2VHRxh20555 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:27:59 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VHRxT20552 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:27:59 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA14615; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:04:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VHPCT20470; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:25:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VHOrT20428 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:24:53 -0500 Received: from earth.tc.umn.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA14508 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:01:03 -0500 (EST) Received: by earth.tc.umn.edu for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:03:27 -0600 From: Steven F Siirila To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Rejecting Email Message-ID: <20030331170326.GA29337@earth.tc.umn.edu> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:03:26 -0600 On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 08:53:30AM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > > > I think that's a large part > > of my hatred for challenge/response of any kind. It's extremely > > unpleasant to spend a considerable amount of time composing a > > message, researching a problem or doing some other amount of work, > > put it all together into a note to someone, and then have them come > > back and say, "Sorry, I'm not going to listen to you until you do > > something I want first." That's the kind of response I expect from > > my kids--not an adult. > > The part I really find annoying here is the way these people > say 'I have had very little complaints'. > > Thats like Dogbert's IT department that responds to 'I can't > get onto the net' with 'send in a request by email'. Of course > you hear no complaints when you refuse to listen to them. Not when you include a URL in the response which points to a web site containing an email address they CAN get through to in order to complain as well as another URL they can use to request communication with the user. We couldn't afford to do the blocking we do without these abilities. > i Have had direct mail from people with these schemes requesting > some piece of info or a favor and then had the reply bounced. > > I send arround 2000 messages a year from my VeriSign account > alone which go to something like 300 distinct recipients. There > is no way I am going to answer 300 callbacks. > > Phill > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg -- Steven F. Siirila Office: Lind Hall, Room 130B Internet Services E-mail: sfs@umn.edu Office of Information Technology Voice: (612) 626-0244 University of Minnesota _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 12:08:19 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA14837 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:08:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2VHVc120794 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:31:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VHVcT20791 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:31:38 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA14777; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:07:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VHT1T20660; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:29:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VHSAT20580 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:28:10 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA14620 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:04:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 1902tY-0000w8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:16:28 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] define spam In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:39:00 PST." <20030330033900.GU9659@main.templetons.com> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:16:27 -0500 Brad Templeton wrote: > Actually, that's not true. I regularly receive spam whose motive is > charity (please help my dying kid) or political and even sometimes religious. So it's not money, exactly, but they all want something from you. > Thus I am not sure if commercial can fit in the definition or not. Commercial != corporate Maybe "impersonal" is a better adjective than "commercial". The senders have one thing in common: They don't care who you are, but they want something from you. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 12:32:01 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15600 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:32:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2VHtKH01951 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:55:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VHtKK01948 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:55:20 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15571; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:31:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VHpqK01804; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:51:52 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VHkcK01413 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:46:38 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15230 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:22:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2VHPCkA005553 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:25:12 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] How to defeat spam that uses encryption? In-Reply-To: <20030331170006.17906.47821.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> Message-ID: References: <20030331170006.17906.47821.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:25:12 -0500 (EST) > From: Jason Hihn > To: Asrg > Subject: [Asrg] How to defeat spam that uses encryption? > If I were a spammer (I am not) I'd start encrypting messages to throw off > content filtering. Public keys are easily obtainable and are readily > associated with good email addresses. Well, if you were a spammer and you did that, you'd soon be out of business. I would estimate that fewer than one in 100 e-mail users use PGP or GnuPG at all, and even fewer than that have a public key. So you'd drastically limit your audience. In fact, widespread use of GPG-style encryption could help defeat spammers. If most people only accepted encrypted messages (except from whitelisted mailing lists and such), it would become very expensive to spam. (Yes, I know this will never happen -- don't bother replying.) > Also, but not quite as complex: > A few years ago, I 'invented*' a way to encode a whole web page as a long > string. This string is a variable in JavaScript. When it's opened, a > function is applied to the string where it's decoded contents are written to > the browser. Imagine a simple ROT13 decoder. What's more is Bayesian > filtering would fail because the spammer can invent pads, and ROT bases, > thereby inventing new 'words' in the dictionary all the time. You're assuming that most people have JavaScript-enabled mail readers. There are simpler ways to defeat filtering, checksums and such without depending on client-side software. > Just a thought of what's to come... Indeed. Nevertheless, forcing tricks like that on spammers forces them to use detectable behavior. For those who reject any solutions that simply perpetuate an "arms race", I think you'd better get over it. For the medium-term (5-10 years), "arms race" tools will be the only practical anti-spam tools. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 12:38:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15929 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:38:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2VI1bn02318 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:01:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VI1bK02315 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:01:37 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15855; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:37:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VI03K02145; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:00:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VHv9K02011 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:57:09 -0500 Received: from new.agentzero.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15693 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:33:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.123.194] (h0050e4251179.ne.client2.attbi.com [66.30.24.79]) by new.agentzero.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h2VHXtCu025472; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:33:55 -0500 Message-Id: <200303311733.h2VHXtCu025472@new.agentzero.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <20030331170006.17906.47821.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> To: "David F. Skoll" , asrg@ietf.org From: Jim Youll Subject: Re: [Asrg] How to defeat spam that uses encryption? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:35:00 -0500 At 12:25 -0500 3/31/03, David F. Skoll wrote: > > From: Jason Hihn >> To: Asrg >> Subject: [Asrg] How to defeat spam that uses encryption? > >> If I were a spammer (I am not) I'd start encrypting messages to throw off >> content filtering. Public keys are easily obtainable and are readily >> associated with good email addresses. > >Well, if you were a spammer and you did that, you'd soon be out of >business. I would estimate that fewer than one in 100 e-mail users >use PGP or GnuPG at all, and even fewer than that have a public key. >So you'd drastically limit your audience. > >In fact, widespread use of GPG-style encryption could help defeat >spammers. If most people only accepted encrypted messages (except >from whitelisted mailing lists and such), it would become very >expensive to spam. (Yes, I know this will never happen -- don't >bother replying.) Why is this? If they've got my e-mail address they can get my public key. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 12:41:18 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA16078 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:41:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2VI4cX02484 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:04:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VI4bK02481 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:04:37 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA16059; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:40:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VI36K02417; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:03:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VHwOK02092 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:58:24 -0500 Received: from chimta02.algx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15726 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:34:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from JHS ([67.92.23.74]) by chimmx02.algx.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.10 (built Jan 23 2003)) with SMTP id <0HCM0068RJLKCM@chimmx02.algx.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:36:57 -0600 (CST) From: Jason Hihn Subject: RE: [Asrg] How to defeat spam that uses encryption? In-reply-to: <200303311655.h2VGtO8v021456@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Vernon Schryver , asrg@ietf.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:36:56 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of > Vernon Schryver > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 11:55 AM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] How to defeat spam that uses encryption? > > > > From: Jason Hihn > > > If I were a spammer (I am not) I'd start encrypting messages to > throw off > > content filtering. Public keys are easily obtainable and are readily > > associated with good email addresses. > > Many spammers encode their efforts as quoted-printable, base64, > or even both (never mind the MIME RFCs and MUA behavior). However, > the stuff must still be deccode or decrypted at zillions of targets > or spamming is wasted effort. If it can be decoded to show to a human, > then it can first be decoded for a filter. The difference here is that a scheme that I describe exists as JavaScript code until render time. The observation here to make is that render time is AFTER decode time. Base64, mime, and ROT13 can be done using compiled code already in the client, so it can filter after that is done. By throwing it into JavaScript, it's not rendered until shown. > As others have said, this is a never ending cycle. The 6 years I've > been running content analyzing filters have convinced me that the > advantage lies with the defense. Technically, I think it should be > easier to evade filters. I've never built a filter that wouldn't be > easier to evade than to operate. Spammers are always slow and behind. > Why? They are lazy and reactive as we are: they only want to do a minimum amount of work to keep doing their thing. We react, and they have to react to our reaction. Coming up with the perfect method of spam would only shorten their lives, as a perfect method would draw 100% of the spammers, and therefore 100% of anti-spammers attempting to kill it off. It's much better for them to play this cat-and-mouse game. We could implement a complete anti-spam infrastructure that would take all the method and motive out of spamming, but this list has proven to me that we'll never take that step because admins are lazy. I came up with (what I thought was) the most important piece of a system to ending spam and I got baulked at. It was not hard to implement, but no one seemed to think it important. (It was a mail protocol negotiation proxy, so the internet could use multiple mail protocols, each protocol can easily be replaced, or upgraded. If the preferred supposed spam-unfriendly protocol was not used, there would be some 'penalty' (delay, filtering, tar proxy) imposed. This would allow protocols to compete, with the bonus of weaking spam techniques, because hopefully, the same technique won't work on all protocols.) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 12:56:55 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA16701 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:56:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2VIKFL05031 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:20:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VIKFK05028 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:20:15 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA16607; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:56:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VIJ3K04961; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:19:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VIE7K04178 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:14:07 -0500 Received: from backbone.midwestcs.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA16394 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:50:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from footbone.midwestcs.com ([206.222.212.237] helo=midwestcs.com) by backbone.midwestcs.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1903SV-0006Gl-00 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:52:35 -0600 To: asrg@ietf.org (IRTF Anti-Spam Research Group) Subject: Re: [Asrg] define spam References: <61186118354.20030328213242@brandenburg.com> <20030329071806.GI23496@main.templetons.com> <36198411821.20030329005736@brandenburg.com> <20030329182951.GA9659@main.templetons.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: wayne In-Reply-To: <20030329182951.GA9659@main.templetons.com> Message-ID: Lines: 18 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanner: exiscan *1903SV-0006Gl-00*UTCEbIX1BLU* () Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 31 Mar 2003 11:52:34 -0600 In <20030329182951.GA9659@main.templetons.com> Brad Templeton writes: > > if 10,000 separate senders each mail to targeted lists of 50 people, > > soliciting money, is that not spam? > > If the 10,000 people are, as you say, separate, and not caused to do so by one > entity, then no, it would not be under this definition. > > Have we seen a lot of this happening? Yes, there are a lot of this kind of thing happening. Consider all the "email your congresscritter" campaigns. I would consider this A Good Thing and not to be spam. -wayne _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 13:04:15 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA17068 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:04:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2VIRZD05645 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:27:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VIRZK05642 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:27:35 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA17057; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:03:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VIQIK05565; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:26:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VIInK04937 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:18:49 -0500 Received: from chimta02.algx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA16575 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:54:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from JHS ([67.92.23.74]) by chimmx02.algx.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.10 (built Jan 23 2003)) with SMTP id <0HCM00921KJNY3@chimmx02.algx.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:57:23 -0600 (CST) From: Jason Hihn Subject: RE: [Asrg] How to defeat spam that uses encryption? In-reply-to: <200303311733.h2VHXtCu025472@new.agentzero.com> To: Jim Youll , "David F. Skoll" , asrg@ietf.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:57:23 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Jim > Youll > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 12:35 PM > To: David F. Skoll; asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] How to defeat spam that uses encryption? > > > At 12:25 -0500 3/31/03, David F. Skoll wrote: > > > From: Jason Hihn > >> To: Asrg > >> Subject: [Asrg] How to defeat spam that uses encryption? > > > >> If I were a spammer (I am not) I'd start encrypting messages > to throw off > >> content filtering. Public keys are easily obtainable and are readily > >> associated with good email addresses. > > > >Well, if you were a spammer and you did that, you'd soon be out of > >business. I would estimate that fewer than one in 100 e-mail users > >use PGP or GnuPG at all, and even fewer than that have a public key. > >So you'd drastically limit your audience. > > > >In fact, widespread use of GPG-style encryption could help defeat > >spammers. If most people only accepted encrypted messages (except > >from whitelisted mailing lists and such), it would become very > >expensive to spam. (Yes, I know this will never happen -- don't > >bother replying.) It was only an example. But I do wonder.. any encrypted PGP or GnuPG message would have higher social credibility for me... But imagine this in a message: --- start--- [javascript] $cypher_text="dsfjhsjdfhsdfjksdhfskjfhsd.." function decrypt(key, cypher_text){ /* do description */ document.writeln($plain_text) } [/javascript] [body onload=decrypt("aasc", $cypher_text)] --- finish --- Now all your filters, Bayesian or not, will only work on the actual text seen between start and finish. No filtering will be done of the "message" - what the user sees. Furthermore, variable and function names are infinitely variable, and what is not variable is standard html/js stuff and has significant legit use. -J _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 13:08:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA17298 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:08:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2VIW3805916 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:32:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VIW3K05913 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:32:03 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA17269; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:07:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VIU2K05792; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:30:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VIO3K05440 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:24:03 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA16955 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:00:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2VI2bkA005758; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:02:37 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: Jason Hihn cc: Jim Youll , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] How to defeat spam that uses encryption? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:02:37 -0500 (EST) On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, Jason Hihn wrote: > But imagine this in a message: > [javascript] > $cypher_text="dsfjhsjdfhsdfjksdhfskjfhsd.." > function decrypt(key, cypher_text){ > /* do description */ > document.writeln($plain_text) > } > [/javascript] > [body onload=decrypt("aasc", $cypher_text)] > --- finish --- That is fascinating. I read my mail with Pine. > Now all your filters, Bayesian or not, will only work on the actual text > seen between start and finish. Here's a simple rule: IF body contains "javascript THEN bounce. If that's too draconian, then: IF body contains "onload=" THEN bounce. > No filtering will be done of the "message" - > what the user sees. Furthermore, variable and function names are infinitely > variable, and what is not variable is standard html/js stuff and has > significant legit use. Not according to me, at least not in e-mail. My mail filters already strip HTML from incoming mail. I can't say for sure, because I never actually see HTML mail, but I don't believe anyone has ever sent me a legitimate e-mail with javascript code in it. If spammers start abusing this, then we'll have the happy result that more people will start filtering out HTML mail, and we'll go back to plain-text e-mail. :-) -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 13:14:54 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA17589 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:14:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2VIcFM06964 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:38:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VIcFK06961 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:38:15 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA17526; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:14:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VIafK06069; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:36:41 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VIPgK05548 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:25:42 -0500 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA17017 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:01:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2VI4GkA005769; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:04:16 -0500 From: "David F. Skoll" To: Jason Hihn cc: Jim Youll , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] How to defeat spam that uses encryption? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:04:16 -0500 (EST) On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, Jason Hihn wrote: > It was only an example. But I do wonder.. any encrypted PGP or GnuPG message > would have higher social credibility for me... Ah, yes. Opportunistically encrypting messages for recipients who do have public keys would be a nasty, if somewhat expensive, way to get past spam filters. But actually, you can just "pretend" to be a GPG-signed message to evade some of the more popular content filters. -- David. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 13:31:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA18209 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:31:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2VItHD07685 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:55:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VItHK07682 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:55:17 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA18199; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:31:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VIn5K07447; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:49:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VIkRK07355 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:46:27 -0500 Received: from chimta04.algx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA17927 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:22:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from JHS ([67.92.23.74]) by chimmx04.algx.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.10 (built Jan 23 2003)) with SMTP id <0HCM004MKLTOGS@chimmx04.algx.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:25:00 -0600 (CST) From: Jason Hihn Subject: RE: [Asrg] How to defeat spam that uses encryption? In-reply-to: To: "David F. Skoll" Cc: Jim Youll , asrg@ietf.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:25:00 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT > That is fascinating. I read my mail with Pine. You sir, are both unlucky and lucky. I was a long-time pine user, but the 20th century has come and gone. ;-) The vast majority of people are using Outlook. Outlook users know nothing, and we can thank BillG for the lovely lack of security and common sense in his products due to his monopoly. No one knows how to turn all that ActiveX, Javascript, and document macros off. (Well we do, but Joe Blow doesn't, nor do they know why they should care) They don't even know that Outlook is bad! It's there, so they use it. Companies are worse, they blow money patching and recovering from the infections that Outlook makes possible. I use Mozilla, with Javascript turned off and 'Bayesian' filtering. It's quite nice, and as filtering becomes more common place, spam will be more tolerable. I just look at the 100s of messages I get a day and laugh now. What do I care anymore? Filters are good enough. I get 1 sneaking through every 4-6 days now. Eventually, I think that the net ops people will be the only ones objecting. Better act fast and use the public's hatred of spam before the problem disappears behind a filter! Then you'll have nothing to leverage! > > Now all your filters, Bayesian or not, will only work on the actual text > > seen between start and finish. > > Here's a simple rule: > > IF body contains "javascript THEN bounce. Then sir, you'd have never gotten my message. > If that's too draconian, then: > > IF body contains "onload=" THEN bounce. Again, you'd never have gotten my message, even though my use was only illustrative, and quite legit. > > > No filtering will be done of the "message" - > > what the user sees. Furthermore, variable and function names > are infinitely > > variable, and what is not variable is standard html/js stuff and has > > significant legit use. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 13:39:47 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA18378 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:39:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2VJ38S08068 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:03:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VJ38K08065 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:03:08 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA18371; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:39:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VIuaK07749; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:56:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VIrjK07587 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:53:45 -0500 Received: from dogma.slashnull.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA18120 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:29:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.jmason.org (ga183055.reshsg.uci.edu [128.195.183.55]) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VISxn32028; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 19:28:59 +0100 Received: by localhost.jmason.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 830B38BD45; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:31:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from jmason.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56CAF8BC39; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:31:51 -0800 (PST) To: Jason Hihn Cc: Jim Youll , "David F. Skoll" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] How to defeat spam that uses encryption? In-Reply-To: Message from Jason Hihn of "Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:57:23 EST." From: jm@jmason.org (Justin Mason) X-GPG-Key-Fingerprint: 0A48 2D8B 0B52 A87D 0E8A 6ADD 4137 1B50 6E58 EF0A X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to . Message-Id: <20030331183151.830B38BD45@localhost.jmason.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:31:46 -0800 Jason Hihn said: > But imagine this in a message: > --- start--- > [javascript] > $cypher_text="dsfjhsjdfhsdfjksdhfskjfhsd.." > function decrypt(key, cypher_text){ > /* do description */ > document.writeln($plain_text) > } > [/javascript] > > [body onload=decrypt("aasc", $cypher_text)] > --- finish --- > Now all your filters, Bayesian or not, will only work on the actual text > seen between start and finish. No filtering will be done of the "message" - > what the user sees. Furthermore, variable and function names are infinitely > variable, and what is not variable is standard html/js stuff and has > significant legit use. This exists -- I think a search for SBL will throw up one spammer (Merlin?) who writes this kind of polymorphic-style spam. In SpamAssassin's ruleset, the use of a body onload attribute, or Javascript decryptors, is an incredibly strong spam-sign -- because *no* legit mail ever does this. I think this may be one reason I haven't seen 1 spam that does this, since about a year ago. ;) --j. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 13:41:22 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA18412 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:41:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2VJ4iM08125 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:04:44 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VJ4iK08122 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:04:44 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA18399; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:40:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VIx6K07841; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:59:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VIu7K07717 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:56:07 -0500 Received: from infobro.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA18225 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:32:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:32:57 -0500 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:33:00 -0500 Message-ID: <01C2F78A.0CAA7380.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'asrg@ietf.org'" Cc: "'Kee Hinckley'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Fwd: Returned mail: see transcript for details Organization: Information Brokers, Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:25:08 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Monday, March 31, 2003 10:27 AM, Kee Hinckley [SMTP:nazgul@somewhere.com] wrote: > At 11:59 PM -0700 3/30/03, Vernon Schryver wrote: > >This little drama is related to the spam problem. There is a component > >of human nature that hates purposefully not being heard. Senders of > >bulk advertising are often irrationally upset about being filtered. > > You skipped from "humans" to "senders of bulk advertising" very > nicely there. You weren't cutting off a sender of bulk advertising. ... Indeed, but IMHO think that part of the issue is off topic for this group. more below... > This whole conversation has been very educational. > I also concur here. Some of the inter-personal dynamics on this list (and I really do hate to say this, please forgive me) have ranged in the short time I've been subscribed between merely anti-social to juvenile. I hope it will stop and we can get to some serious engineering work amongst the obvious very talented minds on this list. It really is not worthy of the talents assembled here to continue to descend into some (not by any means all) off-topic discussions that do not help assemble our collective consensus or develop any solutions. My sense is people should endeavor to check there ego's at the door, and that of course includes me as well. ... > If this is going to be typical of people's use of anti-spam tools > then I think we should give some serious thought to the UI of such > tools. I am not sure what bearing that would have on a UI of any product that would be developers or marketers preference, but I do take your point that some of the conversation has been enlightening with respect to how sociology can and has colored the issue we are dealing with. It is an interesting observation, but again I think too deep and detailed a matter for consideration by this group in which we all seek to contribute something relevant to the goals. An interesting study for someone but not IMHO on the track. This is a request. We all no the standards of the IETF and its working groups, and the methods for engineering a solution as a team (I suspect many if not all of the people on this list have done that before and currently). We are a group of very talented individuals and organizations, including some who have authored the very standards and protocols we are considering, not to mention having developed the methodology of this research group. Everyone should take a breath and stop to listen and reduce the chatter for a moment at least to reflect on why and whether they really want to participate in forming a solution. Check your ego, not your opinions and ideas at the door. Be prepared to consider a different point of view. Be flexible, we all must concede to some compromises in order to form a consensus. A solution may not be achievable, but its always worth a shot. If you are dis-heartened with the results, take a step back and see how you may re-enter with a new innovative way to approach the issue. These are some of the keys to developing a solution in this environment. I hope we can utilize these methods to the greatest extent possible. This is a technical forum and although some of the issues presented and discussed may not all be 'technical' or amenable to a 'technical' solution, we should always strive or reach for a solution from such a standpoint. Thanks for listening. Let's get to work. :-) -e _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 14:04:49 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA19395 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:04:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2VJSB109898 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:28:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VJSBK09895 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:28:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA19385; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:04:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VJQ6K09831; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:26:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VJNLK09717 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:23:21 -0500 Received: from infobro.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA19236 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:59:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:59:49 -0500 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:59:54 -0500 Message-ID: <01C2F78D.CE99CAB0.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'Vernon Schryver'" , "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Fwd: Returned mail: see transcript for details Organization: Information Brokers, Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:42:10 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit We know spammers are typically/most often rouge players, do we not? -e On Monday, March 31, 2003 11:34 AM, Vernon Schryver [SMTP:vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com] wrote: > > From: wayne > > > > This little drama is related to the spam problem. There is a component > > > of human nature that hates purposefully not being heard. Senders of > > > bulk advertising are often irrationally upset about being filtered. > > > > I agree, and more importantly, *learning* that you are purposely not > > being heard. > > Exactly. > > It should also be noted that there is a part of human nature that > likes to announce deafness, or shout "I can't hear you" with fingers > in ears instead of walking away. Or send "spam LARTS" to spammers. > E.g. should I have used "DISCARD" instead of "REJECT" in my filter? > > > I think this is why things like DNSBLs used to bounce email and the > > challenge-response systems get so much flak about false positives, > > where systems that silently /dev/null false positives gets far less > > attention. DNSBLs in particular publish their information, so you can > > check that you are indeed listed, while you can't test content > > filters. > > Not so. Body filters can also announce or keep quiet about their > effects with bounces or SMTP status codes like any DNS blacklists. > For example, you can tell sendmail to discard quiently based on > access_DB or DNS blacklist, and a sendmail body filter can generate > a 5yz or 4yz rejection. You can't test a DNSBL that is set to "discard." > You can test a body filter that is not configured to be silent or > misleading by sending a test message to a known bad address and looking > at the result. > > > > Ignorance of a false positive may be bliss, but it isn't a good > > thing. > > Says who, the spammer or the spam target? > My point is that whether a mail sender cares about a false positive > is completely secondary to whether the mail target wants. If the > mail target does not care about false positives and wants to keep them > secret, then so be it, no matter what the sender might wish. > > That is the basis of the spam problem. Senders think they have rights > that supercede the inclinations of targets. Any effective spam defense > must explicitly deprecated all rights of mail senders (except perhaps > copyrights) and must also assume that many mail senders are malicious. > If many mail senders were not malicious, there would be no opposition > to global opt-out lists (including per-domain), even solicited mail > advertising would have "Subject: ADV" tags, and you would not need to > opt-out of newsletters every 6 months, > > Thus, back to my claim that communicating consent to mail senders is > a bad idea. Some mail senders would honor expressions of consent, > but most will not. > > Proof of that "most" is that solicited mail advertising does not carry > "Subject: ADV" tags. If most advertisers really wanted to honor > recipient consent, they would go out of their way to label their > missives to give their targets many ways to implement their consent. > > > Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 14:08:04 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA19511 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:08:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2VJVQY10112 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:31:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VJVPK10109 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:31:25 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA19501; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:07:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VJSEK09913; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:28:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VJNNK09733 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:23:23 -0500 Received: from infobro.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA19238 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:59:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:59:52 -0500 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:59:57 -0500 Message-ID: <01C2F78D.D006A120.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'Jason Hihn'" , Vernon Schryver , "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: RE: [Asrg] How to defeat spam that uses encryption? Organization: Information Brokers, Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:55:34 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I would be interested in reading more on this proposal. It may present some valuable information. Don't know but I'll give you another set of eyes to look at it. Thanks. -e On Monday, March 31, 2003 12:37 PM, Jason Hihn [SMTP:jhihn@paytimepayroll.com] wrote: 8<...>8 > I came up with (what I thought was) the most important piece of a system to > ending spam and I got baulked at. It was not hard to implement, but no one > seemed to think it important. > > (It was a mail protocol negotiation proxy, so the internet could use > multiple mail protocols, each protocol can easily be replaced, or upgraded. > If the preferred supposed spam-unfriendly protocol was not used, there would > be some 'penalty' (delay, filtering, tar proxy) imposed. This would allow > protocols to compete, with the bonus of weaking spam techniques, because > hopefully, the same technique won't work on all protocols.) > > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 14:08:59 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA19538 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:08:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2VJWLN10152 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:32:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VJWLK10149 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:32:21 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA19527; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:08:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VJV3K10088; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:31:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VJSFK09921 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:28:15 -0500 Received: from infobro.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id OAA19390 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:04:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:05:55 -0500 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:06:00 -0500 Message-ID: <01C2F78E.A86197A0.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'Eric D. Williams'" , "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Fwd: Returned mail: see transcript for details Organization: Information Brokers, Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:05:58 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Monday, March 31, 2003 1:25 PM, Eric D. Williams [SMTP:eric@infobro.com] wrote: 8<...>8 > This is a request. We all no the standards of the IETF and its working -----------------------------^^--I meant 'know' sorry. -e > groups, and the methods for engineering a solution as a team (I suspect many if not > all of the people on this list have done that before and currently). We are a > group of very talented individuals and organizations, including some who have > authored the very standards and protocols we are considering, not to mention > having developed the methodology of this research group. Everyone should take > a breath and stop to listen and reduce the chatter for a moment at least to > reflect on why and whether they really want to participate in forming a > solution. Check your ego, not your opinions and ideas at the door. Be > prepared to consider a different point of view. Be flexible, we all must > concede to some compromises in order to form a consensus. A solution may not > be achievable, but its always worth a shot. If you are dis-heartened with the > results, take a step back and see how you may re-enter with a new innovative > way to approach the issue. > > These are some of the keys to developing a solution in this environment. I > hope we can utilize these methods to the greatest extent possible. This is a > technical forum and although some of the issues presented and discussed may > not all be 'technical' or amenable to a 'technical' solution, we should always > strive or reach for a solution from such a standpoint. Thanks for listening. > > Let's get to work. :-) > > > -e > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 14:22:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA19900 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:22:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2VJjpq11517 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:45:51 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VJjoK11514 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:45:50 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA19888; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:21:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VJi4K11401; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:44:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VJdgK11133 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:39:42 -0500 Received: from mail-out2.apple.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA19713 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:15:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailgate2.apple.com (A17-129-100-225.apple.com [17.129.100.225]) by mail-out2.apple.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2VJIDsJ006638 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:18:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from scv3.apple.com (scv3.apple.com) by mailgate2.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:18:12 -0800 Received: from plaidworks.com (vg0602e-dhcp175.apple.com [17.216.21.175]) by scv3.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h2VJICd20880; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:18:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] How to defeat spam that uses encryption? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: "David F. Skoll" , Jim Youll , asrg@ietf.org To: Jason Hihn From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <83FCA54B-63AD-11D7-B6A4-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:18:12 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Monday, March 31, 2003, at 10:25 AM, Jason Hihn wrote: >> That is fascinating. I read my mail with Pine. > > You sir, are both unlucky and lucky. I was a long-time pine user, but > the > 20th century has come and gone. ;-) > > The vast majority of people are using Outlook. This, I think, is a potential issue in this group: how many of the people attempting to build these policies know what Joe User really does, think and wants. I've seen a number of approaches and comments that lead me to think some folks see the net as "everyone does it the way I do it" -- there seem to be some serious blind spots, or perhaps, tunnel vision, in the discussions. I'm not sure what can be done about it, though, but it's an issue that needs to be kept in mind: whatever gets built needs to be built so Joe User can use it and will use it and does what he wants.. > Companies are worse, they blow money patching > and recovering from the infections that Outlook makes possible. companies are increasingly looking for alternatives, but when you have an existing company-wide system with a large user population and you can't just take the system down for a week to revamp things, moving to a new environment takes a lot of time, energy and money. Especially since e-mail is by all measures a corporate critical function almost everywhere now. Sometimes, the work needed to make a switch simply overwhelms an organization's ability to do it. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 14:30:16 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA20018 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:30:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2VJrcL11744 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:53:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VJrcK11741 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:53:38 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA19991; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:29:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VJq7K11702; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:52:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VJnvK11613 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:49:57 -0500 Received: from chimta02.algx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA19944 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:26:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from JHS ([67.92.23.74]) by chimmx02.algx.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.10 (built Jan 23 2003)) with SMTP id <0HCM00F1XORGNS@chimmx02.algx.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:28:29 -0600 (CST) From: Jason Hihn Subject: RE: [Asrg] How to defeat spam that uses encryption? In-reply-to: <83FCA54B-63AD-11D7-B6A4-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> To: Chuq Von Rospach Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:28:28 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT > -----Original Message----- > From: Chuq Von Rospach [mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com] > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 2:18 PM > To: Jason Hihn > Cc: David F. Skoll; Jim Youll; asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] How to defeat spam that uses encryption? > > > > On Monday, March 31, 2003, at 10:25 AM, Jason Hihn wrote: > > >> That is fascinating. I read my mail with Pine. > > > > You sir, are both unlucky and lucky. I was a long-time pine user, but > > the > > 20th century has come and gone. ;-) > > > > The vast majority of people are using Outlook. > > This, I think, is a potential issue in this group: how many of the > people attempting to build these policies know what Joe User really > does, think and wants. I've seen a number of approaches and comments > that lead me to think some folks see the net as "everyone does it the > way I do it" -- there seem to be some serious blind spots, or perhaps, > tunnel vision, in the discussions. I'm not sure what can be done about > it, though, but it's an issue that needs to be kept in mind: whatever > gets built needs to be built so Joe User can use it and will use it and > does what he wants.. It shouldn't matter what the reader is. I belive there is at least the one consensus that infratructure upgrades need to be done. Once that is done, it should (again) no longer matter who uses what to read mail because it will never get to them anyway. > > Companies are worse, they blow money patching > > and recovering from the infections that Outlook makes possible. > > companies are increasingly looking for alternatives, but when you have > an existing company-wide system with a large user population and you > can't just take the system down for a week to revamp things, moving to > a new environment takes a lot of time, energy and money. Especially > since e-mail is by all measures a corporate critical function almost > everywhere now. Sometimes, the work needed to make a switch simply > overwhelms an organization's ability to do it. And the solution to this may lay in that proposal of mine that wasn't well received. I will work on cleaning it up. (I'm not the best writer.) Maybe then I can get more people enthusuastic about it. I think if we got some talent to code it, we'd have something to play with at the end of a day. I could almost do it myself, but I have no good experience writing scalable socket-driven apps. (Threading, I/O completion ports, etc) But I could prototype it in some scripting language... _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 14:34:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA20133 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:34:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2VJve311941 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:57:40 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VJveK11938 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:57:40 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA20121; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:33:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VJt6K11851; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:55:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VJoUK11652 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:50:30 -0500 Received: from joy.songbird.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA19951 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:26:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from bbprime.brandenburg.com (208.184.79.252.songbird.com [208.184.79.252] (may be forged)) by joy.songbird.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VJSe711303; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:28:40 -0800 From: Dave Crocker X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.63 Beta/6) Personal Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <179166054864.20030331105903@brandenburg.com> To: Matt Sergeant CC: Dave Crocker , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] March spam ratio In-Reply-To: <9CC6BCB6-638E-11D7-934C-0003939CB5D8@startechgroup.co.uk> References: <9CC6BCB6-638E-11D7-934C-0003939CB5D8@startechgroup.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:59:03 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Matt, Many thanks for the detailed response. My point was not to hassle you, specifically, but to carry through with the concern I raised at the S.F. IETF meeting. Namely, this is an area that has lots of statistics bandied about, some of which have no objective validity. Even when they have validity, they can be subject to different, legitimate interpretations. This is a complicated topic. So, as a technical forum, we need to seek technical due diligence, if we are going to have any meaningful basis for evaluating one claim over another. MS> Wouldn't it be more sane to ask people to check the archives for that MS> poster? *sigh* I'm afraid I have no idea what you mean by this text. I do not understand the sentence. In any event, I think that when someone puts a claim forward -- any claim -- that person carries the burden to make the case for that claim. Placing the burden on each reader to do any substantial research to validate the claim, strikes me as inefficient, at best. MS> This is just spam detected for our customers (about 1.3m users across Thanks for clarifying that you work for the source of the information. I probably should have known that, but I didn't, and your From field address is different. MS> the globe). So some has got through (about 92-98% accuracy is usual). MS> Spam is detected by a variety of means, but most spam is detected via as was noted, the link points to a virus monitor, not a spam monitor. MS> heuristics (and no I'm not proposing this as a long term solution to Virus detection that permits labeling the specific virus -- as is done in the viruseye display -- does not use heuristics. The code does pattern matching, but not "guessing". When heuristics DO get used, the obvious requirement is for accompanying statistics about rates of false positives and false negatives. That is, confidence levels for the heuistics. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking Sunnyvale, CA USA , _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 14:44:59 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA20399 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:44:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2VK7l613095 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:07:47 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VK7lK13092 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:07:47 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA20389; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:43:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VK6IK12291; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:06:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VK3KK12208 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:03:20 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA20304 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:39:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc01.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.9/) with ESMTP id h2VJdLWm011824; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:39:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:41:51 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Jason Hihn'" , Jim Youll , "David F. Skoll" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] How to defeat spam that uses encryption? MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:41:50 -0800 > > >Well, if you were a spammer and you did that, you'd soon be out of > > >business. I would estimate that fewer than one in 100 e-mail users > > >use PGP or GnuPG at all, and even fewer than that have a > public key. > > >So you'd drastically limit your audience. PGP is irrelevant, every major email client with the exception of Eudora has supported S/MIME for 5 years now. There are half a billion S/MIME clients out there. The problem is that few clients are currently configured to use encryption. This is going to change in future, in part because of spam and in part because its the right thing to do. > > >In fact, widespread use of GPG-style encryption could help defeat > > >spammers. If most people only accepted encrypted messages (except > > >from whitelisted mailing lists and such), it would become very > > >expensive to spam. (Yes, I know this will never happen -- don't > > >bother replying.) Unfortunately not, there are SSL accelerators that do thousands of RSA operations a second. They are unfortunately not FIPS approved in general but spam senders don't care about that. > It was only an example. But I do wonder.. any encrypted PGP > or GnuPG message > would have higher social credibility for me... > > But imagine this in a message: > --- start--- > [javascript] > $cypher_text="dsfjhsjdfhsdfjksdhfskjfhsd.." > function decrypt(key, cypher_text){ > /* do description */ > document.writeln($plain_text) > } > [/javascript] > > [body onload=decrypt("aasc", $cypher_text)] > --- finish --- > Now all your filters, Bayesian or not, will only work on the > actual text > seen between start and finish. Not necessarily, run the code in a sandbox, if you can't trust the code enough to do that then certainly don't forward it to the user, discard it like any other virus. > No filtering will be done of > the "message" - > what the user sees. Furthermore, variable and function names > are infinitely > variable, and what is not variable is standard html/js stuff and has > significant legit use. First I don't believe there is any legit function for Javascript and absolutely not in email. Filter all active code at the firewall unless it comes from an authenticated and trusted source. This goes for attachments too, filter out all the word and excell documents with macros unless the sender is trusted. There must be code readilly available to detect macros in these files. Second renaming the variables does not affect the ability of recognizers to detect it, this was demonstrated by some anti-cheat software that was developed at Southampton University in the 1980s. Code can be identified by the structure very easily. Virus checkers use the same techniques. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 15:02:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA20900 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:02:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2VKQ3b13853 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:26:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VKQ2K13850 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:26:03 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA20893; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:02:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VKO4K13675; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:24:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VKLXK13606 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:21:33 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA20738 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:57:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) id h2VJxoco023419 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:59:50 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303311959.h2VJxoco023419@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] How to defeat spam that uses encryption? References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:59:50 -0700 (MST) > From: "David F. Skoll" > To: Jason Hihn > ... > > [javascript] > > $cypher_text="dsfjhsjdfhsdfjksdhfskjfhsd.." > > function decrypt(key, cypher_text){ > ... > That is fascinating. I read my mail with Pine. Other, more common MUAs are either configured by default to ignore javascript in mail or can be easily set to ignore scripts (e.g. Netscape 7). (I use BSD `mail,` which is even older and less common than Pine.) Turning off scripts in mail seems like obvious precaution for anyone using a Microsoft operating system. > > Now all your filters, Bayesian or not, will only work on the actual text > > seen between start and finish. No, that is wrong. A filter can decode the SMTP body exactly as it will be decoded by the MUA. If the MUA can decode the message enough to present it to the user, then so can the filter. The filter and the MUA can share common code to do the decoding. If the filter cannot decode the message, then neither can the MUA. There is no magic. Computer programs are deterministic. They do the same thing given the same input. They do not care if a human or some other program is looking at their outputs. Again, as I said before, it is now fairly common for spam body filters to do at least rudimetary HTML decoding, so that they base their filter decisions on something close to what the user will see. It turns out to be fairly easy to decode a lot of HTML, which is why the leading edge of spam has stopped using and switched to URLs pointing to the content. This sort of HTML and script decoding can be done as part of the processing of the SMTP DATA command so that an appropriate SMTP status code can be given. This sort of thing is the purpose of sendmail milter filters. I don't know of any sendmail milters that decode (i.e. execute) Javascript, but there is no technical reason preventing it. Common SMTP client timeouts are long enough to let an SMTP filter follow links in HTML messages and use whatever they produce to affect filtering. > ... > If spammers start abusing this, then we'll have the happy result that > more people will start filtering out HTML mail, and we'll go back to > plain-text e-mail. :-) Which would be a good thing. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 15:13:21 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA22369 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:13:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2VKajj14445 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:36:45 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VKajK14442 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:36:45 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA22315; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:12:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VKZ4K14368; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:35:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VKWsK14292 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:32:54 -0500 Received: from infobro.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id PAA21801 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:08:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:09:22 -0500 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:09:27 -0500 Message-ID: <01C2F797.858FEE80.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'Hallam-Baker, Phillip'" , "'Jason Hihn'" , Jim Youll , "David F. Skoll" , "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: RE: [Asrg] How to defeat spam that uses encryption? Organization: Information Brokers, Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:09:23 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Although I think this already exists in one form or another [RFC2635 - "DON'T SPEW..."]. Has anyone considered drafting a preliminary or running list of MTA configuration best current practices for reducing 'spam'? Phill, from your posting I perceive that may be something that you could begin to work on (with others or not). Certainly any work product could be improved, evaluated and substantiated by the group. All: A question is the discussion of end-user MUA technology uses of encryption something people want to address as a 'spam' control solution? This is just a question. -e On Monday, March 31, 2003 2:42 PM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip [SMTP:pbaker@verisign.com] wrote: > > > > >Well, if you were a spammer and you did that, you'd soon be out of > > > >business. I would estimate that fewer than one in 100 e-mail users > > > >use PGP or GnuPG at all, and even fewer than that have a > > public key. > > > >So you'd drastically limit your audience. > > PGP is irrelevant, every major email client with the exception of > Eudora has supported S/MIME for 5 years now. There are half a billion > S/MIME clients out there. > > The problem is that few clients are currently configured to use > encryption. This is going to change in future, in part because of > spam and in part because its the right thing to do. > > > > > >In fact, widespread use of GPG-style encryption could help defeat > > > >spammers. If most people only accepted encrypted messages (except > > > >from whitelisted mailing lists and such), it would become very > > > >expensive to spam. (Yes, I know this will never happen -- don't > > > >bother replying.) > > Unfortunately not, there are SSL accelerators that do thousands of RSA > operations a second. They are unfortunately not FIPS approved in general > but spam senders don't care about that. > > > > It was only an example. But I do wonder.. any encrypted PGP > > or GnuPG message > > would have higher social credibility for me... > > > > But imagine this in a message: > > --- start--- > > [javascript] > > $cypher_text="dsfjhsjdfhsdfjksdhfskjfhsd.." > > function decrypt(key, cypher_text){ > > /* do description */ > > document.writeln($plain_text) > > } > > [/javascript] > > > > [body onload=decrypt("aasc", $cypher_text)] > > --- finish --- > > Now all your filters, Bayesian or not, will only work on the > > actual text > > seen between start and finish. > > Not necessarily, run the code in a sandbox, if you can't trust > the code enough to do that then certainly don't forward it to > the user, discard it like any other virus. > > > No filtering will be done of > > the "message" - > > what the user sees. Furthermore, variable and function names > > are infinitely > > variable, and what is not variable is standard html/js stuff and has > > significant legit use. > > First I don't believe there is any legit function for Javascript > and absolutely not in email. Filter all active code at the firewall > unless it comes from an authenticated and trusted source. > > This goes for attachments too, filter out all the word and excell > documents with macros unless the sender is trusted. There must be > code readilly available to detect macros in these files. > > Second renaming the variables does not affect the ability of > recognizers to detect it, this was demonstrated by some anti-cheat > software that was developed at Southampton University in the > 1980s. Code can be identified by the structure very easily. > Virus checkers use the same techniques. > > Phill > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 15:22:54 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA22992 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:22:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2VKkIo15675 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:46:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VKkHK15672 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:46:17 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA22978; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:22:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VKi2K15535; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:44:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VKYKK14335 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:34:20 -0500 Received: from chimta01.algx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA22065 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:10:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from JHS ([67.92.23.74]) by chimmx01.algx.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.10 (built Jan 23 2003)) with SMTP id <0HCM007JSQTDGE@chimmx01.algx.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:12:49 -0600 (CST) From: Jason Hihn Subject: RE: [Asrg] How to defeat spam that uses encryption? In-reply-to: To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , Jim Youll , "David F. Skoll" , asrg@ietf.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:12:50 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT > > First I don't believe there is any legit function for Javascript > and absolutely not in email. Filter all active code at the firewall > unless it comes from an authenticated and trusted source. Mailed HTML forms, with javascript validation. As I understand it, this is the only reason why this stuff is put up with today. I think we can do away with it though. I've never used it and working around it (send a link, and not the page) is done easily enough. (I am all for this!) > This goes for attachments too, filter out all the word and excell > documents with macros unless the sender is trusted. There must be > code readilly available to detect macros in these files. You'd think so, but those are proprietary formats, my friend. And to my knowledge, non-proprietary formats (Open Office) aren't stupid enough to have macros (at least the auto-open ones) (the last time I checked). Furthermore, trusting the sender is not enough, as we usually infect the ones we love (those in our address books) when it's outlook virus time! > Second renaming the variables does not affect the ability of > recognizers to detect it, this was demonstrated by some anti-cheat > software that was developed at Southampton University in the > 1980s. Code can be identified by the structure very easily. > Virus checkers use the same techniques. Indeed you are correct, but I was referring to a word-type filter, and not a structure-based one. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 15:25:55 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA23063 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:25:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2VKnJL15805 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:49:19 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VKnJK15802 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:49:19 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA23056; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:25:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VKl4K15715; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:47:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VKb9K14715 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:37:09 -0500 Received: from joy.songbird.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA22357 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:13:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from bbprime.brandenburg.com (208.184.79.252.songbird.com [208.184.79.252] (may be forged)) by joy.songbird.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VKFK813885; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:15:20 -0800 From: Dave Crocker X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.63 Beta/6) Personal Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <76170617515.20030331121505@brandenburg.com> To: Brad Templeton CC: Dave Crocker , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] define spam In-Reply-To: <20030329182951.GA9659@main.templetons.com> References: <61186118354.20030328213242@brandenburg.com> <20030329071806.GI23496@main.templetons.com> <36198411821.20030329005736@brandenburg.com> <20030329182951.GA9659@main.templetons.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:15:05 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Brad, BT> Alas, now we see how hard it is to get consensus on this. >> BT> Sent as part of a mass mailing, which is to say some >> BT> person commanded that mail be sent to more than >> BT> a few hundred people >> >> if 10,000 separate senders each mail to targeted lists of 50 people, >> soliciting money, is that not spam? BT> If the 10,000 people are, as you say, separate, and not caused to do so by one BT> entity, then no, it would not be under this definition. I was trying to highlight a problem with the definition. The person that receives each of those 10,000 messages is going to be pretty clear that they have received spam. BT> Have we seen a lot of this happening? I think it is vital in this issue BT> not to solve hypotheticals that are not actually taking place, I concur entirely. It is essential to ask that question for every scenario people put forward. As to the particulars, here, there are two concerns: 1. Spam is two different problems. One is traffic for ISPs and the other is traffic for recipients. Neither really cares how many places that traffic comes from. Hence, making the definition rely on single, major offenders carries a serious risk, if there are many, small offenders. 2. Targeted marketing is becoming much, much easier. Hence, many small offenders is becoming essentially trivial. I do not know whether they are yet a major source of the problem. As soon as we make mechanisms that successfully limit single-source volumes, we will get this alternative traffic. Spammers have proved to be very, very adaptable. >> BT> The recipient never solicited the mailing, nor has >> BT> had voluntary contact with the sender in the past >> >> Anyone you have ever had contact with is thereby authorized to send you >> a solicitation? BT> Sure. Again, how much of your "spam" is coming from parties who are not BT> strangers to you? I am not a good person to ask, since my tolerance level for unsolicited solicitations is close to zero. My impression is that it is a common problem on the net. BT> And in this case, how many problems have you had with BT> getting removed from their lists? Given that responding to a rogue spammer is a good way to validate that your address is valid and that you are a responsive Internet email user, the problem is knowing when it is "safe" to ask to be removed. BT> If you have some numbers, let me know. BT> My own experience is that UBE from parties known to me is rare, and for those BT> parties not to honour a remove request immediately is extremely rare. Based on some involvement with a subscription (ie, opt-in) volume mail startup, I'll note that one problem is that people forget what they have signed up for. This takes us back to the problem of knowing who it is "safe" to ask to remove you. >> BT> The sender has not been asked to stop mailing the >> BT> recipient >> >> Everyone gets one free shot at abusing (or, ummm, rather "stuffing") >> your mailbox? BT> Actually, under this definition, everybody _you_ talk to gets one "free shot." So, in Internet scale operation, that is up to 100 million extra pieces of email. Or rather more, since "corporations" are independent of individuals. And people form new corporations all the time. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking Sunnyvale, CA USA , _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 15:30:27 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA23235 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:30:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2VKrpB15996 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:53:51 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VKrpK15993 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:53:51 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA23218; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:29:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VHfKT22604; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:41:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VHePT22523 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:40:25 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15113 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:16:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc01.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.8/) with ESMTP id h2VHGT66017544 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 09:16:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 09:18:59 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Fwd: Returned mail: see transcript for details MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 09:18:58 -0800 > > Ignorance of a false positive may be bliss, but it isn't a good > > thing. > > Says who, the spammer or the spam target? > My point is that whether a mail sender cares about a false positive > is completely secondary to whether the mail target wants. If the message is a spam then it is not a false positive by definition. If the recipient does not want the message it is not a false positive by my definition. I think that this attitude of trying to redefine false positive to mean spam simply won't wash. It is being used to try to make the hard part of the problem go away by pretending it does not matter. It reminds me of Douglas Adam's laywers who try re-defining murder, re-evaluating muder and eventually re-spelling it in an attempt to find a solution. Fact is false positives do matter, and not just to the sender, by definition a false positive matters to the recipient or it is not a false positive. And in this particular instance 'by definition' means precisely that, it is not used for emphasis. The definition of spam may be nebulous but false positive is not. Phil _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 15:32:47 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA23322 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:32:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2VKuB616124 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:56:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VKuBK16121 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:56:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA23308; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:32:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VKsaK16049; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:54:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VKjhK15657 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:45:43 -0500 Received: from acsdefense.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA22923 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:21:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from PRESTON ([192.168.108.63]) by gateway.acsdefense.com with SMTP id <119304>; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:31:18 -0500 Message-ID: <003a01c2f7c3$93ca3060$3f6ca8c0@PRESTON> From: "Tony Preston" To: References: <20030331170006.17906.47821.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> Organization: Atlantic Sciences and Technology Inc. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Re: Asrg digest, Vol 1 #145 - 8 msgs Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:24:48 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > From: Kee Hinckley > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Fwd: Returned mail: see transcript for details > > At 11:59 PM -0700 3/30/03, Vernon Schryver wrote: > >This little drama is related to the spam problem. There is a component > >of human nature that hates purposefully not being heard. Senders of > >bulk advertising are often irrationally upset about being filtered. > > You skipped from "humans" to "senders of bulk advertising" very > nicely there. You weren't cutting off a sender of bulk advertising. > You've also missed the other side of that obvious > statement--purposefully not hearing someone is considered socially > rude. I've had people do that to me more than once--typically after > accusing me of spamming or some other activity that I didn't do. > Someone else on the list put that behavior in exactly the context it > belongs. "Nah, nah... I can't hear you!" Typically with fingers in > ears and tongue sticking out. The word you are looking for is > "juvenile." > > This whole conversation has been very educational. > > Several times now we have seen people using tools meant for stopping > spammers, as a way of stopping normal human conversation. And they > are doing so without even the common courtesy of notifying their > correspondent. In the real world you would say, "I'm sorry, I don't > want to talk about this any more," or "This will be my last message > on this subject." If the correspondent continues to respond, then > you ignore them. But somewhere along the line the hardcore spam > fighters have gotten so used to blocking messages that they believe > it's socially acceptable to just bounce people's email when they feel > like it. They have a hammer, and they've decided to use it on > anything that looks like a nail. > > If this is going to be typical of people's use of anti-spam tools > then I think we should give some serious thought to the UI of such > tools. I find this attitude hard to believe! If I am subject to unsolicited email, I have the perfect right to block future attempts to continue this practice. I liken this to someone being invited into my home to sell me on selling Amway.... I invited them (Opt-In), and I can uninvited them(Opt-Out). I do not however, have to accept them continuously returning to my home after I have uninvited them (Opt-Out) or to show up unsolicited. I feel the same way about lying or stealing (forged FROM:, Misleading subject), or Fraud (here, you can opt-out, but I will sell your email to others)... I should not have to respond to what I consider a criminal act in some cases with "common courtesy". How would you react to me calling you collect to sell you my collection of bottle caps and match books? After all, you did visit my web site... I wish I had a hammer to hit back at the spammers, instead I have only a few wet noodles at my disposal. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 15:32:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA23336 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:32:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2VKuKI16141 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:56:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VKuKK16137 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:56:20 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA23313; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:32:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VHg0T23197; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:42:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VHfET22573 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:41:14 -0500 Received: from moebius2.Space.Net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA15125 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:17:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 7728 invoked by uid 1013); 31 Mar 2003 17:19:47 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] How to defeat spam that uses encryption? Message-ID: <20030331191947.A6122@Space.Net> References: <200303311655.h2VGtO8v021456@calcite.rhyolite.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <200303311655.h2VGtO8v021456@calcite.rhyolite.com>; from vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com on Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 09:55:24AM -0700 Organization: SpaceNet AG, Muenchen, Germany X-PGP-Fingerprint: 66 F3 75 79 01 D0 B8 5F 1A C7 77 88 4A B6 70 DF Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 19:19:47 +0200 On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 09:55:24AM -0700, Vernon Schryver wrote: > Many spammers encode their efforts as quoted-printable, base64, > or even both (never mind the MIME RFCs and MUA behavior). You mean like in Performance Enhancer Enlargement > easier to evade than to operate. Spammers are always slow and behind. > Why? If they are so far behind, why do/did messages of these type pass so much "ahead" content filters? > However, > the stuff must still be deccode or decrypted at zillions of targets > or spamming is wasted effort. If it can be decoded to show to a human, > then it can first be decoded for a filter. Do you suggest I should write down the passphrase to my private key in some file so that the filter can decode incoming encrypted emails? \Maex -- SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0 Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 "The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 15:35:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA23417 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:35:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2VKwkS16251 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:58:46 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VKwjK16248 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:58:45 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA23405; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:34:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VKv3K16186; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:57:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VKpKK15889 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:51:20 -0500 Received: from moebius2.Space.Net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id PAA23143 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:27:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 21193 invoked by uid 1013); 31 Mar 2003 20:29:50 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] How to defeat spam that uses encryption? Message-ID: <20030331222950.F15009@Space.Net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: ; from pbaker@verisign.com on Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 11:41:50AM -0800 Organization: SpaceNet AG, Muenchen, Germany X-PGP-Fingerprint: 66 F3 75 79 01 D0 B8 5F 1A C7 77 88 4A B6 70 DF Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:29:50 +0200 On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 11:41:50AM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > PGP is irrelevant, every major email client with the exception of > Eudora has supported S/MIME for 5 years now. There are half a billion > S/MIME clients out there. Could we please stop that marketing bullshit? Even more as I get the impression that it's driven by the fact that your employer is making money with S/MIME certs. "TV is irrelevant 'cause there are half a billion MPEG capable Windows Media Players out there". Whether a client is capable of anything doesn't rate the anything relevant. Numbers of use do rate relevance and I get about a factor of 100 more PGP/GPG signed mails than S/MIME. \Maex -- SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0 Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 "The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 15:37:18 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA23504 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:37:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2VL0hR16384 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:00:43 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VL0hK16381 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:00:43 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA23478; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:36:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VKx7K16283; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:59:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VKpTK15897 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:51:29 -0500 Received: from mail-out1.apple.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA23149 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:27:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailgate2.apple.com (A17-129-100-225.apple.com [17.129.100.225]) by mail-out1.apple.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2VKU09T010831 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:30:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from scv3.apple.com (scv3.apple.com) by mailgate2.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:29:59 -0800 Received: from plaidworks.com (vg0602e-dhcp175.apple.com [17.216.21.175]) by scv3.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h2VKTxd20910 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:29:59 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed From: Chuq Von Rospach To: ASRG Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <8B8C44F0-63B7-11D7-B6A4-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Is this a new spam form? Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:30:00 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit someone on list-managers just posted a note that has me a bit freaked. she got spam addressed from a user of her mail list. That user seems to have gotten "something" that caused her machine to send a spam message to everyone in her address book. which sounds suspiciously like a spammer who's gotten into the macro-virus game to propogate spam mail. anyone else seen this before? Is this a new toy we have to worry about? (and I'll say upfront that complaining about what microsoft HAS done isn't productive, if this is going to happen, how are we going to contain it?) I hadn't thought about it before now, but this seems like a great way to propogate a spam message, because it works through whitelists and around subscription blocks on lists nicely, and doesn't require open relays or open proxies. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 15:41:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA23616 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:41:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2VL4uE16568 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:04:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VL4uK16565 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:04:56 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA23590; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:41:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VL23K16457; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:02:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VKuXK16156 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:56:33 -0500 Received: from chimta04.algx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA23320 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:32:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from JHS ([67.92.23.74]) by chimmx04.algx.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.10 (built Jan 23 2003)) with SMTP id <0HCM00EMVRUFPZ@chimmx04.algx.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:35:04 -0600 (CST) From: Jason Hihn Subject: RE: [Asrg] How to defeat spam that uses encryption? In-reply-to: <01C2F797.858FEE80.eric@infobro.com> To: "Eric D. Williams" , asrg@ietf.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:35:03 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric D. Williams [mailto:eric@infobro.com] > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 3:09 PM > To: 'Hallam-Baker, Phillip'; 'Jason Hihn'; Jim Youll; David F. Skoll; > asrg@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Asrg] How to defeat spam that uses encryption? ... > > All: A question is the discussion of end-user MUA technology uses > of encryption > something people want to address as a 'spam' control solution? > This is just a > question. I certainly hope not. End to end encryption will destroy server-side content filtering, unless it holds private keys in escrow. If it does, it's not that bad, though there are several advantages drawbacks: 1d) Bandwith of public key retrieval. I'm assuming you have to ask my email server for by pub key before sending me a message. 1a) slows you down, increases your bandwidth needs. Requires you to work in lock-step with other email servers that may be sharing information and conspiring against you (RTBL, see 3a) 2a) eliminates one-message-to-all, takes more CPU 2d) hurts mailing lists, takes more CPU 3d) you're a spammer and you will know I exist 3a) Before sending a pub key, check B&w lists Of course, these keys could be implemented completely transparently to the user. But I think we are better off NOT using it, just for the fact that I don't want anyone to be able to determine that my email address is valid before sending. Not to mention that this stuff could not be implemented in a global scale. France is very much against any kind of encryption. Whatever methods we choose must be globally applicable, and that fact is enough to eliminate this as a standard. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 15:43:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA23678 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:43:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2VL77T16762 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:07:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VL77K16759 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:07:07 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA23672; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:43:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VL54K16591; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:05:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VL2tK16494 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:02:55 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA23538 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:39:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 1906FN-00013K-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:51:13 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Is this a new spam form? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:30:00 PST." <8B8C44F0-63B7-11D7-B6A4-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:51:13 -0500 Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > she got spam addressed from a user of her mail list. That user seems to > have gotten "something" that caused her machine to send a spam message > to everyone in her address book. Which indicates a useful definition for spam: "spam is email which the user of the MUA did not intend to send" > I hadn't thought about it before now, but this seems like a great way > to propogate a spam message, because it works through whitelists and > around subscription blocks on lists nicely, and doesn't require open > relays or open proxies. I agree. There are many, many machines out there which are "owned". Many are being used to send spam *without* a MUA. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 15:55:26 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA23989 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:55:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2VLIpN17796 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:18:51 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VLIoK17793 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:18:50 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA23964; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:54:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VLHMK17753; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:17:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VLEqK17688 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:14:52 -0500 Received: from mail-out1.apple.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA23860 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:50:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailgate1.apple.com (A17-128-100-225.apple.com [17.128.100.225]) by mail-out1.apple.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2VKrM9T018749 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:53:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from scv1.apple.com (scv1.apple.com) by mailgate1.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:53:13 -0800 Received: from plaidworks.com (vg0602e-dhcp175.apple.com [17.216.21.175]) by scv1.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h2VKrLt19934; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:53:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] How to defeat spam that uses encryption? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: asrg@ietf.org To: Markus Stumpf From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <20030331222950.F15009@Space.Net> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:53:21 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Monday, March 31, 2003, at 12:29 PM, Markus Stumpf wrote: > On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 11:41:50AM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >> PGP is irrelevant, every major email client with the exception of >> Eudora has supported S/MIME for 5 years now. There are half a billion >> S/MIME clients out there. > > Could we please stop that marketing bullshit? I think the correct phrasing here would be "there are half a billion clients capable of using s/mime, if only someone would write software that wasn't a pain in the neck to use for geeks, impossible to use by anyone else, and could convince people that it actually was worth the time and energy to use, and if we had an infrastructure capable of handling and passing around half a billion public keys reliably, which we don't" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 15:59:24 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA24098 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:59:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2VLMmA17951 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:22:48 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VLMmK17948 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:22:48 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA24075; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:58:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VLL1K17893; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:21:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VLIHK17773 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:18:17 -0500 Received: from mail-out1.apple.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA23947 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:54:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailgate1.apple.com (A17-128-100-225.apple.com [17.128.100.225]) by mail-out1.apple.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2VKul9T019715 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:56:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from scv3.apple.com (scv3.apple.com) by mailgate1.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:56:39 -0800 Received: from plaidworks.com (vg0602e-dhcp175.apple.com [17.216.21.175]) by scv3.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h2VKukd01244; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:56:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Is this a new spam form? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: asrg@ietf.org To: "Alan DeKok" From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <4956BF63-63BB-11D7-B6A4-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:56:47 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Monday, March 31, 2003, at 12:51 PM, Alan DeKok wrote: > I agree. There are many, many machines out there which are > "owned". Many are being used to send spam *without* a MUA. > except in this case, the machine isn't "owned", but "borrowed for a minute". And you only need one "owned" machine or open relay to start a chain reaction of redistributions, all of which look like legitimate e-mails from someone you know, because it is. Except it's just that person's machine, not the person itself. My guess is this isn't a case of a machine being taken over by a virus as a zombie, but an e-mail coming in that's triggering itself to be resent out to the members in the address book. No need for any resident code. got an advil? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 16:01:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA24280 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:01:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2VLOrT18047 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:24:53 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VLOrK18044 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:24:53 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA24222; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:00:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VLN4K17972; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:23:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VLITK17778 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:18:29 -0500 Received: from chimta04.algx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA23956 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:54:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from JHS ([67.92.23.74]) by chimmx04.algx.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.10 (built Jan 23 2003)) with SMTP id <0HCM00HHDSUZ81@chimmx04.algx.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:56:59 -0600 (CST) From: Jason Hihn Subject: RE: [Asrg] Is this a new spam form? In-reply-to: To: Alan DeKok , asrg@ietf.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:56:59 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT I have seen this too. I don't know if this is the same thing, but my users were tricked into installing something that did this. In the click though EULA, (which no one ever reads) it said exactly what it was going to do too! And they still call it a 'virus' around here...! In this case, a an unsolicited message was sent with an attached program (in zip form) it only took 1 fool to install it. Once in, it was sent to people in the address book. Then it was coming from a 'credible' person, nullifying the first rule of email: "Don't open email from those you don't know" I think in the future, this propagate via white-lists is going to be the way to go for spammers. User education is the only solution here. > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Alan > DeKok > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 3:51 PM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Is this a new spam form? > > > Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > > she got spam addressed from a user of her mail list. That user seems to > > have gotten "something" that caused her machine to send a spam message > > to everyone in her address book. > > Which indicates a useful definition for spam: > > "spam is email which the user of the MUA did not intend to send" > > > I hadn't thought about it before now, but this seems like a great way > > to propogate a spam message, because it works through whitelists and > > around subscription blocks on lists nicely, and doesn't require open > > relays or open proxies. > > I agree. There are many, many machines out there which are > "owned". Many are being used to send spam *without* a MUA. > > Alan DeKok. > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 16:04:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA24494 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:04:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2VLRtH18171 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:27:55 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VLRtK18168 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:27:55 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA24472; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:03:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VLQMK18116; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:26:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VLMEK17935 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:22:14 -0500 Received: from aismtp3g.bls.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA24058 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:58:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from 01AL10015010060.ad.bls.com ([90.152.5.135] [90.152.5.135]) by aismtp3g.bls.com with ESMTP; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:03:56 -0500 Received: by 01al10015010060.ad.bls.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:00:44 -0500 Message-Id: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D708@bremocag> From: "Sauer, Damon" To: "'Chuq Von Rospach'" , Jason Hihn Cc: "David F. Skoll" , Jim Youll , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] How to defeat spam that uses encryption? MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:00:43 -0500 > Companies are worse, they blow money patching > and recovering from the infections that Outlook makes possible. >companies are increasingly looking for alternatives, but when you have >an existing company-wide system with a large user population and you >can't just take the system down for a week to revamp things, moving to >a new environment takes a lot of time, energy and money. Especially >since e-mail is by all measures a corporate critical function almost >everywhere now. Sometimes, the work needed to make a switch simply >overwhelms an organization's ability to do it. -------- I whole-heartedly agree with this statement. If we go back to the "wish-list"- the implementation needs to be incremental. There is no way that I can shut off email even for an hour much less breaking everything (MS calls this an upgrade) all at once and hope that everyone else does too. Regards< Damon ***** "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers." _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 16:12:21 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA24750 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:12:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2VLZlD18431 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:35:47 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VLZkK18428 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:35:46 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA24737; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:11:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VLY3K18375; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:34:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VLVqK18323 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:31:52 -0500 Received: from chimta02.algx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA24657 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:07:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from JHS ([67.92.23.74]) by chimmx02.algx.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.10 (built Jan 23 2003)) with SMTP id <0HCM00IQDTH9CN@chimmx02.algx.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:10:22 -0600 (CST) From: Jason Hihn Subject: RE: [Asrg] How to defeat spam that uses encryption? In-reply-to: <4B91B49E5EBCBA448687A033B3C7BC5905F3D708@bremocag> To: "Sauer, Damon" , "'Chuq Von Rospach'" Cc: "David F. Skoll" , Jim Youll , asrg@ietf.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:10:21 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT > > >companies are increasingly looking for alternatives, but when you have > >an existing company-wide system with a large user population and you > >can't just take the system down for a week to revamp things, moving to > >a new environment takes a lot of time, energy and money. Especially > >since e-mail is by all measures a corporate critical function almost > >everywhere now. Sometimes, the work needed to make a switch simply > >overwhelms an organization's ability to do it. > > -------- I whole-heartedly agree with this statement. If we go > back to the > "wish-list"- the implementation needs to be incremental. There is no way > that I can shut off email even for an hour much less breaking > everything (MS > calls this an upgrade) all at once and hope that everyone else does too. FYI: I agree too. Though some alternatives are coming into being. The protocol is not broken with Outlook, it's the client. Ximian's Connector software for Evolution allegedly will allow you to switch out clients w/o any real kind of downtime or feature loss. The downside (if you think it's one) is that Evolution is Linux-only. (No that that's a bad thing, just that the transitioning is a pain ;-) OFF-TOPIC: What I'd like to see is relational databases used for email storage. That way, I can connect up anywhere, with a variety of SQL-interoperable clients (ie. Mozilla (from any platform), Outlook (gasp), Eudora -- all could have ODBC). Eliminate vendor lock-in a la file formats, while providing access from anywhere... _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 16:21:11 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA25149 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:21:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2VLibN19574 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:44:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VLibK19571 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:44:37 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA25141; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:20:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VLh6K19498; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:43:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VLeWK19370 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:40:32 -0500 Received: from dogma.slashnull.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA24934 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:16:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.jmason.org (ga183055.reshsg.uci.edu [128.195.183.55]) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VLFfn08114; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:15:41 +0100 Received: by localhost.jmason.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 895EB8C76F; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:18:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from jmason.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADBFE8C76E; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:18:18 -0800 (PST) To: Markus Stumpf Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] How to defeat spam that uses encryption? In-Reply-To: Message from Markus Stumpf of "Mon, 31 Mar 2003 19:19:47 +0200." <20030331191947.A6122@Space.Net> From: jm@jmason.org (Justin Mason) X-GPG-Key-Fingerprint: 0A48 2D8B 0B52 A87D 0E8A 6ADD 4137 1B50 6E58 EF0A X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to . Message-Id: <20030331211818.895EB8C76F@localhost.jmason.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:18:13 -0800 Markus Stumpf said: > On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 09:55:24AM -0700, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > Many spammers encode their efforts as quoted-printable, base64, > > or even both (never mind the MIME RFCs and MUA behavior). > You mean like in > Performance > Enhancer > Enlargement > > easier to evade than to operate. Spammers are always slow and behind. > > Why? > If they are so far behind, why do/did messages of these type pass so much > "ahead" content filters? Hmm. *Do* they? I haven't heard of any filters, apart from the "A Plan For Spam" style ones which do not even trivially decode HTML, that are vulnerable to this. SpamAssassin certainly isn't; in fact, it makes a great spam sign for us. But about twice a week, someone posts to the SpamAssassin-talk list asking if we're worried about this "new technique", which gets irritating after a while. BTW, in response to Vernon's original comment -- the reason at least one spam tool uses QP/Base64 encoding on normal text, is to evade *AOL's* content filters and bulk-mail detectors specifically. By adding a random "hashbuster" at the start of the mail, the base64 text changes radically and requires a totally different fuzzy hash signature. (I read the tool's documentation ;) --j. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 16:23:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA25215 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:23:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2VLl3x19676 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:47:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VLl3K19673 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:47:03 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA25184; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:23:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VLj9K19612; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:45:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VLeeK19374 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:40:40 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA24941 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:16:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2221149; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:19:10 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <20030331170006.17906.47821.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> To: "David F. Skoll" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] How to defeat spam that uses encryption? Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:36:32 -0500 At 12:25 PM -0500 3/31/03, David F. Skoll wrote: >You're assuming that most people have JavaScript-enabled mail readers. >There are simpler ways to defeat filtering, checksums and such without >depending on client-side software. The percentage is high enough that spammers don't care about those that don't. I've seen more than a few Javascript encoded email messages. It seems to be most common for illegal scams (like attempts to get your credit card) where they want to keep a web site running for long enough to collect some cards. The encryption presumably means that it takes longer before someone technical enough to deal with the message can find the actual web site. I actually went so far at one point as to build a fake IE DOM in a PD Javascript interpreter so that I could automatically decrypt the messages. At 1:02 PM -0500 3/31/03, David F. Skoll wrote: >Here's a simple rule: > > IF body contains "javascript THEN bounce. Unfortunately there are a number of commercial companies out there selling "active email" products. Basically these are services that let you, for instance, send out a party invitation where you don't have to go to the web site to respond. The list of who has subscribed, and the forms to subscribe are all in your email, and change dynamically each time you read it. Those products include javascript in the email. The usual content-filter problem. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.messagefire.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 16:25:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA25263 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:25:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2VLn7o19748 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:49:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VLn7K19745 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:49:07 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA25254; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:25:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VLlCK19693; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:47:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VLegK19378 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:40:42 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA24944 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:16:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2221156; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:19:13 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200303311225.h2VCPHCu015729@new.agentzero.com> References: <200303311225.h2VCPHCu015729@new.agentzero.com> To: Jim Youll From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Envelope-From Authentication (Was Re: [Asrg] Admin: Tim Smith is TRYING to be unsubscribed - someone take care of this?) Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:45:13 -0500 At 7:27 AM -0500 3/31/03, Jim Youll wrote: >OK, so he wants to be unsubscribed. Will someone take care of this? >>Truly sorry about this - I had no idea that was how that list >>functioned i.e. that the incoming mails came from the members of >>the list, not the .eitf.org. >>I hope the list administrator picks up on my requests. Of course it's not his fault. The folks who wrote MailKey are the ones who should have known better. However it does do a very nice job of illustrating the issues with sender/domain authentication. One possible way around it would be to add a new header detailing the authentication, and have the MUA display that. But unfortunately some mail programs out there only display headers they understand. (Eudora has what I've always felt to be the right approach--explicitly spelling out what is to be hidden). Does anyone have any thoughts on how to reliably show a user that a message has been authenticated, and from whom? Do we have to rewrite the From: header? Keep in mind that some mail programs don't show the address at all--just the comment. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.messagefire.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 16:28:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA25467 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:28:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2VLpuW19887 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:51:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VLpuK19884 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:51:56 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA25457; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:28:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VLo5K19824; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:50:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VLgQK19451 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:42:26 -0500 Received: from mail-out1.apple.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA25035 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:18:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailgate2.apple.com (A17-129-100-225.apple.com [17.129.100.225]) by mail-out1.apple.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2VLKs9T027365 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:20:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from scv2.apple.com (scv2.apple.com) by mailgate2.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:20:54 -0800 Received: from plaidworks.com (vg0602e-dhcp175.apple.com [17.216.21.175]) by scv2.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h2VLKrH02811; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:20:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] How to defeat spam that uses encryption? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: "Sauer, Damon" , "David F. Skoll" , Jim Youll , asrg@ietf.org To: Jason Hihn From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:20:54 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit so, in practice, you want to hand over mail servers from Microsoft to Oracle. Because large organizations use Oracle as their database predominantly. And since e-mail is text, these are large databases. Start thinking of systems with 10,000 active users and 35,000 accounts, a mail quota of 100 megabytes, 7,000 open connections at any time, and you'll start giving MySQL serious hiccups. and given MySQL has some blob/text limitations at 16 megs, you have a different problem with really large emails (no, I don't think sending stuff that large is a good idea....) that's a lot of disk.... On Monday, March 31, 2003, at 01:10 PM, Jason Hihn wrote: > OFF-TOPIC: > What I'd like to see is relational databases used for email storage. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 16:32:07 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA25711 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:32:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2VLtWs20099 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:55:32 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VLtWK20096 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:55:32 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA25695; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:31:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VLs4K20020; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:54:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VLq0K19900 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:52:00 -0500 Received: from chimta04.algx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA25462 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:28:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from JHS ([67.92.23.74]) by chimmx04.algx.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.10 (built Jan 23 2003)) with SMTP id <0HCM00HIKUET88@chimmx04.algx.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:30:29 -0600 (CST) From: Jason Hihn Subject: RE: [Asrg] How to defeat spam that uses encryption? In-reply-to: To: Chuq Von Rospach Cc: "Sauer, Damon" , "David F. Skoll" , Jim Youll , asrg@ietf.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:30:29 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Bah, MySQL isn't a database yet (even 4.x), all around MySQL isn't good enough for a production mail system. But that flame war and discussion is for another mailing list... Their email storage is their choice. It could be flat files for all I care as long as any client can read it. I just like SQL because it's relatively compatible between vendors... Therefore swapping out Outlook would be a "piece of cake." FYI: Interestingly though Postgres has this note on text types: "The storage requirement for data of these [text] types is 4 bytes plus the actual string, and in case of character plus the padding. Long strings are compressed by the system automatically, so the physical requirement on disk may be less. Long values are also stored in background tables so they don't interfere with rapid access to the shorter column values. In any case, the longest possible character string that can be stored is about 1 GB." And now back to our regularly scheduled on-topic topic.... > -----Original Message----- > From: Chuq Von Rospach [mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com] > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 4:21 PM > To: Jason Hihn > Cc: Sauer, Damon; David F. Skoll; Jim Youll; asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] How to defeat spam that uses encryption? > > > so, in practice, you want to hand over mail servers from Microsoft to > Oracle. Because large organizations use Oracle as their database > predominantly. > > And since e-mail is text, these are large databases. Start thinking of > systems with 10,000 active users and 35,000 accounts, a mail quota of > 100 megabytes, 7,000 open connections at any time, and you'll start > giving MySQL serious hiccups. and given MySQL has some blob/text > limitations at 16 megs, you have a different problem with really large > emails (no, I don't think sending stuff that large is a good idea....) > > that's a lot of disk.... > > > > > On Monday, March 31, 2003, at 01:10 PM, Jason Hihn wrote: > > > OFF-TOPIC: > > What I'd like to see is relational databases used for email storage. > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 16:36:47 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA26013 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:36:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2VM0Dg20570 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:00:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VM0DK20567 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:00:13 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA25876; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:36:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VLv4K20163; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:57:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VLsuK20067 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:54:56 -0500 Received: from mail-out2.apple.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA25677 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:30:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailgate1.apple.com (A17-128-100-225.apple.com [17.128.100.225]) by mail-out2.apple.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2VLXPsJ012644 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:33:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from scv1.apple.com (scv1.apple.com) by mailgate1.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:33:11 -0800 Received: from plaidworks.com (vg0602e-dhcp175.apple.com [17.216.21.175]) by scv1.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h2VLXIt09643; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:33:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] How to defeat spam that uses encryption? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: ASRG To: Jason Hihn From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <63D741A2-63C0-11D7-B6A4-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:33:19 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Monday, March 31, 2003, at 01:30 PM, Jason Hihn wrote: > Their email storage is their choice. It could be flat files for all I > care > as long as any client can read it. what you are looking for is called "imap" (heh) > Therefore swapping out Outlook would be a > "piece of cake." you've never had to migrate 5,000 users off of their favorite mail client before, have you? which is actually a legitimate issue to be dealt with on this list... _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 16:38:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA26101 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:38:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2VM1sa21061 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:01:54 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VM1sK21058 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:01:54 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA26093; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:37:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VM01K20335; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:00:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VLtdK20117 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:55:39 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA25701 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:31:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc01.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.9/) with ESMTP id h2VLVbWm028991 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:31:37 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:34:08 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] How to defeat spam that uses encryption? MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:34:04 -0800 Eric, i agree with your points, and yes I think some form of BCP, possibly an architectural guide might be appropriate. Actually in this case though I do not have the words on paper and although I am persuing other initiatives in other forums this is the type of initiative where I would come to the IETF, in the first instance at least. Phill > Although I think this already exists in one form or another > [RFC2635 - "DON'T > SPEW..."]. Has anyone considered drafting a preliminary or > running list of MTA > configuration best current practices for reducing 'spam'? > Phill, from your > posting I perceive that may be something that you could begin > to work on (with > others or not). Certainly any work product could be improved, > evaluated and > substantiated by the group. > > All: A question is the discussion of end-user MUA technology > uses of encryption > something people want to address as a 'spam' control > solution? This is just a > question. > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 16:46:20 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA26295 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:46:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2VM9kI22095 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:09:46 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VM9kK22090 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:09:46 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA26286; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:45:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VM74K21297; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:07:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VM4jK21174 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:04:45 -0500 Received: from chimta03.algx.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA26172 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:40:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from JHS ([67.92.23.74]) by chimmx03.algx.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.10 (built Jan 23 2003)) with SMTP id <0HCM00KDLV0270@chimmx03.algx.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:43:14 -0600 (CST) From: Jason Hihn Subject: RE: [Asrg] How to defeat spam that uses encryption? In-reply-to: <63D741A2-63C0-11D7-B6A4-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> To: Chuq Von Rospach Cc: ASRG Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:43:14 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT > -----Original Message----- > From: Chuq Von Rospach [mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com] > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 4:33 PM > To: Jason Hihn > Cc: ASRG > Subject: Re: [Asrg] How to defeat spam that uses encryption? > > > > On Monday, March 31, 2003, at 01:30 PM, Jason Hihn wrote: > > > Their email storage is their choice. It could be flat files for all I > > care > > as long as any client can read it. > > what you are looking for is called "imap" (heh) I don't think so. After I pull it down off my mail server, I still want global access. I don't want to leave my mail on the server. I know that's what imap does. Are you suggesting that I run an imap server on my local machine too? > > Therefore swapping out Outlook would be a > > "piece of cake." > > you've never had to migrate 5,000 users off of their favorite mail > client before, have you? Actually yes. Not quite that many though. No one has a 'favorite', they just don't like change. That's my finding anyway. That's why some people still use pine. ;-) > which is actually a legitimate issue to be dealt with on this list... Nah, I believe SPAM should be dealt with in a client-transparent way. (Infrastructure changes, not client ones, unless your client is a source of spam, which is the case for Outlook) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 17:02:21 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA27254 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:02:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2VMOnP22686 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:24:49 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VMOmK22683 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:24:48 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA27055; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:00:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VMMMK22616; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:22:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VMJpK22521 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:19:51 -0500 Received: from mail-out2.apple.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA26923 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:55:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailgate1.apple.com (A17-128-100-225.apple.com [17.128.100.225]) by mail-out2.apple.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2VLwJsJ019053 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:58:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from scv3.apple.com (scv3.apple.com) by mailgate1.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:58:11 -0800 Received: from plaidworks.com (vg0602e-dhcp175.apple.com [17.216.21.175]) by scv3.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h2VLwJd26741; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:58:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] How to defeat spam that uses encryption? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: ASRG To: Jason Hihn From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:58:19 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Monday, March 31, 2003, at 01:43 PM, Jason Hihn wrote: >> what you are looking for is called "imap" (heh) > > I don't think so. After I pull it down off my mail server, I still want > global access. I don't want to leave my mail on the server. I know > that's > what imap does. Are you suggesting that I run an imap server on my > local > machine too? if you're seriously interested in "getting it exactly the way I want it", probably. Because then you're in control of it. > Actually yes. Not quite that many though. No one has a 'favorite', > they just > don't like change. That's my finding anyway. That's why some people > still > use pine. ;-) heh. point taken, although it's really both... > >> which is actually a legitimate issue to be dealt with on this list... > > Nah, I believe SPAM should be dealt with in a client-transparent way. > (Infrastructure changes, not client ones, unless your client is a > source of > spam, which is the case for Outlook) > > I think there are uses for (and we're going to need) both. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 17:12:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA27812 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:12:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2VMZWK23166 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:35:32 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VMZWK23163 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:35:32 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA27780; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:11:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VMY4K23113; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:34:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VMVfK23052 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:31:41 -0500 Received: from moebius2.Space.Net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id RAA27657 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:07:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 26804 invoked by uid 1013); 31 Mar 2003 22:10:10 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] How to defeat spam that uses encryption? Message-ID: <20030401001010.E23790@Space.Net> References: <20030331222950.F15009@Space.Net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: ; from chuqui@plaidworks.com on Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 12:53:21PM -0800 Organization: SpaceNet AG, Muenchen, Germany X-PGP-Fingerprint: 66 F3 75 79 01 D0 B8 5F 1A C7 77 88 4A B6 70 DF Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 00:10:10 +0200 On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 12:53:21PM -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > clients capable of using s/mime, if only someone would write software > that wasn't a pain in the neck to use for geeks, impossible to use by What do you expect. They don't even manage to have the clients add References: or In-Reply-To: headers. Wouldn't it be nice if threading weren't always broken each time one of those 1/2 billion clients takes part in the discussion? But this seems to be rocket science ... And they want us to believe they get S/MIME right ... \Maex -- SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0 Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 "The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 18:26:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA02173 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 18:26:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2VNoA228267 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 18:50:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VNoAK28264 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 18:50:10 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA02147; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 18:26:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VNmDK28126; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 18:48:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2VNlEK28095 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 18:47:14 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA02074 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 18:23:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h2VNPbF09034; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:25:37 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: Dave Crocker Cc: Brad Templeton , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] define spam Message-ID: <20030331232537.GA5221@main.templetons.com> References: <61186118354.20030328213242@brandenburg.com> <20030329071806.GI23496@main.templetons.com> <36198411821.20030329005736@brandenburg.com> <20030329182951.GA9659@main.templetons.com> <76170617515.20030331121505@brandenburg.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <76170617515.20030331121505@brandenburg.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:25:37 -0800 On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 12:15:05PM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote: > Brad, > > BT> Alas, now we see how hard it is to get consensus on this. > >> BT> Sent as part of a mass mailing, which is to say some > >> BT> person commanded that mail be sent to more than > >> BT> a few hundred people > >> > >> if 10,000 separate senders each mail to targeted lists of 50 people, > >> soliciting money, is that not spam? > > BT> If the 10,000 people are, as you say, separate, and not caused to do so by one > BT> entity, then no, it would not be under this definition. > > I was trying to highlight a problem with the definition. > > The person that receives each of those 10,000 messages is going to be > pretty clear that they have received spam. I'm of asrg for a busy week, but I'm not clear on your question here. What is the problem with the term? Is it that you think it does not cover large volumes of mail which you think are spam? Or that you think it labels legitimate mail as spam? > 1. Spam is two different problems. One is traffic for ISPs and the > other is traffic for recipients. Neither really cares how many places > that traffic comes from. Hence, making the definition rely on single, > major offenders carries a serious risk, if there are many, small > offenders. Does anybody have information that they get significant spams from mailings that were limited to small numbers of people, like say 50? I mean even if a million individuals sent out 50 mails, that's still fewer than one mail per mailbox in the world. Are there a million people who want to do these small mailings? Remember, two people working for the same entity who each do a mailing of 50 is not 2 mailings of 50, it is a mailing of 100. What matters is who gives the order, not how it is implemented, at least in terms of legal definitions. > I do not know whether they are yet a major source of the problem. As > soon as we make mechanisms that successfully limit single-source > volumes, we will get this alternative traffic. Spammers have proved to > be very, very adaptable. So you agree it is a hypothetical problem, then? I would prefer not to solve the hypotheticals, but be adaptable to be able to deal with them if they arise. If we can make a compelling case that it's "when" rather than "if" then it's not a hypothetical any more. I will admit I see one risk here, namely affiliate marketing and MLM. I would want to tune the definition to say that if one major player encourages 1,000 affiliates to each mail 100 people, then this is a mailing of 100,000. I won't pretend this isn't thorny - it's thorny in most of the definitional questions. Getting MLM sub-pyramiders to mail their friends is not as much of a problem, it is how MLM works, and you run the risk of pissing off your friends. It's only when you mail people who don't know you that you face no consequences for pissing them off. > > > BT> Sure. Again, how much of your "spam" is coming from parties who are not > BT> strangers to you? > > I am not a good person to ask, since my tolerance level for unsolicited > solicitations is close to zero. > > My impression is that it is a common problem on the net. I get over 200 spam/day and I scan the headers of all of them and in general it is very rare to get one form somebody I know, and extremely rare in those cases that it isn't either a mistake and correctable with an opt-out. I only know so many people, so the opt-out system is workable in that case as there are only so many I need to do in my life. > > BT> And in this case, how many problems have you had with > BT> getting removed from their lists? > > Given that responding to a rogue spammer is a good way to validate that > your address is valid and that you are a responsive Internet email user, > the problem is knowing when it is "safe" to ask to be removed. No, I meant not the spam from rogue spammers, the spam from people you know. In those cases I have found I can always quickly get off the lists, and the remove mechanism works and is generally risk-free. For unknown spammers, I would not attempt to reply. > > > > BT> Actually, under this definition, everybody _you_ talk to gets one "free shot." > > So, in Internet scale operation, that is up to 100 million extra pieces > of email. Or rather more, since "corporations" are independent of > individuals. And people form new corporations all the time. Can you clarify? You are suggesting that because a corporation knows lots and lots of people, this opens it up to spam from them? To my mind most people only know perhaps a few thousand people and a few thousand corporations. Of those, only a small number are likley spammers. The number of opt-outs you would need to do in your life might be numbered in the few score at most. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 18:58:04 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA03345 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 18:58:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h310LVW30307 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 19:21:31 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h310LVK30304 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 19:21:31 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA03298; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 18:57:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h310K7K30217; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 19:20:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h310JSK30170 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 19:19:28 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA03166 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 18:55:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) id h2VNvrpd020394 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:57:53 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200303312357.h2VNvrpd020394@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Fwd: Returned mail: see transcript for details References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:57:53 -0700 (MST) > From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" > ... > And in this particular instance 'by definition' means precisely that, it is > not used for emphasis. The definition of spam may be nebulous but false > positive is not. It's unfortunate that is mistaken. "False positive" is not as frequently abused as "spam," but it is often applied by bulk mail senders to any filtering of their messages. As others have pointed out, there is a genuine technical ambiguity in "false positive." Is it RD/TOTAL or RD/SPAM? (for RD=rejected but desired by recipient, TOTAL=total mail of all sorts whether rejected or not, and SPAM=whatever that means). This distinction may not matter if RD is nearly 0 or if TOTAL and SPAM are about the same, but in those cases, you're unlikely to want to compute RD closer than order of magnitude. If you pick RD/SPAM as your definition, then it is as foggy as "spam." We need clear and concise definitions for - various sorts of mail that various people call "spam" - opt-out - unconfirmed opt-in - super-duper-ultra-double-nasty-impossible-to-do-confirmed-opt-in or whatever the bulk mail senders are currently calling the only sane way to do opt-in - consent - false positive - false negative - filter - DNS blacklist/blocklist - to forge (as in header or envelope "forgery" with the dictionary definition of "forgery") - mismatach between envelope or header From: and reverse DNS name of SMTP client (what many people mistakenly call "forgery") Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 19:12:02 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA03949 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 19:12:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h310ZUd30862 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 19:35:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h310ZUK30859 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 19:35:30 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA03944; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 19:11:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h310YDK30798; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 19:34:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h310XWK30756 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 19:33:32 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA03872 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 19:09:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) id h310Bvcc023804 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:11:57 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200304010011.h310Bvcc023804@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] How to defeat spam that uses encryption? References: <20030331191947.A6122@Space.Net> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:11:57 -0700 (MST) > From: Markus Stumpf > > Many spammers encode their efforts as quoted-printable, base64, > > or even both (never mind the MIME RFCs and MUA behavior). > > You mean like in > Performance > Enhancer > Enlargement > > easier to evade than to operate. Spammers are always slow and behind. > > Why? No, I call that the hack. A varient is the use of random strings between <> brackets. Browsers generally ignore that they don't understand Base64 and quoted-printable are older and far more common tactics. > If they are so far behind, why do/did messages of these type pass so much > "ahead" content filters? They have to win occassionally for a little while. > > However, > > the stuff must still be deccode or decrypted at zillions of targets > > or spamming is wasted effort. If it can be decoded to show to a human, > > then it can first be decoded for a filter. > > Do you suggest I should write down the passphrase to my private key in > some file so that the filter can decode incoming encrypted emails? That would be a problem, but only in the impossible but desirable eventuality that encrypted mail became common. ... ] From: jm@jmason.org (Justin Mason) ] > If they are so far behind, why do/did messages of these type pass so much ] > "ahead" content filters? ] ] Hmm. *Do* they? I haven't heard of any filters, apart from the "A Plan ] For Spam" style ones which do not even trivially decode HTML, that are ] vulnerable to this. at least not after the first month or two the use of ] ... ] BTW, in response to Vernon's original comment -- the reason at least one ] spam tool uses QP/Base64 encoding on normal text, is to evade *AOL's* ] content filters and bulk-mail detectors specifically. By adding a random ] "hashbuster" at the start of the mail, the base64 text changes radically ] and requires a totally different fuzzy hash signature. (I read the ] tool's documentation ;) That implies that AOL's content filter could be improved. You must decode QP and Base64 before computing hashes, because there are MTAs that add and remove at least QP and I think sometimes Base64 encoding. If you don't always decode, you can't get consistent signatures. Another case of that problem is that if your filter system works in both the MTA and the MUA, then you must decode QP and B64 whenever you see it and especially in the MTA, because when you see it in the MUA, it will be decoded. I think this applies to virus scanners as well. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 19:30:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA04353 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 19:30:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h310s0r32409 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 19:54:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h310s0K32406 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 19:54:00 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA04338; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 19:30:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h310qBK32349; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 19:52:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h310p5K32290 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 19:51:05 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA04291 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 19:27:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) id h310TU1P024975 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:29:30 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200304010029.h310TU1P024975@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] How to defeat spam that uses encryption? References: <01C2F797.858FEE80.eric@infobro.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:29:30 -0700 (MST) > From: "Eric D. Williams" > ... > All: A question is the discussion of end-user MUA technology uses of encryption > something people want to address as a 'spam' control solution? It's a complete non-starter and waste of time, because it suffers the threshold problem in the worst way. Early adopters get no benefit and many hassles. Despite decades of work, the mechanisms to distribute keys are practically useless. The user interfaces are coming along, but they're still poor and sometimes just don't work. You can sometimes justify the practical hassles of encryption for keeping your communications private, but that avoids the threshold problem. Many of us have used at least PGP for professional reasons, but that's a whole other world. Encryption, whether signing by senders or decrypting by receivers, is useless against spam until almost all of your correspondents use it. If you receive mail from a representative sample of strangers on the Internet, that implies that encryption will be useless to help your spam problem until almost everyone on the Internet uses it. Whitelists are snake oil in this context. If you can whitelist everyone who sends mail to you because they won't be using encryption at first, then you can just whitelist them and forget about the encryption. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 20:20:02 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA05760 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 20:20:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h311hWW03173 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 20:43:32 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h311hWK03170 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 20:43:32 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA05746; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 20:19:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h311gCK03145; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 20:42:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h311fiK03128 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 20:41:44 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA05719 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 20:17:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from mou1wnexc01.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.9/) with ESMTP id h311HZWm028070; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:17:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:20:05 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Vernon Schryver'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] How to defeat spam that uses encryption? MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:20:04 -0800 > That implies that AOL's content filter could be improved. You must > decode QP and Base64 before computing hashes, because there are MTAs > that add and remove at least QP and I think sometimes Base64 encoding. > If you don't always decode, you can't get consistent signatures. In $#(*#$'s name why? The more stupidity they put into the mail servers the less well the system works. Base64 exists for one reason alone - because stupid MTAs had a habit of molesting the messages they were transmitting. In most cases for very shortsighted reasons, like wrapping the text at 80 chars so it didn't overflow the screen the vt100 terminals we all use today. > Another case of that problem is that if your filter system works in > both the MTA and the MUA, then you must decode QP and B64 whenever you > see it and especially in the MTA, because when you see it in the MUA, > it will be decoded. Quite so, it should not be a biggie for a textual filter to have something preprocess the messages to extract the text. It might also make sense to use filtering to detect F-R-E-E and analogues, there is actually quite a small set of these and if present they are an almost foolproof spamdicator. The one thing I would caution against however is ONLY doing the text based analysis. Just as F-R-E-E is a spamdicator a word with an embedded comment is as well. So don't loose that info in the architecture. It should not be necessary to parse the HTML, just strip it out with an FSR, it only takes about ten states. But instead of passing just words to the text filter pass tagged words: "Need free, F-R-E-E Viagra" Becomes (with possible scoring in square braces) need [score 0] free [score 5] free [score 20] viagra [score 50] The attempted disguise increases the probability it is spam. javascript and such should be stripped out, converted into canonical form and compared with a fingerprint database of known spamdicators. Even if you don't execute it or allow it through your mail system you should check it for spamdicators. Equally, it was very frustrating that at the MIT conference on solving spam with Bayesian filtering, analysis of the headers was virtually ignored. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 20:35:07 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA06286 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 20:35:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h311wbH03763 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 20:58:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h311wbK03760 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 20:58:37 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA06216; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 20:34:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h311uFK03701; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 20:56:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h311t4K03654 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 20:55:04 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA06099 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 20:31:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.57] (may be forged)) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.9/) with ESMTP id h311XSAj016659 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:33:28 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:33:28 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] How to defeat spam that uses encryption? MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:33:27 -0800 > > From: "Eric D. Williams" > > > ... > > All: A question is the discussion of end-user MUA > technology uses of encryption > > something people want to address as a 'spam' control solution? > > It's a complete non-starter and waste of time, because it suffers > the threshold problem in the worst way. Early adopters get no > benefit and many hassles. Despite decades of work, the mechanisms > to distribute keys are practically useless. The user interfaces > are coming along, but they're still poor and sometimes just > don't work. The mechanisms designed to distribute keys are fine. The problem is the attempts to use X.500 and LDAP for this purpose which are longstanding abject failures. The problem with encryption is that encrypting a message says NOTHING about its authenticity. I can send you an encrypted message that purports to be from anyone I choose. To get any statement about authenticity you need a signature. > You can sometimes justify the practical hassles of encryption for > keeping your communications private, but that avoids the threshold > problem. Many of us have used at least PGP for professional reasons, > but that's a whole other world. Don't project your experiences of PGP onto PKI. PGP has a very specific design which is fine for its intended purpose but that is not to provide a PKI. > Encryption, whether signing by senders or decrypting by receivers, is > useless against spam until almost all of your correspondents use it. It is useless against spam at any time. Authentication is useful as a means of bypassing spam filters and avoiding false positives even if relatively few people use it. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 20:49:52 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA06641 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 20:49:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h312DNL05108 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:13:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h312DNK05105 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:13:23 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA06635; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 20:49:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h312C9K05045; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:12:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h312BsK05025 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:11:54 -0500 Received: from dogma.slashnull.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA06563 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 20:47:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.jmason.org (ga183055.reshsg.uci.edu [128.195.183.55]) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h311ken32429; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 02:46:43 +0100 Received: by localhost.jmason.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id BAE428C79A; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 20:49:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from jmason.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39A228C798; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:49:32 -0800 (PST) To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'Vernon Schryver'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] How to defeat spam that uses encryption? In-Reply-To: Message from "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" of "Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:20:04 PST." From: jm@jmason.org (Justin Mason) X-GPG-Key-Fingerprint: 0A48 2D8B 0B52 A87D 0E8A 6ADD 4137 1B50 6E58 EF0A X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to . Message-Id: <20030401014932.BAE428C79A@localhost.jmason.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:49:27 -0800 Hallam-Baker, Phillip said: > Equally, it was very frustrating that at the MIT conference on > solving spam with Bayesian filtering, analysis of the headers > was virtually ignored. Hey, what do you expect -- it was a case of "everything looks like a nail" ;) Seriously though, Matt Sergeant talked there about SpamAssassin -- header analysis is our bread and butter. --j. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 20:58:50 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA06941 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 20:58:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h312ML905597 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:22:21 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h312MLK05594 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:22:21 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA06937; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 20:58:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h312KAK05479; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:20:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h312JJK05399 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:19:19 -0500 Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA06733 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 20:55:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 190B1g-0008SR-00; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:57:24 -0800 To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" cc: "'Jason Hihn'" , Jim Youll , "David F. Skoll" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] How to defeat spam that uses encryption? In-Reply-To: Message from "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" of "Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:41:50 PST." References: X-face: ?^_yw@fA`CEX&}--=*&XqXbF-oePvxaT4(kyt\nwM9]{]N!>b^K}-Mb9 YH%saz^>nq5usBlD"s{(.h'_w|U^3ldUq7wVZz$`u>MB(-4$f\a6Eu8.e=Pf\ X-image-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/kanga.face.tiff X-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Message-ID: <32513.1049162244@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:57:24 -0800 On Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:41:50 -0800 Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > The problem is that few clients are currently configured to use > encryption. This is going to change in future, in part because of spam > and in part because its the right thing to do. That day when AOL and Hotmail support authoring crypted mail from a default install will be a very strange day. -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 21:05:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA07036 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:05:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h312TAl05795 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:29:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h312T9K05792 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:29:09 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA07024; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:05:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h312S7K05750; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:28:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h312RWK05729 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:27:32 -0500 Received: from backbone.midwestcs.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA07009 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:03:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from footbone.midwestcs.com ([206.222.212.237] helo=midwestcs.com) by backbone.midwestcs.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 190B9q-0000qN-00 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 20:05:50 -0600 To: asrg@ietf.org (IRTF Anti-Spam Research Group) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Fwd: Returned mail: see transcript for details References: <200303311633.h2VGXiLt019739@calcite.rhyolite.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: wayne In-Reply-To: <200303311633.h2VGXiLt019739@calcite.rhyolite.com> Message-ID: Lines: 27 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanner: exiscan *190B9q-0000qN-00*E1ed5oR0LHk* () Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 31 Mar 2003 20:05:50 -0600 In <200303311633.h2VGXiLt019739@calcite.rhyolite.com> Vernon Schryver writes: > > From: wayne > > > attention. DNSBLs in particular publish their information, so you can > > check that you are indeed listed, while you can't test content > > filters. > > Not so. Body filters can also announce or keep quiet about their > effects with bounces or SMTP status codes like any DNS blacklists. Ah. What I meant is that I can check to see if someone is in the SPEWS DNSBL, but I can't see if a given email will be rejected as spam by a given content filter. This lets people scream "SPEWS IS BLOCKING MY NEWSLETTER!!11!" and everyone can see that, indeed, the given IP address is listed in SPEWS. However, I have no way of knowing if brightmail will filter the same "newsletter" as spam. DNSBLs are much more transparent about what they are doing and I think transparent enforcement of rules is A Good Thing. An erronious listing in SPEWS can be noticed and corrected, but an erronious brightmail rule will be very hard to detect. -wayne _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 21:16:26 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA07203 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:16:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h312dGk06933 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:39:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h312dGK06929 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:39:16 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA07170; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:15:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h312c2K06898; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:38:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h312blK06880 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:37:47 -0500 Received: from infobro.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id VAA07117 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:13:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:15:31 -0500 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:15:24 -0500 Message-ID: <01C2F7CA.A52D9E80.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] How to defeat spam that uses encryption? Organization: Information Brokers, Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:13:31 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Is there a list documenting current 'spamming' techniques from a technological perspective? That may be a good evaluation pointer for 'testing' solutions e.g. certification in the future. In any event, just a thought. It might also be instructive or stimulate the minds of the participants for methodologies to detect the common and not-so-common methods. -e On Monday, March 31, 2003 7:12 PM, Vernon Schryver [SMTP:vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com] wrote: > > From: Markus Stumpf > > > > Many spammers encode their efforts as quoted-printable, base64, > > > or even both (never mind the MIME RFCs and MUA behavior). > > > > You mean like in > > Performance > > Enhancer > > Enlargement > > > easier to evade than to operate. Spammers are always slow and behind. > > > Why? > > No, I call that the hack. A varient is the use > of random strings between <> brackets. Browsers generally ignore that > they don't understand > > Base64 and quoted-printable are older and far more common tactics. > > > > If they are so far behind, why do/did messages of these type pass so much > > "ahead" content filters? > > They have to win occassionally for a little while. > > > > However, > > > the stuff must still be deccode or decrypted at zillions of targets > > > or spamming is wasted effort. If it can be decoded to show to a human, > > > then it can first be decoded for a filter. > > > > Do you suggest I should write down the passphrase to my private key in > > some file so that the filter can decode incoming encrypted emails? > > That would be a problem, but only in the impossible but desirable > eventuality that encrypted mail became common. > > > ... > > > ] From: jm@jmason.org (Justin Mason) > > ] > If they are so far behind, why do/did messages of these type pass so much > ] > "ahead" content filters? > ] > ] Hmm. *Do* they? I haven't heard of any filters, apart from the "A Plan > ] For Spam" style ones which do not even trivially decode HTML, that are > ] vulnerable to this. > > at least not after the first month or two the use of > > > ] ... > ] BTW, in response to Vernon's original comment -- the reason at least one > ] spam tool uses QP/Base64 encoding on normal text, is to evade *AOL's* > ] content filters and bulk-mail detectors specifically. By adding a random > ] "hashbuster" at the start of the mail, the base64 text changes radically > ] and requires a totally different fuzzy hash signature. (I read the > ] tool's documentation ;) > > That implies that AOL's content filter could be improved. You must > decode QP and Base64 before computing hashes, because there are MTAs > that add and remove at least QP and I think sometimes Base64 encoding. > If you don't always decode, you can't get consistent signatures. > > Another case of that problem is that if your filter system works in > both the MTA and the MUA, then you must decode QP and B64 whenever you > see it and especially in the MTA, because when you see it in the MUA, > it will be decoded. > > I think this applies to virus scanners as well. > > > Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 21:25:18 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA07349 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:25:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h312mnd07288 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:48:49 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h312mnK07285 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:48:49 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA07343; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:24:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h312lDK07203; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:47:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h312kIK07163 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:46:18 -0500 Received: from backbone.midwestcs.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA07306 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:22:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from footbone.midwestcs.com ([206.222.212.237] helo=midwestcs.com) by backbone.midwestcs.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 190BRx-0000zA-00 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 20:24:33 -0600 To: asrg@ietf.org (IRTF Anti-Spam Research Group) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Fwd: Returned mail: see transcript for details References: <200303312357.h2VNvrpd020394@calcite.rhyolite.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: wayne In-Reply-To: <200303312357.h2VNvrpd020394@calcite.rhyolite.com> Message-ID: Lines: 37 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanner: exiscan *190BRx-0000zA-00*wwhHgTc4w0A* () Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 31 Mar 2003 20:24:30 -0600 In <200303312357.h2VNvrpd020394@calcite.rhyolite.com> Vernon Schryver writes: > > From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" > > > ... > > And in this particular instance 'by definition' means precisely that, it is > > not used for emphasis. The definition of spam may be nebulous but false > > positive is not. > > It's unfortunate that is mistaken. "False positive" is not as frequently > abused as "spam," but it is often applied by bulk mail senders to any > filtering of their messages. Yes, there is some wiggle room about what exactly is a "false positive", but I think it is somewhat of a red-herring to bring up spammer's definitions. Rule #1: Spammers lie. > As others have pointed out, there is a genuine technical ambiguity in > "false positive." Is it RD/TOTAL or RD/SPAM? For an example of "wiggle room", I have never consider a false positive to be some sort of ratio. It is a property of a piece of email, just like a bounce or an email with 10 recipients are properties. What you are asking about is what I would call the "false positive rate". > We need clear and concise definitions for [list deleted] Agreed. -wayne _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 21:28:11 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA07448 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:28:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h312pgs07409 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:51:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h312pgK07406 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:51:42 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA07425; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:27:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h312o2K07352; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:50:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h312nUK07328 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:49:30 -0500 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA07365 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:25:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 190Bef-00019l-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:37:41 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Fwd: Returned mail: see transcript for details In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:57:53 MST." <200303312357.h2VNvrpd020394@calcite.rhyolite.com> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:37:41 -0500 Vernon Schryver wrote: > As others have pointed out, there is a genuine technical ambiguity in > "false positive." Is it RD/TOTAL or RD/SPAM? (for RD=rejected but > desired by recipient, TOTAL=total mail of all sorts whether rejected > or not, and SPAM=whatever that means). As an absolute number, false positive should be easy to define. "I went through my 'spam' folder, and I decided that 3 messages should not have been put there." As a ratio or percentage, false positives are taken relative to the desired signal, not to the total data, or to the noise. So we have: MAIL = number of emails you want to be marked as ok (not spam) JUNK = number of emails you want to be marked as spam MARKED = number of emails actually marked as ok SPAM = number of emails actually marked as spam FP = false positives (number of "MAIL" in "SPAM", which should have been in "MARKED") FN = false negatives (number of "MAIL" in "MARKED", which should have been in "SPAM") The ratio of false positives = FP / MAIL The ratio o false negatives = FN / MAIL MARKED = MAIL - FP + FN SPAM = JUNK + FP - FN Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 21:31:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA07517 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:31:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h312t8q07563 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:55:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h312t8K07560 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:55:08 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA07486; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:31:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h312r3K07476; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:53:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h312qNK07442 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:52:23 -0500 Received: from plaidworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA07465 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:28:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.8/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h312UiZQ014268; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 18:30:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Fwd: Returned mail: see transcript for details Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: asrg@ietf.org (IRTF Anti-Spam Research Group) To: wayne From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 18:30:42 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Monday, March 31, 2003, at 06:24 PM, wayne wrote: > but I think it is somewhat of a red-herring to bring up > spammer's definitions. Rule #1: Spammers lie. > but on the other hand, this lets people control discussions towards their own personal agendas by allowing them to define who the spammers are. If you don't like what someone is saying, call them a spammer, and since spammers lie, you can ignore what they're saying. Convenient, but it leads to self-fulfilling discussions, not necessarily useful ones. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 21:50:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA07872 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:50:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h313EGe09017 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:14:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h313EGK09014 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:14:16 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA07866; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:50:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h313CBK08950; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:12:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h313BfK08931 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:11:41 -0500 Received: from infobro.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id VAA07845 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:47:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:48:15 -0500 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:48:12 -0500 Message-ID: <01C2F7CF.3A671400.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'Vernon Schryver'" , "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: RE: [Asrg] How to defeat spam that uses encryption? Organization: Information Brokers, Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:30:53 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks all; I too agree that encryption should not be considered a primary solution for spam as it constitutes a prohibitive threshold before any significant results could be realized. Thanks for all of the input. (Remember I am working on 'Requirements' -- I am attempting to cull the chatter [which has significantly reduced ;-], right now, for 'non-starter' solutions). I know you probably have gone through many of these before and if there is a list I would appreciate a pointer. -e On Monday, March 31, 2003 7:30 PM, Vernon Schryver [SMTP:vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com] wrote: > > From: "Eric D. Williams" > > > ... > > All: A question is the discussion of end-user MUA technology uses of > > encryption > > something people want to address as a 'spam' control solution? > > It's a complete non-starter and waste of time, because it suffers > the threshold problem in the worst way. Early adopters get no > benefit and many hassles. Despite decades of work, the mechanisms > to distribute keys are practically useless. The user interfaces > are coming along, but they're still poor and sometimes just don't work. > > You can sometimes justify the practical hassles of encryption for > keeping your communications private, but that avoids the threshold > problem. Many of us have used at least PGP for professional reasons, > but that's a whole other world. > > Encryption, whether signing by senders or decrypting by receivers, is > useless against spam until almost all of your correspondents use it. > If you receive mail from a representative sample of strangers on the > Internet, that implies that encryption will be useless to help your > spam problem until almost everyone on the Internet uses it. > > Whitelists are snake oil in this context. If you can whitelist everyone > who sends mail to you because they won't be using encryption at first, > then you can just whitelist them and forget about the encryption. > > > Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 21:51:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA07909 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:51:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h313FEB09103 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:15:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h313FEK09100 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:15:14 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA07887; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:51:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h313CbK08974; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:12:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h313BgK08935 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:11:42 -0500 Received: from infobro.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id VAA07847 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:47:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:48:18 -0500 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:48:15 -0500 Message-ID: <01C2F7CF.3BE21B40.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'Vernon Schryver'" Cc: "'asrg@ietf.org'" Organization: Information Brokers, Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Terminology... Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:48:05 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Vernon (or anyone who's interested); Are you volunteering to develop the first-cut of a terminology draft? I think this type of run at a set of defining terms has been mentioned (at least by me ;) a couple of times. Dropping the 'spam' one which I think is currently under development still leaves plenty of fodder to pick through. Brad introduced a list of terms as well in an earlier message. There is also the issue of types of 'spammer' tactics/methods. It appears we have a wealth of experience with different types but no basis reference that we can share, that would also appear to be a worthwhile endeavor. On Friday, March 28, 2003 4:25 PM, Brad Templeton [SMTP:brad@templetons.com] wrote: There are many components in the various definitions of spam out there, and proposals can be created to deal with these sub-components, and thus become tools for people to build tools to attack their vision of what spam is. Amongst those sub components are: Bulk(volume) vs. Person to Person Subscribed (Explicitly, directly solicited) vs. Unsubscribed Reply vs. Origination Existing Relationship vs. Stranger These are all components of spam definitions which we can work with without laying down a spam definition. Some other components much harder to define are: Parameters of implicit solicitation Degrees of existing relationship On Monday, March 31, 2003 6:58 PM, Vernon Schryver [SMTP:vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com] wrote: > We need clear and concise definitions for > 8<...>8 > > - opt-out > > - unconfirmed opt-in > > - super-duper-ultra-double-nasty-impossible-to-do-confirmed-opt-in > or whatever the bulk mail senders are currently calling the > only sane way to do opt-in > > - consent > > - false positive > > - false negative > > - filter > > - DNS blacklist/blocklist > > - to forge (as in header or envelope "forgery" with the dictionary > definition of "forgery") > > - mismatach between envelope or header From: and reverse DNS name > of SMTP client (what many people mistakenly call "forgery") > -e _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 21:59:03 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA08039 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:59:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h313MZi09418 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:22:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h313MZK09415 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:22:35 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA08032; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:58:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h313L5K09356; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:21:05 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h313KEK09307 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:20:14 -0500 Received: from mail19a.dulles19-verio.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id VAA07983 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:56:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1911.dulles19-verio.com (161.58.134.165) by mail19a.dulles19-verio.com (RS ver 1.0.78vs) with SMTP id 0565105923 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:58:43 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3E890141.6E2B049F@assurancesys.com> From: Tom Bartel X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] How to defeat spam that uses encryption? References: <01C2F7CA.A52D9E80.eric@infobro.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Loop-Detect: 1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 20:02:25 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I found that reading the spam assassin code - specifically the rule sets provided a lot of insight into spam techniques. It might be a bit granular, and doesn't necessarily show how a spam sender might combine the elements. Still, as an example, there are tests for excessive Quoted Printable encoding, or tests for various header errors, test for obfuscated body content, etc. that tells a lot about old and new spam techniques. "Eric D. Williams" wrote: > > Is there a list documenting current 'spamming' techniques from a technological > perspective? That may be a good evaluation pointer for 'testing' solutions > e.g. certification in the future. In any event, just a thought. It might also > be instructive or stimulate the minds of the participants for methodologies to > detect the common and not-so-common methods. > > -e > > On Monday, March 31, 2003 7:12 PM, Vernon Schryver > [SMTP:vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com] wrote: > > > From: Markus Stumpf > > > > > > Many spammers encode their efforts as quoted-printable, base64, > > > > or even both (never mind the MIME RFCs and MUA behavior). > > > > > > You mean like in > > > Performance > > > Enhancer > > > Enlargement > > > > easier to evade than to operate. Spammers are always slow and behind. > > > > Why? > > > > No, I call that the hack. A varient is the use > > of random strings between <> brackets. Browsers generally ignore that > > they don't understand > > > > Base64 and quoted-printable are older and far more common tactics. > > > > > > > If they are so far behind, why do/did messages of these type pass so much > > > "ahead" content filters? > > > > They have to win occassionally for a little while. > > > > > > However, > > > > the stuff must still be deccode or decrypted at zillions of targets > > > > or spamming is wasted effort. If it can be decoded to show to a human, > > > > then it can first be decoded for a filter. > > > > > > Do you suggest I should write down the passphrase to my private key in > > > some file so that the filter can decode incoming encrypted emails? > > > > That would be a problem, but only in the impossible but desirable > > eventuality that encrypted mail became common. > > > > > > ... > > > > > > ] From: jm@jmason.org (Justin Mason) > > > > ] > If they are so far behind, why do/did messages of these type pass so much > > ] > "ahead" content filters? > > ] > > ] Hmm. *Do* they? I haven't heard of any filters, apart from the "A Plan > > ] For Spam" style ones which do not even trivially decode HTML, that are > > ] vulnerable to this. > > > > at least not after the first month or two the use of > > > > > > ] ... > > ] BTW, in response to Vernon's original comment -- the reason at least one > > ] spam tool uses QP/Base64 encoding on normal text, is to evade *AOL's* > > ] content filters and bulk-mail detectors specifically. By adding a random > > ] "hashbuster" at the start of the mail, the base64 text changes radically > > ] and requires a totally different fuzzy hash signature. (I read the > > ] tool's documentation ;) > > > > That implies that AOL's content filter could be improved. You must > > decode QP and Base64 before computing hashes, because there are MTAs > > that add and remove at least QP and I think sometimes Base64 encoding. > > If you don't always decode, you can't get consistent signatures. > > > > Another case of that problem is that if your filter system works in > > both the MTA and the MUA, then you must decode QP and B64 whenever you > > see it and especially in the MTA, because when you see it in the MUA, > > it will be decoded. > > > > I think this applies to virus scanners as well. > > > > > > Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com > > _______________________________________________ > > Asrg mailing list > > Asrg@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 22:00:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA08101 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:00:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h313ODP09526 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:24:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h313OCK09523 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:24:13 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA08096; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:00:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h313N4K09465; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:23:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h313M1K09383 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:22:01 -0500 Received: from infobro.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id VAA07995 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:57:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:58:21 -0500 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:58:19 -0500 Message-ID: <01C2F7D0.A3FF7000.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'Alan DeKok'" , "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: False Positive -was- RE: [Asrg] Fwd: Returned mail: see transcript for details Organization: Information Brokers, Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:58:17 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I hope this message leads to some consensus. I think, unless there is a more concise or particularly innovative way to look at it, it looks like a good definition for false positive to me (as well as false negative and the s:n) Some one put a pointer to this message !-) On Monday, March 31, 2003 9:38 PM, Alan DeKok [SMTP:aland@freeradius.org] wrote: > Vernon Schryver wrote: > > As others have pointed out, there is a genuine technical ambiguity in > > "false positive." Is it RD/TOTAL or RD/SPAM? (for RD=rejected but > > desired by recipient, TOTAL=total mail of all sorts whether rejected > > or not, and SPAM=whatever that means). > > As an absolute number, false positive should be easy to define. "I > went through my 'spam' folder, and I decided that 3 messages should > not have been put there." > > As a ratio or percentage, false positives are taken relative to the > desired signal, not to the total data, or to the noise. So we have: > > MAIL = number of emails you want to be marked as ok (not spam) > JUNK = number of emails you want to be marked as spam > > MARKED = number of emails actually marked as ok > SPAM = number of emails actually marked as spam > > FP = false positives (number of "MAIL" in "SPAM", which should > have been in "MARKED") > FN = false negatives (number of "MAIL" in "MARKED", which should > have been in "SPAM") > > The ratio of false positives = FP / MAIL > The ratio o false negatives = FN / MAIL > > MARKED = MAIL - FP + FN > SPAM = JUNK + FP - FN > > Alan DeKok. > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 22:05:48 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA08219 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:05:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h313TKw09739 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:29:20 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h313TKK09736 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:29:20 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA08210; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:05:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h313S3K09699; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:28:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h313R6K09662 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:27:06 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA08184 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:03:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (h005018086b3b.ne.client2.attbi.com[66.31.45.164]) by rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (rwcrmhc52) with SMTP id <2003040103052805200j8s7qe>; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 03:05:28 +0000 X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas Subject: Re: [Asrg] email pull (was RE: Authentication ) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: mathew In-Reply-To: To: asrg@ietf.org X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to . X-Image-Url: http://meta.ATH0.com/photos/MailPictures/meta@pobox.com Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:05:27 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Saturday, Mar 29, 2003, at 22:48 US/Eastern, Kee Hinckley wrote: > At 7:27 PM -0500 3/29/03, mathew wrote: >> So does conventional e-mail. With current e-mail systems, I fail to >> get the mail if my messaging server (at my ISP) is down. With e-mail >> pull, I fail to get the mail if the sender's messaging server (at his >> ISP) is down. In addition, I won't get mail from people I don't know >> that I need to poll unless my messaging server at my ISP is up. A >> small tradeoff in reliability, but one I think I'd take to cut spam. > > Currently you have a single point of failure that is close to you on > the network. It's down infrequently, and when it is, you simply wait > and it comes up. If we assume that most messaging servers are down infrequently, then I still don't see the problem. If one sender's messaging server is down, I don't get his mail until his server comes back up. > With pull you are relying on the availability of dozens, hundreds or > even thousands (depending on how much email you get) of different > servers scattered across the world. You go from a situation where all > of your email is there most of the time, to one where some of your > email is never there most of the time. Well, the web is like that, and people find it reliable enough to be useful. The question is how the reliability of a pull-based system would compare to the reliability of the current system. Don't forget that although email pull would degrade my ability to receive mail from users whose messaging servers are badly maintained, it would *increase* my ability to *send* mail to those same users, because once they were regular correspondents of mine their software would still be able to poll my reliable server even when their ISP's broken server was down. I suspect some simulations would need to be done to work out whether the overall outcome would be better or worse, and how much better or worse it would be. >> I mean, the web often requires that both my ISP and the appropriate >> web site have their servers operational when I want to read a web >> page. Yet people still use the web. > > Different expectations of service, and different scale. I get mail > from far more servers than I surf in a given day. Maybe you should try an RSS feed reader. :-) >>> - it requires storing outgoing email for an indefinite amount of time >> >> The current system requires storing incoming e-mail for an indefinite >> amount of time. > > Nope. Only until the end user picks it up. Uh, that's an indefinite amount of time. I might not log in to collect my mail for several months. In both the current setup and e-mail pull, the server holding the mail can stop holding it once the recipient has downloaded it. What's the difference? >>> - it completely the destroys the go-online, fetch, go-offline model >> >> Not really. It just means that my mail client would go online, fetch >> my e-mail from a dozen different systems instead of just one, then >> disconnect. > > No. You go online. Get a list of different email systems, decide > which ones you want to fetch, and then go online again to fetch them. If the decision process is fast enough--and it probably will be--then you just have a dual-threaded e-mail client. Most offline newsreaders work that way--download the headers, autoselect a bunch of articles on the fly, and download those articles, then disconnect. All in one cycle. > And that points out the biggest flaw of the system. Not only have you > not stopped the spammers (sure, they need to find a host somewhere, or > lots of hosts, but that's not that big a deal). But you've made it > *way* harder for me to tell whether something is spam. The initial > "you have mail" message doesn't provide enough information. I can no > longer use content filters on it. Instead I have to go try and fetch > it. The spammer is sure to have an overloaded server, so now I'm not > only going to try and fetch it--but try multiple times! Which is a big problem why? It's not going to chew up your bandwidth, you can set retrieval timeouts as short as you want to limit your dialup session to, and the CPU and disk overhead of failing to make a connection is minimal. I'd make that payoff to get rid of most spam. mathew _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 22:17:06 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA08637 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:17:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h313ed910988 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:40:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h313ecK10985 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:40:38 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA08631; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:16:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h313d4K10899; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:39:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h313cmK10880 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:38:48 -0500 Received: from infobro.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id WAA08579 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:14:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:15:24 -0500 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:15:22 -0500 Message-ID: <01C2F7D3.05850900.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "asrg@ietf.org" Cc: "'Brad Templeton'" , Dave Crocker Subject: RE: [Asrg] define spam Organization: Information Brokers, Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:15:16 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Monday, March 31, 2003 6:26 PM, Brad Templeton [SMTP:brad@templetons.com] wrote: > On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 12:15:05PM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote: > > Brad, > > > > BT> Alas, now we see how hard it is to get consensus on this. > > >> BT> Sent as part of a mass mailing, which is to say > > >> some > > >> BT> person commanded that mail be sent to more > > >> than > > >> BT> a few hundred people > > >> > > >> if 10,000 separate senders each mail to targeted lists of 50 people, > > >> soliciting money, is that not spam? > > > > BT> If the 10,000 people are, as you say, separate, and not caused to do so > > by one > > BT> entity, then no, it would not be under this definition. > > > > I was trying to highlight a problem with the definition. > > > > The person that receives each of those 10,000 messages is going to be > > pretty clear that they have received spam. > > I'm of asrg for a busy week, but I'm not clear on your question here. What > is the problem with the term? Is it that you think it does not cover large > volumes of mail which you think are spam? Or that you think it labels > legitimate mail as spam? What came to me is this. For at least what appears to be a metric in your term (over 100's messages) for injection into the MTS, where is this measured? Is the system for measurement sensitive to temporal thresholds, e.g. I send one message 'spam' per hour for 100 days? > > 1. Spam is two different problems. One is traffic for ISPs and the > > other is traffic for recipients. Neither really cares how many places > > that traffic comes from. Hence, making the definition rely on single, > > major offenders carries a serious risk, if there are many, small > > offenders. Or of single or many senders exploiting a temporal window to do their dirt. Thus the traffic experienced is not a problem. Does 'spam' not remain a problem irrespective of the network bandwidth consumed by it's presence? > Does anybody have information that they get significant spams from mailings > that were limited to small numbers of people, like say 50? I mean even > if a million individuals sent out 50 mails, that's still fewer than one mail > per mailbox in the world. Are there a million people who want to do these > small mailings? > I don't think it necessarily has to be people doing it, as you said it may be a locus of control that manages the sending from multiple sources. > Remember, two people working for the same entity who each do a mailing of > 50 is not 2 mailings of 50, it is a mailing of 100. What matters is who > gives the order, not how it is implemented, at least in terms of > legal definitions. Yes. > > I do not know whether they are yet a major source of the problem. As > > soon as we make mechanisms that successfully limit single-source > > volumes, we will get this alternative traffic. Spammers have proved to > > be very, very adaptable. > > So you agree it is a hypothetical problem, then? I would prefer not to > solve the hypotheticals, but be adaptable to be able to deal with them if > they arise. If we can make a compelling case that it's "when" rather than > "if" then it's not a hypothetical any more. > I think it is all when, unless we can get a handle on the 'arms race'. > I will admit I see one risk here, namely affiliate marketing and MLM. I > would want to tune the definition to say that if one major player > encourages 1,000 affiliates to each mail 100 people, then this is a mailing > of 100,000. I won't pretend this isn't thorny - it's thorny in most of > the definitional questions. Getting MLM sub-pyramiders to mail their > friends is not as much of a problem, it is how MLM works, and you run the risk of > pissing off your friends. It's only when you mail people who don't know you > that you face no consequences for pissing them off. > I concur, however this could also lead to (in a legal construct) a loophole. > > > > > > BT> Sure. Again, how much of your "spam" is coming from parties who are not > > BT> strangers to you? > > > > I am not a good person to ask, since my tolerance level for unsolicited > > solicitations is close to zero. > > > > My impression is that it is a common problem on the net. > > I get over 200 spam/day and I scan the headers of all of them and in general > it is very rare to get one form somebody I know, and extremely rare in those > cases that it isn't either a mistake and correctable with an opt-out. I only > know so many people, so the opt-out system is workable in that case as there > are only so many I need to do in my life. I don't know. I think there is also the issue of 'spam' that appears to come from someone you know, e.g. a mailing list or a familiar name in the recipients domain e.g. postmaster@yourdomain.com. Of course we may have countermeasures to prevent message origination from off site with an 'internal' domain but I just don't see that as a universal case. > > > > BT> And in this case, how many problems have you had with > > BT> getting removed from their lists? > > > > Given that responding to a rogue spammer is a good way to validate that > > your address is valid and that you are a responsive Internet email user, > > the problem is knowing when it is "safe" to ask to be removed. > > No, I meant not the spam from rogue spammers, the spam from people you know. > In those cases I have found I can always quickly get off the lists, and the > remove mechanism works and is generally risk-free. For unknown spammers, I > would not attempt to reply. > > > > > > > > BT> Actually, under this definition, everybody _you_ talk to gets one "free > > shot." > > > > So, in Internet scale operation, that is up to 100 million extra pieces > > of email. Or rather more, since "corporations" are independent of > > individuals. And people form new corporations all the time. > > Can you clarify? You are suggesting that because a corporation knows lots > and > lots of people, this opens it up to spam from them? > > To my mind most people only know perhaps a few thousand people and a few > thousand corporations. Of those, only a small number are likley spammers. > The number of opt-outs you would need to do in your life might be numbered > in the few score at most. And the rest are blacklists? filters? blocks? > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 22:22:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA08725 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:22:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h313kTW11211 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:46:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h313kTK11208 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:46:29 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA08706; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:22:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h313j3K11154; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:45:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h313i4K11063 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:44:04 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA08679 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:19:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (h005018086b3b.ne.client2.attbi.com[66.31.45.164]) by rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (rwcrmhc51) with SMTP id <2003040103222505100epuo3e>; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 03:22:25 +0000 X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas Subject: Re: [Asrg] email pull (was RE: Authentication ) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: mathew In-Reply-To: <4DB4BF96-627C-11D7-963B-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> To: asrg@ietf.org X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to . X-Image-Url: http://meta.ATH0.com/photos/MailPictures/meta@pobox.com Message-Id: <2851B3A6-63F1-11D7-A810-00039380F1B6@pobox.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:22:24 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit OK, now we're getting into nit-picking details. On Sunday, Mar 30, 2003, at 01:53 US/Eastern, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > On Saturday, March 29, 2003, at 04:27 PM, mathew wrote: >> With e-mail pull, I fail to get the mail if the sender's messaging >> server (at his ISP) is down. > > Or if the network between us is down, or if the server is overloaded > because someone who didn't know any better something to everyone in > his address book 100 times. If the network between us goes down, then the mail doesn't get delivered until the network goes up again. Just like if the network between the sender's SMTP server and my mail server goes down with the present system, the mail doesn't get delivered. If an idiot sends something 100x to everyone in his address book, that's unsolicited bulk e-mail, so the fact that I don't receive it is a feature. > If someone forwards the mail, who's server is responsible for it? Treat a forwarded e-mail as a regular e-mail that just happens to contain an encapsulated message in the body. In other words, the same as at present, the forwarder's mail server is responsible for delivery. > What server (if any) keeps the message for future reference? What server (if any) keeps my e-mail for future reference now? None, that I know of. > What if it's a person who never deletes his e-mail? Then his hard disk fills up. > Or reads it 1000 times (DOS attack?). Yes, if he has a broken mail client that doesn't download and cache the mail, he might fetch it lots of times. Just like a broken web client might fetch the same image every time it's included on any web page on your site. If it turned out to be that big of a problem, you could limit the number of times your mail server allowed any given message to be downloaded. > How long does a server have to keep a message to be read? How long does an SMTP server have to keep retrying to transmit a message? Configurable parameter. We can argue over what the default should be, but I don't see that it needs to be decided right now. > What if the message is forwarded? You already did that one. > what if the person posts a URL to access it to slashdot? See above re: limiting number of times a message can be downloaded. > How does e-mail pull work in large environments where you have round > robins, load forwarders, and large strings of MX relays today? Same way almost any other Internet protocol works. SMTP is an unusual special case in that it had its own methods of controlling network topology. Now that so much traffic flows through other point-to-point protocols like HTTP, firewalls and switches are equipped to let you set up "smart" routing based on protocol, source, destination, and so on. Sure, you wouldn't just be able to translate your MX setups and e-mail backbones to a set of firewall settings automatically, but that doesn't mean you couldn't set up equivalent functionality. > How about through firewalls? Well, you'd need to have a public messaging server outside the firewall that people could contact to fetch mail your users sent, just like you currently have a public web server so people can fetch pages your users author. You'd also need a notification-receiving server, like your current SMTP server. > I hate to say it, but email pull seems like a bad idea with a lot of > complexity for questionable improvement. Yes, well, a lot of things on the Internet are a bad idea with questionable performance. The web, IRC, Java, ... Seriously, though, I don't see it as much more complex than running a web server plus an SMTP server. mathew _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 22:35:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA09014 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:35:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h313woJ11696 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:58:50 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h313woK11693 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:58:50 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA09006; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:34:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h313vOK11607; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:57:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h313uLK11575 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:56:21 -0500 Received: from main.templetons.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA08939 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:32:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from brad@localhost) by main.templetons.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id h313Yep17804; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 19:34:40 -0800 From: Brad Templeton To: "Eric D. Williams" Cc: "asrg@ietf.org" , "'Brad Templeton'" , Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [Asrg] define spam Message-ID: <20030401033440.GG10887@main.templetons.com> References: <01C2F7D3.05850900.eric@infobro.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <01C2F7D3.05850900.eric@infobro.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 19:34:40 -0800 On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 10:15:16PM -0500, Eric D. Williams wrote: > What came to me is this. For at least what appears to be a metric in your term > (over 100's messages) for injection into the MTS, where is this measured? Is > the system for measurement sensitive to temporal thresholds, e.g. I send one > message 'spam' per hour for 100 days? This is a question of defining spam, as in "What is spam, that thou art not allowed to do it, or that laws or contracts may punish you for it?" That's quite different from the question of detecting spam, which is based on technical metrics. > Or of single or many senders exploiting a temporal window to do their dirt. > Thus the traffic experienced is not a problem. Does 'spam' not remain a > problem irrespective of the network bandwidth consumed by it's presence? As noted, the 4 problems caused by spam are server overload, ruination of mailbox S/N, creation of fear of putting your email address out, and dealing with both real and bogus complaints. If you solve these 4 problems that is all that matters. You refer to problem 1, network bandwidth, which is just one. However yes, I very definitely say, if you can solve the problem, it does not matter that some "unwanted" mail goes through. It's not, I believe the goal to stop unwanted mail, just to stop getting so much of it that it makes your mailbox less useful/servers overloaded/etc. You can't possibly stop all unwanted mail nor would you want to, for if you managed to do it, then it is inherent in the imperfection of human systems that you are also stopping some wanted mail to get to that point. > I don't think it necessarily has to be people doing it, as you said it may be a > locus of control that manages the sending from multiple sources. Right, for definitions, we care about the actions of human beings. Computers, and to some extent, employees and affiliates, are just tools that implement the will of the culpable human in a spam. So while one employee mailing 10 strangers a sales pitch may not be large enough to meet a volume threshold we might set for spam, it is a spam if the employee's boss told him, and many other employees, to do this. > > > I concur, however this could also lead to (in a legal construct) a loophole. Indeed, I point it out as one to close in creating a spam definition. Whether it is a problem depends on the threshold. For example, if the threshold is low, like say 25, then even 1000 affiliates could only send 25,000 mails. Sounds like a lot, but do the math -- there are 50,000,000 mailboxes out there on spammer's lists. If we cut the spammers of the world down to 10 million spams a day that get through, in aggregate, we're talking about getting only one every 5 days on average, which certainly takes back your mailbox. Still, I think the loophole can be closed, by saying that it's the count in a "campaign." So an affiliate program is a campaign, and all mail by affiliates due to it would be counted in the total for the maker of the program. > > I don't know. I think there is also the issue of 'spam' that appears to come > from someone you know, e.g. a mailing list or a familiar name in the recipients > domain e.g. postmaster@yourdomain.com. Of course we may have countermeasures > to prevent message origination from off site with an 'internal' domain but I > just don't see that as a universal case. That is not spam from somebody you know, that is spam forged to appear as spam from somebody you know. > > To my mind most people only know perhaps a few thousand people and a few > > thousand corporations. Of those, only a small number are likley spammers. > > The number of opt-outs you would need to do in your life might be numbered > > in the few score at most. > > And the rest are blacklists? filters? blocks? Whatever systems people decide to use, of course. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 22:40:58 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA09117 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:40:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h3144V612016 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 23:04:31 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3144VK12010 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 23:04:31 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA09106; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:40:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h31433K11935; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 23:03:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3142sK11908 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 23:02:54 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc01.attbi.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA09073 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:38:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from art.lextek.com (12-254-130-29.client.attbi.com[12.254.130.29]) by sccrmhc01.attbi.com (sccrmhc01) with SMTP id <2003040103411700100d0sm0e>; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 03:41:17 +0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030331204108.06e2c198@mail.lextek.com> X-Sender: PollardA@mail.lextek.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Art Pollard Subject: Re: [Asrg] How to defeat spam that uses encryption? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 20:41:15 -0700 At 10:49 AM 3/31/2003 -0500, you wrote: >If I were a spammer (I am not) I'd start encrypting messages to throw off >content filtering. Public keys are easily obtainable and are readily >associated with good email addresses. Well, I recently started getting a pot-load of spam that does this. (I think it is coming in from a newsgroup I moderate. I just delete it and so I am not sure about this.) Anyway, what they do is misspell words. They use < and > to make "se><" for example, 1's for l's 0's (zeros) for o's, etc. It is of course harder to read but the message is still quite understandable. What is more, it makes it virtually impossible for a filtering mechanism to catch it unless the various tricks such as this were programmed into it directly. Of course, the other thing that has been happening more lately is simply a chunk of innocuous text in a HTML mail that won't trip up a filter but the HTML mail also has an image embedded in it that has the contents of the actual spam. I suspect that Baysian and other similar techniques will have only a limited life span as techniques such as this become more prevalent. -Art -- Art Pollard http://www.lextek.com/ Suppliers of High Performance Text Retrieval Engines. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 23:04:15 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA09483 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 23:04:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h314RnI13584 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 23:27:49 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h314RnK13581 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 23:27:49 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA09475; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 23:03:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h314QCK13510; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 23:26:12 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h314PLK13457 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 23:25:21 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA09407 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 23:01:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) id h3143aeW023620 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:03:36 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200304010403.h3143aeW023620@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Fwd: Returned mail: see transcript for details References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:03:36 -0700 (MST) > From: wayne > ... > > Not so. Body filters can also announce or keep quiet about their > > effects with bounces or SMTP status codes like any DNS blacklists. > > Ah. What I meant is that I can check to see if someone is in the > SPEWS DNSBL, but I can't see if a given email will be rejected as spam > by a given content filter. What is wrong with the recipe I gave for doing exactly that? Again, given an SMTP server and a test message, simply send the test message to an invalid mailbox at that server. If the bounce you get from the remote server or your own SMTP client says "user unknown," then chances that are the remote SMTP server will not have filtered the same message if sent to a valid address. You can't know for certain that the message would have been delivered to a valid address, because the MTA could be lying. The same applies to DNS blacklists, because MTAs can and do lie about how they use DNS blacklists and your mail target can use procmail or SpamAssassin to consult DNS blacklists from within MTAs and can interpret DNS blacklist results differently from what you expect. (E.g. the choices in SPEWS levels.) If the SMTP server does not bounce the test message or if it bounces it with a status message saying something about naughty bits, then you know that a body filter doesn't like your message. Note that each test can be affected by preceding tests. AOL and others are rumored to count bad mailboxes as evidence of spam. Repeat the test with a single message and a system using the DCC enough times, and it should start failing. > ... > DNSBLs are much more transparent about what they are doing and I think > transparent enforcement of rules is A Good Thing. An erronious > listing in SPEWS can be noticed and corrected, but an erronious > brightmail rule will be very hard to detect. Transparency is better for senders than spam targets. Spam targets can benefit from transparency, but they can also be hurt because spammers can use the information. DNS blacklist are more transparent mostly because they are simpler and even simplistic. It's hard to block only the spam from a large ISP with a DNS blacklist. Few sites with effect spam filters use DNS blacklists alone. Instead they combine them with other mechanisms, so that the question of whether DNS blacklist is blocking some "newsletter" is simplistic and misleading. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 23:12:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA09594 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 23:12:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h314a4H14032 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 23:36:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h314a4K14029 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 23:36:04 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA09583; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 23:11:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h314Y7K13905; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 23:34:07 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h314XvK13832 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 23:33:57 -0500 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA09555 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 23:09:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) id h314CHNn024473 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:12:17 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200304010412.h314CHNn024473@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Fwd: Returned mail: see transcript for details References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:12:17 -0700 (MST) > From: "Alan DeKok" > As an absolute number, false positive should be easy to define. "I > went through my 'spam' folder, and I decided that 3 messages should > not have been put there." True, but such absolute numbers in isolation are merely boring noise. Whether the number is 3 or 1,000,000 (eg. recently from AOL), it is meaningless without some clue about the number of other messages. > As a ratio or percentage, false positives are taken relative to the > desired signal, not to the total data, or to the noise. ... > ... > The ratio of false positives = FP / MAIL > The ratio o false negatives = FN / MAIL So say you and I, but not everyone else. There is no canon that sanctifies any particular definition of a "spam ratio," at least not yet. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 23:12:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA09608 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 23:12:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h314aBr14056 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 23:36:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h314aBK14053 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 23:36:11 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA09589; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 23:12:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h314Y4K13878; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 23:34:04 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h314XUK13811 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 23:33:30 -0500 Received: from plaidworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA09550 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 23:09:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.8/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h314BnZQ015662; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 20:11:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] email pull (was RE: Authentication ) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: asrg@ietf.org To: mathew From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <2851B3A6-63F1-11D7-A810-00039380F1B6@pobox.com> Message-Id: <0E9B3F76-63F8-11D7-B6A4-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 20:11:47 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Monday, March 31, 2003, at 07:22 PM, mathew wrote: > OK, now we're getting into nit-picking details. > >> Or if the network between us is down, or if the server is overloaded >> because someone who didn't know any better something to everyone in >> his address book 100 times. > > If the network between us goes down, then the mail doesn't get > delivered until the network goes up again. Just like if the network > between the sender's SMTP server and my mail server goes down with the > present system, the mail doesn't get delivered. But now, with MX records, when a connection comes up, the servers coordinate delivery. As I understand it, the system you're proposing is doing it at the client level, so updates only happen when the user is asking for them. For an unstable connection, that reduces the likelihood of successful delivery significantly. > If an idiot sends something 100x to everyone in his address book, > that's unsolicited bulk e-mail, so the fact that I don't receive it is > a feature. but it still causes network and server prolems, so dealing with the side effects is necessary. Systems can't assume perfect conditions. >> What server (if any) keeps the message for future reference? > > What server (if any) keeps my e-mail for future reference now? None, > that I know of. anyone currently on an IMAP server, or on POP with "leave on server" turned on. So, would a user require to pull it and copy it to "my" server, or does it stay on that server, like it would on a USENET or IMAP server? 0 >> What if it's a person who never deletes his e-mail? > > Then his hard disk fills up. not if the email he's never deleting lives on your server, because that's where it was accepted from and still stored. >> Or reads it 1000 times (DOS attack?). > > Yes, if he has a broken mail client that doesn't download and cache > the mail, he might fetch it lots of times. Just like a broken web > client might fetch the same image every time it's included on any web > page on your site. okay, so you're seeing this as some client-driven version of a suck feed. you could make it work, but it's not how I'd do it. You're better off layering on what we already have, using some variation of the ETRN command -- but then you still have to have some way to tell the other side there's mail waiting to receive. so aren't we simply setting up a system to send email to tell someone there's email being sent? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 23:31:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA10000 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 23:31:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h314t2P15689 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 23:55:02 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h314t2K15686 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 23:55:02 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA09975; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 23:30:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h314rFK15618; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 23:53:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h314q3K15560 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 23:52:03 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA09889 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 23:27:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2223773; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 23:30:26 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200303311655.h2VGtO8v021456@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <200303311655.h2VGtO8v021456@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Vernon Schryver From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] How to defeat spam that uses encryption? Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 23:30:14 -0500 At 9:55 AM -0700 3/31/03, Vernon Schryver wrote: >easier to evade filters. I've never built a filter that wouldn't be >easier to evade than to operate. Spammers are always slow and behind. >Why? Because until recently so few people ran filters that it wasn't worth the effort to work around them? -- Kee Hinckley http://www.messagefire.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 23:31:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA10014 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 23:31:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h314t3015705 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 23:55:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h314t3K15702 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 23:55:03 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA09980; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 23:30:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h314rEK15602; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 23:53:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h314q2K15556 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 23:52:02 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA09887 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 23:27:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2223772; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 23:30:25 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20030331170326.GA29337@earth.tc.umn.edu> References: <20030331170326.GA29337@earth.tc.umn.edu> To: Steven F Siirila From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Rejecting Email Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 23:28:42 -0500 At 11:03 AM -0600 3/31/03, Steven F Siirila wrote: > > Thats like Dogbert's IT department that responds to 'I can't >> get onto the net' with 'send in a request by email'. Of course >> you hear no complaints when you refuse to listen to them. > >Not when you include a URL in the response which points to a web site >containing an email address they CAN get through to in order to complain >as well as another URL they can use to request communication with the user. >We couldn't afford to do the blocking we do without these abilities. You made the claim that this was sufficient once before, and I pointed out then that it might work for the college crowd--but it's not going to work for someone's Grandmother. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.messagefire.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 23:31:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA10028 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 23:31:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h314tUu15729 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 23:55:30 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h314tUK15726 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 23:55:30 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA09994; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 23:31:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h314r8K15586; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 23:53:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h314q2K15552 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 23:52:02 -0500 Received: from somewhere.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA09885 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 23:27:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2223774; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 23:30:21 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@puremessaging.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <8B8C44F0-63B7-11D7-B6A4-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> References: <8B8C44F0-63B7-11D7-B6A4-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> To: Chuq Von Rospach From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Is this a new spam form? Cc: ASRG Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 23:27:37 -0500 At 12:30 PM -0800 3/31/03, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: >someone on list-managers just posted a note that has me a bit freaked. > >she got spam addressed from a user of her mail list. That user seems >to have gotten "something" that caused her machine to send a spam >message to everyone in her address book. I have heard people talk of viruses/trojans which either sent spam directly, or used the user's account to signup for free accounts on webmail sites and sent spam using those. But I've only heard those in the friend-of-a-friend market. There was an e-greetings trojan (technically it wasn't a trojan, it was a test of how closely you read a EULA) which sent greeting card messages to everyone in your address book. I've also heard that it sent a copy of your address book to the company who set it up--but I haven't seen that officially reported anywhere. (The fact that the software did what it said it was going to do kind of threw the anti-virus companies in a quandry. Some blocked it, some did not. The company sending the stuff had to switch servers several times too, since their ISP's weren't so friendly. Last I heard they had a server in Panama.) On the illegal fringes of spam I suspect that regular collaboration of virus writers and spammers is only a matter of time. It's good money for the script kiddies. Most likely I would expect the virus not to carry the spam payload directly, but to pick it up from a newsgroup or some such. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.messagefire.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 31 23:53:58 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA10526 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 23:53:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h315HXD17596 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 00:17:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h315HXK17593 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 00:17:33 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA10519; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 23:53:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h315CDK17467; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 00:12:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h315BiK17430 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 00:11:44 -0500 Received: from earth.tc.umn.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA10365 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 23:47:33 -0500 (EST) Received: by earth.tc.umn.edu for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:49:55 -0600 From: Steven F Siirila To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Rejecting Email Message-ID: <20030401044955.GC18294@earth.tc.umn.edu> References: <20030331170326.GA29337@earth.tc.umn.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:49:55 -0600 On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 11:28:42PM -0500, Kee Hinckley wrote: > At 11:03 AM -0600 3/31/03, Steven F Siirila wrote: > > > Thats like Dogbert's IT department that responds to 'I can't > >> get onto the net' with 'send in a request by email'. Of course > >> you hear no complaints when you refuse to listen to them. > > > >Not when you include a URL in the response which points to a web site > >containing an email address they CAN get through to in order to complain > >as well as another URL they can use to request communication with the user. > >We couldn't afford to do the blocking we do without these abilities. > > You made the claim that this was sufficient once before, and I > pointed out then that it might work for the college crowd--but it's > not going to work for someone's Grandmother. I was just pointing out that we don't "refuse to listen to them". In fact, we occasionally get questions posed to our mail administration address (apparently from those that don't go past the first URL) asking why we are blocking them. That address never blocks mail, of course. However, I do understand your point. Every site will have differing requirements when it comes to blocking/filtering mail. It is precisely this reason that sites should have available one or more configurable solutions at their disposal. There is no one-size-fits-all that I can see at this time. > -- > Kee Hinckley > http://www.messagefire.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering > http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society > > I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept > responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate > everyone else's. -- Steven F. Siirila Office: Lind Hall, Room 130B Internet Services E-mail: sfs@umn.edu Office of Information Technology Voice: (612) 626-0244 University of Minnesota _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg